Document aJ6aEnkEwx5MY2Gg02oeoK8nY

Letters CHEMICAL SAFETY Explosive reaction warning SIR: The following reaction has boon described In U.S. Patent 2.917,548* and In several books on organic fluorine chemistry: RO~ + CFS=CF2 {jtyrT** df ROC=CF2 + F~ We would like to inform anyone wishing to repeat this work or to use the products that the compound CHsOCF*CF2 has considerable explosive potential Igniting It either by a hot wire or an electric spark causes it to decompose vi olently with a substantial and rapid temperature and pressure rise. Under equivalent initial con ditions of loading, this gas appears to have a far greater explosive potential than does acetylene, ft should therefore be treated wth extreme caution. Although the products made from high alkoxides have not been tested tor similar insta bility. we recommend that they be considered to be potentially hazardous until proved other wise. Arthur W. Anderson Manager, BSD Division, Du Pont Co., Wilming ton, Del. Porfluorovtayl ethers. Stanley Dixon (to E. L du Pent de Nemours & Co.}. U.S. 2,917,546. Dec. 15, 1959. Perfluorovinyt ethers are prepd. from the re action of tetrafluoroethytene and a metal a&oxide In an inert solvent NaOPr (27 g.) in53,1 g. ettw b heated with SO g. CjF< and 0,5 <g. torpene Inhibitor in a 400 ml. stainless steel bomb at 90*. Aftera pressure drop the bomb b heated to 110* until the pressure remains const Aftercooling. tfie contents ere added to HsO and neutralized with HCt Extn. with ether followed by drying end dbtn. of the ether soin. yields 4.5 g. propyl bffJuorovfnyi ether, b. 63*. Otherbf/kiOrovinyl ethers similarly prepd. are (alkyl radical, g. Na alcohotate, g. yield, b.p.k Bu. 25.16,90-5*; 4-pentenyf, 29.5. S.4, 54--7*796 mm.; CFsCH,. 25,16.6.40-1.5*; Me. 33.3, 19. 10.5-12.5*. Butyl trlttuorovinyl ether adds Br In CSj to produce butyl 1,2^ibromo-1.2,2-tHtluoro> ethyl ether, b. 152*. The methyl ether abo adds Br readily and decolorizes KMnO soln. Trlfluorovtoyl ethers are monomers. PVC industry SIR: Your issue of March 8 (page 5) reports on a "stern warning" served on the chemical in dustry by Or. Morton Com, new head of the Oc cupational Safety & Health Administration. Com loins others in making the accusation that the polyvinyl chloride industry "cried wolf on the occasion of the original vinyl chloride hearing In 1974. As he put It. **... the tone has been set for your industry by the vinyl chloride hearing. It was stated by several corporations that the proposed standard would put the Industry out of business.' The industry still believes that the proposed standard would have, in effect, pul It out of business. The Industry survives today because the proposed standard, which had called for a "no-detectable" level of vinyl chloride In work areas, was changed under the permanent standard ot Oct, 5. 1974. to permit levels in specified areas of 1 ppm for 8 hours and 5 ppm for 15 minutes on the basis of time-weighted averages. This change and other significant changes in the proposed standard incorporated in the per manent standard In effect today were far reaching and essential to the continued health of our industry. Corn went on, according to your report, to talk of "strident promotional cries." We commend to his attention recent comments by Or. Irving Selikolf of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York who sees *'... the case of vinyl chloride as a 'success story.' He says it was a 'success for science in having defined the problem; success tor labor in the rapid mobili zation of concern; success for government in urgently collecting data, evaluating it. and translating it Into necessary regulations: and success for industry in preparing the necessary engineering controls to minimize or eliminate the hazard.* ** Ralph L. Harding Jr. President, Society of the Plastics industry. New York City More credence to many SIR: Dr. Seibfn in a recent letter to C&EN sug gested that,.. when people with families to support resign secure positions for uncertain futires... we must pay very careful attention." My scientific training, however, also suggests that the 10,000 or so scientists and engineers who continue to do a very fine job deserve more credence than the few who, for whatever rea sons, have renounced or 'will renounce their former employment. W. Carl Gottschall University of Denver, Colo. Recommendation letters StR: I would appreciate It very much. If you kindly publish this letter In C&EN because I feel that many people might be facing the same problem that I am in connection with satisfying the de mand of employers to make the applicant ar range for recommendations. First of all. I think it Is highly unnecessary and inappropriate to seek recommendations from every applicant. No matter how many people are applying (or the position, i feet that recommen dations should be sought'from only the small number of applicants who are under serious consideration. Even In that case, the recom mendations should be requested by the em ployer from the references. No matter how much you want-somebody to get a good job and how much you know that somebody deserves a good job, the referee starts to lose Interest after sending a few letters for his subject, and that can be very harmful to the subject, it is possible to print resumes and send ft with the applications, but sending rec ommendations will not serve any constructive purpose In this respect. I am one of the unfortunates who has to struggle hard to find a suitable position. This means writing to hundreds of places to iind a job. I have requested my references so many times uu-ing the past that it is becoming more and more embarrassing to request them to send * more. I therefore fed that this practice at asking (or -recommendations from each and every candidate should be discontinued and should bs only exercised tor a smalt number of people that are under sincere consideration. This will save a lot of trouble for a lot of people, including the poor secretaries. H. V. Navangul. Ph.D. Northeast Missouri State University, KtrksviUs Safety of cyclamates SIR: The March 15 article on the health hazard of cyclamates (page 6) s Juld outrage anyone concerned about the scientific effort of the federal government. We tike to believe that In technical matters the government maintains proper scientific objectivity and impartiality. Yet. in the case of cyclamates. the National Cancer Institute has been unable to demonstrate car cinogenicity end still refuses to accept this re sult. Safely studies in animals are designed to provide extreme exposure to the test material in order to demonstrate safety at normal expo sure levels. One might still question the validity of a statistically significant incidence of Bl effects at such extreme exposure levels. However, when the incidence of III effects does not reach a statistically significant fr vel. the meaning of the study must be very clear. Within the Intent of the experiments, no health hazard has been found. When a government agency hedges on the results of an experiment because the results do not fit (hose desired, this Is a travesty of scien tific objectivity, and I for one believe our gov ernment (s capable of much better scientific effort. Bernard R. Neustadt, Ph.D. Bloomfield, NJ. Mutual needs SIR; 1 was disturbed by the sharp separation between pollution facilities on the one hand, and goods and services on the other, which ap peared in Texaco vice president Coppac's statement In the March 6 Issue (page 3]a(G&N: "There is no reason to believe that more jobs would be provided in constructing pollution fa cilities than would be created if the capital were spent on alternative investments in facilities producing goods and services." I take no side ki the job issue. But the state ment, submit, raises two fundamental ques tions: 1. Does industry produce a service If U dimin ishes, to a reasonable or measurable degree, the extent to which the land, water, and air are polluted through Its activities? 2. If the purpose of goods and services is to provide a fuller life for the targeted con sumer, doesn't success need to weigh in the adverse effects of pollution--especially on a long-range basis--on his life too? I don't believe that the critical need for both a healthy economy and a healthy environment should be handled on a confrontation basis. The needs are mutually imperative, and in my view, full cooperation represents the only constructive approach for dealing with them. A. M. Gessler Cranford, NJ. see i-0071 April 12. 1976 C&EN S THE NEW YORK TIMES. SATURDAY. APRIL JO. 1976 Flame-Re tardant Sleepwear: t i * Is There a Risk of Cancer? m; By NADINE BROZAN With manmade factors increasingly framed as cancer-causing agents, controversy has come to rest lately on a seemingly harmless consumer product: children's sleepwear. Pajamas and concer? The suspect* ed link between them is a chemical compound called tris(2.3-dibromoprapyl) phosphate, popularly known as Tris. It is the substance most com- ' moniy used to make children's sleepwear flame retardant The scientific evidence available so far indicates that Tris is mutate-. . me: that means it has the capability of altering the genetic material in living cells. Although not every muta gen is carcinogenic, it strongly raises the possibility, for the majority of carcinogens tested have been -shown also to me mutagens. Several years ago, the Consumer Product Safely Commission issued regulations mandating that all child ren's sleepwear in sizes 0 to 14 be flame retardant. Since then, the agency has received reports from bum treatment units showing a sub stantial reduction in burn incidents among chiliren who had worn the treated sleepwear. The commission is now studying the feasibility of requiring (hat all clothing in nil sizes be flame retardant. Although it can issue such regAulations, it s authority does not extend to controll ing the technology of flame retardan- cy. "The standards set a limit on how much flame can spread in sleepwear, but in no way do we tell the manu facturers how to meet that limit." said Charles Fllnner, a commission spokesman. Although any direct connection between Tris and cancer has yet to be established, experiments on microorganisms have generated con. sidcrable concern in Government and scientific circles. And consumer ad vocates believe that it is not too early to bring the issue to the public. Dr. Robert Harris, associate direc tor of the.. Environmental Defense Fund's toxic.chemicals program, said, `.The suggestion of potential harm to some 45 million children is so great that we believe the consumer must have - this information. Who are we to* keep it to ourselves?", Last month, the fund and Dr. Har- ris, in the name of his infant son, Alexander Samuel, filed a petition with the Consumer Product Safety Commission asking for action on Tris. >-, The i petition asked the agency to require the labeling of every gar ment containing more than 100 parts per millionof Tris on its surface with a lag reading, "Contains the flame retardant Tris. ' Should be washed at . least three time prior to wearing" "Test so far indicated that Tristreated fabrics contain far more than 100 parts per million surface concen trations, although not all fabrics have been tested," Dr. Harris said. ' The petition stated. Two samples of different polyester fabric had 70.000 parts, per million and 37.500 arts per million of surface Tris eforc. and 35 parts per million and 100 parts per million of surface Tris after washing, respectively." The effect of triple laundering is still in question because it would not remove the chemical contained inside the fabric. It will not reduce the flame retardancy -because the regulation specifies that flame retar dancy must be able to withstand 50 washings. ' The petition also asked the com mission to request manufacturers to test the extent to which Tris can be absorbed into the body, to conduct tests on potential cancer-causing ca pabilities by painting the chemical on the skin of animals ana to investi gate possible substitutes and their safely. It also' urged I'.e speeding - up of experiments now being con ducted by the National Cancer Insti tute. Richard O. Simpson, chairman of * the Consumer Product Safety Com mission, who discussed the con troversy at a forum of the American Apparel Manufacturers Association ' in Arlington, Va., this week, said. "I have instructed our staff to review all the technical references 'in the petition and to treat it as a high priority. Based on what I*ve exa mined and on discussion with our biomedical science experts. 1 would doubt that there is a problem. There . . is a great leap from the tests [cited - in the petition] to a conclusion that the chemical is a carcinogen. ' "And I am skeptical when a peti tion which raises the specter jf can cer suggests the remedy of a label see 1-0072 asking people to wash the clothes three times before wearing. If there is a real problem, there should be a b. n, not a label." The petition did not ask for an outright ban on Tris because. Dr. Harris explained, "We can't be sure that the alternatives to Tris are safer, so by` banning it we might be going from the fire to the frying pan." Much of the evidence causing worry was generated by the research on salmonella bacteria conducted hv Dr, Bruce N. Ames, professor of biochemistry at the University of California at Berkeley. Dr. Ames is the inventor of a mutagenciiy test that bears his name. The test is considered by many to very reliab le. inexpenxive and efficient h does not determine that a chem:.al is ' carcinogenic but is regarded as high ly suggestive. . "I had Jong been suspicious of Tris because' Us structure is related . to known cancer-causing chemicals," Dr. Ames said the other day. "That alone is not proof, but when it came up positive on the Environment . tal Protection Agency tests and sub. sequentl on our own, 1 became ''even more suspicious. "There is a high probability that if something shows up as a mutagen . in our system, it will be carcinogenic,. : too. We have tested 175 chemicals' , that have been found to cause cancer \ in 'animals and 90 percent have -shown up to be mutagens." Asked whether the findings in mi' croscopic salmonella bacteria used in his test could be applied to people. Dr. Ames answered, "The genetic material is the same in all living things. About a dozen chemicals can cause cancer in people, and we get positive results with almost all of them' in, our salmonella bacteria sys tem." In addiVon, Dr. Ames's test com bines I he bacteria for measuring ge netic damage with liver samples ta-` -ken from rat or human autopsies. That recreates the way that chemi cals, not in themselves cancer caus ing, can be convene dinto carcino-* gens by the human metabolic system. Dr. Herbert Rosenkranz, who be gan tests for the Environmental Protection Agency last fall when he was e -srofessor of microbiology at Culumlnj University's College of Physicians and Surgeons and is con- Some scientists said that fo. heir own children they were borrowing old sleep wear manufactured before the flame 'tardant regulations were promulgated. tinuing. them at New York Medical College, came up with the same results in three different tests, intluding the Ames method. Now. he has moved on from study of the., pure chemical to the textiles contain*. ' ing Tris. . said. 'The burden of proof for safety should be with industry, not with-the American public after the fact of massive marketing of a chemical. . Why doesn't the chemicals industry screen its products before they go into massive use?" "We .want to learn if it can he . That question may be resolved absorbed through the skin and if if the Toxic Substances Control Act, we can detect mutagenic effects in recently passed- by the Senate, is ' the body by studying the urine of also passed by the House and signed infants who wear - the garments," into law. The legislation would give he said. Although the textile research the Environmental Protection Agency is still in its initial phase, "The the authority to require testing on fabrics have already been shown the authority to require testing on to contain mutagenic activity," "Dr. both chemicals already in use and -Rosenkranz said. Echoing the state* on ones not yet marketed that are ments of all the scientists inter* believed to be hazardous to human . viewed, he added, "We haven't tested health or the environment. ' * . for cancer, so we ;don*t know, if it is cancerous " . In the, meantime, the industry ts awaiting more information. The National Cancer institute is confronting that question head on 'by putting Tris into, the feed of rats and mice, but conclusions are ' not expected until .the summer of - 1977. , *' Dr. Fred Kerst, vice president of research and engineering for the Michigan Chemical Corporation in Chicago, a leading producer of Tris, said, "We believe the potential ha zards are extremely minimal, and A study on animals conducted at * we think further studies will bear the New .York University Medical us out .Center will be discussed at a scienti fic meeting later this month. The research showed that when Tris was painted on the skin of mice, it showed the ability to promote growth of tumors. According to this report, Tris is not a potent carcinogen, but . may have a weak cancef-provoking effect. Inconclusive though the findings may be for the moment, the current use of Tris raises all sorts of chemi The company, which has conducted toxicological tests in the past--it has been making Tris for 20 years-- has now begun its own experiments on muiagencily and carcinogenicity, he said. Without proof one way or the ` other, what is the parent, who can buy nothing but flame retardant sleepwear, to do? Son'** scientistsaid that for their own ' hildrcn they were borrowing cal, philosophical and practical issues. old sleepwear manufacured before the flame retardant regulations were As Dr. Ames put it, "Here we promulgated, dressing them in ther ' are trying to keep children from mal under wear or stocking up on being burned up, and we're doing cotton pajamas when they traveled it by using a mutagenic compound 'abroad. that has not been tested for cardn- ! Dr. Harris had another suggestion, ogenictty." "Surely the ability to srw han`t Dr. Sidney Wolfe, dir-vfor of the been lost to this gencrm*on," *.e Public Citizens Health Research said. "And we all have mothers and Group, the health wing of Ralph grandmothers who remember how Nader's consumer advocate network. to sew. . . THE NEW YOkr. TIMES, TUESDAY, APRIL U. 1976 Issue and Debate Deciding What Is a Carcinogen \ By BAYARD WEBSTER Eighteen months ago the Environmental Protection Agency banned the use of j the pesticides aldrin and dieldrin, saying that they were cancer-causing substan ces. Last Christmas Eve most 1 uses of the agricultural pesti! etdes heptachlor and chlor* dane were suspened by the } agency because of an "imI minent cancer risk" to hu mans. : A month later, an agricul tural-scientific group took '-ception to these decisions. .rging that the Govern ment agency's procedures for determining cancer-causing substances were based on . faulty assumptions. These opposing views have highlighted a growing con troversy over the scientific . approaches to determining whether a substance is or is not a carcinogen (canceri causing agent). Described as Hazardous On one side of the ar gument are Government and independent scientists and cancer researchers who feci that almost any substance that can cause change in i cell structure (mutagenesis) 1 or that can cause tumors, even though benign, are ually carcinogens, and -refore hazardous. In the late 1960's these scientists' views came to be accepted as "principles of carcinogenicity" by several Federal health and regulato ry agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, which considered them in banning the insecti cide DDT in 1970 and other chemicals in later years. These guidelines, or criter ia. for determining carcinoge nicity included the broadly stated main principle: Any chemical that is found to cause tumors in animals or living tissue should be char acterized as a carcinogen and a hazard toman. A corollary principle stated that the concept of a thresh- ' hold exposure- level for any cancer-causing agent was im- . issible to determine and, erefore, there should be ' <i zero exposure .level - for the chemical. ___ On the other side of the argument are agricultural trade groups, farm and gar- ! den chemical manufacturers . and a number of independent : scientists. They are generally of the opinion that the regu latory agency's criteria for determining whether a sub stance is a' carcinogen are ambiguous and too strict and that they should be relaxed ^ or disregarded. # _ / This difference of opinion . has come at a lime when*, the growing weight of.. * evidence seems to demon- strate that cancer caused by toxic substances in the envir- onment is one of the most pervasive health problems in the world. According to the World Health Organization, from 60 to 90 ..percent of all cancers are caused by such substances. Background From the time man discov ered fire, whose smoke pro duced hydrocarbons and tar ry byproducts, he has intro-. duccd a host of carcinogens into the human environment. : Since the Industrial Revolu. tion in the latter I8th centu. ry, more than 30.000 chemi' cals have come into commer| rial production and each year. I the list grows by some 1,000 > new compounds. According to Russell Train, head of the environmental . agency, only a few thousand of the more than 2,000,000 known chemicals have been tested for carcinogenicity. Of these, 1,000 have been shown to cause cancer in animals and nearly 200 have been demonstrated to cause can cer in humans. As the number of toxic chemicals proliferated, the environmental cancer prob lem intensified and began to be studied more closely by concerned scientific groups who came up with the informal guidelines, or so-called "principles," for de fining carcinogens. For Less Control Most chemical and pesti cide makers and the agricul tural industry contend that the guidelines are not wholly proven and are too restric tive for the billion-dollar in dustries that greatly in fluence the nation's welfare- and economy. __ 'The Council for Agricultur al Science and 'Technology; a consortium of United States farm research and. trade organizations,' argues in a recent report that the guidelines fail to make a distinction between types of tumors. The report states: "All cancers are tumors, but i most tumors are not cancers --some tumors become can cers, but most do not." The council also argues that substances that cause cancers in animals do not necessarily cause them in hu mans. The group also says that the concept of zero ex posure to any environmental -substance is impractical and almost impossible to achieve. Last month an editorial . in Lancet, the British medical * journal, stated that the En vironmental protection Agen cy's cancer principals "vary from the innocuous to the absurd" and added that few/ experts would accept the: . proposition of the World1 I Health Organization and olhI ers that cancer was mainly ca*s?d by e*\-- `n a~ter-; nat factors such as chemi cals. For More Control Dr. Russell W. Peterson, chairman of the President's Council 'on Environmental Quality, last month ad dressed the annual meeting of the Society of Toxicology in Atlanta and supported the environmental agency's use of its principles of carcinoge nicity. "It is a social value judg ment," Dr. Peterson said. "And because certain in duced tumors transform into malignancies, and because we can seldom predict which tumors will become malig nant and which will not, we should regard all lumorigens [tumor-causing agents] as possible carcinogens." He added that it was "ob viously unacceptable to wait from 15 to 40 years (the range of cancer latency per iods] to find out whether a suspect chemical will pro duce cancer in man." He said that "every chemical that induces cancer in ani mals" must be regarded "as a potential carcinogen in hu mans." In a recent letter to Chemi cal and Engineering News, a publication of the Ameri can Chemical ` Society, Dr. Sidney Weinhouse, director of the Fels. Research. Institute in Philadelphia. stated: "There are no strict, quanti tative criteria that differen tiate benign from malignant tumors. So-called 'benign' tu mors simply grow more slow ly than malignant tumors." Dr. Harold Stewart, retired chief of pathology at the National Cancer Institute and now a consultant for that agency, also points out the difficulty in distinguishing between tumors and cancers, "You can't really separate the two terms." he said. "We know that if tumors are un treated they will very often metastasize (spread)." Outlook In the argument over the proper definition of carcino genicity and in the tangled thicket of scientists, legislative bodies, Federal agencies, in dustrial groups and other or ganizations concerned with :the problem, there is little `'evidence that a solution ac ceptable to industry and en vironmentalists, to doctors -and lawmakers, to farmers * and consumers, is around the comer. But the following ac tions have been initiated: <3The National Cancer In stitute is preparing new * criteria as suggested guide lines for defining an dgent as cancer-causing. These arc expected to be made public sometime this summer. <TThe Environmental Protection Agency is prepar ing its own guidelines for determining environmental carcinogens using a benefit/ risk approach based on the hea.Jt risk to humans of a substance in the environ ment matched against its overall benefit to mankind. 4A national clearinghouse see i-0074 on env'ronmcntal f^rcinogens is being set up by the National Cancer Institute. It would act as an information center and an early warning network for scientists, indus try. Federal agencies and other concerned groups. <3New, simple and inexpen sive ways of testing chemi cals for their cancer-causing ! properties, using bacteria-in stead of animals, are being examined by the Govern ment's scientific and regula tory departments. Such tests, though not as definitive as the vastly more expensive and time-consuming animals tests, are regarded as promis ing for ultimately being able to screen substances and de termine where or not they have enough harmful poten tial to merit being examined more closely. But despite these develop ments, the road toward es tablishing accepted defini- . tions of, carcinogenicity in the near future seems filled with obstacles, according to most observers. The National Cancer Insti tute's latest draft of its new guidelines, for example, is reported to be quite similar to the Environmental Protec tion Agency's present criter ia. which will make the en vironmentalists happy but which are unacceptable to much of the chemical and agriculture industry. The promise of simpler test procedures, even if thgy hold true, are not expected to bear fruit for the next four or five years because it will take that long to thoroughly assess the scope and accura cy of the new methods. A Possible Approach One possible approach to tne problem of identifying cancerous substances has been proposed * by William D. Ruckelshaus, the first Ad ministrator of the Environ mental Protection Agency. In a:i interview in the journal. Science, Mr. Ruckelshaus said that whenever a new '`devilish" substance was dis covered it should be sur veyed by an independent re search program prepared by everyone involved--industry, labor. Government and con cerned citizens. A review group of scientists of "ur. questioned integrity" would then design a research pro gram. In this way, Mr. Ruckd shaus believes, research data could be generated that ev eryone could agree on and the matter of acceptable risks--the bencfit/rik factor --could then be determined. . But even if such a compre hensive program is begun, many scientists believe it will be years before inexpensive and accurate testing proce dures can be developed tha" can quickly identify cancercausing substances in man's environment. And it may hr equally as long before th< various groups concerned come to agree on the prope- definition of a cancer-causing agent. Jfc FOOD CHEMICAL NEWS Editor: Louis Rothschild, Jr. Managing Editor: Raymond Galant Assistant to the Editor: Natalie Pargas Assistant Editor: Eileen Kug/er Circulation Director: Shirley Ga/ant Production Manager: Dorothy Hill Associate Editors: Cathy Cooper, Gait Tapscott MRAK CALLS ON FOOD SCIENTISTS TO TAKE STAND ON ISSUES Scientists should come from behind their fortresses of scientific certainty, and be willing to take leadership in giving advice based on their expert knowledge. Dr. Emil M. Mrak, Chancellor Emeritus of the University of California (Davis), told the Ameri can Chemical Society's centennial meeting in New York (See FOOD CHEMICAL NEWS, April 12, Page 2). In delivering the V/.. O. Atwater Memorial Lecture, Mrak urged scientists to speak out, explaining: "It appears to me that responsible scientists are well aware that perfection in science, and especially in biological science, is a rarity, if at all existent. Reali2ing this limitation, they testify with uncertainty and always indicate the need for more research. On the other hand, those who may be advocates, biased, illinformed or even completely uninformed, testify with a positiveness that leaves no doubt in the mind of the politician or the average citizen. How then is the politician or news media to know who is correct and responsible, and who is irresponsible?" Encouraging positive responsiveness, he warned against "paranoic defensive behavior, " and suggested: "It must be made clear that there are limits to perfection." Lawmakers, implementers, and enforcers must be educated into an understanding that a scientist who says something is probable but who refuses to speak 'in'terms of absolutes "is more to be trusted than the biased advocate who speaks with specious certainty," Mrak continued. "It is the duty of the food scientist in the future to assume the leadership of the country in answering problems of food safety as well as in solving the problems of food quantity and quality, " he said. In a separate speech on food safety, Mrak was critical of what he called "new and young regulators endowed with ideals, but deficient in scientific training." He opined: "These regulators seem inclined to respond to pressures more than to sound scientific facts and, understandably, this has caused in some instances adverse feelings on the part of scientists in the same agencies." see 1-0076