Document ykZjQ8zjrek9anbbBqqzqZ6br

STATEMENT BY CHARLES C. EDWARDS, H.D. , fCB PRESS BRIEFING ' SEPTEMBER 29, 1971 Wo have colled this briefing to try to holp establish perspective on PCB's, tho extent of their presence In the food supply, the Implication this hns for human health end what tho government Is doing to deflna and control the problem generally. There Is today considerable public and some obvious press confusion. Some of this confusion la due to the Intense complexity of the PCB issue end to deficient knowledge about the substances In terms of affect on human health. ' The confusion Is compounded by a few alarmists seeking headlines. Their efforts have in some few caees been aided and abetted by unbalanced reporting. Public confusion has created public alarm and a feeling of still another crises In the food supply. I know the confusion Is unnecessary and I believe the elan la greater than the facts will justify. And this Is the reason we have asked you hare -- to try to give you the facts that we have, to share with you the limits of our knowledge, to tall you what we are doing with tha information we have, what we are doing to get more Information and, finally, to anaver any questions you may have. The PCB problem la one which cannot be easily defined. This family of industrial chemicals hss been used in countless useful end beneficial ways for mors than AO years. Nevertheless, they have no place in the food HONS 051511 -2- mpply. FDA, other agenelee of government, and Industry Itself havo been looking at PCB's since at least 1966 to try to keep the chemical out of foods and to try to assess what If anything It means If It should be found In food. He still have as many questions as answers but we do have some answers. We do know that as a toxic substance PCB's ere a potential but not lssnedlate health hazard. We do know that its background level In the environment la not high. But we do not know how long term exposure to PCB might effect human health and we cannot yet explain the Inconsistent presence of the chemicals In cortaln areas of the environment. We do know there are certain strong reasons for continued use of these chemicals. For ixample they have Important flame resistant properties and properly used, directly assist government and Industry In protecting the consumor against fire. We do not know If a requirement for substitute chemicals In some cases might not prove mors of a health threat than PCB's. In recent months we have been faced with PCB adulteration of foods from an Industrial accident In North Carolina, from recycled paper packaging and from untraceable environmental causes. ' Given tha length and variety of uses and given the present Intensity of tha presene search wa can ba confident that other problems will be found and reported In the weeks and months ahead. But tbs overall problem la not new to FDA or to government. FDA developed tha technology to Identify and measure PCB content In foods and other substances. The Agency at least three years ago established a 5 ppm guide line for PCB in fish. Tha Agency has consistently backstopped USDA In dealing with the problem whenever It occurred In tha poultry Industry. HONS 057578 -J- Th rCB Issue, Ilka NTA and mercury for example, points up ths need for Congressional passage of the Administration's Toxic Substances Control gill. The ultimata solution to the PCB problem, lies, at least In part, In restricting uses to those places where the substances can be safely hnd beneficially employed. Good progress Is being mads toward this gosll^ gut tho Toxic Substances Control gill would clarify and strengthen our authority In this area. Furthermore, It seams elear we will have more 1PCS "Incidents" until a system for pre-testing of such chemicals la established. The Toxic Substances Bill would establish such a system. In fact, the Council on Environmental Quality, In Its report of last April entitled "Toxic Substances" used PCB'a ae one of the examples of substances which the proposed legislation Is designed to'control. On another tack I want to remind you that the FDA In full recognition of the foct that the problem of .PCB'a la broader than any single agency of government, recently took the lead In calling together six major Agencies of the Federal Government. The result was establishment September 1, 1971 of an Inter-Departmental Taek Force to coordinate government activities, to facilitate the exchange of Information and to do all alee possible to bring government resourees to bear In defining and dealing with the problem ae needed. I urge your additional attention to tha Joint prase release lseued on September 5 about thle Teak Force, Coplee are available. In a moment I want to aak Deputy FDA Commissioner Crant to give specific citations of actions that FDA and others have taken to meet and reduce health dangare or unwanted adultaratlooa from PCB'ai Before 1 do, however, X want to make three further end very brief points t HONS 057579 1. Ha arc Caking specific, adequate and positive atapa Co daal with whatever problem or potential problea that PCB'a art llkaly to pose to human health. _ 2. We reject the need and In fact the feasibility as somo hava proposed for an outright ban on the substances. Although the use of FCB's requires control, an outright ban Is not feasible and would noe be In the best interest of the consumer. 3. We further reject the Idea that crisis headlines and demands for national health alerts are Justified or needed to meet the situation as we know It today. Science does not support such actions and we In FDA will continue to abide by the dictates of science la making regulatory Judgments In behalf of the American conoumer. Thank You--* HOKS 053580