412 



gists, the American Phytopathological Society, industry and others. The bill is 

 the result of many conferences and hearings. We believe this draft represents 

 the most practical approach to a problem which not only is highly technical, but 

 involves a variety of conflicting interests. The bill will definitely improve pro- 

 tection to the public, which is its principal objective." 



His views were seconded by Mr. J. M. George, representing the 

 Interstate Manufacturers Association, and by W. N. Watson, secretary 

 of the Manufacturing Chemists Association. Mr. Watson also 

 observed : 



This bill represents a long course of evolution. It is a very complicated affair. 

 It has involved many controversie.-^. The result of a great deal of study on the 

 part of the administrative officials, State officials, and also members of industry. 

 We submitted very detailed comments at the hearings held back on Feb. 6, 1946. 

 I simply want to endorse this bill as now written. We think it will be a very 

 real contribution to these rapidly expanding and increasingly important fields, 

 and also will add to the tremendously important problem ot uniformity." 



The other witnesses who appeared, and those who submitted state- 

 ments, either favored the bill, or offered minor technical amendments. 

 No significant opposition appeared. 



The only comment in the entire hearing that suggested that control 

 of the use of pesticides might be important for the preservation of 

 the environment was that by William Heckendorn, representing the 

 National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. The preceding year, Mr. 

 Heckendorn in supporting the bill, had merely offered several tech- 

 nical amendments. In the 1947 hearing he again offered technical 

 suggestions, and supported the bill. However, for his concluding point 

 he suggested that it might be desirable to require the manufacturers 

 of pesticides to indicate on the labels of their products, where appro- 

 priate, the warning that insecticides might kill useful as well as in- 

 jurious insects. He said he recognized that this suggestion was pre- 

 mature — «* * ♦ I realize full well [that it] cannot be taken into 

 consideration in this particular bill because we do not know enough 

 about insecticides yet." Nevertheless, he went on — 



You recall a few years ago a group of us came before you, and asked for a 

 special appropriation of $12.500,0(X) for Incentive payments in the production 

 of legume seeds. Since that time, we have set up a program under the Agricul- 

 ture Research Administration, trying to determine why it is that our yields of 

 legume seeds have dropped so rapidly. 



One of the reasons * • * is the fact that our insecticides will kill everything. 

 They kill both our beneficial insects as well as our harmful in.sects. And so far 

 our development in insecticides has been to kill, it has not been to try and 

 isolate and use certain insecticides that will protect our beneficial insects. 



I feel the time is coming when we are going to be obliged to give more con- 

 sideration to the type of insecticides which we use simply because we now find 

 bee keepers are unwilling to place their bees in areas where certain insecticides 

 are being used, simply because their colonies are being killed off." 



Heckendorn concluded with the observation that "I may be raising 

 a question liere that might create quite a controversy * * *." However, 

 no further discussion of this point was recorded at the hearing. 



Legislatkie action on H.R. 1237 



The bill to provide control over insecticides, fungicides, and rodenti- 

 cides was favorably reported from the House Committee on Agri- 

 culture, April 25, 1947. The report took note of the fact that — 



Since 1910 great changes have occurred in the field of economic poisons, and 

 the present law is now inadequate. New plant materials and synthetic chemicals 



18 Ibid., p. 25. 

 «Ibi(1.. p. 32. 

 » Ibid., p. 40. 



