421 



OflScials of 15 State departments of agriculture, 11 State departments of con- 

 servation, fi%'e State departments of health, and the departments of health of 

 the District of Columbia and of Dade Gounty, Fla., were interviewed concerning 

 the effects of pesticide residues on man, wildlife, and other animals, as well as 

 the departments activities with residues in food. OflScials of agricultural experi- 

 ment stations of eight States and professors at 18 universities were also inter- 

 viewed. 



A major committee investigation of pesticide management was car- 

 ried on for nearly 2 years by the Senate Committee on Government 

 Operations.*® As the decade of the 1960's neared its close, the issue of 

 environmental preservation was becoming more and more acute. The 

 limited aspect of pesticide management as such appeared to have been 

 reasonably resolved (except for several local efforts to ban long-lived 

 insecticides). But the broader issue of environmental preservation 

 promised to remain alive for an indefinite future. 



Resolution of the chemical pesticide issue 



There appeared, as the controversy over pesticides subsided, to be a 

 consensus on the following points: {a) pesticides presented varying 

 degrees of serious danger to man and his ecology ; (&) they were essen- 

 tial for agriculture and control of disease vectors; {c) their use should 

 l>e cautious, selective, controlled, and disciplined; and {d) more knowl- 

 edge was needed of their consequences for man and for the ecology. 

 This set of conclusions had been the gist of the findings in the sym- 

 posium of the National Academy of Sciences in 1961, which concluded 

 on the following note : 



No responsible wildlife biologist would advocate the abrupt prohibition of 

 chemical pesticides, even if such a prohibition were within the realm of possi- 

 bility. Properly used by responsible individuals, they serve an important purpose. 

 All that the biologists ask is that a greater degree of caution and responsibility 

 be demonstrated all the way from the manufacturer down to the spray-tank 

 operator and an awareness on the part of all concerned of the potential dangers of 

 overapplication. We also ask that more attention be given by Federal and State 

 authorities concerned with pest control in developing methods that will be less 

 hazardous to beneficial forms of life. When the chemists produce a product that 

 is specific for individual pest species, as they have already done with the sea 

 Jamprey, they will find the wildlife biologists leading the applause.^' 



The 1963 PSAC report on pesticides observed : 



Review of pesticides brings into focus their great merits while .suggesting that 

 there are apparent risks. This is the nature of the dilemma that confronts the 

 Nation. The Panel has attempted to state the case — the benefits, the hazards, and 

 the methods of controlling the hazards. It can suggest ways of avoiding or lessen- 

 ing the hazards, but in the end society must decide, and to do so it must obtain 

 adequate information on which to base its judgments. The decision is an uncom- 

 fortable one which can never be final but must be constantly in flux as circum- 

 stances change and knowledge increases.^" 



Accordingly, the report urged expanded research in the relationship 

 of pesticides to human disorders, more conservative control of the use 

 of especially hazardous and persistent pesticides, the gathering of data 

 on exposure levels of categories of the population in contact with pesti- 



*" Interagency Coordination in Environmental Hazards (pesticides). Hearings • ♦ *. 

 Op. cit. This investigation aecumulated 2.028 pp., covering 20 days of hearings, and 270 

 exhibits. It consulted 94 witnesses, including 55 representatives of Federal agencies, six 

 of State agencies, 19 witnesses from private industry, and li2 scientists from academic 

 institutions or unaffiliated. The final report of the investigation, July 21, 1966, took 86 pp, 



*» Ira N. Gabrielson, of the Wildlife Management Institute, In : "Symposium on Pest 

 Control and Wildlife Relationships," op. cit., p. 25. 



™ Interagency Coordination in Environmental Hazards (pesticides). Hearings • • *. 

 Op. cit, p. 38. 



