424 



(c) Accelerate the interpretation of science to the public in order that 

 the risks and benefits of new technology may be known by the public. 



(d) Increase congressional oversight of the administration of the regula- 

 tory programs which concern those activities capable of affecting man's 

 relationship to his environment." 



However, the essence of the report is perhaps best reflected in the 

 following short passage : 



The public debate over pesticides is but one facet of a wider debate which 

 reflects a greater sensitivity to the fundamental questions raised by the con- 

 tinuing and accelerating pace of man's modification of his total environment. 

 Pesticides are but one factor and we are increasingly aware that our environ- 

 ment is being altered even more dramatically by air and water pollution, atomic 

 fallout, and the population explosion. 



These are manifestations of the great is.sues of our time — man's relationship to 

 the world around him. As we come to appreciate more keenly the significance of 

 this vast, accelerating, irreversible alteration of our environment we recognize 

 the need for stocktaking and the necessity of endeavoring to take into account 

 all the multitude of complex relationships between man and his natural and 

 artificial surroundings." 



Pesticides as one of nwrny pollutants of the environment 



Shortly before the Senate committee report appeared, another PSAC 

 report was released by the White House. November 5, 196.5. This was a 

 study by an Environmental Pollution Panel, which dealt with pesti- 

 cides as one of numerous factors degrading the human environment. 

 It observed that arrangements to deal with pollution had evolved on 

 a piecemeal basis, that consideration of side etTects of some pollutants 

 (such as pesticides) had been scant, and that it was essential to make 

 advance evaluation of potentially major hazards before their effects 

 became widespread. ^° Of 104 recommendations offered by the Panel, 

 11 specifically mentioned pesticides, and many others liad obvious 

 implications for the control of pollution caused by pesticides. Perhaps 

 the best epitome of the report was its first recommendation, under 

 "principles.'- This was: 



The public !<hould come to recognize individual rights to quality of living, as 

 expressed by the absence of pollution, as it has come to recognize rights to edu- 

 cation, to economic advance, and to public recreation. Like education and other 

 human rights, improved quality of life from reduced pollution will be costly to 

 individuals and governments. [Italic in original.] 



It was evident that a considerable increase in official and public 

 understanding of the pesticide problem had occurred between 1947 

 and 196.5. However, it is also notable that this growing appreciation of 

 the problem had not been accompanied by comprehensive legislative 

 action. Xo comprehensive legislative enactment resulted from the agi- 

 tation over the "Silent Spring."' This was a "hig'hly technical" matter 

 in 1947; it was more so by 1962; and it was vastly more so by 1967 or 

 1968. Public insistence on action is most clear cut when the action pro- 

 posed is clear and unequivocal. The public appeared ready to demand 

 action when pesticides were identified as the villian of the piece, in 

 1962. But the public began to lose interest when the issue turned out 

 to require a balance between opposites : either the unrestricted use of 

 chemical pesticides or the absolute prohibition of chemical pesticides 



" Ibid., pp. 67-68. 



f-s Ihld., p. 66. 



■'■^ U.S. Presldont's Sclpnce Advisory Cnmmlttpp. Restorlntr thp Quality of Oiir Environ- 

 ment. Report of thp Environmental Pollution Panel. President's Science Advisory Com- 

 mittee. The White House, November 1965. (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 

 1965). p. 14. 



