425 



would h;ive spelled disaster. The question was rather: How much 

 re<T:ulatioii of what kind ? 



The answer to this question would chanofe from year to year. PerliajDS 

 the law passed in 1947 was adequate at that time. The retjulation it 

 authorized has been found responsive to demands for strong^er controls. 

 At the same time, there will always be a need for more Rachel Carsons 

 to demand better and more up-to-date decisionmaking in the balancing 

 of benefits and risks, as performance tends to lag behind the standards 

 the public expects or requires. Following the Grovernment Operations 

 Committee investigations, at the suggestion of the Department of 

 Agriculture (by letter of August 13, 1965) , Senator Ribicoff introduced 

 proposed amendments ("Federal Pesticide Control Act of 1965," intro- 

 duced August 30) to tighten the regulatory control over manufacturers 

 of coimnercial poisons. However, no action was taken on the proposal. 

 Other bills had called for the banning of long-lived insecticides and 

 for a closer control over the use of pesticides in programs funded by 

 the Federal Government. The Congress may have deferred action after 

 1963 in order to assess the effectiveness of administrative measures to 

 tighten existing controls, corresponding efforts in the States, and the 

 vigorous response of pesticide manufacturers toward self-regulation 

 under the threat of further Federal action. 



The enactment of legislation to restore or preserve the environment 

 has become increasingly difficult precisely because more is known 

 about the enormous complexity of the problem. The public has a stake 

 in the outcome, but the issues of total environmental quality are not 

 obvious or clear cut. Invariably, there are trade-offs of benefit and risk. 

 Issues tend increasingly to draw into controversy more and more 

 groups with special interests, who predictably react against each other 

 with prejudiced reading of evidence toward foregone conclusions. As 

 the balancing of benefit and risk becomes more delicate, and failure 

 more dangerous, the need grows for the development of a new decision 

 process which permits a degree of separation between the technological 

 and political aspects of environmental questions. As technology' ad- 

 vances, it l:»ecomes easier to imagine some new technology that prema- 

 turely bursts into wide public use before the established routines of 

 public protection have discovered its concealed potential for disaster. 

 In the words of another congressional document : 



A well intentioned but poorly informed society is haphazardly deploying a 

 powerful, accelerating technology in a complex and somewhat fragile environment. 

 The consequences are only vaguely discernible.^' 



"U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Astronautics. Managing the Environ- 

 ment. Report of the Siibcomraittee on Science. Research, and Development to the * • *. 

 Serial S. Committee print. (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968), p. 6. 



