There is no question but that our problems are becoming more complex, if for no 
other reason than our chemicals have become more complex. Most of the simple chemi- 
cals have been tested and evaluated. In order to evaluate the newer and more complex 
synthetic organic chemicals, we must without question proceed to a higher plateau of 
technology. This is true in our economy today whether it be chemicals, jet engines, 
or atomic energy. 
However, if unnecessary restrictions force free enterprise out of the pesticide 
field, then the development responsibility undoubtedly will fall on Government agencies, 
and we will be one more step on the way to socialization. Pesticides are one of the 
essential links in the chain of food production. It is, of course, axiomatic that a chain 
is only as strong as its weakest link. 
When Premier Khrushchev visited this country recently, he threw down the gauntlet 
of challenge to our free enterprise system in the field of agricultural technology and 
production. Since the chemicals available in Western Europe are presumably available 
also in Eastern Europe and Russia, it could be argued that the Russian collectivized 
farm or ‘‘commune’’ is already ahead of our farmers technologically in the pesticide 
field. I am not implying in any way that we should relax any safeguards required to 
protect the health of the American public; however, I am saying that overly restrictive 
or punitive legislation and regulations can very definitely put American agriculture at 
a technological disadvantage compared to agriculture behind the Iron Curtain. 
Any reduction in agricultural research today, whether in industry or government, 
can well have an adverse effect 10 to 20 years from now when our population and food 
supply will more nearly be in balance. The chemical industry wants to stay in this 
field, is willing to spend huge sums on research and development, and is willing to carry 
its full share of responsibility. All we ask for is: (1) More emphasis by governmental 
and institutional agencies on basic biological research in such fields as plant and animal 
physiology, basic biology, and most important--biochemistry; and (2) some assurances 
that the approach to the problems of protecting the public health and the consumer will 
be based on sound scientific fact. 
In conclusion, I can do nobetterthanto quote Dean Earl L. Butz of Purdue University 
who, in a recent talk?, concluded with: 
‘‘We must search diligently for a basis of common understanding among 
government regulators, research scientists and business executives so that we can 
meet the dual objectives of a safe and healthful food supply on the one hand, while at 
the same time availing ourselves of every scientific aid to produce, process and 
merchandise that food supply ever more efficiently and economically. 
'*These dual objectives are not in conflict. They are completely compatible and 
attainable if sensible and determined men can set themselves diligently to the task 
in an atmosphere of scientific objectivity, unimpeded by such modern phenomena 
as the news release, the press conference and the congressional hearing.’’ 
It is of special interest to the chemical industry that this symposium has been 
organized in such ‘‘an atmosphere of scientific objectivity,’’ and it is to be hoped that 
the end result will be even greater emphasis by Government scientists on research 
in this very basic field of pesticide residues. 
2 Butz, Earl L., Croplife, pages 7-8, April 4, 1960, 
13 
