in obtaining adequate product liability insurance, (3) product obsolescence through insect 
resistance or other factors, and (4) possible rescinding of tolerances once established. 
Industry today, by and large, has a keen sense of public responsibility. The company 
reputation and the ‘‘corporate image’’ are intangibles on which many millions of dollars of 
institutional advertising and public relations have been spent. Some firms do not want to 
take any risk whatsoeverina controversial field where the ‘‘corporate image’’ may suffer, 
and would prefer to forego business in a relatively small market such as ours than to 
have aspersions and innuendo cast by even such groups as the nature fanatics or food 
faddists. 
Although the above may represent a minority viewpoint, the industry view of public 
responsibility is a very real thing. Our industry both through individual company effort 
and through our Association has devoted a large part of its public relations effort toward 
explaining the need for chemicals in agriculture and public health, and in emphasizing 
that they can be used safely when directions are properly followed. I do not believe any 
major company today would in any way deliberately jeopardize its public relations by 
marketing a product for which it was not satisfied as to its safety and utility in its 
intended use. 
It is doubtful in my opinion, however, that safety requirements can be legislated. 
Evaluation of safety is a constantly changing thing as new products and new data become 
available. It requires expert scientific judgment--not legislation. There is no question 
but what conservatism must prevail in any approach to the problem of public exposure 
to chemicals in foods, but the ‘‘rule of reason’’ must be used in arriving at conclusions 
within the framework of existing scientific knowledge. 
Although we pride ourselves on our advanced state of agricultural technology, it is 
worthy of note that the farmer in Western Europe has more chemicals available in his 
pesticide arsenal than the United States farmer. I am in no position to know whether any 
real hazards exist to the European population as a result, but the United Nations has 
reported that at least some European countries have better average dietary and health 
standards than the United States average even with all of our food surpluses. I do not 
imply in any way any cause and effect relationship, but only that Western European 
governments are also conscious of the need for maintaining a safe and wholesome food 
supply and in protecting the health of their publics. 
During the past decade a disproportionately large percentage of new pesticides 
have originated from European research laboratories which may indicate that 
lower development costs serve as a better stimulus to pesticide research overseas 
than in the United States. 
Perhaps the most important industry responsibility is to its customers and users of 
its products. This responsibility carries many broad implications. Our products are 
sold and purchased in the good faith that they will perform as claimed when directions 
are followed, that the user will not damage his crop nor harm himself in its application, 
and that the resulting crops can be sold in interstate commerce without restriction or 
violation of any State or Federal statute. 
In order to properly advise the users of our products, we must know what we are 
selling, its biological characteristics, its toxicology, what residues may result, the fate 
of these residues, and how to measure them. Industry fully accepts the responsibility 
for developing this information on its products even though disagreements as to scope, 
extent, and adequacy of the data are frequently encountered between industry representa- 
tives and regulatory agencies. Under existing legislation, we are faced with problems of 
negative proofs, such as proof of safety and proof of zero. These present problems of 
methodology, techniques, and individual interpretation that could carry on such studies 
for many years. It has been suggested recently that 7-year dog feeding studies may be 
required when a chemical is suspect of having carcinogenic activity. 
12 
