Banned

by Frederick Rowe Davis

  Silent Spring was published in 1962, first as series of excerpts across three issues of the New Yorker and in book form the following fall. Despite strong sales, its rapid ascent to the bestseller list, and its selection by the Book of the Month, Rachel Carson and Silent Spring did not reach many American households until the evening of April 3, 1963, when CBS Reports aired “The Silent Spring of Rachel Carson,” featuring the author herself as well as representatives from the USDA and the chemical industry. The host, Eric Sevareid, introduced Carson, noting that there was a pesticide problem and that Carson favored alternative methods and a gradual phase out of chemical insecticides. Carson then presented her thesis and examples of the hazards of pesticides. Among the many officials who appeared after Carson and who represented the USDA or the chemical industry, the most memorable was Dr. Robert White-Stevens, a scientist with American Cyanamid and the voice for the chemical industry. Dressed in white lab coat and tie, quintessential symbols of medical-scientific authority, White-Stevens forecast a dire future in a world without insecticides: “If man were to faithfully follow the teachings of Miss Carson, we would return to the Dark Ages and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth.”28 Despite, or perhaps because of, White-Stevens’s demeanor and dire warning, reviews of the report agreed that Carson’s urgent message had captured the minds and hearts of millions of viewers. Indeed, the public was roused from complacency with regard to chemical insecticides. Their concerns reached the highest office in federal government.

  On August 29, 1962, President Kennedy fielded the following question at a press conference: “There appears to a growing concern among scientists as to the possibility of dangerous long-range side effects from the use of DDT and other pesticides. Have you considered asking the Department of Agriculture or the Public Health Service to take closer look at this?” The president, who was a regular reader of the New Yorker and had read Carson’s three articles over the summer, replied: “Yes, and I know they already are. I think particularly, of course, since Miss Carson’s book, but they are examining the matter.”29 As a result of the president’s comment, the Life Sciences Panel of the President’s Scientific Advisory Committee (PSAC) took up a study of pesticide use and associated risks.30

  Led by Jerome Wiesner, the PSAC prepared a report for the president: “The Use of Pesticides.” The report opened with an acknowledgment of some element of risk in modern society which strikes a note of inevitability or perhaps fatalism with respect to “progress”: “Advances have always entailed a degree of risk which society must weigh and either accept, or reject, as the price of material progress.”31 Here is another example: “The welfare of an increasing human population requires intensified agriculture. This in turn enables the pests to increase, which necessitates the use of pesticides with their concomitant hazards. It thus seems inevitable that, as the population increases, so do certain hazards.”32 Next, the report recognized spectacular increases in agricultural production and an unprecedented freedom from communicable diseases, including malaria, typhus, and yellow fever. At the same time, arboviruses claimed many lives, with malaria leading the list worldwide. Some of the insect vectors, such as mosquitoes that transmitted malaria, produced populations that were resistant to pesticides. The PSAC argued that Americans had come to require and expect efficient agricultural production, protection of health, and elimination of nuisances.33

  Against the backdrop of the benefits of pesticides, the PSAC expressed equanimity when it came to potential risks, as in this statement: “Precisely because pesticide chemicals are designed to kill or metabolically upset some living target organism, they are potentially dangerous to other living organisms. Most of them are highly toxic in concentrated amounts, and in unfortunate instances they have caused illness and death of people and wildlife. Although acute human poisoning is a measurable and, in some cases, a significant hazard, it is relatively easy to identify and control by comparison with potential, low-level chronic toxicity which has been observed in experimental animals.”34 Significant qualifiers moderate most of the claims included in this statement, but the panel acknowledged the need for a more complete understanding of the properties of pesticides and their long-term impact on biological systems.

  Throughout the report, the PSAC noted gaps or deficiencies in the knowledge base regarding the toxicity of pesticides. For example, after reviewing the history of FDA procedures regulating chemicals and pesticides, the panel noted that the FDA commonly set human tolerances at 1/100 of the lowest level that caused effects in the most sensitive test animals whenever data on human toxicity was not available. Nevertheless, the FDA had set tolerances for certain compounds, for example, dieldrin, aldrin, heptachlor, and chlordane, despite that fact that a “no effect” level in animals had not been determined. The no-effect level was critical because it established one toxicological baseline (another was the LD50, see chapter 1). Moreover, the lowest effect level could not be determined accurately without an established no-effect level.35 The PSAC concluded that in certain instances the experimental evidence was inadequate and recommended continuation of FDA review and reassessment.

  Like Carson, the PSAC distinguished between the classes of insecticides and noted the action of organophosphates (namely, cholinesterase inhibition) and the relatively high toxicity of the class to humans: “Most organic phosphorus insecticides have relatively high acute toxicities and have caused many fatal and nonfatal poisonings in man. In cases of poisoning, removal from exposure to the compound usually permits rapid recovery.”36 The committee also noted that most organophosphates degraded rapidly and seldom persisted in the environment, with the significant exception of parathion, which had been found to persist for months in soils and appeared in trace amounts in water drawn from deep wells.37

  In its final recommendations, the PSAC called for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to develop a comprehensive data-gathering program to determine the levels of pesticides in workers and the general public. HEW should also cooperate with other departments (USDA and FDA) to develop a network to monitor residue levels in air, water, soil, humans, wildlife, and fish. Total diet studies on chlorinated hydrocarbons initiated by the FDA should expand to include data on organophosphates, herbicides, and carbamates in populated areas where they were widely used. Federal funds would assist states in their monitoring efforts. The PSAC also made a series of recommendations regarding toxicity studies, which included determination of effects on reproduction through at least two generations in at least two species of warm-blooded animals, review of chronic effects on organs of both immature and adult animals, and study of possible synergism and potentiation of commonly used pesticides with commonly used drugs, such as sedatives, tranquilizers, analgesics, antihypertensive agents, and steroid hormones. The panel also recommended expanded research on the toxic effects of pesticides on wild vertebrates and invertebrates, echoing Carson’s thesis from Silent Spring: “The study of wildlife presents a unique opportunity to discover the effects on the food chain of which each animal is a part, and to determine possible pathways through which accumulated and, in some case, magnified pesticide residues can find their way directly or indirectly to wildlife and to man.”38 On one hand, the President’s Science Advisory Committee provided a fairly moderate assessment of the state of knowledge with respect to chemical insecticides and threats to the environment and human health. And yet, on the other hand, the PSAC laid the foundation for the federal response to the apparently ubiquitous pesticides and other chemicals in the environment.

  With the release of the report pending, Congress convened hearings to investigate interagency coordination regarding environmental hazards. On May 16, 1963, Senator Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut called to order the Subcommittee on Reorganization and International Organizations to begin a study of interagency coordination in environmental hazards. Hubert Humphrey, the Minnesota senator and assistant majority leader of the Senate, was designated chair of the su
bcommittee, but as his additional responsibilities kept him on the Senate floor, Ribicoff presided over the hearing on May 16 and all subsequent sessions. Ribicoff introduced the hearings by stating that they planned to examine the role of the federal government in dealing with contamination of the environment by chemical poisons.39 Ribicoff went on to note that inasmuch as Americans lived in the space age, they also were in the midst of the chemical age. A consequence of the chemical age included hazards created by the use of chemical poisons to control insects and other pests, eliminate undesired vegetation, and prevent the infection of plants and animals, including humans, by disease organisms. Yet pesticides also yielded benefits, including freedom from disease, more and better food, and great potential in the fight against world hunger, poverty, and disease, according to Ribicoff, who also argued that controlled use must continue. Moreover, knowledge of long-term consequences to human health was inadequate. Ribicoff concluded by reiterating that the purpose of the hearings was to determine the nature of problem; examine the response of government, industry, and the public; and explore the extent to which various federal agencies coordinated their activities and administered their programs.40

  After a review of the PSAC report and brief questioning of its lead author, Ribicoff began calling witnesses. One of the first to testify was Secretary of Agriculture Orville L. Freeman, who was accompanied by Edward F. Knipling, now the director of the Entomology Research Division at the Agricultural Research Service, and Martin Jacobson, chief scientist of the same division. Freeman quickly asserted the importance of insecticides to modern agriculture. Balancing the benefits of pesticides with acceptable levels of risk was one of the recurring themes of the hearings. During the course of his testimony on May 23, 1963, Freeman underscored the benefits of chemical insecticides: “Chemical pesticides have given us an effective means of protecting our food supply—and if there are certain dangers attendant upon using them, I believe there may be greater dangers in not using them. Without them, the consequences in terms of the national diet and the Nation’s standards would be serious.”41 Freeman also asserted that with proper controls and safeguards, pesticides could safely be used to protect food, fiber, and forest crops from disease and insect destruction. Finally, he noted that the cumulative effects of minute amounts of various pesticides to humans over the long term remained unknown, but that this lack of scientific evidence suggested the need for further research. Despite his defense of the benefits of pesticides, Freeman acknowledged problems with the registration process, particularly protest registrations (see below), and he described at length efforts at USDA to develop biological controls. Knipling gave a detailed description of control programs using sterile male insects and natural attractants.

  As for risks associated with pesticides exposures, Freeman subtly shifted the burden of risk to consumers (and public education campaigns) by noting that the USDA wanted to make the slogan: “ ‘Use Pesticides with Care—Read the Label’ as familiar to the public as Smokey Bear. I believe the public interest stirred by Miss Carson’s book, the report of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, and these hearing will be of great help in this educational program.”42 At the end of his statement, Freeman questioned the preoccupation with pesticides hazards and reiterated the benefits of their continued use by suggesting potential problems if they were not available. Commercial production of many common fruits (apples, peaches, and cherries) and vegetables (corn, tomatoes, and lima beans) would not be possible or would be greatly reduced. Diseases would affect more vegetables and fruits, their cost would increase, and the amount spent on food for the average family would rise from one-fifth of the average income to one-third. Throughout the hearings, other witnesses emphasized benefits of chemical pesticides.

  Despite his firm belief that the benefits of pesticides significantly outweighed the risks, Freeman criticized FIFRA for one provision that subjected the public to danger. On the occasions when the USDA denied the registration of a product, a manufacturer could still register the pesticide “under protest” and distribute it to the public until the USDA had developed the performance and toxicity analysis required to take legal action and remove the product from the market. In Freeman’s words, “The Department must carry the burden of proof of establishing in a court of law the danger of a given commodity.”43

  Ribicoff clarified Freeman’s statements regarding protest registrations. In one example, USDA had denied registration for a device known as a “lindane vaporizer” because it was determined to be too hazardous to be sold for continuous use in homes. However, under protest registration, the manufacturer continued to sell it, and the vaporizer had been implicated in at least one death. Ribicoff wondered why there had been a two-year delay in submitting legislation to correct the problem, but Freeman responded that the matter had been submitted, but no one had acted on it. To place protest registrations into the broader context of pesticide regulation, Freeman explained that of the 55,000 products registered by the USDA since 1947, only 23 had been registered under protest. He wondered if the USDA should be required to carry the burden of proof of harm.44 Ribicoff did not share Freeman’s ambivalence regarding protest registrations and vowed to introduce corrective legislation to Congress, and true to his word, he introduced a bill to amend FIFRA to eliminate registration under protest on May 27, 1963. Ribicoff also demanded that the USDA furnish the names of products registered under protest to the press, noting, “It is a mockery of regulation for the USDA to find a product unsafe and then refuse to tell the public the name of the product.”45

  The most anticipated witnesses, Rachel Carson, appeared before the committee on June 4, 1963. Ribicoff gave her an enthusiastic introduction: “We are dealing with many forces which people say are still mysterious, and it is the purpose of this committee to try to be as constructive as we possibly can, and I think that all people in this country and around the world owe you a debt of gratitude for your writings and for your actions toward making the atmosphere and the environment safe for habitation, not only by human beings but for animals and nature itself.”46 Carson’s prepared statement cited examples of ongoing problems and recent findings. Specifically, she reinforced some of her claims regarding the concentration of chemicals by living organisms, noting that oysters concentrated zinc at a level about 170,000 times that in the surrounding water and that marine organisms also concentrated chemicals like DDT. Citing the previous testimony of Secretary of the Interior Stuart Udall, Carson reminded the committee that oysters exposed at levels of only 1 ppb of DDT for one week later contained 182,000 ppb in their tissues, with obvious implications for organisms that consume oysters, including human beings.47

  Lest any doubts remained regarding Carson’s recommendations, she enumerated them for the committee. First, all community, state, and federal spraying programs should be required by law to provide advance notice so that all interests could receive hearing prior to any spraying. Second, Carson stressed the need for further medical research and education, quoting the following statement from the PSAC report: “Physicians are generally unaware of the wide distribution of pesticides, their toxicity, and their possible effects on human health.”48 Third, emphasizing the stringent controls on the sale of drugs, Carson urged that the sale and use of pesticides should be restricted, possibly at the state level, to individuals capable of understanding the hazards and of following instructions. Fourth, again citing the PSAC report, and appropriate to the topic of the hearings, she urged that registration require interagency coordination with the participation of the Departments of Health, Education, and Welfare; Interior; and Agriculture. Fifth, citing the compounding of present problems by the “fantastic number of chemical compounds in use as pesticides,” she recommended limits on the number of pesticides in use with an ultimate goal of approval for use only when no existing chemical would do the job. Sixth and finally, Carson encouraged support for new methods of pest control that minimized or eliminated the use of chemical insecticides.49
/>
  Much of the questioning that followed Carson’s prepared statement attempted to clarify her position on the relative risk and benefit of chemical insecticides. Ribicoff, for example, raised this point in his first question: “For instance, isn’t it fair to say that you are not trying to stop the use of chemical poisons?” Carson acknowledged that this was a fair statement and she agreed that pesticides had produced benefits, but she reiterated that her concern was the serious side effects. Ribicoff elaborated upon his point: “And am I correct, then, that your primary objective is against the indiscriminate use of pesticides and use where they are not necessary, and their excessive use even where they are necessary?”50 Again, Carson agreed. Others asked for clarification of the major claims of Silent Spring, but the most prominent theme was that Carson did not advocate for elimination of chemical insecticides but instead recommended judicious use.