Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

that there aren't any such things, as safe chemicals, in which case the consequences for our whole technology associated with agriculture is going to have to be revamped considerably.

We won't go back to the man with the hoe, but we may have to go back to large mechanical devices that ride between the rows and kill weeds without chemicals, by the use of either mechanical cultivation of weeds, or little jets of flame, as we used to do a few years ago, before massive chemical intrusion into agriculture became the rule.

I would say that there is another moral here: There is another chemical named as dangerous in the bionetics report. This is pentachloronitrobenzene, which is used as a soil fumigant to kill insects and fungi. It turns out to be about as bad as 2,4,5-T. Now, in the DuBridge announcement nothing was said about pentachloronitrobenezene, and I asume this was true because it is not used in any way in Vietnam. It is purely a domestic issue, and is considered to be less pressing because of that, I would assume that something will ultimately have to be said about it, since it does constitute, a clear and present danger to the public health, being used in massive quantities as it is. So I see this report as being dynamite in its implications for the future. Again, I would say that I think that we ought to start taking a systematic and close look at all of the chemicals which, in the last two decades especially, have found their way into our agriculture, into our foods and into our drugs.

RESEARCH TEAMS TO VIETNAM

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Let me ask another question. It is my understanding that a research team recently has been sent to Vietnam to study the effects of defoliants there. Can you enlighten the subcommittee on the scope and purpose of this study? Are you familiar with it?

Mr. GALSTON. I am familiar with three teams which have made visits. About a year ago, in Science magazine, there was published a report by Mr. Fred H. Tschirley, who is Assistant Chief for the Crops Protection Branch of the Agricultural Research Service of the USDA.

I. THE TSCHIRLEY MISSION FINDINGS IN VIETNAM

Tschirley went over at the behest of the State Department to survey the damage being done to the Vietnamese ecology, largely, I think, in response to some questions which were raised by the U.S. scientific community. Tschirley had exactly 30 days from door to door, to go to Vietnam, make his observations, write his report, and file it.

He was sent over in the midst of the dry season, when a lot of natural defoliation occurs, so he was under the worst possible conditions for making a good, systematic observation. I heard him give an oral report on his trip at the Dallas meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in December of 1968 at which he showed some pictures. He was forced to admit that he could make no ground observations that were worth anything because it just wasn't safe to walk around where ecological investigation was needed; there was not that degree of security. I would emphasize that no survey from the air is really going to tell the story of what has

happened to the ecology of Vietnam. We are going to have to have a ground team go in.

So that was the first survey. Tschirley did publish his statement, and much valuable information came out of that, including for the first time the admission that the mangrove associations were seriously affected by our spraying operations.

On the whole, the Tschirley report tended to gloss over very many of the ecological difficulties. I don't know whether that is because he was sent over by an official agency or whether he did not have the time to develop an insight into many of the questions raised.

II. THE PFEIFER-ORIANS MISSION

The second mission of which I am aware consisted of two men, Prof. E. W. Pfeiffer of the University of Montana, and Prof. Gordon Orians of the University of Washington, who went over as individuals, supported by a small organization called the Society for Social Responsibility in Science. A report of their trip has recently been made in Scientific Research, a magazine distributed by the McGraw-Hill Co.

They support a good deal of what Tschirley says, but they document further kinds of damage, including massive eoclogical damage, which he did not emphasize in his own report.

III. THE CAMBODIAN INVESTIGATION

The third mission that I know about was one of which Tschirley was a part, and Charles Minarik, the head of herbicide research at Fort Detrick was also a party, that recently went to Cambodia to adjudicate the claims for damage resulting from this massive spray accident that started out in Tay Ninh Province. I have a copy of that report, too, which does acknowledge massive damage to a wide variety of plants, including many important crop plants.

Those are the three trips that I know about. The American Association for the Advancement of Sciences has said that it would like to send an investigating team over when hostilities cease, so that an adequate ecological survey can be made. It is my understanding that Prof. James Cantlon of Michigan State University, a very well known plant ecologist, is going to be part of that team, or the head of it.

I would think that we can't do anything really worth being called a scientific study until ground operations have diminished to such a point where we can get in and take a look.

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ADJOURNS

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Well, gentlemen, this has been most enlightening, and at the same time most frightening, testimony we have received. I want to, on behalf of the subcommittee, thank you for your statements, your testimony, and the direct answers you have given to our questions. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

The subcommittee will meet next at 10 a.m. on December 9 in this room, when the witnesses will be Representative Robert Kastenmeier of Wisconsin and representatives of several organizations, including the Women Strike for Peace, and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.

The subcommittee stands adjourned until December 9.

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, December 9, 1969.)

CHEMICAL-BIOLOGICAL WARFARE: U.S. POLICIES AND INTERNATIONAL EFFECTS

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1969

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY

AND SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS.

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m. in room 2255, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Clement J. Zablocki (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. The subcommittee will please come to order.

This morning the Subcommittee on National Security Policy and Scientific Developments, continues its hearings on international aspects of the U.S. chemical and biological warfare policies.

Our first witness this morning will be my friend and colleague from Wisconsin, the Honorable Robert W. Kastenmeier.

Bob Kastenmeier has been widely recognized for his studies and statements on chemical-biological warfare. He was the first Member of Congress to take up the issue, over 10 years ago; is that right, Bob? Mr. KASTENMEIER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. That was in the late 1950's, when there was little interest in the country on such questions as the ratification of the 1925 Geneva Protocol, or U.S. policies on the use of certain kinds of gases.

Today, when there is nationwide concern about U.S. policies on CBW and when the President has taken significant actions toward the control of CBW weapons, Congressman Kastenmeier deserves a significant share of the credit.

Bob, the subcommittee is pleased to hear your testimony on CBW, a subject in which you have so long been interested.

You may begin.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you for the most gracious welcome. This is my first opportunity to appear before you in the years I have been in Congress, notwithstanding the fact you have been a very close (135)

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »