maintain the purchasing power. About $10 million was paid to the cranberry people, whose markets were destroyed and funds were paid to the capon producers, who had a similar experience.

Having that example behind us, certainly there is every reason in the world for the President, as the head of the executive branch to see that there is some headknocking, if it takes it, and I don't have reference to you or to anybody in the other departments. The two must be brought together so that we have a common purpose.

Now, could you give me any rough estimate as to what the national investment might be in the production of chemicals for use in handling-in dealing with pests, and crops, and all that? Could you get together any rough estimate as to what the total capital investment might be in the chemical industry as it applies to agriculture? Dr. CLARKSON. A half-billion dollars comes to my mind.

Dr. SHAW. I think that is the products sold.

Mr. WHITTEN. For products sold, about a half-billion dollars a year. Then behind that, you have whatever it takes.

Now, if tomorrow morning, the Food and Drug Administration should come up with a new test and come out with a new broadcast, that whole industry could be jeopardized, couldn't it? I am not say ing they would maliciously or capriciously, but if a story was carried to the American public tomorrow, frightening them about all of this, it could have a disastrous effect. Then if it reached the point where the pressure was on you to stop the use of pesticides, then the supply of food and fiber would be in danger, would it not?

Dr. SHAW. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITTEN. Now, haven't you had experiences where you have had to take things off the market, where you didn't feel there was any real reason?

Dr. SHAW. Yes, sir; there are two things in terms of Food and Drug actions. One of them is by law, they have to prohibit the use of any chemical that is classified as a carcinogen. If there is any residue of that appearing on the food, they have no way of getting around this. If they find by any chemical method that there is some trace of this substance on the food, they have no choice except to outlaw it.

In the other case, where we are not dealing with that kind of chemical, the problem arises where something that has been registered on the basis of "no residue" at the time of such registration, it was certainly considered there would be no health hazard to anybodyand subsequently a better chemical method is developed and without any showing that there is any health hazard, they direct it to be

taken off the market.

This is the area where there is some administrative flexibility in the judgments you exercise, and this is where the three agencies working together can do something about it in my opinion.

There have been various suggestions offered from time to time. One of them is this: At the time of registration of a chemical as a no residue, you would state, in that publication of the Federal Register, the method by which it was determined there was no residue; then as long as you could find none by that method, it would be considered there was none, despite the future developments of better tests.

This, it seems to me, would be a step in the right direction, but this is one we will have to resolve.

TOBACCO REPORT

Mr. WHITTEN. Dr. Shaw, the other matter that is of prime concern to many areas of the United States, as well as industry and Government, from the standpoint of taxes collected, is this situation having to do with tobacco. I think the press has been so filled with statements of those who have done the research and with the pros and cons, that there is no need of me belaboring the issue here.

But certainly, vast regions of this country are at present dependent upon the production of tobacco as their means of livelihood. Many, many thousands of people are dependent upon the tobacco industry for employment and the investments are tremendous in factories and all of that.

The tax stake is unbelievably high. If this industry were to be ended, whatever the reason, by public fear or by Government action, it would require an adjustment in the lives of millions of people and an adjustment in the economies of many areas.

I am not as familiar with this as my colleague from Kentucky, Mr. Natcher, who has lived with the tobacco industry. May I say here for the record that Mr. Cooley, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, has conferred with us several times. I think Mr. Natcher has some correspondence and some statements in connection with that, and rather than developing this subject myself, I would defer to my colleague, Mr. Natcher, from Kentucky, which is one of the major tobacco States.

Mr. Natcher.

Mr. NATCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Shaw, at the time the Secretary appeared before our committee, we discussed with him the question of an expanded program for tobacco research. We pointed out to Secretary Freeman the importance of such a program at this time.

As you well know, tobacco is a $8 billion industry. The growers receive approximately $1,400 million a year, and this commodity pays into the Federal, State and local treasuries, and communities, a little over $3 billion a year in taxes. I think Dr. Shaw, it is now up to about $3,300 million. This industry affects 700,000 farm families and approximately 100,000 factory workers. As you well know, Dr. Shaw, tobacco is produced in 21 States and it pays to the American farmer, the fifth largest amount of money that is received from all agricultural commodities.

In my home State of Kentucky, we are very much concerned about the situation today insofar as tobacco is concerned. When tobacco is in trouble, Kentucky is in trouble and this applies to North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, and the other States that produce this particular agricultural commodity. For instance, in my home State, Dr. Shaw, 46 percent of all of the income from agricultural commodities comes from tobacco. That gives you some idea as to just what it means to the farmer in Kentucky.

Several weeks ago Dr. Terry appeared before the Subcommittee on Tobacco of the Committee on Agriculture in the House of Representatives.

Dr. Terry, the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, made a statement in appearing before the subcommittee and this statement was

incorporated in its entirety in the record at the time the Secretary appeared.

There is one part of the statement that I would like to read so that you can better understand a little bit about what Dr. Terry said at the time he appeared before the subcommittee. And I quote:

I still feel, nonetheless, that I can wholeheartedly support additional research of the types which the resolution would authorize and direct. It is well known that strains of tobacco differ quite widely in various constituents. It is well known that the levels of some of these constituents influence the amount of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances in tobacco smoke.

I would give a great deal to know whether the types of tobacco used for pipes and cigars have anything to do with the lesser hazards associated with these modes of tobacco use. If tobacco behaves as other vegetables, I am sure that the amount of some of its constituents will vary with the conditions of culture, soil, climate, fertilizer, and other agricultural practices.

NEED FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH

Now, at the time Dr. Terry appeared, he was questioned by Mr. Cooley, the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, and by other members of the Subcommittee on Tobacco as to whether or not he joined with those on that subcommittee and on the full Committee on Agriculture and the Members in Congress generally from tobaccoproducing States in the belief that additional research is now necessary for tobacco.

He unequivocably said in his opinion it was. He said

I am not a farmer; I am not an agriculturist, but knowing this subject as I do, I join with you, Mr. Chairman, in your resolution and in the resolutions that have been presented concerning additional research for tobacco.

Now, the people in my home State of Kentucky, Dr. Shaw, sincerely believe that if tobacco is harmful to the health of the people in this country, something should be done about it. That is the way my people feel and I feel sure that is the way the people throughout the tobacco-producing sections feel about this particular matter.

Now, as far as an expanded program in tobacco research is concerned, I believe that we must immediately expand the program of research into plant breeding, culture, production, and handling of tobacco, and we must include studies of the factors which may be detrimental to health and ascertain as soon as possible those quality factors and other characteristics which will preserve the desirability of tobacco and eliminate any factors which might be detrimental to health.

Now, Dr. Shaw, I know that all down through the years, we have had a research program in tobacco. This program, as you well know, is right well scattered as far as the United States itself is concerned and in a number of the States that produce tobacco.

We need a program today to find out just what we can, in regard to tobacco and the health of our people generally. I know that in this research program that we have carried on down through the years, we have had some in utilization, some in marketing, some in production, but I think generally, as Dr. Brady pointed out in his statement to the Subcommittee on Tobacco at the time he appeared before the Committee on Agriculture, that our research program in tobacco generally has been in the cultivation, production, and marketing of tobacco.

I think that is where we are up to this time.

Now, Dr. Shaw, I am just wondering if you agree with me that we have to start at this point and continue on into an expanded program at this time. How do you feel generally about this matter, Dr. Shaw? Dr. SHAW. I feel very much as you do, Mr. Natcher.

As you have indicated, our tobacco program over the years has been aimed at producing a quality product for the consumers. Health hazards have now been indicated from use of tobacco in the recent report. We have not been considering it in development of quality but we must now.

As you know, we have been doing some work for some few years at our Philadelphia Utilization Research Laboratory on trying to identify the various constituents in tobacco.

Mr. NATCHER. Dr. Shaw, if you will pardon me at this point, as I understand that program, we have been appropriating about $15,000 for the part of the work that takes place at Philadelphia. Is that in this particular program or is that for utilization alone?

Dr. IRVING. Utilization has $276,000 base funds.

Mr. NATCHER. In Philadelphia?

Dr. IRVING. In Philadelphia.

Mr. NATCHER. How much have we been appropriating to carry on research generally in Philadelphia?

Dr. SHAW. That is the whole thing for tobacco.

Mr. NATCHER. Now, as to constituents and components of tobacco, what proportion of the overall amount is being used for that type of research? This is where you get your $15,000, isn't it?

Dr. IRVING. That is the figure, Mr. Natcher, $276,000 for the identification of constituents of tobacco.

Mr. NATCHER. All right. Go right ahead, Dr. Shaw.

Dr. SHAW. We have got some good groundwork laid in terms of the constituents that are in tobacco, but we do not know even now that the report has been issued, which constituents are responsible for carcinogens in the smoke.

So that gap has got to be bridged. But as you will recall in the report, the ones that have been identified account only for a small part of the health hazards in tobacco, so there is still a lot in the smoke that is unknown.

We do feel that it is very important then that we in Agriculture do everything in our power to identify and remove the substances that are hazardous.

Now, when we find out what the problems are, we do have opportunities through breeding of tobacco to change the characteristics of the tobacco. For example, we can produce tobacco with no nicotine in it, or various percentages of nicotine, and we have the same opportunities with the tars and so on.

So that I believe it is very important that we expand our work on tobacco research. This will involve all of the things that we do in growing the tobacco; it will certainly involve all of the things we do

in processing of the tobacco; and aging and all other things. It will involve the characteristics of the burning process. It may be the temperature at which that cigarette has burned has a considerable effect on what that end product will be in the smoke.

So there is a whole host of problems and they are all very complex, but I think there is good opportunity that research can ameliorate the problem but it is going to take intensive work and I couldn't predict how soon the answer would come.

Mr. NATCHER. Not only intensive work but take additional funds, isn't that right?

Dr. SHAW. Yes, sir.

Mr. NATCHER. Would you agree with me, Dr. Shaw, that an expanded program in research could be justified at this time?

Dr. SHAW. Yes, sir; I think very definitely that an expanded program can be justified.

RESEARCH DONE BY TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Mr. NATCHER. Dr. Shaw, as I stated a few minutes ago, and as you well know, our program in tobacco research has been right well scattered over the United States. It has involved a little over a million dollars a year as far as tobacco research is concerned. Several days ago you remember reading in the paper where the tobacco companies agreed to make a contribution to the American Medical Association of $10 million to be paid at the rate of $2 million a year over a 5-year period.

I hope that some results are produced and brought about as a result of this $10 million, but I have my doubts seriously whether any will be forthcoming. And I say that to you frankly and I don't expect any comment from any of you gentlemen about that matter.

CURRENT TOBACCO RESEARCH

Dr. Shaw, as we proceed through research and with the different sections involved under your section of the budget, I will, of course, discuss matters with you pertaining to the research in tobacco as we go along. I would appreciate it, Dr. Shaw, if you would place a statement in the record at this point showing the type of research that we have had in tobacco up to this time. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like for that to be inserted in the record at this point, just showing the type we have conducted up to this time. Dr. SHAW. I will be very glad to, Mr. Natcher.

(The statement requested follows:)

The following table indicates the type of tobacco research which has been underway in the Department in the past, as well as the amounts available for this research for fiscal year 1964 and the estimated amounts for 1965.