Page images
PDF
EPUB

Table 1

RECOMMENDATIONS OF 18 COMMITTEES ON FOOD AND
CORONARY HEART DISEASE

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

From: Turner, R. W. D. Perspectives in coronary prevention. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 54, 141-148 (1978).

VALIDITY OF HUMAN NUTRITION RESEARCH

Mr. TRAXLER. There has been some criticism of nutrition experiments of some years ago as not necessarily being based upon scientific criteria. Can you give me any assessment as to the validity of much of the completed research in this area? Are we finding that conclusions reached in earlier years were correct or incorrect? Dr. HEGSTED. Mr. Traxler, it is not possible to review the total evidence relating diet to the diseases which affect most Americans. There have obviously been both good and bad experiments and there are thousands of papers to be considered. There will probably never be a unanimous opinion-I doubt if any decisions are based upon unanimous opinion-and some of the kinds of data that we would all like to have can simply not be obtained. It is generally agreed, for example, that atheroscherosis is the underlying disease which makes us susceptible to heart attacks. This disease is generally silent but develops over a lifetime. Other chronic diseases may also represent a lifetime of unfavorable lifestyle including nutrition. We simply do not have the capacity to conduct an experiment over a 20-40 year period. Thus it will always be possible to claim that the experimental evidence is insufficient. But the data accumulated over a 30-year period cannot be ignored. We must rely upon the best judgment of experts as to the meaning of this evidence. As indicated in the response to the previous question we have no doubt that our recommendations are consistent with the best evidence and the best judgment in this field.

Mr. TRAXLER. Mr. Natcher?

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS

Mr. NATCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Bertrand, I want to talk with you and Dr. Kinney for just a few minutes about research generally.

How much do you have in this bill for agricultural research? What is the total amount?

Dr. KINNEY. For agricultural research it is $458,469,000. That is the fiscal year 1982 budget request.

TOBACCO RESEARCH

Mr. NATCHER. Now, as you gentlemen know, on page 9 of Dr. Kinney's statement, you mentioned the fact that certain reductions are being made.

These include tobacco production-related research-and I quote from your statement, . . in keeping with the Department's policy to concentrate its efforts in health and safety aspects of tobacco research. . . .'

You point out several other matters.

Dr. Kinney, as you and Dr. Bertrand know, in this bill you have a little over $5 million for research pertaining to tobacco. Tobacco pays into the Treasury of the Federal Government and to state and local treasuries about $7 billion a year.

It is produced in 16 states on 265,000 or 270,000 farms. In Kentucky, my home state, tobacco is produced in 118 of the 120 counties

Dr. Kinney, back in 1958-and I have been on this subcommittee for a number of years-we decided that we would build a laboratory in the State of Kentucky and not have the Federal Government build it. The State of Kentucky constructed the laboratory which is now being used for tobacco research.

I doubt that in the 50 states you can point out another state where the state, with its own funds, constructed a laboratory to be used along similar lines.

As you know down through the years, the Federal Government builds laboratories. The State of Kentucky built this laboratory. They put on the ballot an increase in taxes that now produces about $4 million a year for tobacco research in this facility.

In this bill we have had a small amount of crop production research in the last four or five years. As was pointed out a few moments ago, you know the total is about $5 million for all tobacco research.

Now you come in the 1982 fiscal year budget and say we make a slight reduction so far as tobacco research is concerned.

This $5 million is scattered around the United States. A little of it is in Kentucky. A little of it is in North Carolina. Some of it is in Maryland. Some of it is in Pennsylvania.

My contention, Dr. Kinney, has been all through the years that if tobacco is a serious matter concerning the health of our people then we ought to do something about it.

I am Chairman of another subcommittee. In that bill we have the money for the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education and for the Department of Labor.

HEALTH RELATED TOBACCO RESEARCH

We have $1.9 billion for the National Cancer Institute. We have $51.9 million for smoking and health. All through the years-and the members of this Committee will tell you this-while serving as Chairman of that subcommittee-I have never asked them to reduce it one penny.

When they come in and ask for an increase, I have recommended it. I have believed all down through the years if this is something that concerns the health of our people, we ought to do something about it.

That is the reason why in that bill I have never made a suggestion for a decrease.

Then I have come in here year after year and all we have asked for is $5 million-a small amount. Last year it was $1.4 million reduction. We had to put it back in the bill.

You gentlemen know this. We even had trouble getting you to spend it. First when the question came up, they asked the budget officer. "We complied with the wishes of the Committee. They put the money back. We are spending that money."

I checked it and found out that was not true, Dr. Kinney. For several years we have put this small amount back in here. It pertains not only to crop production research, but it pertains to tar and nicotine.

If it is something that affects the health of our people, we ought to do something about it. I asked the last Secretary, Mr. Bergland.

77-802 0-81-9

Dr. Kinney, regardless of what justification you use, Mr. Bergland responded a couple of years ago to me this way. I said: "Mr. Secretary, why do you do it?" He said: "You know, they are pointing the finger at tobacco." I said: "Certainly they are. That is why we are trying to do something about it."

On the Committee that I am Chairman of, we do not make a penny reduction. It runs into the billions, Dr. Kinney.

In this bill you again make a reduction of, I believe, $1.4 million-$1.2 million. You call it the Carter budget or you call it our new President's budget. Regardless of what you call it, gentlemen, you are making a mistake.

I say to you seriously that you are making a mistake.

I am going to ask the Committee to restore this money. It puts us in a position of increasing one item, cutting another one.

We started this program in 1958-$1.5 million. That is where we started it. I say to you, gentlemen-and I will say it again to you next year.

I have completed 27 years, Dr. Bertrand. I am going to stay here awhile if our people let me come back.

Let me say to you gentlemen that you do a fine job. The first subcommittee I served on was this one. You are making a mistake and it is a serious mistake.

You are doing a fine job in agriculture. You have done a good job all down through the years in agricultural research. I commend all of you. You are dedicated. You are experienced and well-qualified people.

We pay our way as we go. In the tobacco program since it started years ago, it has cost the Federal Government less than $150 million.

Check back sometime, Dr. Bertrand, and see what wheat has cost us. You would not believe it. Corn and the other agricultural commodities.

We have paid our way down through all the years. If this commodity is injurious to the health of our people, we want to do something about it.

We have been fair and honest in Kentucky about this matter. I am serious about it. I hope the Committee goes along and restores this small amount.

Dr. BERTRAND. Mr. Natcher, we understand and certainly appreciate your continued support of our research and education efforts. Mr. NATCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have been very good to me.

Mr. TRAXLER. You are always very brief, but more importantly, you leave this Committee in absolute awe over your oratorical skills. It is always delightful to hear you. Never was there a more eloquent speaker for his constituency.

Mr. MYERS. Or more persistent, I might add. [Laughter.]

Mr. TRAXLER. Is there any coincidence that the tobacco research funds began the year you came on the Committee?

Mr. NATCHER. Strictly coincidence, I think. [Laughter.]
Mr. TRAXLER. Mr. Myers?

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

Mr. MERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Bertrand, Dr. Kinney, and the rest of your colleagues here, I was sitting here thinking about the Department of Agriculture. It was formed both by the Executive Branch as well as Congress to serve American farmers to help them produce the food and fiber we need. We do not produce much fiber on farms anymore. I think it might be well to take fiber out. Most of the fibers that people are wearing today, I am sorry to say, are man-made fibers rather than farm-produced fibers.

Nevertheless, the Department of Agriculture was created to assist farmers in being able to supply our basic food needs for our country and now for export.

Through the years I have noticed that the Science and Education Administration in the Department of Agriculture has begun to serve some other master rather than basically helping the farmer. I think the problems the farmers now have include the need for germplasm and similar basic research in helping farmers to develop seeds and fertilizers and technique to produce more per acre. This is very necessary if we are to meet our bank payments and get enough production to offset the expenses of producing a crop.

There is also pest management and all the other problems that farmers have. Some of the basic problems are insects and other diseases as well as weeds. We talked about that briefly.

What are you doing now to help farmers to reduce the weed population? A couple of us were down in Latin America a couple of weeks ago. We saw the bean crop coming on.

Do they not drill beans? We have row crops almost every place in the United States because we had to get the weeds out of the beans. We just cannot produce enough beans to offset the weeds. The weeds grow faster than the beans.

They are able there somehow to drill very closely so they do not cultivate their soybeans. They do not have the weed population. They use chemicals to reduce that.

Do we have them available to us so we can do that? If so, I would like my farmers to know this.

Dr. BERTRAND. Mr. Myers, we have maintained our research program. In fact, we have increased our research program to meet the needs of the farmer.

The shifts that you are talking about in Science and Education that have occurred over the years are principally in the areas of human nutrition and in a few areas to meet the needs of the action agencies within the Department.

SUPPORT TO ACTION AGENCIES

Mr. MYERS. What is this support action requirement, $6,490,000? Dr. BERTRAND. Research to support APHIS.

Mr. MYERS. Action agency requirements is APHIS?

Dr. BERTRAND. That is one of them. That is one of the agencies we are referring to in that category of action agency; yes.

APHIS, FSQS-Food Safety and Quality-FNS, and SES all are included.

Mr. MYERS. Why do we need all these?

Dr. BERTRAND. We have the responsibility within the Department for doing the research they require. Mr. MYERS. They do not pay for it?

« PreviousContinue »