OSHA received a mandate from Congress to undertake a comprehensive farranging program. This mandate had to be carried out concurrently with the recruitment and training of staff. The availability of resources and the expressed intent of the Act dictated initial emphasis on consensus standards. OSHA has promulgated such consensus standards for agriculture as were available, and has Advisory Committee meetings under way with respect to the establishment of permanent standards under Section 6(b) of the Act. We do not see how OSHA could be expected to have done more or moved faster. Petitioners are more critical than the circumstances warrant.

Our reason for testifying is to avoid a situation in which OSHA is goaded into premature, hasty action.

The question at issue is-is this an emergency situation warranting the implementation of the emergency standard provisions of Section 6(c) of the Act? The most significant and comprehensive study of farm accidents yet made is that made by the Land Grant Colleges of eight states, in cooperation with the National Safety Council. A common procedure was used so that comparable results could be put together. The eight states are Ohio, Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Indiana. Fourteen percent of the hired farm workers of the nation are employed in these eight states. They are typical farm labor employing states.

A summary of the eight state survey was published by the National Safety Council this summer. A copy of this report is attached. Let me quote a couple of excerpts from the report:

"About 90 percent of injuries reported occurred to family members, while only five percent involved hired help. Visitors, salesmen, etc. accounted for the remaining injuries." (at page 10)

"On-the-job accidents accounted for nearly two-thirds of the injuries. Approximately 86 percent of these injuries were incurred by family members, 10 percent by hired help and the remainder by visitors and others doing on-the-job work." (at page 11)

The data set forth in the report indicate the major causes of farm accidents. It will be noted that pesticides are not listed at all as a cause of injury. We contacted the National Safety Conference to determine the reason for the omission of pesticide injuries. We are advised that the reason is that the sample taken does not include a sufficient number of accidents involving the use of chemicals to warrant projection on an eight state basis. Although reports for 16,780 farms and 70,000 people were obtained, injuries involving chemicals occurred to only five family members and four hired workers.

Thus, even if it is assumed that chemical injuries are under-reported, this factual survey-the most thorough and comprehensive survey ever made of farm accidents-indicates that chemicals are not a major cause of farm accidents. Thus, no basis of fact exists to support petitioners recommendation for a Section 6(c) action.

It appears to us that this eight-state area is typical of the nation. It can, however, be argued that California is different, in that the quantities of pesticides used in California are larger than in other states due to the large acreages of fruits and vegetables in California. It is noted that the petition referred to is based primarily on alleged incidents in California. It is then signficant to note that California has the most rigorous and thorough system of regulating the use of pesticides of any state in the nation. California statutes provide for licensing air and ground applicators whose licenses can be revoked if they fail to comply with established standards. Many restricted materials can be applied by farmers or applicators only if they first obtain for each application a permit from the County Agricultural Commissioner. The regulations relating to use of the more toxic materials specify the number of days after application before workers may be permitted to enter treated areas. All farm workers are required to be covered by workmen's compensation insurance. Reports must be filed by physicians and by employer with respect to each injury. In addition, Section 2950 of Chapter 9 of the California Health and Safety Code requires physicians to report promptly any case of pesticide poisoning to the local health officer, and requires such local health officer to investigate each such instance and report the factual situation to the State Public Health Service and the State Agriculture Department.

An excerpt from page 11 of the 1970 report of the California Public Health and Agriculture Departmental Report relating to pesticide injuries is as follows:

...

"There were no occupational deaths in 1970, only the fourth year in the last two decades free of such deaths. . . . During 1970, agricultural chemicals were implicated in the deaths of 26 Californians. One accidental fatality concerned a one-year-old child who ingested Trithium while playing with a jar used in mixing spray. Non-occupational exposure caused three accidental deaths among adults; 22 adult deaths were officially ruled to be suicides."

Thus, we have a comprehensive, on-going program administered by competent people in the State Department of Agriculture and by County Agricultural Commissioners. A comprehensive accident reporting system is included.

To suppose that this comprehensive existing program-the product of years of growth, development, experience, and research-can be helped by piling on top another regulatory measure by a different agency-one that has no special expertise in this area, an agency which has a shortage of competent people to develop, deliver, administer, and enforce a program-is just not realistic.

On the contrary, the results of such duplicatory action would be confusing, disrupting, and annoying to all concerned.

Any measure of petitioners' recommendation needs to be gauged in the light of the fact that the regulation of the use of pesticides is in a state of flux. It has been less than two years since new authority was enacted for a new agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, to which agency the responsibility for regulatory action in this area was transferred. Although a great deal is known about pesticide use, any study of the subject discloses great gaps in the availability of adequate research data. It also should be noted that the 92nd Congress has enacted a pesticide bill comprehensively modifying previous statutory provisions relating to pesticides. Until Congressional action was completed and the exact scope and perimeter of EPA authority established, it was not possible for OSHA intelligently to determine the role that OSHA should play and the dovetailing of this role with that of EPA.

Thus, we conclude that not only is there no basis for a Section 6(c) procedure, but, further, that any promulgation of an emergency standard is undesirable. It must in fact be recognized that an intelligent development of permanent standards will necessitate making haste slowly and carefully. Although this may be considered unfortunate it is the road to maximum effectiveness in accomplishing the Act's purposes.

I would like to call attention to an error by Secretary Guenther in his presentation to the Committee. He said "National Safety Council estimates for 1971 indicate that although agricultural employees make up only about 4.4 percent of the workforce, they appear to suffer some 16 percent of the occupational deaths and nine percent of the disabling injuries."

The number of agricultural employees indicated by Secretary Guenther is some 400-500 percent more than is actually the case. The National Safety Council report is correct but has been misinterpreted. The data referred to is applicable to "workers" in agriculture—a term that includes farm operators, members of the farm family and hired employees.

The average number of farm workers in 1971 as reported in Table A-16, page 129 of "Employment and Earnings", U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics was 3,008,000 persons consisting of 1,342,000 farmers, 466,000 family workers and 876,000 paid workers. Thus, the total number of agricultural employees is about one percent of the total labor force, not 4.4 percent as indicated in Secretary Guenther's testimony.

There is, however, some reason to suppose that the BLS data is very inaccurate. We prefer the statistical data of the Department of Agriculture, which estimates that during 1971, the total number of workers in agriculture was 4.446,000 of which 3,281,000 were farm family members and 1,175,000 farm employees. (A little more than one percent of the total labor force).

The above quoted statement is also in error when it asserts that injuries to agricultural employees represented 16 percent of occupational deaths and nine percent of disabling injuries. These figures include injuries to farmers, members of farm families and agricultural employees. Actually, about 86 percent of the work-related injuries on farms were sustained by the farm family and only ten percent by employed workers. Thus, these percentages too are very much in error and exaggerate the injuries of employed workers about 10 fold.

Thus the quotation from Secretary Guenther's testimony overestimated the number of agricultural employees 4 or 5 fold and the number of accidents to agricultural employees about 10 fold.

Unfortunately, such erroneous data are picked up and used by others to distort the character and scope of the problem.

The petition of Migrant Legal Action Program, Inc., and others, asserts that "Although the national agricultural work force accounted for only 4.5 percent of the national work force, it accounted for nearly ten percent of the disabling work injuries and 17 percent of the job-related fatalities." Petitioners do recognize that this data includes both employee and farm family injuries. Petitioners then seek to establish that a larger percentage of farm employees are injured than farm family members-an allegation clearly disproved by the above referred to eight-state survey of the National Safety Council.

We do not mean to minimize the farm safety problem. The very character of agricultural operations is inevitably hazardous. But since 86 percent of the injuries in agriculture are to farm family members, the applicability of the Occupational Safety and Health Act is limited. Any endeavor to deal with the problem must necessarily be basically educational in character.

Our primary conclusion with respect to the question at issue in this hearing is that petitioners' recommendation for an emergency pesticide standard has not been demonstrated to be authorized by Section 6(c) of the Act, and has not been demonstrated to be a measure which would achieve the objective of reducing farm accidents. Rather, such action would be based on inadequate information concerning the effectiveness and feasibility of proposed remedies.

Very sincerely,

Attachment.

86-911 0-72- -16

MATT TRIGGS, Assistant Legislative Director.