GOVERNMENT
Science Policy Issues Pervade Debate on 1985 Farm Bill mous exports never materialized. vide public services to rural America The agony stretching across the would be eroded." This fate, then, Farm Belt has been dramatized re- would be a major fallout from techpeatedly in hearings, articles, tele- nical successes that have come to vision documentaries, and movies. farming. The question now is whether this "Policy makers must consider sevyear's farm bill can bring balance eral questions as they debate the back to agriculture by the intelligent 1985 Farm Bill," says an Office of application of science and tech- Technology Assessment report isnology. sued earlier this year. "Who will Every five years Congress engages The Reagan Administration's 1985 adopt these technologies and benein a lengthy debate over the renew- bill proposes to end by 1990 all sup- fit the most from them—the modal of the Agriculture & Food Act, port programs and to let the market erate farms, large farms, or very better known as the Farm Bill. This determine who survives and who large farms? What set of farm poliyear the bill again is up for renew- doesn't. The Council of Agricultur- cies in conjunction with technoloal, and markup in both Houses of al Science & Technology, a national gy advance will benefit each size of Congress is in full swing. With a organization based in Ames, Iowa, farm the most? What combination dozen major versions under debate, concedes that the Administration's of emerging technologies and farm the lobbying is ferocious in an eco- plans doom the family farm in fa- policies encourages each size of farm nomic sector with assets totaling $1 vor of large-scale operations. to grow or remain at its present trillion, employing 23 million peosize? How important is technology "The lower net farm income and ple, and accounting for 20% of the reduced asset values that would re- compared to farm policy in detergross national product. sult from the Administration's pro- mining farm growth? What is the The Farm Bill is basically a volu- posed program," it says in a recent likelihood of a new entrant in agriminous piece of authorization leg- analysis, "would put pressure on culture remaining solvent?" The 1977 bill was the first in modislation that puts together policies the agricultural sector's ability to for individual commodities such as adapt to the required change. Eco- ern times to integrate farm policy cotton, wheat, corn, and milk. It nomic activity in rural communi- with science and technology. After also sets much of the economic tone ties would be reduced, and the abil- lengthy hearings on agricultural refor agriculture in that it establishes ities of these communities to pro- search and development, Congress income and price levels (programs now totaling $18.9 billion), acreage reduction schemes, conservation Farm Bill includes many technology-related provisions programs, and several foreign and • Focus on biotechnology research • $ 6 0 0 million for agricultural domestic food assistance programs. inhouse and through competitive grants research. The Farm Bill is an important sciprogram, including coordination of bio• $270 million for cooperative reence and public policy document technology regulation across federal search in land-grant universities. because of the vast interconnections agencies. • $350 million for Cooperative Exbetween technology and every eco• Technological research into intension educational programs. nomic and social area of agriculcreasing efficiency and lowering input • High priority for research on techture. Nowhere else do science and costs for small and medium-sized farms. nology impact on farm economics, technology policy issues touch grass• Research and multidisciplinary orcommunity life. roots values more intimately. ganic farming research projects. • Increased focus on such internaAnd partly because of innovation, • Expanded soil and water consertional issues as germ plasm collection grass-roots America is undergoing vation research. and preservation and development of great pain these days. Since 1980, • $25 million for research facilities international R&D institutions. thousands of moderate-sized farms in land-grant universities with less red • More research into industrial uses have gone bankrupt. The dreams of tape in securing funds. of agricultural commodities. the 1970s that U.S. agriculture would prosper in the 1980s through enor-
Up for renewal this year, the Farm Bill demonstrates vast interconnections between technology and economic and social areas of agriculture
20
June 24, 1985 C&EN
established two technical advisory bodies—the Joint Council on Agricultural Science & Technology and the Research & Extension Advisory Board. Both have been busy with studies recommending program reforms in light of changing technology. In the late 1970s, Rep. George Brown Jr. (D.-Calif.) conducted a series of hearings on long-range research needs in agriculture, and many of the ideas found their way into the 1981 bill, such as mandating the Agricultural Research Service to develop five-year plans for its programs. The key thrust of the 1985 bill is to reform the Extension Service, an effort that in its ambition "would make the National Science Foundation's technology transfer efforts look slim by comparison," says one Capitol Hill source. Michael Phillips, a project head of the Office of Technology Assessment's food and renewable resource program, says that decisions made on this year's bill have enormous future implications. He is directing OTA's ambitious study on the changing structure of agriculture. "I just returned from a meeting in Texas of the Southwest Dairy Marketing Association," says Phillips. "We were discussing the emerging technologies that would soon be affecting the dairy industry, such as bovine growth hormone. . . . I was amazed at how little these people knew what was about to be sprung on the dairy industry. And it troubled me that so little was being done by the Extension Service, experiment stations, and industry itself to educate them." OTA's report said the Extension Service lacks personnel who understand how changes in animal and plant biotechnology are affecting the farming system. The service's defects are so glaring that the Agricultural Research Service is setting up its own technology transfer program, something the Cooperative Extension Service was established to do more than 100 years ago. As it turns out, the Department of Agriculture is currently in the midst of figuring what shape and direction its Extension Service should be taking in this era when high tech is the vogue but family farms
are failing. The public picture of extension remains that of the county agent who goes out to a farm and discusses new fertilizer or farm chemical products and ways of ap- The much ballyhooed and just inplying them, or of the home econo- troduced Toxic Release Control Act mist who is always available for tips of 1985 (C&EN, May 27, page 6) on canning garden vegetables. For may have already hit a fatal snag in many agricultural critics that is no its course toward passage. Rep. longer enough. The Extension Ser- John D. Dingell (D.-Mich.), chairvice, says one USDA official "is a man of the Committee on Energy & Commerce—the House committee grass-roots monster." Some analysts say that extension through which the bill must pass— should now focus on bringing in- thinks it has serious shortcomings. A hearing by the Subcommittee novative ideas to the moderate-sized farmers who are most in trouble on Health & the Environment, because agribusiness can pretty chaired by one of the bill's primary much take care of its own informa- sponsors, Henry A. Waxman (D.tion needs. USDA's Agricultural Re- Calif.), featured Dingell's testimosearch and Extension Users Adviso- ny as well as remarks of Environry Board recommended in 1982 that mental Protection Agency AdminExtension end many functions and istrator Lee M. Thomas, several state air pollution control officials, and focus more on such farmers. And a Congressional Research the environmental group National Service report said this year that Clean Air Coalition. State pollution control spokesmen Extension could fall into that role by default. "The 100,000 largest praised the bill because it gives them farms that produce half of total farm the federal assistance and guidance output have access to information they feel is necessary to solve probsources beyond the county agent" lems or potential problems that exit said. "Many of the emerging ist in their regions. The spokesman biotechnologies and communica- for the air coalition, David D. tion/information technologies will Doniger of the Natural Resources be applicable mostly to large, inte- Defense Council, says the law would grated farming operations. Yet 80% force EPA to take action against poiof all farms can generally be de- sons that it has ignored for years. scribed as small, part time, retireThomas stopped just short of callment, or hobby farms. Extension can ing most of the bill ludicrous. In provide alternatives to the "bigger addition to the chemical plants at is better" syndrome and help stabi- which the bill is aimed (on the balize the farm sector by teaching fi- sis of a hasty survey performed by nancial management and cost re- Waxman's subcommittee), Thomas duction techniques to small and says it would require EPA to regumedium-sized farms." late 200,000 gasoline stations, 165,000 Amendments to the current bill industrial boilers, 15,000 dry cleancontain a formidable tech transfer ers, about 175,000 commercial pesprovision that requires a top to bot- ticide applicators, and all diesel entom assessment of how well tech gine production. During questiontransfer, or extension, has worked. ing, Thomas said it would require a It calls for a series of five-year plan- whole new EPA to carry out the ning documents, just as there are in bill's provisions if it were enacted research, a list of priorities, and a in its present form. Dingell was no more encouragreport on extension accomplishing, openly doubting the need for ments. OTA's Phillips thinks that unless new legislation to replace parts of Congress really takes seriously the the Clean Air Act, presently being need to bring new knowledge, plus amended. He says he finds much of economic assistance, to family farms, its approach to the problem unwise they will indeed die. And he thinks and the costs staggering. Dingell's the drama will be most vivid in the disagreement with the bill may prevent it from ever getting even to dairy field. D Wil Lepkowski, Washington the House floor.
Toxic-airbill hits snag
June 24, 1985 C&EN
21
Government
Toxic chemical levels higher indoors than out To the surprise of Environmental Protection Agency scientists, a fiveyear study has revealed that people are exposed to far greater concentrations of common toxic organic chemicals indoors than they are outdoors, even in cities where plants manufacture or use these chemicals. This finding, which has been confirmed by European studies, has vast implications for the way toxic pollutants are measured and regulated. The study found that air is the main exposure route for the most commonly found 11 volatile organic chemicals. But contrary to general belief, people living in areas teeming with petrochemical, paint, or plastics processing plants are not subjected to greater exposures than are people living in less industrialized, or even rural, areas. The scientists reached this conclusion after studying 355 people in the highly industrialized cities of Bayonne
and Elizabeth, N.J., 25 people in the lightly industrialized city of Greensboro, N.C., and another 25 in rural Devils Lake, N.D. Using personal and stationary outdoor air monitors, the investigators found median indoor levels to be two to five times greater than median outdoor levels for the 11 volatile organic chemicals. At the highest exposures, indoor levels exceeded outdoor levels up to 70 times. Precise indoor sources of these pollutants are not known. The scientists, however, suspect building materials and consumer products. The study's principal investigator Lance A. Wallace, a physicist in EPA's Office of Research & Development, says he "doesn't know whether the levels detected indoors cause cancer." However, he adds, one of the 11 chemicals, benzene, is a known human carcinogen, and five others are suspected cancer-
causing agents. He suspects that the 11 may be contributing to the "sickbuilding syndrome" phenomenon. As buildings have become more airtight, complaints of sleepiness and general malaise have increased. Wallace says that the National Aeronautics & Space Administration is an untapped repository for information on the contribution of materials to indoor air pollution. The agency has tested 10,000 materials used in the shuttle for their "offgassing" characteristics. Because astronauts were experiencing the sickbuilding syndrome, NASA needed to know which materials were releasing volatile organic chemicals. Xylene, a toxic chemical at high concentrations and one of the 11 most often measured chemicals indoors, was detected by NASA in nearly 800 of the 10,000 materials tested. NASA found that marking pens released the highest levels of xylene, Wallace says. In the EPA study, another of the
Our 24th annual chromatography catalog is packed with application know-how. Our 1985 Analabs Chromatography Catalog is virtually the only source you'll ever need to precisely find the right GC, LC, and/or TLC accessories and chemical standards. You'll probably find yourself and your staff using it more than ever because we've expanded our capillary and packed column sections to help you keep pace with the latest in separation technologies. And, you'll find many new and exclusive environmental standards. If our new catalog doesn't have everything you need—don't be afraid to ask. Our 24 years of serving the industry means we understand the chromatographer's needs. So don't think of us as just a supply house—we're in business to help the practicing chromatographer. For fast service send in the coupon and we'll send you the source. The Foxboro Company, 80 Republic Drive, North Haven, CT 06473, (203) 288-8463.
I'll take one! Send my copy of the Analabs Chromatography Catalog to: Name_ Title Company, Address City
_State_
-Zip-
The Foxboro Company. 80 Republic Dr., No. Haven. CT 06473
WXBORO CIRCLE 41 ON READER SERVICE CARD 22
June 24, 1985 C&EN
ΗΝΟ,+SNPE C,H 2 5 iB
NH,
NH NH
H+SNPE = CH,
CoCI+SNPE =
CH r C-C
ι
CH,
0
'
CI
Acid Chlorides, Chloroformâtes, Carbonates, Nitrated Compounds, Hydrogenated Compounds. SPECIFIC SKILLS
AN INTERNATIONAL PARTNER
SNPE is widely known for its expertness in the synthesis of chemical derivatives made by nitration and phosgenation reactions. Today, a staff of 800 people in 3 plants and 1 research center are involved in the production of more than fifty organic intermediates and active materials. Devoting 8 % of its resources to development and research SNPE also co-operates with its customers in: • joint development of new products · special custom synthesis · technology transfer.
SNPE's Chemical division exports 2/3 of its production to 60 countries, backed up by the logistics of an independent group employing 7,000 people. If you would like to know more about SNPE, please mail coupon to: SNPE - Département CHIMIE -12, quai Henri IV 75181 PARIS CEDEX 04 FRANCE - Tél. : (1) 277.15.70 - Télex : 220 380 F.
CEN-85
Name: Functions Company:, Address:
mmm L
CIRCLE 23 ON READER SERVICE CARD
June 24, 1985 C&EN
23
Government
Many toxic chemicals are prevalent indoors 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, solvent Tetrachloroethylene, solvent Benzene, paint, tobacco, gasoline o-Xylene, paint, gasoline m,p-Xylene, paint, gasoline Ethylbenzene, paint, gasoline Carbon tetrachloride, solvent Trichloroethylene, solvent Chloroform, tap water Styrene, insulation, plastics p-Dichlorobenzene, moth crystals, deodorants
11 chemicals, benzene, was found to be 30 to 50% higher in the air of homes of smokers than in the homes of nonsmokers. Using a breath analysis technique developed for this study, smokers' breath was found to contain twice the concentration of benzene than did the breath of nonsmokers.
Wallace says one of the most significant findings of the EPA study is that "breath values are reflective of personal exposure" to toxic volatile organic chemicals. The test is simple, sensitive, noninvasive, but expensive—about $500 per sample. It would be most useful in monitoring the exposure of people to a chemical spill or release, especially when air monitors could not be used in a timely fashion. The findings of the EPA study, known as the TEAM (total exposure assessment monitoring) study, have been replicated by European scientists using different methodology. Phillip J. Walsh, an environmental health scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, reviewed the TEAM study protocols. He says TEAM "is a competent study, conducted by a competent team, so the results are probably valid results." A special review panel of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) was even more positive.
After reviewing the TEAM study, the SAB panel wrote: "This series of studies, more than any other, provides compelling evidence of the necessity of evaluating total human exposure and of not basing exposure estimates on pollutant concentrations measured only by fixed-station monitors." At present, under the Clean Air Act and other relevant laws, epidemiological studies are designed, and regulations are set based on measurements from fixed-station monitors. EPA staff director for SAB Terry F. Yosie says that Wallace and his TEAM collaborators "identified specific microenvironments and correlated human activity patterns with pollutant exposures." Since people spend up to 95% of their time indoors, and indoor air contains higher levels of 11 toxic chemicals than outdoor air, scientists are beginning to think that legislation ought to be drafted to reflect these realities. Lois Ember, Washington
Tax Deferred Retirement Annuity and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA's) INSURANCE X PLANS /
7.55%
The ACS Board of Trustees, Group Insurance Plans for ACS Members, announces a new guaranteed rate, compounded daily, equivalent to an effective annual rate of 7.55%. This rate will be applied to all contributions made from July 1-31,1985, and is guaranteed for a full three years. The minimum contribution requirement is $100.
Please mail this coupon for more information and enrollment forms. Or telephone 1-800-243-4896 (in Connecticut 1-467-2887) Professional Pensions, Inc. 444 Foxon Road East Haven, Connecticut 06513 (underwritten by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company)
Name Street City State
Zip
Telephone 85076 CIRCLE 29 ON READER SERVICE CARD 24
June 24, 1985 C&EN
