Vol. 16—1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

,.,
1'4
keep developmental work in progress to guide their extet\sion recommendations.
Obviously the benefits have not been one-sided, because;Lthe scientists in:the
experiment stations kept abreast of new developments ana. acquired experiences
on performance prior to grower use; industry was able ~ spread its range of
environmental conditions into different ecological Utu"tions in many parts
of the country and speed its decisions about the value Qf candidate compounds
as well. Thus, cooperation helped speed progress , I
The great array of synthetic organic compoundstha'l; have appeared in the
past two decades have been sorted and finally put into ~ignificant use as agricultural
chemicals because the state scientists, cooperating with those of
industry, and the federal government, have provided much!needed data on biological
performance and levels of residues on specific crops under a variety of
conditions. In the aggregate, these data have meant mu4h to industry in preparing
the petitions for registrations with the U. S. DElpartment of Agriculture
of agricultural chemicals moviIlg in inter-state commercd, as well as supporting
the requellt for tolerances or exemption tolerances by t~FOod and Drug Ad- '
ministration where they are required. State residueres~arch, supplied directly
to government or industry tor these purposes, has made ~ vital contributioZl.
I
It became obvious in the years immediately follow1z1g the Second World War
that ~ pesticide ohemist was an essential member of ~ team of scientists
working in scien1;1tic agriculture. A number of thestat1e experiment stations
undertook residue research as a basis for guiding their~xtension programs for
pesticide recommentlations and use. The public hearing ~ Washington in 1950
held by the Food and Drug Administration to determine t~ necessity for use
of pesticides in the production of fresh fruits and vege~ables brought forth
much data from state sources as well as the federal and iindustrial laboratories.
The obvious inadequacy of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Ac1t at that time in
establishing residue tolerances or exemptions, was remed!:l.edwith the passage
of the Pesticide Chemicals amendment in 1954. The earl~r legislation involving
the Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act in 1~41 established the
pattern for registration of chemicals going into interstjl.te commerce. It became
mandatory upon the fimS application for registratio~ of an agricultural
chemical for a spe9itic use to provide the essential infi>rmation by which 'the
USDAand the FDA,in most instances, could arrive ata dtcision on these requests.
Thus, residue data assumed a new role of importa ce in the agricultural
chemical f!:l.eld. The pattern was set and residue rese, rach I became an integral
part of practically all pesticide research programs. T~ state experiment
station chemist, workiIlg With o:tber companions in the' inVestigations, based
the residue determinations on analytical methods provide~ by the manufacturer
of the chemical, or those developed through his own res8$rch. In some states
without the services of a full-time pesticide chemist, t~ treated samples
were sent to the industrial laboratories for analysis. This procedure still is
being followed, but with increasing effort supported inlpart by federal regional
research funds, to equip and staff the state experimElnt stations laboratories
for the ir own res idue research programs. The 'tedllral foundations have
given generously in support of research dealing with res~dues and providiIlg
matching fUndS for bUllding health related facilities. i
',,---- With the expandiIlg interest and capability for NSi