STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

Department of Genetics

ae STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER

STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305 e (415) 321-1200

March 6, 1973

Honorable Gaylord Nelson
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Nelson,

Thank you for your letter of February 28th and for the enclosed
letter dated February 22nd from Gerald F. Meyer of the FDA. I very
much appreciate the close interest you have evidently taken in the
potato problem, and I am sure that this will be perceived by and have
a favorable effect on the critical judgments of the responsible
officials.

I think I should, however, point out that there is a basic
philosophical difference in the way in which we approach the question
of hazard with a commodity like a blighted potato in contrast to a
synthetic food additive or drug. That is to say, the burden of proof
seems to lie on the critic who indeed has not yet proven that a
hazardous substance is present in diseased potatoes. On the other
hand, very reasonable questions have been raised by Dr. Renwick and
others and were this situation to have reached the current state of
sensitivity in almost any other area, it is certain we would be
demanding the opposite: namely that the purveyor undertake the prior
testing necessary to demonstrate that his product was a safe one.

I can hardly take an absolute position on this and I am certainly not
recommending that potatoes be withheld from the market. That there
should be any question about the possibility of Dr. Renwick obtaining
financial support for testing his hypothesis, for example by a potato
avoidance trial as mentioned in Meyer's letter, does illustrate a
potential source of hypocrisy in dealing with this question. If further
investigations are not vigorously promoted we will, of course, never
have definite knowledge as to whether a hazardous substance is present
in blighted potatoes or not. Our ignorance does not necessarily lead to
bliss however.

I would advocate that besides the very general posture on behalf of
demanding the vigorous prosecution of the necessary research, with which
I know you are already in agreement, that you also consider pressing the
USDA as to the actual efficacy of its grading practices. The statement
in Mr. Meyer's letter was that "diseased potatoes should not reach the
consumer". The same kind of assertions were made with respect to DES
and yet we know the realities of the marketplace. It is by no means
clear to me how vigorously the inspection and grading procedures are
pursued, whether the personnel involved in it have been specifically
trained with respect to the possibility of a biological hazard, for
example; nor do I know whether there have been any point-of-sale surveys
to verify the efficacy. Were there some more general publicity about
these potential hazards and instructions to consumers how to detect

over

LT. J. P. KENNEDY, JR. LABORATORIES FOR MOLECULAR MEDICINE, DEDICATED TO RESEARCH IN MENTAL RETARDATION

MOLECULAR BIOLOCY HEREDITY NEUROBIOLOGY DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE
Honorable Gaylord Nelson -2- 3/6/73

blighted tubers one might have more reliance on these kinds of claims.
But I do not have to tell you which stratum of the population is going
to bear the brunt of receiving the rejects and the questionable products.

What we have to face here potentially is not only the vested interest
of many farmers whose incomes and life savings are at stake but also a
sluggishness in responding to challenges which is perhaps inevitable even
for the most competent of bureaucratic apparatuses. AS you are a past
master in making wheels spin that had never rotated before, I think
you know very well what I mean.

As there remains a tangible possibility that more conclusive
evidence against blighted potatoes might appear sometime in the future,
I think one should also be anticipating the kinds of measures for
relief of innocent farmers and marketers who may be left holding the
bag as a consequence of potentially necessary federal restrictions on
sale. I suggest this not only out of an honest compassion for the growers;
but also because an unrelieved vested interest is hardly likely to
encourage the most objective confrontation with reality.

 

There are still many puzzles about spina bifida but Renwick's
proposal does seem to me the most challenging and most plausible
proposition that has surfaced to date in attempting to understand
the phenomenon that remains quite obscure but has the most poignant
human importance. I would hope that further efforts to unravel the problem
will meet with a minimum of defensiveness on the part of established
interests and agencies and this is, of course, only possible if there
is a sympathetic concern for the honest intentions of all parties and
a sharing of the risks and burdens. This at least is more likely to be
achievable here than in the case where industrial food processors and
drug manufacturers are central actors. And for that reason the present
situation may afford a better model for the evolution of long-term
social policies in dealing with unanticipated risks.

 

 

We already have an example of this since Poswillo's results -- which
I agree are probably not particulaty pertinent to the problem of spina
bifida -- are typical of what is likely to be found on broader investigation
of many materials that might then be prematurely dragged into the net of
a Delaney-like amendment which was enlarged to include teratogenicity.

I am still pondering over other aspects of the Delaney revision
proposals and will be communicating with you or with Ms. Robinson about
that shortly. Frankly, I have been absolutely inundated by the tidal wave
of the new budget impact in NIH grants and this has left me very little
time to think about anything except the financial survival of this
department.

Sincerely yours,

Joshua Lederberg
Professor of Genetics

JL/rr