I found this to be interesting, and I thought that a few others might as well.
Greg H. ----- Original Message ----- From: "frank petrie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 18:17 Subject: [GardeningOrganically] Fwd: Where Does the Toxic Waste Go?...or wanna buy some dirty fertilizer > what is our government thinking??? > > --- Juvio Florence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > From: "Juvio Florence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:59:11 +0000 > > Subject: [dreamtime] Fwd: Where Does the Toxic Waste > > Go? > > > > --------------------------------- > > Salamander Sanctuary is a Taoist permasculptural > temple located in Diamond Elk Valley in the > temperamental rain forest of southern Oregon. > > > > > > >Carla Emery has collected evidence that toxic waste > products are built into our > >roads, homes and food (via fertilizer). Besides the > obvious contamination of our > >food is the contamination of our environment but > herein I will only issue the > >fertilizer/food contamination. > >http://www.carlaemery.com/carlaemery/News.htm > > > >The following article won the Oakes Award. It is > given to the author of a > >newspaper or magazine article "that makes an > exceptional contribution to public > >understanding of contemporary environmental issues." > > > >http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/disp lay?slug=fert&date=19970703&query=fear+in+the+fields > > >Fear in the fields: How hazardous wastes become > fertilizer, part 1 > >by Duff Wilson, Seattle Times staff reporter > > > >When you're mayor of a town the size of Quincy, > Wash., you hear just about > >everything. > >So it was only natural that Patty Martin would catch > some farmers in her Central > >Washington hamlet wondering aloud why their wheat > yields were lousy, their corn > >crops thin, their cows sickly. > >Some blamed the weather. Some blamed themselves. But > only after Mayor Martin led > >them in weeks of investigation did they identify a > possible new culprit: > >fertilizer. > >They don't have proof that the stuff they put on > their land to feed it actually > >was killing it. But they discovered something they > found shocking and that they > >think other American farmers and consumers ought to > know: > >Manufacturing industries are disposing of hazardous > wastes by turning them into > >fertilizer to spread around farms. And they're doing > it legally. > >"It's really unbelievable what's happening, but it's > true," Martin said. "They > >just call dangerous waste a product, and it's no > longer a dangerous waste. It's > >a fertilizer." > >Across the Columbia River basin in Moxee City is > visual testimony to Martin's > >assertion. A dark powder from two Oregon steel mills > is poured from rail cars > >into the top of silos attached to Bay Zinc Co. under > a federal permit to store > >hazardous waste. > >The powder, a toxic byproduct of the steel-making > process, is taken out of the > >bottom of the silos as a raw material for fertilizer. > > >"When it goes into our silo, it's a hazardous waste," > said Bay Zinc President > >Dick Camp. "When it comes out of the silo, it's no > longer regulated. The exact > >same material. Don't ask me why. That's the wisdom of > the EPA." > >What's happening in Washington is happening around > the United States. The use of > >industrial toxic waste as a fertilizer ingredient is > a growing national > >phenomenon, an investigation by The Seattle Times has > found. > >The Times found examples of wastes laden with heavy > metals being recycled into > >fertilizer to be spread across crop fields. > >Legally. > >In Gore, Okla., a uranium-processing plant is getting > rid of low-level > >radioactive waste by licensing it as a liquid > fertilizer and spraying it over > >9,000 acres of grazing land. > >In Tifton County, Ga., more than 1,000 acres of > peanut crops were wiped out by a > >brew of hazardous waste and limestone sold to > unsuspecting farmers. > >And in Camas, Clark County, highly corrosive, > lead-laced waste from a pulp mill > >is hauled to Southwest Washington farms and spread > over crops grown for > >livestock consumption. > >Recycling said to have benefits > >Any material that has fertilizing qualities can be > labeled and used as a > >fertilizer, even if it contains dangerous chemicals > and heavy metals. > >The wastes come from iron, zinc and aluminum > smelting, mining, cement kilns, the > >burning of medical and municipal wastes, wood-product > slurries and a variety of > >other heavy industries. > >Federal and state governments encourage the practice > in the name of recycling > >and, in fact, it has some benefits: Recycling waste > as fertilizer saves > >companies money and conserves precious space in > hazardous-waste landfills. And, > >mixed and handled correctly, the material can help > crops grow. > >"It's a situation where we are facing an > overabundance of these materials in > >landfills and, of course, landfills are getting > full," said Ali Kashani, who > >directs fertilizer regulation in Washington state. > "So they (waste producers) > >are constantly looking for ways to recycle when they > have beneficial materials." > >The problem is that the "beneficial materials" in > industrial waste, such as > >nitrogen and magnesium to help crops grow, often are > accompanied by dangerous > >heavy metals such as cadmium and lead. > >"Nowhere in the country has a law that says if > certain levels of heavy metals > >are exceeded, it can't be a fertilizer," Kashani > said. "That would be nice to > >have." > >Instead, officials rely on fertilizer producers to > document that their products > >are safe, and never check back for toxic components. > There is not even a > >requirement that toxics be listed on ingredient > labels. > >The Times also found that: > >-- There is no national regulation of fertilizers in > this country, unlike many > >other industrialized nations. The laws in most > states, including Washington, are > >far from stringent. The lack of national regulation > makes it virtually > >impossible to measure the volume of fertilizers > produced by recycling hazardous > >wastes. > >-- Some industries dispose of tons of toxic waste by > giving it free to > >fertilizer manufacturers, or even paying them to take > it. > >-- One major producer, Monsanto, has stopped > recycling waste into fertilizer on > >its own because of concerns about health and > liability. For years, it sold 6,000 > >tons a year of ashy, black waste from its Soda > Springs, Idaho, phosphorus plant > >to nearby fertilizer companies. > >The waste contained cadmium, a heavy metal that > studies show can cause cancer, > >kidney disease, neurological dysfunction, diminished > fertility, immune-system > >changes and birth defects at certain levels of > consumption. Company scientists > >are trying to determine whether the material is safe > to be used as fertilizer, > >even though the federal government allows it. > >"What really is a concern is product liability," said > Robert Geddes, a Monsanto > >official and Idaho state senator. "Is somebody going > to sue Monsanto because we > >allowed it to be made as a fertilizer?" > >-- Among the substances found in some recycled > fertilizers are cadmium, lead, > >arsenic, radionuclides and dioxins, at levels some > scientists say may pose a > >threat to human health. Although the health effects > are widely disputed, there > >is undisputed evidence the substances enter plant > roots. > >Just as there are no conclusive data to prove a > danger, there are none to prove > >the safety of the practice. > >In other nations, including Canada, that lack of > certainty has led to strict > >regulation. There, the approach is to limit toxic > wastes in fertilizer until the > >practice is proven safe. Here, the approach is to > allow it until it's proven > >unsafe. > >Although experts disagree as to whether these > fertilizers are a health threat, > >most say further study is needed. Yet, little is > under way. > >Few farmers, and probably even fewer consumers, know > about the practice. > >"This is a definite problem," said Richard Loeppert, > a soil scientist at Texas > >A&M University and author of several published papers > on toxic elements in > >fertilizers. "The public needs to know." > >Some remember the Alar scare > >Patty Martin is not a popular politician in parts of > Grant County these days. > >Since she began raising the alarm about the use of > toxic waste as fertilizer, > >she has been threatened with a lawsuit by a local > farmer, been verbally attacked > >in town meetings and seen the City Council - led by a > son-in-law of the local > >manager of the Cenex fertilizer company - pressure > her to shut up or quit. > >Many farmers in and around Quincy, a town of 4,030, > say they're doing very well, > >thank you, with the fertilizer and the help and > advice they've received from > >Cenex Supply and Marketing, which sells expertise, > financing and farm supplies > >in the West and Midwest. > >They call Martin a troublemaker and fear she's > fomenting a scare akin to the > >Alar alarm that nearly ruined Washington's apple > industry in 1989. > >In that case, the CBS television show "60 Minutes" > reported that a substance > >sprayed on Washington apples to preserve them in > packing was dangerous to > >consumers. CBS later admitted it had made some > mistakes in the story, and the > >Washington apple growers sued the network. But the > suit was dismissed, and in > >the end, Alar was classified by EPA as a carcinogen > and banned for all food > >uses. > >"We had a woman starting that one, too, and a lot of > people got hurt by it," > >Bill Weber, an apple and potato farmer, said at one > council meeting, bringing > >nods and laughter. > >"We don't see a problem," said Greg Richardson, > Quincy-based president of the > >Potato Growers of Washington and a staunch defender > of recycling wastes into > >fertilizer. > >Richardson wrote Martin a letter telling her to make > "a statement of your trust > >in the appropriate government agencies and their > ability to deal with . . . the > >waste in fertilizer issue." > >Martin is standing firm, and a dozen or so > Quincy-area farmers are standing at > >her side. They insist they, their families and their > fields have suffered from > >bad fertilizer. > >State environmental, agriculture and health officials > have looked at the > >situation in Quincy. The environmental and > agriculture officials, who encourage > >recycling waste into fertilizer, say that as far as > they can tell, there's no > >danger to crops or people. > >But some admit they wish they knew more. Kashani > wants standards for heavy > >metals in fertilizer. Absent that, he said, he has to > apply a general standard > >that recycled products cannot "pose a threat to > public health or the > >environment." > >Regulators in California have been studying the issue > for years and still cannot > >say what constitutes a safe level for lead, cadmium > and arsenic in fertilizer. > >Mayor Martin's husband works for a potato processor, > and when she feels under > >the harshest attack, he tells her she's doing the > right thing. > >"I just have the unfortunate distinction of having > stumbled across this question > >and asking questions of the regulatory agencies," she > said. "I didn't get the > >answers." > >Trouble was brewed in pond > >How Martin and her supporters stumbled upon the > discovery of the recycling of > >toxic waste into fertilizer begins at a man-made, > concrete pond across the > >street from Quincy High School. The pond, 36 feet > wide, 54 feet long and 5 feet > >deep, was built in 1986 and used by Cenex to rinse > fertilizer from farm > >equipment. > >State investigators later found that the company also > illegally used the pond to > >dump pesticides. > >Cenex closed the pond in 1990. By then, it contained > about 38,000 gallons of > >toxic goo, with heavy metals, suspected carcinogens, > even some radioactive > >materials. State investigators couldn't determine how > all this toxic material > >ended up there. > >Cenex memos show how the company got rid of the > sludge. John Williams, the > >Quincy branch manager, wrote his boss to say the > "product," as he called it, > >would cost $170,000 to ship and store at the > Arlington, Ore., hazardous-waste > >site, as required by federal law. > >So Cenex decided to save money by spreading it on a > rented plot of cornfield and > >let nature take its course. The land would act as a > natural filter for the > >hazardous wastes. > >Cenex struck a deal with lessee farmer Larry > Schaapman. He was paid more than > >$10,000 to let Cenex put the material, which the > company claimed had fertilizer > >value, on his 100 acres. > >It killed the land. > >The corn crop failed there in 1990, even though > Schaapman and Cenex applied > >extra water to try to wash the toxics through the > soil. Hardly anything grew > >there the next year, either. > >The land belonged to Dennis DeYoung, whose family had > farmed it since the early > >1950s before he leased it to Schaapman. Since the > land was poisoned, DeYoung > >couldn't make his payments, and the company that > financed him foreclosed on a > >$100,000 debt. DeYoung also owed Cenex money for > fertilizer and seed. > >Soon after, Cenex bought the land from the financing > company. > >"They run a farmer out of business, then they get his > land," DeYoung said. "Now > >isn't that something." > >DeYoung sued Cenex for damages for ruining the soil, > lost in summary judgment > >but won a reversal in the State Court of Appeals > earlier this year. He's > >preparing for a new trial. > >He also managed to stir up an investigation by the > federal Environmental > >Protection Agency, which regulates pesticide use. In > a plea bargain, Cenex and > >its manager were given one year of probation for > illegal disposal of a pesticide > >in the "product" spread on DeYoung's land. > >The company never had to explain how the heavy metals > - enough cadmium, > >beryllium and chromium to qualify as a Superfund site > - got into the rinse pond > >in town. > >That's where Martin and her supporters come in. > >Farmers began comparing notes > >Tom Witte is a 53-year-old farmer with 200 acres and > about 100 cows a few miles > >east of Quincy. His father purchased the farm in > 1956. > >Witte had a disastrous year in 1991. His red spring > wheat, silage corn and grain > >corn all yielded about one-third the normal levels. > >"You always blame yourself, you know," Witte said. > "You always think you screwed > >up. But then it wasn't just the crops. Then I started > having all these weird > >problems with the cows." > >Six of his cows got sick and died. The veterinarian > found cancer in the three > >that were tested. > >When Dennis DeYoung told Witte about his problems, > Witte got to wondering about > >the effects of fertilizer on his fields. Although he > hadn't used material from > >the rinse pond, he had used products from Cenex. > >Witte still had the rusty, steel fertilizer tank > Cenex had delivered and set up > >on his property in 1991. > >Witte reached in the tank and scooped about two > pounds of dust, rust and residue > >from the bottom. He sent the material to Brookside > Farms Laboratory in Ohio, > >which found levels of arsenic, beryllium, lead, > titanium, chromium, copper and > >mercury. > >A reporter showed Max Hammond, the top Cenex > scientist in the area, the test > >results last fall. Hammond, since deceased, said some > of the metals might have > >come from dust or rust in Witte's tank, but he could > not explain the beryllium > >or arsenic. > >Arsenic, a known carcinogen, is a highly toxic > residue from mining and smelting > >processes. > >Mayor Martin, who had been closely tracking the > rinse-pond controversy, caught > >wind of Witte's and DeYoung's problems. > >Martin, Witte, DeYoung and others began researching > fertilizer manufacturing. In > >their reading, they discovered that, as a result of > landfill costs and the > >stringent environmental laws of the 1970s, a lot of > heavy industries were > >recycling and marketing their hazardous waste as > fertilizer. > >In their research, they came upon an Oregon lawsuit > they think provides a > >critical insight to Quincy's problems. > >Aluminum case was studied > >Northwest Alloys, a subsidiary of the Aluminum > Company of America (Alcoa), has a > >smelter in Addy, an hour's drive north from Spokane. > Between 1984 and 1992, the > >company recycled more than 200,000 tons of hazardous > waste from the smelter > >through a smaller company that sold it as a > fertilizer and road de-icer. > >Based on industry research that said the material was > safe, state officials in > >Washington, Oregon and Idaho allowed the waste to be > sold as "CalMag" and > >"AlMag" fertilizers and "Road Clear" de-icer. > >The fertilizer was produced and marketed by L-Bar > Products Inc. of Chewelah, > >near Addy. With the recycling, Alcoa saved at least > $17 million in disposal > >costs, according to company documents, and many > farmers used the products with > >apparent success. > >But one Oregon farmer who used it saw his red-clover > crop mysteriously wilt. In > >1993, he hired James Vomocil, an Oregon State > University soils expert, to test > >his fields and fertilizers. > >Vomocil said L-Bar's sales flier was "designed to > deceive" and the product was > >volatile, unpredictable and unsafe. > >With that ammunition, farmer Wes Behrman of Banks, > Ore., won an out-of-court > >settlement from L-Bar. He refused to discuss terms of > the settlement; he has > >told other people it was substantial. > >So what did that have to do with Quincy? > >Perhaps nothing. Cenex managers in Quincy and in its > regional office say they > >never bought anything from L-Bar Products and had > never even heard of the > >company, according to Cenex spokeswoman Lani Jordan. > >But a 1994 fax from L-Bar owner Frank Melfi indicates > otherwise. It says Cenex > >had already bought the L-Bar product and was > considering buying 30,000 tons that > >year in "some sort of mutual marketing or venture > relationship." > >Although that deal never happened, Melfi says now > that he definitely sold CalMag > >to Cenex. > >Mayor Martin thinks some of it wound up on fields in > Quincy, among a variety of > >other recycled hazardous wastes. > >And although Cenex denies buying recycled wastes from > L-Bar, it has bought > >material from Bay Zinc to add to custom fertilizer > mixes, said Pete Mutschler of > >Cenex. But Mutschler said the company didn't realize > the Bay Zinc fertilizer > >contained recycled hazardous waste. > >Dennis DeYoung began to wonder if fertilizer was to > blame not only for his > >recent problems, but also for his land turning > unproductive in the late 1980s, > >the reason he decided to lease it to Schaapman in the > first place. At the time, > >his corn, beans and hay were going bad and he didn't > know why. > >And the more he and others read about what went into > recycled fertilizers, the > >more they began to worry about possible health > effects. Martin encouraged Witte > >and DeYoung to submit hair samples to a Chicago > laboratory that tests for heavy > >metals in human tissues. > >The lab, Doctor's Data Inc., found high levels of > aluminum, antimony, lead, > >arsenic and cadmium in hair samples from DeYoung, > Witte and Witte's children. > >Joseph DiGangi, a scientist with Greenpeace in > Chicago, reviewed the hair > >samples. "I thought it was kind of creepy, really - > all the people, really > >headed for a serious health problem, if not now, then > later," he said. > >And it was all perfectly legal. > >"It's amazing that something like this could run > across the nation and nobody > >would know about it," DeYoung said. > >Martin, Witte and DeYoung felt their discovery > explained the heavy metals found > >in Witte's crops. They wondered if the toxic metals > in the Cenex pond came from > >fertilizer residues rinsed from equipment, a theory > Cenex vigorously denies. > >Most importantly, the mayor and farmers knew that > while they might never sort > >out exactly what had happened in their town, they had > discovered something other > >farmers and consumers deserved to know about. > >"This recycling might be great in theory, but in fact > it's being abused," Martin > >said. "There's no enforcement. Nobody is watching the > companies. Nobody can tell > >me what's really happening. Nobody knows." > >Frustration grew > >For a man with rough hands and dirty shoes, Tom Witte > writes a good letter. > >"The state has no mechanism set up to prevent toxic > heavy-metals contamination > >of fertilizers," he wrote then-Gov. Mike Lowry last > year. "Fertilizer is only > >tested for fertility elements. Nobody checks on what > is in the inert > >ingredients, so we have a situation tailor-made for > abuse. > >"People in industry think that the best way to > dispose of waste is to sell it > >for fertilizer and let unsuspecting farmers spread it > on their land." > >Agriculture Director Jim Jesernig wrote back, > agreeing there were problems and > >promising to look into it further. The departments of > agriculture, ecology and > >health have set up a staff group that plans to issue > a report later this year > >saying the practice, which they have encouraged for > years, is safe. State > >officials say they have tested a sampling of 27 > potatoes and that heavy-metal > >readings were well within safe limits. > >Meanwhile, Mayor Martin and Witte's sister, Nancy, a > nurse, went to EPA > >Administrator Carol Browner's Children's Health > Conference in Washington, D.C., > >in February. Nancy Witte prodded a nervous Martin to > go to the microphone and > >ask a question of Browner. > >Martin asked whether the EPA knew about companies > making toxic wastes into > >fertilizer. Browner said she didn't know anything > about it but she'd look into > >it. Later, an aide to Browner contacted the mayor, > explained the benefits of > >waste recycling and assured her there would be > further study. > >Frustrated with the lack of action by public > officials, Martin contacted The > >Times, asking the newspaper to develop this > information. > >Potential for danger unclear > >So what to make of Mayor Martin and her crusaders? > Are they, as Richardson of > >the Potato Growers of Washington insists, > unnecessarily "opening up an ugly can > >of worms"? > >All that's clear is that the potential for danger is > unclear. Some scientists > >and public officials say the benefits of recycling > waste outweigh the possible > >risks. > >"The farmer is coming out a little ahead," said soils > specialist Charlie > >Mitchell of Alabama's Auburn University. "The person > spreading it is getting his > >profit. The company is using its waste instead of > dumping it. So we're helping > >the environment. We're creating jobs. If it's done > right, it can really be a > >win-win situation." > >But Ken Cook, a soils scientist who heads the > nonprofit Environmental Working > >Group, said no one yet knows what constitutes "doing > it right." > >Mayor Martin and friends are raising good questions, > Cook says. > >"Let's put it this way: We're well into the use of > these materials before these > >questions are even asked, and that doesn't seem to me > to be a good sign that > >we've been very rigorous in our science on this." > >Meanwhile, Quincy farmers such as Witte, DeYoung and > Duke Giraud want some > >action. Giraud lost his family's onion business > because of poor yields, and he > >suffers from respiratory problems. He figures he > unknowingly spread > >recycled-waste fertilizer on his fields. > >It might be too late for him, he says, but he wants > government agencies to look > >out for the welfare of other farmers. > >"They have to start testing fertilizer for what they > don't say is in there," > >Giraud says, "because they have no problem letting > them add who-knows-what." > >_________________________ > > > >Fear in the fields: How hazardous wastes become > fertilizer [conclusion] > >by Duff Wilson > >Seattle Times staff reporter > > > >When a trucker picks up a load of gray, toxic ash > from a metal-processing plant > >in California, he hangs a "hazardous waste" sign on > his rig. On crossing the > >border into Nevada, he takes the sign down. > > > >In that state, what he's carrying is no longer > considered hazardous waste, but > >fertilizer ingredients. The waste will be delivered > to a factory in Reno, > >treated to remove part of the heavy metals, blended > with other materials and > >sold as fertilizer to farmers in, among other places, > California. > > > >Such is the fractured regulation of the fertilizer > industry. Fertilizer - unlike > >food, animal feed, pesticides, herbicides and sewage > sludge - is not controlled > >by federal law. To the degree it's regulated at all, > it's on a state-by-state > >basis. > > > >A Seattle Times investigation found that, across the > nation, industrial wastes > >laden with heavy metals and other dangerous materials > are being used in > >fertilizers and spread over farmland. The process, > which is legal, saves dirty > >industries the high costs of disposing of hazardous > wastes. > > > >The lack of national regulation and of labeling > requirements means most farmers > >have no idea exactly what they're putting on their > crops when they apply > >fertilizers. > > > >There's a limit on the amount of lead in a can of > paint, but not in fertilizer. > >There's a limit on the amount of dioxin in a concrete > highway barrier, but not > >in fertilizer. > > > >If that same trucker tried to wheel that ash up > Interstate 5, he could take off > >the hazardous-waste sign through Oregon and > Washington, which both have less > >regulation than California. > > > >But when he got to British Columbia, he'd be turned > away at the border. > > > >Canada and many European countries have stringent > limits on toxic metals found > >in industrial byproducts. They refuse to buy products > that, on American farms, > >routinely are sprinkled on the ground. > > > >Some U.S. experts say those nations are less > interested in science than in trade > >protectionism. These experts, working for government > agencies and the fertilizer > >companies, say the products are safe and the process > of recycling hazardous > >waste into fertilizer is good for America and > Americans. > > > >"It is irresponsible to create unnecessary limits > that cost a hell of a lot of > >money," says Rufus Chaney of the Department of > Agriculture's Research Service. > > > >Canada's limit for heavy metals such as lead and > cadmium in fertilizer is 10 to > >90 times lower than the U.S. limit for metals in > sewage sludge. The United > >States has no limit for metals in fertilizer. > > > >Canada requires tests every six months for metals in > recycled-waste fertilizer; > >the U.S., none. > > > >"In the U.S., I hear them say, `OK, how much can we > apply until we get to the > >maximum people can stand?' " said Canada's top > fertilizer regulator, Darlene > >Blair. "They're congratulating people for recycling > things without understanding > >what the problems are with the recycled material." > > > >In Canada, Blair said, "We're a little beyond the > point where we wait till > >something is proved bad before we fix it. Sorry, but > we won't compromise our > >health." > > > >Some health and environmental experts are pushing for > similar regulation in this > >country. But from Washington state to Washington, > D.C., the fertilizer industry > >is waging a successful campaign against it. > > > >Industry opposes regulation > > > > > >The $15-billion-a-year business cultivates clout. > > > >In Congress three years ago, lobbyists for The > Fertilizer Institute won removal > >of a section of the proposed Lead Exposure Reduction > Act that would have banned > >fertilizers with more than 0.1 percent lead. > > > >Internal minutes of the institute, the industry's > main lobbying group, show it > >wants to streamline hazardous-material laws and > "manage the issue of regulation > >of heavy metals in fertilizers." > > > >The industry also lobbies its own members to oppose > fertilizer regulation. > > > >In Colorado, a manufacturer whose product does not > include recycled hazardous > >waste was told by the director of the Far West > Fertilizer Association to "stop > >adding fuel to the fire" by talking about the risks > of heavy metals. > > > >"I told him there are things going on that are bogus > and I won't be quiet > >because I think this is unsafe," replied Kipp > Smallwood, sales manager for > >Cozinco. > > > >"I'm crying for national regulation, or at least > truth in labeling," Smallwood > >said. There is no requirement that toxic substances > be listed on fertilizer > >labels. > > > >The primary argument against labeling or regulating > fertilizers with toxic > >wastes is that it would raise costs, both of waste > disposal and food production. > > > >"Agriculture is being used as a dumping ground," > Smallwood said. "They get away > >with it because there's nobody watching, nobody > testing. It's the lure of the > >dollar." > > > >While all the substances in question occur in nature, > science is finding there > >is no safe level for many of them. History has taught > that many substances > >initially believed to be safe were not. > > > >In recent years, doctors and scientists learned that > trace amounts of lead can > >cause developmental problems in children and high > blood pressure in adults. Lead > >is prohibited in gasoline, paint and food-can solder, > but not in fertilizer. > > > >In fact, lead is in many fertilizers. It is never > disclosed on the label, > >though, even when it is as high as 3 percent of the > product. > > > >As a result, farmers and orchardists are spreading up > to one-third of a cup of > >lead per acre when they follow the manufacturers' > recommendations. The farmers > >and orchardists aren't told about the lead, which has > no nutrient value for > >plants. > > > >Hazardous-waste recyclers say they could remove more > lead, but it would cost > >more and make it harder to compete on price unless > everybody had to do it. > > > >Bill Liebhardt, chairman of the Sustainable > Agriculture Department at the > >University of California-Davis, previously worked for > fertilizer companies but > >says the industry is wrong to oppose regulation. > > > >"When I heard of people mixing this toxic waste in > fertilizer, I was astounded," > >he said. "And it seems to be a legal practice. I'd > never heard of something like > >that - getting cadmium or lead when you think you're > only getting zinc. > > > >"Even if it's legal, to me it's just morally and > ethically bankrupt that you > >would take this toxic material and mix it into > something that is beneficial and > >then sell that to unsuspecting people. To me it is > just outrageous." > > > >Janet Phoenix, a physician with the National Lead > Information Center, said she > >had no idea industries were recycling lead into > fertilizer. > > > >"I, personally, was under the impression that, at > least in this country, lead > >was no longer allowed to be an ingredient in > fertilizer," Phoenix said. > >"Clearly, it seems to me that a process recycling > industrial waste into > >fertilizer that contains lead would be at odds to > efforts to reduce lead in > >soil. There is no safe level." > > > >Push is on to recycle > > > > > >Nobody really knows how much risk exists in > waste-recycling programs that have > >sprouted since Congress passed the Resource > Conservation and Recovery Act in > >1976. The law raised the cost of disposing of > hazardous substances fivefold in > >12 years. > > > >Soils specialist Charlie Mitchell, an Auburn > University professor, says he gets > >10 times as many calls as he used to get about > recycling industrial byproducts > >into agricultural products. "Every industry is > looking at it," Mitchell said. > > > >"People were scrambling," said John Salmonson, > president of Monterey Chemical of > >Fresno, Calif. "What happened was they were trying to > shove the waste onto > >agriculture." > > > >At least 26 states, including Washington, have > created programs to match > >generators of hazardous-waste with recyclers, like > blind dates. A brochure from > >the King County Hazardous Waste Management Program > tells companies: "TURN YOUR > >DISPOSAL COSTS INTO PROFITS." > > > >"Recycle and reuse, that's our national strategy," > said the Department of > >Agriculture's Chaney. "It costs so much more to put > it in a landfill. And if the > >recycling program avoids any chance of risk, then > it's a responsible program." > > > >That's the tricky part. While sewage sludge has been > studied exhaustively for 25 > >years, there is little science on long-term effects > of heavy metals in recycled > >fertilizer. > > > >Shiou Kuo, a Washington State University professor > and a consultant to the > >state, says sewage sludge is a very different > material from industrial waste. > >While he's not particularly worried, he said, "this > is something that troubles > >my mind." > > > >"Deep down in my heart, I think the less amount a > toxic substance like cadmium > >is in the soil, the better," Kuo said. "But, in > reality, the question is really > >how much input can be tolerated. Until we know what > the critical level is, this > >kind of question cannot be answered." > > > >Every state has a fertilizer regulator. But they > don't check for heavy metals > >even when they know the metals are included in the > product. They only check for > >nutrients listed on the label. > > > >Washington's Department of Agriculture has three > people who go around the state > >collecting samples of feed, seed and fertilizers. The > state laboratory in Yakima > >analyzes the samples to make sure they match the > advertised ingredients. > > > >It's the same story in other states. > > > >"We really don't have any rules or regulations > addressing that," said Dale > >Dubberly, Florida's fertilizer chief. "There's a lot > of materials out there that > >have plant nutrient values, but nobody knows what > else is in them." > > > >Testing for heavy metals would cost $50,000 to > $150,000 in capital investment > >for the typical state lab, plus additional staff, > plus $10 to $60 per sample, > >said Dr. Joel Padmore, director of North Carolina's > lab and an officer of the > >American Association of Plant Food Control Officials. > > > > >Instead of making that investment, some states - most > of them in the Northeast - > >are cutting back their labs and their regulation of > fertilizers. New York > >doesn't even test for nutrients anymore, he said. > > > >"Once a state has dropped its regulatory apparatus, > then essentially anything > >can be registered because nobody is checking," > Padmore said. > > > >The EPA, meanwhile, is focusing not on testing or > regulating but on promoting > >waste recycling. > > > >"We feel the direction they're going is not always in > the interest of > >agriculture," said Maryam Khosravifard, staff > scientist for the California > >Department of Food and Agriculture. "EPA is in charge > of getting rid of these > >materials. They do reuse and recycling. But we do > agriculture; we're the > >stewards of the land." > > > >Edward Kleppinger, a chemist, wrote hazardous-waste > rules for EPA in the 1970s > >and is now a consultant for industry, environmental > and health groups. He, too, > >dislikes EPA's posture on this issue. > > > >"The heavy metals don't disappear," Kleppinger says. > "They're not biodegradable. > >They just use this as an alternate way to get rid of > hazardous waste, this whole > >recycling loophole that EPA has left in place these > last 20 years. > > > >"The last refuge of the hazardous-waste scoundrel is > to call it a fertilizer or > >soil amendment and dump it on farmland." > > > >Change might come, slowly > > > > > >If change is to come, it probably will come slowly. > > > >"It feels like it's the very beginning of this > debate," said Ken Cook, president > >of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit > research agency. > > > >"Right now, it appears there's an economic use of > this waste material. But it > >may just mean that we haven't looked at it yet," he > said. "Sometimes it's a > >bonanza if it can be recycled, and sometimes it's > just a shell game where we're > >transferring the risk back to the land. > > > >"Even if it gets flushed out, if 80 percent gets > flushed out, it just takes > >longer to build up to the threshold effect," Cook > says. "And maybe there is no > >threshold. Maybe there is no safe level." > > > >The bottom line, Cook says, and many others echo: "We > really don't know." > >Copyright 1997, Seattle Times Co. > > > > --------------------------------- > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with > MSN 8. > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > http://www.dreamtimevillage.org > (new website, under construction) > > http://net22.com/dreamtime/index.shtml > (old website, lots of info, dated) > > To Unsubscribe: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! > Terms of Service. > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! > http://sbc.yahoo.com > > > ~~~ORGANIC AND GREEN, for a healthy future.~~~ > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GardeningOrganically > > Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > List owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
