Sludge Watch ==> Sludge and Food - Debate on Labelling Food Grown on Sludge

[maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca]

Sludgewatch Admin

While this editorial makes an important point about the need for sludge 
testing and monitoring (and the inadequacy  of both in the federal 503 
sludge provisions )  I think they are quite wrong about food labelling.

Labelling food grown on sludge is a good idea.  At a recent debate on sludge 
use in Quebec, of the 12 debating parties..including farmers who used 
sludge...when asked who would eat a potato from a sludged field...only the 
bureaucrat from the Ministry of Agriculture tentatively put up his hand. 
There was a moment of shocked silence in the room.

"Il mange de la m.... !" the group whispered, as the agro government guy 
blushed. (roughly translated, "He would eat s***!" ) Everyone figured he had 
to volunteer to eat sludged food when asked on camera or else he might lose 
his job.

The public doesn't want to eat food that may contain the kind of industrial 
residuals found in sludge...they don't want to eat PBDE, hospital viruses, 
triclocarban, cadmium, mercury, lead, arsenic, mortuary fluids, 
gasoline...etc.  Even if there is a waiting period between sludge spreading 
and crop harvesting   the heavy metals in the soil won't diminish...they 
will increase year after year.

Currently the food safely laws are failing to adequately address consumer 
food safety issues related to sludge.  So private grocery chains are 
adopting their own food safety requriements to prevent food contamination - 
but these food safety practices are private.  In Canada most grocery chains 
won't by vegetables from sludged fields...whether the provincial sludge regs 
were followed or not.

The public should know if the food offered for sale in the grocery store is 
grown on sludged soil.  This IS meaningful information.



.......................................................


Sludge and food
What's needed is effective regulation, not useless labels
May 24, 2006
"There ought to be a law," goes the cry of those trying to solve a problem 
that seems to require government action.

Perhaps, when it comes to the issue of sewage sludge, that's what is needed: 
a law beefing up regulation of sludge as a farm fertilizer.

The purpose, of course, would be to ensure that sludge doesn't pose any 
danger to people or other forms of life or the environment. Those dangers 
could come from the contents of the treated human, animal and industrial 
waste that makes up the sludge, a byproduct of sewage treatment plants.

But the latest tactic in the campaign by a group of Isle of Wight citizens 
to fight off sludge - in its current, inadequately regulated state - is 
unlikely to do much good. They've asked Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Chesapeake, to 
join as a co-sponsor of a bill before Congress to require labeling of food 
grown on land treated with sludge or derived from animals that consumed feed 
raised on treated land or were themselves raised on treated land.

It's unlikely to do much good because the bill's prospects are dim. This 
year marks the 10th anniversary of efforts by the bill's chief sponsor, Rep. 
Jose Serrano, a Democrat who represents the South Bronx, to get it passed. 
It has gained no traction in Congress. It has no co-sponsors. It has been in 
committee for over a year.

Forbes can sign on to make constituents happy, but it won't make much 
difference.

And even if the bill passed, what would be gained?

If a consumer saw a warning hanging over the cauliflower or on the back of a 
can of soup, there'd be no way to know what it meant. Did the sludge contain 
any dangerous ingredients or not? Did any of them get into the food or not? 
Is there a risk or not?

It would be a warning that contained no real information.

Of course, food producers could take it on themselves to label their 
products, seizing whatever competitive advantage there might be in claiming 
that their food wasn't produced on sewage-treated land. But raising the idea 
of sewage when you're trying to sell food, no matter how you introduce the 
topic, might not be the smartest of marketing ploys.

Which brings us back to what we really need: Effective regulation to require 
adequate testing of sludge - for bacteria, viruses, parasites, toxins and 
other substances that could pose a danger if they got into the air, ground 
water or run-off, food or feed crops. And we need to require better control 
and monitoring of its application to farm fields.

There are both federal and state issues here. The federal government - 
primarily the Environmental Protection Agency - has the lead on deciding 
what sludge must be tested for. But its list is too short, just nine 
substances, mainly heavy metals. It has dragged its feet on expanding that 
list. Its own inspector general has acknowledged that the agency can't 
assure the public that sludge is safe. The federal government has not 
undertaken systematic study of the safety of sludge.

What will it take to get action? A more pointed congressional push, or 
enough states refusing to allow sludge until its safety has been vetted.

At the state level, what's needed is an approach more effective than 
Virginia's now-perfunctory program, consisting of the occasional inspection 
of how sludge is applied. This approach is inadequate to protect Virginians, 
or even determine if they need more protection.

In this context, state Sen. Fred Quayle's plan to meet with Gov. Timothy M. 
Kaine might do some good, for Kaine can direct the state departments of 
Health and Environmental Quality to beef up monitoring and get involved in 
assessing sludge safety. Better yet would be a concerted effort in the 
General Assembly to require extensive testing before sludge can be applied.