Congressman has been introducing his Bill to label food grown on sludge since 1997
* According to the EPA, the situation is much worse than the National Sludge Alliance (NSA) imagined,
when it was formed one year ago to stop the plagues. NSA emphasized the need for a food labeling
law as a quick fix because 46 of the 50 states allowed the uncontrolled dumping of pathogen
contaminated sewage sludge on food crops. However, the real extent of the potential food poisoning
problem from pathogen contaminated sludge was given on CNN's Hazardous Harvest report
(6-27-1997) by EPA representative Dana Minerva, "For one thing, Biosolids sewage sludge are in a
lot of different -- they are in a lot of different fertilizers, used as filler in fertilizer, so you'd almost have
to label ever single jar and can."
The basic premise of the "food slander laws" is that the media will not carry any "horror" stories
about contaminated food products that have not been proven scientifically. However, even the Food
and Drug Administration's (FDA) own recommendations would violate the food slander laws: "(e.)
Because sewage can be regarded as filth, food physically contaminated with sludge can be
considered adulterated even though there is no direct health hazard. Sludge should not be applied
directly to growing or mature crops where sludge particles may remain in or on the food. (f.)
Commercial compost and bagged fertilizer products derived from sludges should be labeled properly
to minimize contamination of crops in the human food chain which may result from their use. (c.)
Crops which are customarily eaten raw should not be planted within three years after the last sludge
application. (d.) Crops such as green beans, beets, etc. which may contaminate other foods in the
kitchen before cooking should not be grown in sludge-treated land unless the sludge gives a negative
test for pathogens." (Table 14. FDA Recommendations to EPA on the Land Application of Sludge (66,
75, 76), EPA-600-1-80- 025, May 1980)
1983 - EPA changed the labeling of recycled hazardous waste derived commercial fertilizers to
regulated recyclable material and then finally to recyclable material. (PF #112)
California scientists were deeply involved in EPA's game to expose the public to serious
health effects from improper disposal of sewage effluents. It was simple, the state was
already doing it. The 1989 proposed part 503 sludge rule would have prevent most sludge
disposal. Labelling would have prevented all sludge disposal as a soil amendment fertilizer.
Dr. Al Page of the University of California at Riverside (UCR), who was co-chair of the [Part 503}
Peer Review Committee with Dr. Logan, was listed as a metal bioavailability expert, as was Dr.
Andrew Chang, Page's colleague at UCR. Dr. Page was also the Chair of the National Science
Academy's National Research Council Committee (NRC) [and Andrew Chang was a member of the
committee] which reviewed the final regulation's risk assessment methodology in its 1996 report, Use
of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food Crop Production.
According to EPA, The three-year study was undertaken to help answer some of the questions that
have been raised about the safety of crops grown in fields where treated municipal wastewater
effluents or biosolids have been applied.
Yet, Albert Page, University of California, Riverside, [NRC] Committee Chair states, "The committee
was not constituted to conduct an independent risk assessment of possible health effects, but
instead to review the method and procedures used by EPA in its extensive risk assessment, which
was the basis for the Part 503 Sludge Rule." Committee member MICHAEL S. BARAM, Boston
University Law School, Massachusetts, didn't buy into the charade.
One of the recommendations of the Part 503 Peer Review Committee which would help to increase
the beneficial use of sludge was to * Develop the concept of a "clean sludge" which allows minimal
regulation. In other words, the Peer Review Committee wanted to make it easy for the POTWs by not
requiring any additional paperwork.
Any paperwork would draw attention to the product and the toxic contents. Paperwork would also
allow tracking of the product for liability purposes. Clean in this case only means there is a little less
of some of the toxic metals in the products.
Another recommendation of the Peer Review Committee was * Not regulate all D&M (distributing and
marketing) products as a sludge. In effect, take the labeling requirements off, so the public will not
know they are buying this toxic and extremely hazardous material.
Actually, the Peer Review Committee's recommendation to market sludge as a "clean" Exceptional
Quality (EQ) product violates basic consumer protection rights, as stated by President John F.
Kennedy in the 60s: 1) The RIGHT TO SAFETY; 2) the RIGHT TO BE INFORMED; 3) the RIGHT TO
CHOOSE; and 4) the RIGHT TO BE HEARD.
1) RIGHT TO SAFETY
The consumers right to safety is ignored in the distribution and marketing of the "clean" EQ toxic
contaminated sludge product for use on home lawns, gardens, school grounds and parks, because
the consumer is unaware of the unstated dangers contained in the products. The danger is
from pathogens in the product, the additional regrowth of pathogens, and the inhalation or ingestion
of toxic organic chemicals and toxic heavy metals when the product is used.
The marketers of EQ sludge know that if the purchasing consumer was aware this product contained
lead, mercury, cadmium, dioxins, PCBs and disease causing organisms such as E. coli and
Salmonella, etc., they would never buy it. No parent would ever expose their children to this toxic
fertilizer mix if they were aware of its contents.
2) RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
The consumer's right to be informed is disregarded in the promotion of the "clean" EQ toxic sludge
product. Through deceptive advertising they are led to believe there is no danger from the EQ
product used as a fertilizer. As there is no labeling required on EQ products as with all other
consumer products, the consumer is kept in the dark concerning the quality of the toxic pollutant
contaminated product. How could there be any instructions for its safe use, when no one knows whats
in the product?.
3) RIGHT TO CHOOSE
Because of a lack of information on the contents and use of "clean" EQ sludge products, the
consumer is unable to make a wise comparison among toxic contaminated sludge, manure and
other commercial fertilizers not containing dangerous mixtures of toxic substances. The right to
choose a safe product has been subverted by EPA.
4) RIGHT TO BE HEARD
The way the product has been packaged and promoted the consumer's right to be heard will never
happen. They will never associate any acute adverse health effects, i.e., a child playing in the yard
where sludge was spread as a fertilizer, who becomes ill or dies from exposure to worms, E. coli or
Salmonella that has regrown in the product, with the product itself. Subchronic and chronic effects
from exposure to toxic heavy metals and deadly organic chemicals, such as cancer, immune and
reproductive system damage, which would take years to show up, would never be connected with
the product.
Furthermore, recent "food slander" laws enacted by 13 states would restrict the consumers right to
sue for damages from the use of a sludge product. According to a January 17, 1998 editorial in the
Kansas City Star, Missouri Rep. Sam Leake, a Laddonia farmer who chairs the Agriculture Committee
in the Missouri House, wants to protect Missouri farmers by enacting a "law to impose tough penalties
on people who "disseminate a false and defamatory statement" about farmers or their products.
"Leake's bill would establish a penalty of three times actual damages for anyone [without scientific
proof] who "knowingly" makes or disseminates a false and disparaging statement about agricultural
products or an ag producer."
These laws are needed because of the EPA and Peer Review Committee's work. Exactly who was the
Peer Review Committee working for when it made the recommendations to:
* Exempt from the rule banned compounds that have been shown to pose insignificant risk (such as
lindane, chlordane, PCBs, hexachlorobutadiene). This action would be consistent with the screening
approach used by EPA (i.e., Environmental Profile and Hazard Indices) to eliminate low priority
pollutants from consideration.
* Exclude from the rule the chemicals which the Agency assumes to be lost from the sludge during
processing and are not present in sludge in significant amounts.
The Peer Review Committee, composed primarily of scientists who claimed to be experts on metals,
recommended EPA exempt the toxic organic chemicals to make it easier for the POTWs to accept the
beneficial land disposal methods. If the organic chemicals that were listed in the proposed Part
503 were regulated, it would require the POTWs to do costly tests. The dioxin test alone would cost
between $900 to $1200 a test. Compare this with co-disposal (2,991 POTWs) of sludge and solid
waste under Parts 257/258, where no organic chemical tests are required, but ground water
monitoring is required as well as a risk assessment of 1 in 100,000 for over 200 chemicals.