Gov. Phil Scott visited the North Williston Cattle Company Thursday to unveil a voluntary program aimed at encouraging environmental responsibility among Vermont farmers.
It was, to some, an ironic choice: The farm uses sludge and biosolids from a nearby wastewater treatment plant to fertilize some of its crops — a controversial practice in the environmental community. In fact, a bill under consideration in the Vermont legislature would ban the practice.
The new program is called the Vermont Environmental Stewardship Program. Farms enrolling in the program will be subject to soil testing and other measurements. If they pass the tests, they will be certified as using best-management practices to minimize their environmental impact.
“Farmers in Vermont have a lot to contend with,” Scott remarked. “Whether it’s running the business itself, dealing with the weather, caring for animals, growing crops, and navigating all the rules and regulations that are put into place.
“Many farms and farmers across the state are going above and beyond to protect the environment. They’re putting in extra time and extra money to protect our soils and our rivers, and to ensure a bright future for the next generation of farmers in our beautiful state. Now we have a program that uses a science-based approach to recognize farmers who are doing more and going farther to protect our natural resources.”
The new program is getting a slow rollout. As many as 10 farms will be selected to take part in a pilot project over the next two years. At first, the only reward for success will be recognition; state officials say they hope to add more concrete rewards later through public-private partnerships.
Scott hailed North Williston Cattle Company as one of those farms that has gone the extra mile in stewardship; it is one of five farms already enrolled in VESP. However, as owner Lorenzo Whitcomb explained, the farm has for several years been using human waste as fertilizer in fields that grow cattle feed.
H.211 would phase out the use of human waste on farm fields; it will be under consideration during the 2018 session. The governor seemed only vaguely aware of the issue, and said he had not taken a position on the bill. But after the press conference, Agency of Natural Resources secretary Julie Moore hastened to offer her perspective on his behalf.
“I know there are concerns about viruses and bacteria as well as personal care products,” she explained. “But there’s a rigorous framework in place that allows us to have confidence in the quality of these materials.”
One other key benefit, she added, is that the waste materials are put to use rather than being landfilled. On balance, she said, it’s “a beneficial reuse.”
Jon Groveman, policy and water program director for the Vermont Natural Resources Council, noted that a 2016 report by the Agency of Natural Resources, published before Moore became secretary, “contradicts her position.”
The report reaches no firm conclusions on the wisdom of the practice, but it does point out potential hazards and cites alternative ways to dispose of sludge and biosolids. The text of H.211 quotes the report as evidence for a ban on agricultural use of human waste.
“There are pathogens, metals, chemicals and toxics” in the sludge, says Groveman. “To feed it to animals producing milk and beef — it’s not a good way to go.”
Moore insists that H.211 is “problematic. If there’s an opportunity for beneficial reuse and it can be done safely and appropriately, we’re all for it.”
Apparently it depends on your definition of safety and appropriateness.
Thursday’s cool, wet weather also hampered the VESP unveiling. It was designed as a photo opportunity. A demonstration of the farm’s practices was on view, and there was an array of agricultural equipment set up on the lawn. The administration even offered aerial footage of the farm to TV outlets.
But because of intermittent rain, officials held the press conference inside a barn, the unmistakable scent of manure and the occasional mooing of the cattle adding a multi-sensual aspect to the event.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
We poison our lives with our industrial civilization and when a low-input system comes before us (humanure has been used for eons), we find ourselves in yet another trap.
Not likely we’re going to get back to the garden.
It is so important to remember that sewer sludge aka biosolids is NOTjust poop – it is a concentration of all domestic and industrial pollutants that go down drains and sewers.It has some good stuff in it, which plantscan use, but a huge load of thousands of other contaminants. Please read what independent scientists have to say on this issue –
And see this link for a great overview of the issues – http://bit.ly/2kehQlP by Dr. Thomas Maler
A great article from Scientific American – https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drugs-chemicals-seep-deep-into-soil-from-sewage-sludge/
Scientists against land dispersed “biosolids”
Canadian- http://bit.ly/1sb2qOP
UK- http://www.wte-ltd.co.uk/sewage_sludge_biosolids.html
US- http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.5b01931
The Green Alternative – The answer is gasification / pyrolysis …not simply dispersing this toxic waste on farms and forests –
see – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7EZjUOywzE
and see – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcq_soCc6dc
and see – http://www.cbc.ca/…/plasma-gasification-alberta…
and see – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUDyKpOyYa4
lets get energy out of this resource AND rid the environment of these toxins.
I must take issue with the authors assertion that it is ironic that a farm using biosolids should be considered for an award for responsible farming. On the contrary, thousands of farmers, public health officials, scientists and engineers whose jobs it is to protect the public health and be stewards of the land believe the use of the resource of biosolids, something we all produce each and every day, is a sustainable and responsible practice. This has been vetted by decades of scientific investigation and practice.
The first post above refers to pyrolysis and gasification. Both fascinating technologies that have been in wide scale use in other industries. However, to date several full scale operation applied to biosolids have failed. With continued research and technology improvement it may well one day be viable on a wide scale. Civilization has flourished by finding multiple uses for valuable resources. Biosolids fit this model exactly.
Farming with biosolids is neither responsible nor beneficial. Contrary to Charles’ claim, no credible science exsits that supports this practice. US regulations, unlike those of other countries, permit harmful and persistent sludge chemicals to accumulate in agricultural soils until the land is so poisoned it can no longer grow most crops.
For example, after two prize-winning dairy farmers in Augusta GA were assured that this practice was safe, hundreds of their animals sickened and died after ingesting forage grown on pastures that had repeatedly been sludged. At the very least the VT legislature should protect the state’s dairy industry by prohibiting the land application of biosolids on grazing pastures.
Here is why: ruminants ingest not only forage, but soil. They become exposed to toxic sludge chemicals through three routes: first, by ingesting forage that has absorbed pollutants through their roots; next, through ingesting plants covered with sludge that has not been washed off by rain; and last, by actually ingesting the top dressed soil ( i.e. sludge).
For more information about the many risks of this practice, and how government agencies collude with industries and other entities that profit from this practice, see my testimony to the PA House Democratic Policy Committee: http://www.sludgefacts.org/testimony_to_pa.pdf and contact the Sewage Sludge Action Network by calling myradotson@hotmail.com: 919-270-7534.
The Whitcombs run a topnotch operation. Their farming practices are followed with a commitment to environmental stewardship. This farm uses biosolids as a fertilizer to improve soil health and crop yields and benefits from these nutrients that are produced locally with the Essex Junction treatment plant. Lorenzo Whitcomb knows the value of biosolids and he is a leader in the agricultural community. It is great that Governor Scott got to see the North Williston Cattle Company in action!!
Shelagh Connolly chairs a sludge spreading company– euphemistically calling itself Resource Management Incorporation– (RMI) that has for decades fought every state bill and local ordinance introduced in various New England states and towns that were designed to protect soil, aquifers, agriculture, and human health from the adverse effects of land applied sludge.
RMI is part of the states powerful sludge promotion coalition. Connelly also is President of the New Hampshire Water Pollution Association, and a charter member of New Englands aggressive sludge lobbying group, NEBRA, whose president is funded by EPA’s Office of Water to promote this harmful product and practice
In 2006, the Toxics Action Center awarded RMI one of its Dirty Dozen Awards, given annually to New England’s most egregious polluters. For an example of some of the misinformation this coalition disseminates to farmers, public officials, and the media see http://www.sludgefacts.org/Ref126.pdf
Dumping this deadly cocktail known as “biosolids” on reclaimed mines, farms, ranches, golf courses, parks and school grounds is killing innocent Americans and our wildlife. It’s a legitimate prion threat to livestock–as in mad cow disease:
1. The risk assessments are fraudulent, incomplete and outdated at best. As such, the practice of land application is illegal. Prions (deadly proteins) weren’t even known to science when the EPA faked the “sludge rule.” Prions are unstoppable in the sterile confines of an operating room, so they are clearly unstoppable in the high-volume, low-tech operations of your local wastewater treatment plant;
2. Because of prions (discharged from people with prion disease), biosolids are infectious waste. It’s illegal to dump infectious waste on land; and
3. Given the two assertions above, biosolids dumped on land are a clear violation of the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. Biosolids are fueling the spike in autism, Alzheimer’s, chronic wasting disease, Zika virus, West Nile virus, valley fever and more. It’s time to send some bioterrorists to jail and prosecute some public servants for treason. http://crossbowcommunications.com/alzheimers-disease-surging-due-to-misinformation-mismanagement/
Sewage sludge consists of anything that you or a terrorist can dump down the toilet or the storm drain, including radioactive material, carcinogens, pharmaceuticals and every transmissible disease known to humans. It will be dumped on a farm tomorrow where it will contaminate food and water with a deadly nerve agent, endocrine disrupters and more. Sewage sludge isn’t fertilizer. It’s bioterrorism.
We’re fighting trying to stop the Synagro company from building a crap factory, sewer sludge plant, in Plainfield Township PA. At the last Plainfield Township Planning Board meeting,June 2017, one of the members of the Board as the rep from Synagro how do they test the stuff that comes in. The rep said they send a sample to an independent laboratory. The Board member followed up asking, what do you do with the stuff while the sample is being tested? The rep from Synagro responded, and I quote, “WE PROCESS IT”. After the more then 200 community residents stopped sarcastically laughing, saying you have to be f-ing kidding and some other comments, the Board member asked the rep, with a tone of shock and disbelief, “you process it?” The Synagro rep responded “yes”. How can this be safe and responsible? Look up what happened in Milwaukee. They aloud sewer sludge to be applied to the ball fields and parks. After the sludge was applied, they tested the soil and it tested positive for PCB’s. It cost them millions of dollars to fence off the parks, dig up all the contaminated soil and dispose of it in a Hazmat dump site. And before anyone asks, yes it was because of the sludge. Also, look into the explosion, from one of the storage silos, at the crap factory that was in Hunts Point NY. You can Google illnesses related to sludge too. Then tell me how safe this crap is.
To the people commenting above with misinformation about biosolids, please educate yourselves with peer-reviewed, published data from scientists who have spent their lives researching biosolids. The “so-called” experts that you are citing do not have any objective evidence of harm from land-applying Class A biosolids according to increasingly stringent regulations in many states and provinces.
Land application of sewage sludge at agronomic rates diverts organic waste from landfills, returns nutrients and organic matter to the soil, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Biosolids do contain small amounts of pharmaceuticals and other industrial products. Many of these industrial chemicals (such as phthalates and flame retardants) are in MUCH higher concentrations in your house dust and on consumer products, and you are MUCH more likely to come in direct contact with these items. In addition, soil is the most efficient and appropriate medium for degrading these materials over time. Land application of Class A materials and ongoing monitoring is the best way to manage these materials.
Again, I urge the public to educate themselves. Presence DOES NOT equal risk. Risk is a combination of presence, concentration and likelihood of exposure.
If you want to read some evidence-based science about biosolids use in agriculture, please go to Google Scholar and search papers by Dr. Gordon Price, Dr. Chris Metcalfe, Dr. Paul Sibley, Dr. Lynda McCarthy, Dr. Sally Brown, Dr. George O’Connor. These distinguished professors have spent their careers studying the use of biosolids and the possible environmental and human health risks of their use in agriculture. Do not listen to the fearmongering of those who have not done any primary research of their own in this area.
Thank you.
Mr. Hall, before accusing us of disseminating misinformation and fear mongering, you might want to check some facts and read some of the published peer-reviewed primary research of our sources whom you derogatorily call “so-called” experts.
Land-applied sludges, including the Class A variety, contain not only human feces and urine, but unregulated toxic metals, antibiotic resistant super bugs and thousands of unregulated industrial chemicals, many of which are highly toxic, persistent, damage organisms in parts per trillion and accumulate in soil. For a partial list of toxins every entity connected to a sewer can legally pipe into sewage treatment plants, see http://www.sludgefacts.org/Ref125.pdf.
There are 90,000 of these synthetic chemical compounds in commerce today with 1000 new ones added annually; most are discharged into sewers, and end up in sludge. According to many experts, including Prof. Hale who has published sludge research for decades, biosolids generated in our industrialized urban centers are probably the most pollutant-rich waste mixture of the 21 century.
Another one of our sources, soil scientist, Professor Murray McBride, former chair the internationally renowned Cornell Waste Management Institute has published hundreds of peer reviewed articles since 1980. In 1995, he and his team concluded that the US sludge regulations do not protect human health, agriculture, and the environment
. Meanwhile the waste stream is getting more complex and more polluted, but the sludge regulations more lenient.
.
In August 2016 the three Canadians Mr. Hall mentions, issued a statement accusing us of “biosolids hysteria”. They denied that sludge is a toxic stew. However the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) agrees with us: recognizing the inadequacy of land application policies based on a component based quantitative risk assessment approach, the NAS recommended focusing on health end points and environmental tracking, because even if a summary index of an adverse response to mixtures was available, it would not necessarily reflect the total hazards of exposure to biosolids because of the inability to identify all of its hazardous constituents and their potential for interaction in vivo . . . thus it is not possible to conduct a risk assessment for biosolids at this time (or perhaps ever) that will lead to risk-management strategies that will provide adequate health protection.”
Lastly, Professors Metcalfe, McCarthy, and Sibley accuse us of being unscientific irresponsible and lacking common sense because we believe that small amounts of a pollutant can be very damaging to living organisms. After all, they argue, everyone knows the old adage that “the dose makes the poison.” This adage, however, does not apply to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3365860/ with their nonmonotonic dose response curves showing that small amounts harm organisms more than do larger amounts: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3365860/. Land applied sludges are full of EDCs.
In conclusion, we have read thousands of primary articles on every aspect of biosolids. For years we have repeatedly asked those who promote this harmful practice to send us one peer-reviewed paper published in the scientific literature that shows that this practice is safe, beneficial and sustainable. We are still waiting. You can reach us at http://www.sludgefacts.org.