Reply to comment

Rebekah,

I am a student at the Univ. of Washington in Seattle, and have been hearing a lot about sewage sludge lately. I have no research or financial interests in sewage sludge. I am merely a concerned citizen that wants to hear the full story about sewage sludge. While I think it is important to look into this form of fertilizer and assure that it is safe, I also think that it is important for people like you (that provide information to the public about sewage sludge) to take a deep and objective look into why sludge might be dangerous and how it compares with alternatives (a cost and benefit analysis might be a nice method to start with). Before CMD jumps on the progressive bandwagon opposing this substance, it is important to provide information about the specific risks of using sludge as fertilizer. There are clear benefits to closing the waste loop and returning human waste into the ecosystem, so long as it is safe.

While I agree that some of the chemicals found in sludge are harmful at certain doses, it is important to include in the discussion information about background levels of those contaminants, and the levels of contaminants found in alternative forms of fertilization. I am concerned that backlash against the use of recycled human waste or sludge will create more demand for synthetic fertilizers that create financial dependency for farmers, decrease the long-term productivity of land, increase incentives for massive monoculture farming techniques, and support an energy industry that CMD and the public have well-supported concerns about. If sewage sludge is a more harmful alternative, then I agree that it should not be used. However, I have doubts that one can draw that conclusion from the information currently presented in CMD articles.

As a representative of CMD, please provide some information to back up the apparently foregone conclusion that sewage sludge is worse for the environment than other alternatives (conventional, organic, or otherwise). The mere presence of some undisclosed amount of toxic, persistent chemicals should not suffice for you or an educated public. You could do a lot of good by providing an objective, dispassionate assessment of sewage sludge, instead of simply fomenting the distrust and half-understanding of this fertilizer. I believe that CMD would agree that reporting should not be about reinforcing your own viewpoint (or the viewpoint of your organization), but rather providing your audience with a better understanding of the issues that affect their lives. I don't need a rehash of the controversy - help me understand the issue.

Patrick Bridegam