Readers' Comments

Shouldn't $h!† where we eat. Sewage sludge contains heavy metals and other waste products that are absorbed into crop foods through a process called phytoremediation (google it). Even "trace amounts" (if you want to call them that) of these toxins don't belong in our soils. They need to be processed and disposed of properly, not fed to the cycle to cause disease to sell more medicine. I'd love to find out how these entities are tied to big medicine.

Yes, I agree, but my background extends in a slightly different direction. Human waste has been used for thousands of years to fertilize fields. I remember around twenty years ago a college professor friend who went to China to study cultural and political topics. He wrote about "honey buckets." You can assess what these were about from the expression, but these were buckets in which people deposited their urin and feces. The buckets were taken to the fields and dumped. The contents of the buckets were prized, and it was, in the context in which the professor was working, a compliment to deposit in somone's honey bucket.

Granted, China has changed, and industry and scale make a difference, but I agree that negatively reacting to use of human manure for fertilizer is probably not merited. If there is a problem, it is not the fertilizer itself so much as the materials that accumulate in our sewer systems, mercury and lead being two of them. But EPA and other people who have knowledge of environmental engineering can deal with such things, and in the end, we might make better use of a fairly constant element of human life. With over seven billion of us, it would be cool if we could figure out some better approaches to closing ecological cycles. Industrial phosphates are fine, but so is natural fertilizer.

The comment is made in here that all "sane" countries reserve what most Americans consider decent hunting firearms for the military. I assume they are talking about such countries as Mexico, where only the military and the police are allowed, legally, to have anything more powerful than a popgun. If that is the case, perhaps they should ask why, if only the military and police are allowed to own these weapons, there are so very many murders committed with semi and full automatic weapons NOT under the direct control of either the military OR the police. The countries with the fewest gun deaths actually have MORE guns out among the population than does even the US, Switzerland being one of the top members of that group. IF they anticipate 12,00 illegal gun murders a year over the next four years, perhaps they should do more about controlling the gangs who go in for mass killings like that. We have not had that many gun deaths in the last four years altogether, so seems someone is selling a big scare job, again.

I'm trying to restrain myself, it's difficult. Initially, your vested interests are waving a very large RED flag. Secondly, I think you might be full of that very topic you claim to have recently studied. It is thoroughly accepted in the scientific community that the stuff that is flushed IS NOT and cannot be "treated" with our current water treatment
facilities. They weren't even designed to remove or handle the everyday "contaminants" entering the sewer systems. In large part, the chemicals were not even in existence when these treatment facilities were built. The pharmaceuticals people poop are left to "act on" anyone or anything that comes in contact with their residues, not to mention, paints, solvents, landscape fertilizers, "round-up" type herbicides. The
half-life of these ingredients is a Pandora's box and if you want to see just how healthy it really is ask that the bio-solid's CEOs subject their
grandchildren to eating from vegetables raised in it exclusively. Do as I say, NOT as I do! I appreciate the hard work this responsible citizen put out to bring us some incredibly valuable information. I believe he has probably saved lives of those who may have health challenges and thought they were doing the right thing, spending extra money to eat "healthy" foods from certain stores.

Just so that its known, the earth is covered by a thin layer of animal waste. Its that thin layer of waste that makes it possible to grow plants, which in turn feed us animals so that we can - once again - feed the plants. Maybe its just me, but it seems to be a beautiful thing. Plants use solar energy and our waste products to produce food for us. We use that concentrated solar energy to move our bodies and return plant food to the cycle.

Whether you realize it or not, the earth is a closed system. All the raw materials we will ever use are already here, and most of them have been used before by our ancestors or other life forms. That water you are enjoying out of that plastic bottle was at one time or another the urine of someone or some thing. Failure to see this does not make it false.

Using sterilized human waste to grow food for humans keeps that waste out of the rivers and streams and causes it to shorten the cycle that MUST happen to keep us all alive.

Thanks for you interesting comment, however seems that you may have a conflict of interest given your position.

Fine for you not to be concerned about 'trace' amounts. Accidents happen, and food is an exceptional product.

As pointed out in the post above, Whole Foods needs to 'walk the talk' of their slogans. People shop at Whole Foods because they trust the company to go the extra mile and verify what their suppliers are doing. Customers deserve to know that human waste is being spread on their food.

Who defines the "standards" for sludge and who enforces those standards?

I really appreciate this post. Thank you for sharing.

As someone who is currently creating a job analysis and selection procedures for soil scientists, I have been given great insight into biosolids, soil chemistry, microbiology, agronomy etc. to complete these tasks. The information I have gathered from the usage of biosolids on plants is not something that should be met with such backlash. Yes, there are trace elements in these pelletized biolsolids, but strict measures are taken to ensure that "if" the state even allows the use of biosolids on plants for direct human consumption, of which Illinois and various others ARE NOT allowed by regulations, these trace elements are kept under close scrutiny so as to not be able to have significant impacts on human health. The standards that this "sludge" goes through is a very sophisticated and arduous process that is able to delineate all but the trace amounts of such elements, of which some "could" be toxic in large quantities. As someone who tries to eat organic at all costs, I don't see this as being the huge problem you are making it out to be. As long as the regulations are in place to ensure these very trace elements, of which are already found in some types of soil depending on your location, then the usage of pelletized biosolids on should not pose any direct risk to one's health.

Also, the shooter was NOT representative of gun owners..."

As far as we know, the shooter wasn't an owner at all; it was his mom who owned those guns.

Was she representative? I'm guessing she thought so, and I'm guessing she considered herself the very model of responsible gun ownership. Nonetheless, her negligence in keeping those guns and all that ammo, in a house she shared with a son with a troubled history, enabled those killings, her own first.

The pro-gun side talks about Connecticut's "strict gun laws," but Newtown was already well along in being taken over by gun nuts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/nyregion/in-newtown-conn-a-stiff-resistance-to-gun-restrictions.html?ref=nyregion&_r=1&

...Yet recent efforts by the police chief and other town leaders to gain some control over the shooting and the weaponry turned into a tumultuous civic fight, with traditional hunters and discreet gun owners opposed by assault weapon enthusiasts, and a modest tolerance for bearing arms competing with the staunch views of a gun industry trade association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which has made Newtown its home.

If you're "shooting for responsibility" you need to aim better.

The issue is not who is a hypocrite... The agenda is not to make anyone hypocrites by exacting polices that protect the innocent.

I am not against having a gun by taking away the right to bear arms. I am for every law possible that saves innocent lives. How that comes about I believe is through honest dialogue and if a new law(s) diminishes the possibility of innocent people be murdered and limits access to the wrong parts of society obtaining weapons, then I'm interested in that conversation.

I see no benefit in shutting down the dialogue in advance that may have the potential for a safer society.

Yes, there are starving people out there that needs resolution too.