The
horrible tragedy in Texas
last week has focused the nation's attention on some of the usually
unrecognized problems associated with commercial fertilizers. There are good
questions being asked about the wisdom of building houses, schools, and nursing
homes near fertilizer companies. There are other important questions about
commercial fertilizers that need to be asked, though, including the following.
Q: How are modern fertilizers made?
A: Most fertilizers are composed primarily of nitrogen,
phosphorous, and potassium. These can come from various sources, including
toxic industrial waste.
Q: How
common is the practice of using industrial waste in fertilizer?
A: The Washington Toxics Coalition reports
that the practice is widespread. A report prepared by the Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ) states that
“more than six hundred companies from 44 states mix over 270 million pounds of
hazardous waste with fertilizer as a cheap and unregulated means of
disposal."
Q: What kinds of waste products are used?
A: An article first published in Catalyst magazine states
that "industrial and mining wastes
— including plutonium, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead, PCBs and dioxin — are
taken from tailings, sumps, holding ponds, furnaces, and even captured from
pollution control devices, and legally sold to fertilizer companies or spread
directly on farmland."
Q: Is the waste treated first to remove the
toxins?
A: A report
entitled "Waste Lands: The Threat of Toxic Fertilizer" says, "Unfortunately,
the recycling of hazardous wastes into fertilizer products does not always
include the process of treatment or cleaning of hazardous waste, but rather
dilution of the waste. Dilution involves adding substances to a waste to reduce
the concentration of toxic substances that are present in the waste. Dilution
does not reduce the toxicity of the hazardous constituents."
Q: What are the laws about using toxic waste for
fertilizer?
A: An international treaty known as the Basel
Convention or the Basel Ban addresses "toxic colonialism." It prevents developed countries like the
United States from calling hazardous waste "fertilizer" and exporting
it to poorer countries. Industrial waste is allowed to be used in the United States
because of loopholes in hazardous waste disposal regulations. An individual
quoted in a Seattle Times article discusses
the loopholes. Referring to a toxic by-product of steel making, he says,
"When it goes into our silo, it's a hazardous waste. When it comes out of
the silo, it's no longer regulated. The exact same material. Don't ask me why.
That's the wisdom of the EPA."
Loopholes
also allow products to be sold without full ingredient disclosure. Labeling
laws only require the beneficial nutrients to be listed. Contaminants, which the CHEJ report calls 'toxic stowaways," are not legally required to be included on the label.
Q: What
contaminants may be present?
A: The
Waste Lands publication reported on a study that tested 29 fertilizers for 22
toxic metals. They found that 20 fertilizers exceeded levels of concern for
nine toxic heavy metals. All 29 fertilizers contained some level of each of the
metals evaluated. The report notes that the metals are associated with cancer,
birth defects, and reproductive problems.
Q: What can
people do to help combat the problem and reduce the health risks?
A: The
obvious place to start is by choosing not to purchase and use chemical fertilizers
on lawns and gardens. Those that advertise weed control as part of their
benefit are especially important to avoid, because they generally contain
pesticides. The website Eartheasy has a helpful page on natural lawn care, and natural and
organic fertilizers can be bought many places, including Grow Organic. We can also
influence the use of toxic fertilizers on commercial crops by voting with our
wallets. When we buy organic produce, we send the message that the issue is
important to us.
The
explosion in Texas
was sobering and heartbreaking, but if it causes us to examine our use of
chemical fertilizers, maybe we can salvage a bit of good from the tragedy.
4 comments:
Thank you, Martha, for posting this article! Most people don't stop to think about what is in the products they buy and would be shocked to find out toxic substances are not even required to be listed on the label. Thanks for raising awareness on this issue!
I've been reading about this sort of thing long enough that you would think I couldn't be shocked anymore, but some of it still surprises me. While researching this post I came across a description of the process by which toxins from a Superfund site were used to fertilize wheat, some of which was turned into "specialty" baked goods. Yep, that's special. And yep, that surprised me.
You were the one who got me on the organic banana page, Martha. Now I get horribly frustrated at the news when some "health" reporter tells us we don't "need" to buy organic bananas because nutritionally they're the same and the pesticides do not reach the edible part of the fruit. That is NOT the only health issue at stake, and health reporters need to report that. I like to think I'm sending the message "Hey, banana farmers, no need to destroy your own health or poison the planet on my account. I'll pay an extra 30 cents." It may be my imagination, but I have sensed people in the grocery store looking at me condescendingly as I pick up the organic bananas, and they pick up the others. It's because of that generic health reporter and her incomplete news. Grrr.
Well said, Debra. I totally agree.
Post a Comment