No Crap

In recent years, a number of farmers have begun fertilizing their land with sludge, a bi-product of sewage and other wastes from municipal wastewater treatment facilities. As outlined in an article by renowned author Holly Dressel, posted on this blog, the small Quebec town of Elgin recently adopted a by-law banning sludge use. The by-law was challenged by a local farm wishing to use sludge, with the backing of a multinational waste management company that sells sludge to farmers. The case went to a Quebec Superior Court where the town set a legal precedent when the judge upheld the by-law. Judge Steve J. Reimnitz, in his decision on the case, invoked the precautionary principle, writing “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation”. I believe the application of the precautionary principle is appropriate in the case.

The primary concern raised by Elgin citizens (and that which influences my support of the judge’s decision) is that sludge has been shown to contain toxic substances including pathogens like flu or E. Coli, medications, hormones, dangerous chemicals and heavy metals from small industries and the de-inking process of paper recycling. These heavy metals can sterilize soils and render them useless or even dangerous for crop production. The sludge, which is shown to often wash into nearby water systems, poses further threats of measurable negative effects to the environment. Given my biocentric view of the environment, I would claim that these negative effects stand to cause harm to a number of the living things in the surrounding area, and downstream. I am often reluctant to stand behind the precautionary principle, but in this case, I believe the amount of evidence supporting the potential for harm or damage warrants its application.

As Dressel points out, Canada’s water treatment systems are unable to remove many of the harmful substances described. So, after sludge began to be used on farms in the early 1990s, a number of human deaths occurred from pathogen-contaminated sludge. Also, a number of dairy herds were sickened by pastures treated with sludge. Researchers at the Cornell Waste Management Institute stated, in an assessment, that "The sheer number of dangers associated with treating sludge as if it were a fertilizer is so great, so various and so serious that it would be the life work of thousands of professionals to divide up and respond to the categories of problems that will arise from this practice." As I discussed in my previous blog post “Degradation of Cootes Paradise”, a recent study by Environment Canada found high levels of dangerous chemicals in the dumping sites of municipal wastewater treatment plant discharge. This discharge is similar to the sludge used as fertilizer. The study described a number of harmful effects of these chemicals on many organisms.

Sludge offers farmers an alternative form of fertilizer at a cheaper price. Aside from the cost benefits, the advantages of sludge over traditional fertilizer are debatable. However, the negative effects are becoming more apparent, though they may not always be felt by the farmers who save money by using sludge. Regardless, the widespread application of sludge on vast expanses of farmland creates the potential for environmental damage and irreversible harm on a large scale. In accordance with the precautionary principle, this practice should not be allowed.

References:

http://vernonsludge.blogspot.com/2009/10/whats-happening-in-quebec-block-that.html

http://gmeansgreen.blogspot.com/2009/10/degradation-of-cootes-paradise.html