National Sludge Alliance
Charlotte Hartman, National Coordinator
180 Boston Corners Road
Millerton, NY 12546
(518) 329-2120 (phone/fax)
email: chartmannsa@taconic.net
NSA Public Fact Sheet 109
Food Safety Claims
3/30/1997
- The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 should have been the Congressional capstone on 40
years of legislative action to close the last remaining loophole in the environmental laws to
protect public health from exposure to hazardous and toxic substances and clean up the
environment. However, where sewage sludge is concerned, Congress has not been able to
control the EPA and make the Congressional mandated laws work. In fact, on January 7,
1997, Congressman Serrano of New York introduced a new food labeling Bill (H.R. 289,
1997) to identify food products grown on land “fertilized” with contaminated sludge
containing toxic pollutants. - Congressman Serrano’s Bill was; “To amend the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the egg,
meat, and poultry inspection laws to ensure that consumers receive notification regarding food
products produced from crops, livestock, or poultry raised on land which sewage sludge was
applied.” - Some state legislators also introduced state bills to severely restrict the use of sewage sludge
as a fertilizer on food products. Senators Kuhl and Seward of New York introduced state
Bill 2853) (February 25, 1997) to make agricultural land on which sewage sludge is used
ineligible for an agricultural assessment. Senator McCormack of Vermont introduced state
Bill S179 (March 1997) to restrict pollutants to 1/10 the levels allowed by EPA in 40 CFR
503 sewage sludge use and disposal regulation. - State legislators have good reason for this action, according to Congress, “(13) The term
“toxic pollutant” means those pollutants, or combinations of pollutants, including disease
causing agents, which after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation or assimilation
into any organism [living entity], either directly from the environment or indirectly by
ingestion through food chains, will, on the basis of information available to the Administrator,
cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological
malfunctions (including malfunctions in reproductions) of physical deformations, in
organisms [people or animals] or their offspring.” (Title 33, part 1362) - However, according to EPA, “The term “toxic pollutant” is not used in the final part 503
regulation because this generally is limited to the list of priority toxic pollutants developed by
EPA. The Agency concluded that Congress intended that EPA develop the part 503 pollutant
limits for a broader range of substances that might interfere with the use and disposal of
sewage sludge, not just the 126 priority pollutants.” (FR. 58, 32, p. 9327) - As noted above, Congress felt the environmental laws were needed to protect the public’s
health from exposure to toxic pollutants through the food chains by acknowledging that the
pollutants WILL cause death, etc., and the EPA agrees in part 503.9(t) that exposure to the
pollutants in sludge through the food-chain could cause death, etc. So, why is EPA using
perceived loopholes in the laws to justify the use of toxic contaminated sludge as fertilizer and
only addressing 9 toxic pollutants in the regulation? (Public Facts #101) - The reaction to the advent of the Food Quality Protection Act which was by Congress in 1996
has been dramatic: 1) Almost a quarter of the States rushed to enact food slander laws to
prevent vocal complaints against adulterated food products; 2) EPA prevailed on the National
Academy of Science’s National Research Council (NRC) to release an unedited (and very
flawed) scientific study on the positive benefits of using sludge as a fertilizer on food crops;
and 3) EPA quickly changed the Sludge Use and Disposal Regulation (40 CFR 503) by
removing the ref erence to regulating the extremely high toxic Chromium limits from the
beneficial sludge use tables in part 503.13. - The basic premise of the “food slander laws” is that the media will not carry any “horror”
stories about contaminated food products that have not been proven scientifically. However,
even the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) own recommendations would violate the
food slander laws: “(e.) Because sewage can be regarded as filth, food physically
contaminated with sludge can be considered adulterated even though there is no direct health
hazard. Sludge should not be applied directly to growing or mature crops where sludge
particles may remain in or on the food. (f.) Commercial compost and bagged fertilizer
products derived from sludges should be labeled properly to minimize contamination of crops
in the human food chain which may result from their use. (c.) Crops which are customarily
eaten raw should not be planted within three years after the last sludge application. (d.) Crops
such as green beans, beets, etc. which may contaminate other foods in the kitchen before
cooking should not be grown in sludge-treated land unless the sludge gives a negative test for
pathogens.” (Table 14. FDA Recommendations to EPA on the Land Application of Sludge
(66, 75, 76), EPA-600-1-80- 025, May 1980) - When the FDA made the recommendations in Table 14, in 1980, little was known about the
toxicity of the pollutants in sludge or the infinite number of pathogens (disease causing
agents) in sludge. Nor was the methodology available to measure pathogen destruction, toxic
elements or assess the risks to human health from the toxic pollutants in sludge. However,
FDA did recommend: “(Table 14, a.) Sludges should not contain more than 20 ppm
Cadmium, 1000 ppm lead or 10 ppm PCBs on the dry weight.” - EPA disagreed with the FDA on lead, “The Agency, therefore, decided to select the more
conservative numerical limit for the final part 503 to minimize lead exposure to children and
set the allowable exposure limit at 300 ppm for this pathway (direct ingestion)—In addition, a
300 ppm lead concentration in sludge is consistent with current sewage sludge quality at all
but a very small number of POTWs.” - What happened? Ninety-six pages later, EPA raised the lead level 540 ppm above the highly
protective level of 300 ppm to 840 ppm and PCB’s were raised to 50 ppm. (FR. 58, pp. 9286
& 9382 / Table 1 of Part 503.13 -503.6). - Not only that, but the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health(NIOSH) has data
on many thousands of pollutants. As an example, the ten heavy metals addressed in sludge
(Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium
and Zinc) “regulated” by Part 503 are all identified by NIOSH as poisonous by inhalation or
ingestion or by other routes. NIOSH identified nine of the heavy metals as cancer causing
agents. NIOSH also has data which show seven of the heavy metals cause mutagenic effects
in living organisms. (Public Facts #108) - Since 1981, EPA has claimed sewage sludge was safe for use on food crops. Yet, at that time
the methodology was not available to test for dioxins. The EPA still does not have a human
health risk assessment model in place. The Peer Review workshop is only now (March 1997)
being held. (Jan, 1997-FR. 62, p. 8241, 42) - Not only that, but EPA has just requested “Investigator- Initiated Grants on Health Effects of
Arsenic.” According to EPA, “In conducting these studies it is also essential to address
availability of arsenic absorption from ingested foods, as well as arsenic speciation (chemical
form and oxidation state). (Dec, 1996-FR. 61, p. 64739, 40) - The EPA still has not released its Congressional mandated report on mercury which was due
in 1994. Based on media reports, the report may not be released for another four years.
(Bender, M.,(April 1997) Waste Dynamics- Northeast, Vol. 8, No. 2 ) - If the EPA is only now studying the health effects of Arsenic in food, working on the human
health risk assessment model for dioxin, and refuses to release the mercury study, why would
the National Research Council produce an EPA funded scientific study which concluded that
sludge/biosolids was safe for use on food crops, except for the access restrictions for
pathogens ? (Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food Crop Production, 1996) - EPA only requires the reduction of pathogens based on the number of fecal coliform, “less
than 1000 Most Probable Number per gram of total solids” for unrestricted Class A sludge or
“less than 2,000,000 Most Probable Number per gram of total solids” for Class B sludge. (FR.
58, p. 9399 – Part 503.32) - EPA claims that to prevent pathogen regrowth in Class A sludge, “the sewage sludge shall be
injected below the land surface within eight hours after being discharged from the treatment
process.” or “Sewage sludge applied to the land surface or placed on surface disposal site shall
be incorporated into the soil within six hours after application to or placement on the land.”
(FR. 58, p. 9401 – 503.33(9)(iii)(10)(i)) - Actually, the NRC report did not conclude sludge/biosolids was safe to use in food crop
production! The NRC scientific study was a public relations document designed to be used in
food slander law suits against people who have been harmed by sludge/biosolids use. (Report
to National Sludge Roundtable, July 20, 1996. Toxic Sludge is Safe for Your Food says
National Academy of Science. Laredo Safety Institute, Laredo, Tx.) - According to the NRC study, “The suite of existing federal regulations, available avenues for
additional state and local regulatory actions, and private sector forces appear adequate to
allow, with time and education, the development of safe beneficial reuse of reclaimed
wastewater and sludge.” (P.172) - The study also notes, “Related regulations pertain to toxic waste handling and treatment,
surface and groundwater protection, and public health. These regulations and their
overlapping authority are complex and need to be adequately explained to both the regulatory
community and the interested public to avoid confusion and the perception that beneficial use
is a disguise for the dumping of waste.” (p.172) - The study is qualified, “If it were not for this regulatory framework and investment by
industry, beneficial use sludge would not be a viable option.” (p. 165) - However, it appears that the NRC Committee failed to check its source of information, the
EPA. Nor did the Committee read the regulation (which showed at the time) that beneficial
sludge/biosolids fertilizer was too contaminated with arsenic and chromium to be disposed of
in a part 503 regulated landfill. (part 503.13 and 503.23, 1995) - Not only that, the committee offers 40 CFR parts 135, (“If public drinking water does not
meet mandatory requirement, suppliers must provide notice to customers.”), and 256 (state
solid waste management plans) as protective regulations. (pp. 165,6) Part 135 actually is for
the Prior Notification of Citizens suits against the polluters and part 256 existed in name only,
it was never funded. - The most alarming part of the NRC scientific study was the reference to the one limited
epidemic study on human exposure to sludge which was attributed to: Brown, R.E, and titled,
Demonstration of acceptable systems for land disposal of sewage sludge. Water Engineering
Research Lab. EPA 600/Z- 85- 062. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. - The Brown paper was a third party two page abstract of the actual study which noted the
World Health Organization (WHO, 1981) reported a positive association and a cycle of
infections of Salmonella from humans to sludge to animals to humans where cattle grazed on
sludge treated pastures. (Municipal Sewage Sludge Application on Ohio Farms: Health
Effects. Dorn, R.C., et al, Environmental Research 38, 332- 335). – LSI –