San Francisco Bans the Happy Meal

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:02:42 PM PDT

As someone with kids in my life, I've been waiting and hoping for this, and I hope other cities and states take a page out of San Francisco's book and do the same thing. Your average three year old might not have a clue what vitamins, fat, and calories are, nor would she know whether a carrot or McNuggets are healthier for her, but she sure as hell knows that she wants that little plastic toy that comes with the Happy Meal.

LVL Contest: Make Your Own Sewage Sludge Jingle!

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 00:59:43 AM PDT

Now, apparently, it's San Francisco's turn at bat. So what are they doing? PR, of course. They have a new jingle to remind people what goes down the toilet and what doesn't so that the resulting sewage sludge is clean and can be used as a fertilizer. "When it comes to your toilet: Remember 3 Ps - Poop, Paper and Pee - Give it to Me!" Catchy, huh?

Here's the thing... it's not the condoms and cotton swabs going down the toilet that are really the problem, when it comes to using sewage sludge as fertilizer. It's the industrial waste, hospital waste, and even household waste - including the various chemicals that humans excrete. For example, check out this nice list of pharmaceuticals frequently found in sewage sludge. A few of them can be traced to use in livestock, but most are human drugs. Sometimes, pharmaceuticals even make their way all the way into drinking water. I've spent the last week reading countless studies about how pharmaceuticals biodegrade and what happens to them in the environment. Quite often, drugs go right through humans and come out the other end. So do an awful lot of other chemicals. If you want data and numbers check out this CDC report. They measure human exposure to chemicals by what they find in our urine.

At any rate, I find this sewage jingle so entertaining, I'll mail a book about sustainable food (winner's choice of several - I'll give you a list of what I've got) to whoever can come up with the best jingle about using sewage sludge as fertilizer for food crops. If you can write a jingle, paste it in the comments here. I'll post a diary with all of the entries a week from today and let people vote on the winner. Multiple entries are allowed - the more, the better.

Full disclosure: I am being paid to write about sewage sludge by the Center for Media & Democracy. However, this contest is my own idea and my own work, independent of the work I am being paid to do.

More in the San Francisco Sludge Story

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 22:15:47 PM PDT

However, they did NOT test for flame retardants, even though tests done by the EPA as well as prior tests done of San Francisco's sewage sludge compost by the Center for Food Safety indicated that flame retardants were probably present. Nor did they test for triclosan or any other pharmaceuticals. Triclosan, which is itself a suspected endocrine disruptor and breaks down into dioxins, was found in most samples tested by the EPA, as were many other pharmaceuticals.

But, even though San Francisco didn't test for these things, the Food Rights Network did. And, not surprisingly, they found them - along with another chemical called nonylphenols. (I should note that I'm working with FRN and I am being paid for writing about this subject.)

I think it would be disingenuous not to mention that, aside from this sludge issue, what I'm learning is that we live in a very toxic world, and much of the toxins are man-made. Often they are also unnecessary. In the case of flame retardants, California has a law that requires excessive use of them, and Californians are therefore exposed to high levels of various flame retardant chemicals (many of which are toxic). I recommend checking out the Green Science Policy Institute for information on how we might prevent fires in a less toxic way.

About triclosan and another chemical, triclocarban, both are used in antibacterial soaps and other products, but studies find them to be no more effective than regular soap and water. So in that case, what the hell are we doing using them? Especially when so many of us have measurable levels of the chemicals in our bodies, and when triclosan and triclocarban in the soil makes it into the edible portions of the plants and thus gets into our diets. NRDC has just sued the FDA to ban these in soaps and body washes, so cross your fingers.

Sludge is more or less a catch-all for every sort of chemical we put down the drains in our homes, hospitals, and in industry. It's where it all comes out in the wash, unless it is somehow processed out of the sludge or released with effluent in the wastewater treatment plant. And I'm finding that the answer in many cases isn't just to dispose of sludge in a site suitable for toxic waste but also to stop using the toxins in the first place - particularly in the cases I've cited here where they aren't serving much purpose beyond getting into the environment and our bodies and causing trouble.

Bees 'R' Us (Bee hives at Hayes Valley farm taken out by pesticide)

by: citisven

Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 14:03:24 PM PDT

From the Hayes Valley Farm (SF) blog:

Sometime between the late afternoons of Monday July 19 and Tuesday July 20, an unknown person(s) intentionally sprayed pesticide into the entrances and ventilation holes of the two San Francisco Bee-Cause (SFBC) honey bee colonies at HVF.  The same person(s) tried to do the same to a third, smaller colony on site, belonging to Chris Burley.

it goes on:

The killing of the two mature SFBC colonies was complete.  The thousands of bees that died immediately or rushed to the entrance for fresh air fell onto the screened bottom board and clogged up the entrance to the hive, making escape impossible for any of the other bees and turning each hive into a gas chamber.  Chris Burley's colony sustained a loss of approximately 60-70% of its individuals.

When Environmentalists Go Bad (and Tell Lies)

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 18:17:39 PM PDT

I've told this story on this blog before, but there's a reason I'm bringing it up again: new revelations, discovered by the Food Rights Network. Until now, I've largely given the SFPUC the benefit of the doubt and took them at their word. I was wrong to do so.

The Vice President of SFPUC is Francesca Vietor, a famous environmentalist in the Bay Area. She's credited with influencing the city's adoption of the Precautionary Principle, which means treating nothing as safe until it is proven so. Yet SFPUC's sludge giveaways represent the very opposite of that: giving away a product of unidentified risks, closing your eyes, and hoping you don't get caught. (To date, the sludge "compost" giveaway program ran from 2007 until it was recently ended and, to the best of my knowledge, SFPUC is only now performing comprehensive testing on it to check for safety.)

When this scandal broke out, at first it seemed that Vietor could be the key to reforming SFPUC's sludge policies. Sadly, Vietor took the low road. Instead of doing the right thing and adding one more credential to her environmentalist resume, she lied, stonewalled, made legal threats, and covered her own - and SFPUC's - ass.

San Francisco is Testing Its Sludge For Safety

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 22:46:03 PM PDT

Thanks for your inquiry about the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)'s Biosolids Compost Program. As you have mentioned on your email, the test results for the biosolids compost given away in fall 2009 posted online are the same reports that are printed and made available at each of our giveaway events. Repeated test results have shown the metal concentrations in the biosolids compost given away by the SFPUC were comparable to the compost found in a gardening store.  The testing standards and test results must meet compliance standards set through the EPA's Part 503 Rule.

The nine pollutants regulated by EPA's Part 503 Rule were selected after a 1984 Risk Assessment that included more than 200 inorganic and organic pollutants.  In order to responsibly regulate a pollutant certain information must be available in order to conduct a risk assessment. Such information includes toxicity, fate and transport (from within the biosolids matrix preferably), reasonable routes of exposure, and the dose to which the subject would be exposed. For those 200 pollutants, a hazard quotient (HQ) was calculated which is a measure for potential adverse effects to public health or the environment. Some 25 pollutants had a HQ of greater than one, which called for a full effect characterization through a comprehensive risk assessment. Fourteen pathways of exposure were evaluated with numerous conservative assumptions built in through which it was ensured that all reasonably anticipated adverse effects were captured. Ten pollutants were determined to be necessary to regulate (later reduced to nine in 2001).

The SFPUC is currently undertaking a comprehensive test of our biosolids compost, including heavy metals and pollutants of concern. In an effort to be completely transparent, these tests go above and beyond any current regulatory requirements for either biosolids compost or what is readily available as soil amendment from commercial gardening stores.

Our test results will be available to the public as soon as they are completed.  I hope this information helps you in the meantime.  Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.

I'd like to call out a gaping flaw that appears in the EPA's method of determining what to regulate in sludge as it is described here. There are literally tens of thousands of chemicals that can show up in sludge. Testing a mere 200 of them can hardly guarantee the safety of sludge. And the proof for that is in the pudding - when Andy McElmurray applied sewage sludge from Augusta, GA on his fields where he grew crops to feed his cows, the cows died. McElmurray went out of business. And milk was sold in the supermarket with high levels of thallium - a rat poison - in them. Thallium is NOT one of the chemicals that the EPA deemed hazardous enough to regulate. And it's not even a common chemical found in sludge, to the best of my knowledge. But that doesn't mean that it's never found in sludge or that the regulations keep us safe from it.

On another note, I'm encouraged that SFPUC promises to make its results fully available to the public once they are complete. However, it's been MONTHS since they supposedly initiated this testing. How long does it take? And what are they doing that requires so long? Shopping around for a lab that gives them the results they want? Sending back positive results for re-testing until they come back negative? Or, on the other hand, are they really doing the world's most complete testing of their sludge compost to ensure that it's 100% safe for applications in gardens where food is produced? I hope it's the latter.

San Francisco Has to Do More to Prove Their Sludge is Safe

by: Jill Richardson

Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 21:01:03 PM PDT

Along with a long list of letters (mostly from the sludge lobby) praising its sludge giveaway program, they show test results for a few heavy metals and fecal coliform. Even though sludge contains tens of thousands of chemicals and organisms, the EPA only regulates 10. And that's exactly what they tested for. The problem? The biggest danger in sludge isn't (usually) those 10 regulated toxins. After all, they are regulated! The problem comes from the countless OTHER toxins and pathogens that can occur in sludge.

Oh Alice, Don't Let Them Do This To You

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 21:34:15 PM PDT

But here's the full statement they made:

"I have to admit to some schadenfreude when the organic, 'environmentalist' crowd turns on itself," says Stier. "Ms. Waters was a hero of the sustainable food movement, but now they are turning on her because of very low levels of heavy metals in this compost, less even than you'd get from a vitamin supplement. The irony, of course, is that using biosolids is a wonderfully environmentalist thing to do, since it safely recycles waste materials; the 'environmentalists' are on the wrong side of this environmental issue."

They are congratulating Waters because using sewage sludge is a "wonderfully environmentalist" thing to do?? Alice, please, these people still think DDT should be legal. Don't let them count you as being on their side. It hurts me to see Alice Waters used like this.

(As for those heavy metals... they've done a nice job cherry-picking the ONE class of toxins in sewage sludge that is somewhat regulated. Sure, sludge might not have too much lead in it... but how about flame retardants, dioxins, pharmaceuticals, and phthalates?)

What San Francisco Found in Their Own Sludge

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 15:38:46 PM PDT

San Francisco's own tests of its sludge looked for heavy metals, PCBs, dioxins, volatile and semivolatile organic compounds, and pesticides. They didn't look for pharmaceuticals, steroids, hormones, or anything living (bacteria, parasites, etc). And they found some concerning stuff. Details below.

Sludge Hits the Front Page of the SF Chronicle!

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 14:08:29 PM PDT

The hullabaloo is over a program by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which once a month distributes biosolid compost to gardeners, school groups and homeowners for free. The commission claims the compost is heat-treated fertilizer that is as good as the stuff sold in gardening stores.

But the Organic Consumers Association insists that the sacks given out to San Franciscans contain a stew of excrement and toxic chemicals from the sewer.

Talk about some tricky wording. Yes, the sludge is as good as stuff sold in gardening stores. And as bad. That's because gardening stores ALSO sell sludge under misleading premises. Like Milorganite, made from Milwaukee's sewage sludge, which claims it is "For better results. Naturally." That marketing claim would only be true if you consider industrial waste to be "natural."

What surprises me most about this article is that the SFPUC is STILL claiming that its sludge is safe.

"We are giving away highly treated, heat-pasteurized biosolids," said Tyrone Jue, spokesman for the Public Utilities Commission. "It has been tested for metals and pathogens and is basically sterile."

Sterile, maybe. But what about heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, flame retardants, and dioxins? Some of that stuff doesn't go away when you apply heat.

The article adds two new elements to the story. First, SFPUC is now conducting rigorous tests of its sludge. I've been asking them for a few days now to give me details on the testing they are doing but haven't heard anything back yet. Second, SFPUC is complaining that the Center for Food Safety did independent testing of the sludge but refuses to share the results. This is true. The Center for Food Safety did inexpensive testing that was not sensitive enough to find small concentrations of substances and STILL found some bad stuff in the sludge. They refused to hand over their results to SFPUC because they want SFPUC to do real, more comprehensive, testing instead of relying on what CFS found.

There's a bit of controversy about testing in general because there are literally THOUSANDS of hazardous contaminants that might be found in sludge, and you can easily test sludge for just a few of them, find nothing, and declare it clean. Also, some hazardous chemicals are harmful in tiny concentrations but tests may not be sensitive enough to find those chemicals in small enough concentrations. (This is, ironically, how many people who smoke pot pass drug tests in our country... you drink a lot of water the day of your test and even though your urine contains THC, it's at a low enough concentration that it won't be detected.) Another factor is how many sludge samples are tested. Sludge isn't necessarily uniform, so one batch of the goop may yield a harmful chemical that isn't present in another batch. The fewer samples you test, the less you may find.

I will follow up on this issue as it plays out.

Vietor Takes Legal Action Over Sludge Article

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 20:10:51 PM PDT

I believe your post about Francesca suing the UK Guardian is factually inaccurate.  A legal statement asking for the correction of inaccurate information in a publication is not a lawsuit.  Since she is not in any way instituting a legal proceeding or filing a suit in court against the The Guardian she is not "suing" them.  I would appreciate it if you could make that correction.

I'm getting conflicting information about the nature of Vietor's legal complaint. I haven't seen the letter myself. So for the time being, the only info I've got is that she took some kind of formal legal action, whatever that was.

I'm rather surprised about the first legal action to come out of the San Francisco sewage sludge giveaway program. After the city gave away its hazardous sludge to gardeners, calling it "organic biosolids compost," you'd think that the city itself (or its Public Utilities Commission - SFPUC for short - might be the subject of a lawsuit). But instead it's the Vice President of the SFPUC, Francesca Vietor, who sent a legal statement to The Guardian (a UK newspaper) asking them to change their reporting of the story.

As you may know, I'm familiar with the story. Here's my own fact check of the supposedly libelous article (below).

Alice Waters, Sustainable Icon, Won't Say No to Sludge

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:00:00 AM PDT

As Chez Panisse matured, becoming a touchstone of American cuisine, Waters found willing partners in her mission of promoting local, fresh, seasonal ingredients. She joined fine cooking with community activism, supporting local farmers, organic food, sustainable agriculture, and other causes. Cooking is, in her view, a product of agriculture as well as a part of culture. To help change the culinary culture, Waters created, in 1996, the Chez Panisse Foundation. Part of its mission is to help fund a program called the Edible Schoolyard, which involves schoolchildren in planting gardens and then harvesting, cooking, and enjoying what they've grown.

Given all of this - why on earth would Alice Waters refuse to denounce San Francisco's policy of giving away sewage sludge marked as "organic biosolids compost" to unsuspecting gardeners?

Beyond Chez Panisse: Eating in the Bay Area

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 23:23:01 PM PST

SF Sludgegate Interesting Development

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 22:45:39 PM PST

Her bio from SFWater.org:

Francesca Vietor is Vice President of the Commission. She served as President of the City's Commission on the Environment from 1997 to 1999 and as Director of the Department of the Environment from 1999 to 2001. In 2003, she co-founded 1000 Flowers, a non-partisan non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to registering and mobilizing women to vote across the country. She has worked for many nonprofit organizations, including Rainforest Action Network, Greenpeace, Island Press, and CARE Madagascar.

She currently runs an environmental consulting firm, Ecoworks, with current contracts at Commonweal, an environmental health nonprofit in Marin County, and the Green Schools Initiative, a Berkeley-based NGO bringing environmental practices to schools in the state. She serves on several boards, including Friends of the San Francisco Public Library (spearheading the greening of the library initiative), the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, Slide Ranch, and Bioneers. She is also pursuing a Bachelor's in Fine Arts at the California College of the Arts while she raises her three-year-old daughter with her husband, writer Mark Hertsgaard.

From her background, she looks like a strong environmentalist and a friend of sustainable food. So what does she think about SFPUC's decision to give sewage sludge to unsuspecting gardeners under the guise of organic compost?

Sludge: The Whole Story

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 14:18:11 PM PST

I ask that everyone please read this since it has implications for our entire nation, not just San Francisco. One commenter asked if I was talking about raw sludge here and said that treated (composted) sludge is better. I would like to clarify that I am ONLY talking about treated sludge. The test results I posted earlier were tests of the "organic compost" handed out by San Francisco to gardeners. And I'm getting my info directly from an EPA expert.