PR Watch, Third Quarter 1995, Volume 2, No. 3

by John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton

"There's no doubt that people have been harmed by sewage sludge, but I don't know of any cases where it's been proved beyond a doubt," says Stanford Tackett, a chemist and lead expert.

Tackett's seemingly contradictory statement captures the scientific loophole that PR practitioners use routinely to cover up health hazards. Scientific "proof" is something achieved under laboratory conditions with strict control of all variables. In the real world, those controlled laboratory conditions do not exist.

by John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton

If the "Water Environment Federation" has its way, you'll be routinely eating fruits and vegetables fertilized with sewage sludge containing heavy metals, dangerous viruses, dioxins, PCBs, pesticides and hundreds of other toxic chemicals.

The WEF, whose pleasant-sounding name conceals its true identity as the main lobby association for U.S. sewage treatment plants, is working closely with the Environmental Protection Agency to persuade farmers and food processors that sewage sludge is a "beneficial fertilizer."

by John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton

In traditional, agricultural societies, human waste was prized as a prime ingredient in what the Chinese called "night soil"--artfully composted, high-grade fertilizer. Things changed with the industrial revolution, which brought people together in cities where composting and recycling were no longer practical.

At first, open gutters were dug to carry sewage from city streets into nearby bodies of water. When populations were small and water supplies seemed unlimited, the wisdom of using fresh water as a vehicle and receptacle for human waste was not questioned. By the 1920s and 1930s, large cities were piping large quantities of untreated sewage into rivers and oceans, creating serious pollution problems. Septic systems in thousands of small and medium-sized communities were failing due to overloading. Thousands of industries were also producing chemical wastes and needed to dispose of them.

by John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton

The HarperCollins Dictionary of Environmental Science defines sludge as a "viscous, semisolid mixture of bacteria- and virus-laden organic matter, toxic metals, synthetic organic chemicals, and settled solids removed from domestic and industrial waste water at a sewage treatment plant."

Over 60,000 toxic substances and chemical compounds can be found in sewage sludge, and scientists are developing 700 to 1,000 new chemicals per year. Stephen Lester of the Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes has compiled information from researchers at Cornell University and the American Society of Civil Engineers showing that sludge typically contains the following toxins:

by John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton

To educate the public at large about the benefits of sludge, the EPA turned to the "Water Environment Federation." Although its name evokes images of cascading mountain streams, the WEF is actually the sewage industry's main trade, lobby and public relations organization, with over 41,000 members and a multi-million-dollar budget that supports a 100-member staff. Founded in 1928 as the "Federation of Sewage Works Associations," the organization in 1950 recognized the growing significance of industrial waste in sludge by changing its name to the "Federation of Sewage and Industrial Wastes Associations." In 1960, it changed its name again to the cleaner-sounding "Water Pollution Control Federation."

by John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton

The EPA's PR strategy for sludge was first outlined in a 40-page report published in 1981 with a classic bureaucratic title: "Institutional Constraints and Public Acceptance Barriers to Utilization of Municipal Wastewater and Sludge for Land Reclamation and Biomass Production." It warns that sludge farming projects may be blocked by small local groups who "feel their interests threatened."

To counter this opposition, the EPA advises project advocates to choose a strategy of either "aggressive" or "passive" public relations. "Aggressive public relations" uses "glossy brochures describing the project; open public meetings; presentations to specific interest groups; presentation of films about similar projects; local media coverage; technical education campaigns for the public and in schools; establishment of a hotline for quick response questions; and presentation of material stressing community benefits from the project." This approach, however, entails some risk: "A highly visible public relations campaign . . . would in itself alarm and harden opinion against the project."