[USCC] Coffee Grounds

[Jim McNelly]

At 11:30 PM 2/2/2007, you wrote:


>What about the DDT levels in non-organic coffee? Apparently there is
>measurable DDT residue, but it is "acceptable" based on a 2 cup / day
>habit.  Not sure what it would do to DDT levels in soils if used in high
>amounts.
>Heide

Greetings,

The safety of DDT and its demonization is, in my opinion, one of the 
most tragic legacies of the early environmental movement.  The vivid 
images projected in Rachel Carson's book "A Silent Spring" portrayed 
tragic consequences resulting from the widespread misuse of DDT to 
control mosquitos and reduce malaria.  When spread by the hundreds of 
tons year after year, it bio-accumulates in the food chain until the 
point that raptors, such as the bald eagle, concentrate it in their 
systems such that the viability of their egg shells is diminished and 
there are fewer predatory birds growing to maturity.

In the mad rush to stop this terrible problem, DDT was totally banned 
world wide.  Over time, DDT levels have dropped in the food chain and 
raptors have made a remarkable comeback, even to the point that the 
bald eagle has been removed from the endangered species list.  In the 
effort to protect raptors, however, home and personal use of DDT was 
also banned.  DDT was used so widely because it is one of the safest 
pesticides ever developed, having virtually no effect when directly 
exposed to plants or animals, attacking only certain forms of 
insects.  It is completely safe to use in the home, the yard and for 
personal use.  The problem was never with DDT itself; the problem was 
with its misuse and the manner in which widespread spraying was 
impacting the food chain.

Banning DDT in home use, where it has been proven to be the safest 
and most effective pesticide for controlling malaria bearing 
mosquitoes, has resulted in the needless deaths of millions of adults 
and children around the world to malaria.  There is no possible way 
that DDT use in the home could ever produce sufficient quantities to 
get back into the food chain such that it would bio-accumulate to 
ever impact raptor eggs.

Finally, after decades of scientific evidence proving the safety of 
DDT for home use, the United Nations lifted the ban on DDT.  This was 
delayed for over a decade due to dire warnings of DDT use without any 
evidence.  Now that the ban has been lifted, the drop in malaria 
rates have been dramatic and children are no longer dying as readily 
from malaria.  DDT is now approved for use in homes, for spraying on 
the walls  and in baby's cribs as its safety to humans is 
irrefutable.  This is one example where environmental overreaction 
has been overcome.

DDT is not approved on crops or for widespread spraying, where its 
dangers are documented.  Consequently, unless there is a rogue 
illegal sprayer, I can see no possible way that we could have DDT on 
coffee or any food crop.  Even if there were, it is not a biohazard 
to humans at such ingestion rates.  Where is your evidence that it is 
"apparently" in coffee?  Yes it is persistent, but I doubt that it is 
*that* persistent where it is drawn up systemically from the soil 
from use forty to fifty years ago.

As I see it, to worry about DDT in coffee is simply "groundless".

The issue of more concern to me is the context of associating DDT 
with compost.  To grab a highly emotional term such as "DDT" and 
associate it with the safety of food and compost without any 
scientific basis for concern is, from my perspective, just another of 
dozens of examples of bewildering arguments against compost and 
composting that our industry has to face again and again and 
again.  Even if there were significant quantities of DDT in coffee, 
why would the coffee industry not be targeted, I wonder?  Why would 
the use of compost be challenged instead?  In addition, while there 
is a real biohazard in the home environment, arsenic from treated 
lumber, why would perceptual biohazards need to be imagined?

Heide, if you want to work on a *real* environmental toxicity issue, 
why not look into the issue of treated lumber?  It is over 3000 PMM 
arsenic and over 1000 PPM lead, both of which are very high 
concentrations in a household setting.  Arsenic pollutes when it is 
manufactured. Unwashed arsenic on wet wood or trimmed ends can lead 
to skin cancer. While arsenic does not leach into the garden while 
the lumber is structurally sound, it does leach when the wood rots, 
which it eventually does, typically around 25 years. Already banks 
are looking at arsenic clean up liabilities when loans are made.

Why not look into the problem of lumber yard workers being exposed to 
its sawdust?  Why not look into children being exposed to arsenic 
sawdust under playground structures? What about the problem of 
sawdust from treated lumber deck construction floating into Koi ponds 
or being ingested by children?  Wear gloves and a dust mask, cut a 1" 
square of treated lumber and put it in a 20 gallon aquarium with a 
goldfish and see what happens.  The fish dies, of course.

People worry about arsenic in biosolids at 47 PPM, close to many soil 
background levels, while their children may be eating arsenic sawdust 
in their own yard at levels nearly 100 times higher!  Did you know 
that arsenic in the air is often the highest air pollution problem in 
some northern cities during the winter as it is unfortunately used as 
fuel in burn barrels?  Did you know that arsenic from a house fire 
with a treated lumber deck will rain a fallout plume of arsenic ash 
down wind for miles on unsuspecting residents, not to mention the 
exposure risk to firefighters?  The ash from treated lumber fires is 
also highly toxic, leading to safety concerns in camp fires, burn 
barrels, clean up workers and landfill operators that take this toxic 
ash.  In the county I live in, 24 cows died from ingesting ash from 
treated lumber scraps burned by the farmer after building a 
fence.  While ingesting small quantities of arsenic may not be a 
deadly biohazard, leading only to short term nervous system and 
kidney disorders, getting it on your skin even in minute quantities 
can lead to deadly melanoma, skin cancer, within twenty five 
years.  Its ash form, when improperly burned, it when it is the most dangerous.

I think that it is no coincidence that melanoma deaths have increased 
over the decades mainly in countries that allow the wide use treated 
lumber.  We composters do not want treated lumber in our wood 
chips.  Why not research this issue and see if there is a 
documentable correlation between burning treated lumber and skin 
cancer?  Arsenic at 3000 PPM is a *real* biohazard.  Work on that one 
is a suggestion from me that could occupy your busy mind.  In the 
meantime, unless you have a real issue to bring to us, please leave 
compost alone with undocumented, perceptual biohazards.





Jim~ McNelly
Renewable Carbon Management LLC
jim at composter.com
www.composter.com