On 26 Jun 2003 13:34:04 GMT, Nick Maclaren wrote:


In article oprrdbpyh6wxhha1@localhost,
Tim writes:
|
| In a word, "crap". The 1999 order makes composting of any animal
| products illegal - the correct answer to the question is "yes". The
| correct question to which the answer is "no" is "Will I need ...".
| | It says in the link this refers to the 2001 amendment of the 1999
order, so | I'm sure it's in effect now.

The 2001 amendment does not include the exclusions that it refers
to, but is a tightening of the 1999 order to ban the feeding of
catering waste to pigs and pultry (which was permitted by the
1999 order).

I really don't see anywhwere in the 1999 order that says or even implies
composting. It's clear to me that it only applies to animal waste products
that are *intended* to be fed to animals (and their definition of animals
excludes humans).
I suppose you could stretch the point (quite a lot) and say that anything
grown on compost could be eaten by animals...

How do you interpret it as applying to composting?

The article said:
Tamzin Phillips said: "It presents us with some interesting challenges. We
cannot compost the leaves off the cauliflowers, the teabags or the coffee
grounds."

I don't see how the National Trust got to that conclusion at all.
Feeding it to animals, as swill or whatever, sure, that's clear. But
composting? And what applies to the NT catering doesn't apply to private
homes as the NT is a commercial business.


| Hang on, what are we talking about here? I was looking for info about
how | far the compost heap should be placed, and to the part of the
quote that | suggested we might need a licence. My comment "I can find
no hints at all | that this might be true....." was not meant to apply
to the defra link, but | the link from the article that I thought I'd
put in my post but obviously | didn't....oops.

Ah. Sorry.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

No, my cock-up.
Tim.