On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:39:33 +0000 (UTC), Essjay001
wrote:

paul pettet wrote:
I've recently started to begin recycling everything I can at home,
and was wondering if I can put tea bags on my compost heap. Will the
bags rot down or do I just rip them and compost the actual tea. We
tend to use a hell of a lot of tea bags in our house.

From the Telegraph




Compost could be a heap of trouble
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
(Filed: 02/05/2002)


THE ubiquitous television gardener Alan Titchmarsh advocates composting
and
the Government, it was thought, was all for it.

But in the middle of National Compost Week, it has been discovered that
throwing potato peelings, teabags or cauliflower leaves on your heap can
be
illegal.

Composting kitchen waste, as good gardeners have done through the ages,
can
violate regulations designed to prevent the spread of animal disease.

In 1999 the Government drew up new rules to prevent the spread of highly
contagious diseases, such as swine fever and foot and mouth, by scraps of
meat - a real fear since the last outbreak of swine fever was blamed on a
rambler's ham sandwich.

The regulations forbid the spreading of compost made from materials
prepared
in the same premises as meat on land where livestock are likely to graze.

Livestock, for the purposes of the regulations, include wild birds. So
any
gardener who spreads compost made from kitchen waste on land accessible
to
birds is theoretically guilty of an offence if he or she does not dig it
in.

The implications of the Animal By-Products Order 1999 have been
discovered
by the National Trust, which has been trying to find out what it needs to
do
to make its many compost heaps comply with the law.

Yesterday the trust announced that it had had to stop using "green"
vegetable waste from its catering outlets as a result of the 1999 Order.

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

Only vegan households would not be acting illegally in composting their
kitchen waste under the trust's interpretation of the law.

Aren't vegans allowed to drink tea ?



An embarrassed spokesman at the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural
Affairs said the regulations were never intended to cover compost. A
"risk
assessment" was being carried out on compost this month, after which the
department would look at the regulations again.

Peter Ainsworth, the Tory environment spokesman, said: "This is another
story of staggering incompetence. My advice is to carry on composting. It
is
good for the environment."


But that was 1999, did they look at the 2001 amendments ? Which to my
untrained eye looks like the 1999 Order has been changed to only apply to
catering businesses kitchens and farms etc. What the order says is that any
waste from COMMERCIAL kitchens can't be composted. So unless you run a
business from your ktichen you're ok.

But I don't see what the problem is because the 1999 order applies to
feeding animals waste, not to making compost. I am hard pushed to find any
connection - unless you keep animals on your land, or you let your compost
be fed to other animals. The amendment has changed this to make it clearer
that it applies to commercial waste and/or farm animals. I'm sort of
discussing this with Nick at the moment.

the Animal by-products Order 1999:
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/s...9/19990646.htm

the 2001 amendment:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2001/20011704.htm

make of it what you will.
The Order just basically states that people who have animal by-products
must dispose of them in a number of ways (composting isn't one of them).
Catering waste is specifically excluded from the definition of animal by-
products.

So it seems clear to me that a normal private household is not covered in
the Order. Once the food


"catering waste" means the following products when they are no longer
intended for human consumption - (a) waste from catering and domestic
waste;


It's all a bit complicated though.


Tim.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:10:37 +0100, Ophelia
wrote:


"Tim" wrote in message
newsprrdbugggwxhha1@localhost...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:23:17 +0100, Ophelia
wrote:


"martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:50:25 +0100, "Ophelia"
wrote:


"martin" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:40:19 +0100, "Ophelia"
wrote:

As do I

I always feel slightly guilty though because I have an odd memory
that
some
law came into being which would affect our rights to put tea bags
into
the
compost bin.

Does anyone else remember that or am I totally mad)

no and yes


Fank goodness *giggle*

You'll be needing one of these then
http://www.nettrader.co.uk/custom/lambswoolduster/

Why?

Because you're a loony. :-)

sigh.. I suppose so Careful though 'cos I am a loony with a
loooooooonggggggggg reach


Ouch!

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).

| 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.

In article oprrdgeij4wxhha1@localhost,
Tim writes:
|
| But that was 1999, did they look at the 2001 amendments ? Which to my
| untrained eye looks like the 1999 Order has been changed to only apply to
| catering businesses kitchens and farms etc. What the order says is that any
| waste from COMMERCIAL kitchens can't be composted. So unless you run a
| business from your ktichen you're ok.

No, that is a tightening of the 1999 order.

| But I don't see what the problem is because the 1999 order applies to
| feeding animals waste, not to making compost. I am hard pushed to find any
| connection - unless you keep animals on your land, or you let your compost
| be fed to other animals. The amendment has changed this to make it clearer
| that it applies to commercial waste and/or farm animals. I'm sort of
| discussing this with Nick at the moment.

Read it again. Look at sections 3 and 5, for example. Non-Vegan
kitchen waste is probably an animal product under the order.

| The Order just basically states that people who have animal by-products
| must dispose of them in a number of ways (composting isn't one of them).
| Catering waste is specifically excluded from the definition of animal by-
| products.

I can't find that.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

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.

"Tim" wrote in message

Ouch!

*smirk*

In article oprrdncalpwxhha1@localhost,
Tim writes:
| On 26 Jun 2003 13:34:04 GMT, Nick Maclaren wrote:
|
| 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?

By exclusion! If it isn't explicitly permitted, it is forbidden.

But I have found the reference to the exclusion of catering waste;
sorry I missed it. It means that you are right that the 1999 order
probably doesn't apply, but the 2001 one does. And, yes, you can
say just that - my compost heap is visited by cats, for example.

| 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.

I think that she is deluded. But the only difference I can see
between commercial and domestic applies to used cooking oil.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 26 Jun 2003 13:46:11 GMT, Nick Maclaren wrote:


In article oprrdgeij4wxhha1@localhost,
Tim writes:
| | But that was 1999, did they look at the 2001 amendments ? Which to
my | untrained eye looks like the 1999 Order has been changed to only
apply to | catering businesses kitchens and farms etc. What the order
says is that any | waste from COMMERCIAL kitchens can't be composted. So
unless you run a | business from your ktichen you're ok.

No, that is a tightening of the 1999 order.

I read it as shifting the emphasis.


| But I don't see what the problem is because the 1999 order applies to
| feeding animals waste, not to making compost. I am hard pushed to find
any | connection - unless you keep animals on your land, or you let your
compost | be fed to other animals. The amendment has changed this to
make it clearer | that it applies to commercial waste and/or farm
animals. I'm sort of | discussing this with Nick at the moment.

Read it again. Look at sections 3 and 5, for example. Non-Vegan
kitchen waste is probably an animal product under the order.

Sorry, I can't see what you mean. I think it all hinges on the definition
of animal by-products:

From the 1999 order:

'Interpretation and scope

3. - (1) In this Order, unless the context otherwise requires -
"animal" includes poultry;
"animal by-products" means - (a) animal carcases;
(b) parts of animal carcases (including blood); or
(c) products of animal origin;
not intended for human consumption, with the exception of animal excreta
and catering waste;'

also:


'Animal by-products
Animal by-products are defined in Part I of the Order as carcases or parts
of carcases, or products of animal origin, which are not intended for human
consumption, but the definition excludes catering waste and excreta. Animal
by-products are divided into two categories: high risk (e.g. fallen stock)
and low risk (e.g. slaughterhouse waste which is fit for human consumption)
..'


So you can't just read 'catering waste' wherever animal by-products is
mentioned. Catering waste includes household kitchen waste. It would only
be relevant if the waste contains or has been in contact with meat or meat
products. As it says in the expalantory notes at the end. If it hasn't then
there's no problem.


| The Order just basically states that people who have animal by-
products | must dispose of them in a number of ways (composting isn't
one of them). | Catering waste is specifically excluded from the
definition of animal by-| products.

I can't find that.

See the bit I quoted above.
It's paragraph 3 of the 1999 bit. The second quote is from the very end of
the document in the Explanatory Notes section.

I don't know about you, but I didn't bother with reading all the detailed
stuff about testing and rendering methods.


Tim.

On 26 Jun 2003 14:01:19 GMT, Nick Maclaren wrote:


In article oprrdncalpwxhha1@localhost,
Tim writes:
| On 26 Jun 2003 13:34:04 GMT, Nick Maclaren wrote:
| | 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?

By exclusion! If it isn't explicitly permitted, it is forbidden.

I beg to differ on that. If it's not explicitly forbidden (or at least
strongly implied, which it isn't here) then it's permitted.
Funnily enough, part 5 "Restrictions on disposal of animal by-products"
raises the question what a normal householder should do with uneaten meat.

If you go through regs as to what to do with low-risk meat products (it
specifies what to do with high-risk waste), then you'll surely come to the
same conclusion as I did.
That it must be disposed of as a low-risk by-product, by either feeding it
to zoo or kennel animals, sent for research or exported from the country.
:-(
That's more of a problem than worrying if you can tea bags on your
composter.



But I have found the reference to the exclusion of catering waste;
sorry I missed it. It means that you are right that the 1999 order
probably doesn't apply, but the 2001 one does. And, yes, you can
say just that - my compost heap is visited by cats, for example.

Mmm, true. Got me there. :-( But if you don't put any meat products on
(as you probably don't anyway)
then that's ok, as there are no animal by-products involved, and therefore
not covered by the order.
I still don't get the connection between things like tea-bags and broccoli
leaves....



| 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.

I think that she is deluded. But the only difference I can see
between commercial and domestic applies to used cooking oil.

Yes I noted that. I wonder why they added it?

Tim.

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:03:31 +0100, Kay Easton
wrote:

In article , Nick Maclaren
writes
In article ,
Ophelia wrote:
As do I

I always feel slightly guilty though because I have an odd memory that some
law came into being which would affect our rights to put tea bags into the
compost bin.

Does anyone else remember that or am I totally mad)

Not TOTALLY. It is illegal (yes, a crime) to put disposable nappies

So how is one meant to dispose of them?

Sun bake them dry and smoke. Serve with horse radish sauce.
--
martin

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:06:21 +0100, "Brian Watson"
wrote:


"Tim" wrote in message
newsprrc6gxqhwxhha1@localhost...
Isn't it illegal ( EU directive ) to have a compost heap within 270 feet
(?)
of a domestic dwelling, so if you have one at all you're probably a
criminal, never mind what you put on it.....
It is also illegal ( EU directive ) to burn wood on other than the
ground it was grown on. I expect you'll all be turning yourselves in to
the police bright and early tomorrow - if you come clean they might go
easy on you!!!

I found this on Google, unfortunaltely it's just gossip, as there are no
links or hint at an actual reference.

Try Daily Mail/Telegraphs archives. Both are famous for this sort of "silly
season" EU stuff.

Do they actually believe the rubbish they print?
--
martin

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:42:34 +0100, "Pickle"
wrote:


"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

Don't forget the Sun. Unfortunately, despite the complete drivel
they publish, they are used by the majority of the UK as the main
source of their political viewpoints. We are not yet as bad as
the USA in this respect, but are getting there.

You mean if I read it in the Sun it might not be true???? (world falls
apart)
That might mean Eastenders isn't real!

Steady on! People have been burnt at the stake for suggesting less.

--
martin

On 26 Jun 2003 07:46:23 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article ,
"andrewpreece" writes:
|
| Isn't it illegal ( EU directive ) to have a compost heap within 270 feet (?)
| of a domestic dwelling, so if you have one at all you're probably a
| criminal, never mind what you put on it.....
| It is also illegal ( EU directive ) to burn wood on other than the
| ground it was grown on. I expect you'll all be turning yourselves in to
| the police bright and early tomorrow - if you come clean they might go
| easy on you!!!

Don't accept the propaganda of the Little England fanatics as
truth - most of it is VERY far from that!

In the UK, 95% of what is blamed on EU rules and bureaucracy is
due to Whitehall, which is damn good at finding excuses to do what
they want to do and passing the blame onto someone else. After
many years of the practice, I am glad that even the Torygraph has
FINALLY realised that the practice of 'gold plating'[*] is the
norm, even though it still publishes mainly anti-EU propaganda.

There is also the fact that these directives and other regulations
usually start off by being proposed and even pushed by countries'
bureaucrats on the EU committees. At least once or twice, and I
believe many more times than that, the UK has demanded some that
were not wanted by almost anyone else, only to then claim in public
that they were all the fault of the EU!

[*] Taking an EU directive, such as a requirement to control an
area to avoid cross-border crime or health problems, and building
it up into a total ban or extreme bureaucratic requirement.

Give credit where credit is due. And do the same for blame.

The much derided EU Recreational Craft Directive was almost entirely
the work of the British Ship Building Federation trying to protect the
British boat building industry.
--
martin

"Tim" wrote in message
newsprrdo64yqwxhha1@localhost...
On 26 Jun 2003 13:46:11 GMT, Nick Maclaren wrote:


In article oprrdgeij4wxhha1@localhost,
Tim writes:
| | But that was 1999, did they look at the 2001 amendments ? Which to
my | untrained eye looks like the 1999 Order has been changed to only
apply to | catering businesses kitchens and farms etc. What the order
says is that any | waste from COMMERCIAL kitchens can't be composted.
So
unless you run a | business from your ktichen you're ok.

No, that is a tightening of the 1999 order.

I read it as shifting the emphasis.


| But I don't see what the problem is because the 1999 order applies to
| feeding animals waste, not to making compost. I am hard pushed to
find
any | connection - unless you keep animals on your land, or you let
your
compost | be fed to other animals. The amendment has changed this to
make it clearer | that it applies to commercial waste and/or farm
animals. I'm sort of | discussing this with Nick at the moment.

Read it again. Look at sections 3 and 5, for example. Non-Vegan
kitchen waste is probably an animal product under the order.

Sorry, I can't see what you mean. I think it all hinges on the definition
of animal by-products:

From the 1999 order:

'Interpretation and scope

Snip for clarity

At the risk of taking this slightly beyond the realms of gardening. There
are a number of problems with the legality of compost heaps that we are now
encountering.

We grow pretty well everything edible and raise pigs, poultry, sheep and
cattle - all on a very small scale.

The reasonable desire to keep animal scraps away from animals, leads into
some very strange country.

We now have problems keeping a pig and a compost heap. The theory being that
we might put kitchen waste which might contain scraps which might get to the
pig. So basically the combination is banned. Pigs or compost heaps, not both
UNLESS and we are lucky, you have a separate sink away from the kitchen in
which vegetables are prepared. We are lucky, we do.

I say "pigs" because we are no longer allowed to keep a single sow (animal
welfare). So that is the end of the cottager's pig. In reality that means a
minimum of two sows plus one (spare) and the prospect of up to thirty plus
piglets per year. We are not commercial, we sell nothing, so this new
legislation is causing very real problems. The combinations of restrictions
are starting to make our lifestyle impossible.

There is no doubt that quite aside from the silly scare stories in the
newspapers, new rules are now invading territory that was once the protected
preserve of the amateur.


--
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com



Tim.

Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article ,
Ophelia wrote:
As do I

I always feel slightly guilty though because I have an odd memory that some
law came into being which would affect our rights to put tea bags into the
compost bin.

Does anyone else remember that or am I totally mad)

Not TOTALLY. It is illegal (yes, a crime) to put disposable nappies
into the dustbin, and there was a proposal to make it illegal to
put meat scraps into the compost bin, but I don't remember anything
explicitly about tea bags.

um. The proposal (the Animal By-Products Amendment Order 2001) would
have made it illegal to put teabags or any other domestic kitchen waste
(including vegetable matter) in the compost bin, but it was decided that
home composting should have a derogation. Probably because TPTB couldn't
work out how to police it...

regards
sarah


--
Waist deep, neck deep
We'll be drowning before too long
We're neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the damned fools keep yelling to push on