This is what human manure now emerges as an unforeseen solution for agriculture as the climate crisis gains strength. This article surveys cultural attitudes towards the practice of fertilizing farm fields with human waste, reveals gendered rationales for supporting those attitudes, and concludes with some tentative suggestions on how a more sophisticated framing might be offered to overcome concerns by an otherwise receptive public about this high-impact environmental technology.
Overcoming the ‘Yuck Factor’
It is certainly an unappetising thought to consider using human waste as fertilizer on the plot, but it is a traditional practice in many societies going back centuries. On the other hand, conventional fertilizers — which are primarily animal-based or synthetic — have their own less-than-ideal environmental trade-offs, including nitrate pollution and carbon energy consumption in production.
The low-impact alternative is human excrements (often referred to as ‘nightsoil’). But with the aid of urbanization at making garbage collection more feasible, and technology addressing longstanding public health issues, this previously well-forgotten notion is resurfacing. But—call me crazy—the public maintaining sanitary conditions of their hands when dealing with the bags is needed for this creative solution to become a standard.
The Divide in Culture and Gender
Fascinating cultural differences in manure use: A survey by researchers in England and Japan tells all. The practice was still widespread until recently in Japan, which means perhaps they were also more open to the idea that humans could become part of the food chain too.
Whereas, in Britain, we have the English with their ‘great stink’ of 1858 and cholera outbreaks who are perhaps a little more reserved — particularly when it comes to eating food grown in human waste. But when it comes to the excreta of our own species, people are more squeamish — although they are relatively happy about using human manure in public parks, presumably on the basis that human poo-nourished marigolds would be less distasteful than potato grown in dung.
More generally, the study found nearly twice as many men in both countries than women willing to accept human manure fertilizers. Some of this may be due to physical factors, such as the fact that women seem to be more often disgusted and risk averse than men.
Conclusion
The climate crisis continues to develop and we must be open to new ideas for managing it, such as human manure fertilizer technologies. This expertise in public opinion for gender and cultural-based differences allows us to provide recommendations on targeted public engagement activities that enable scientists and policy-makers to focus their efforts on particular concerns, reducing inequities as well as perceptions of this sort while paving the way towards greater inclusion and improved environmental agriculture by designing more specific country strategies aimed at decision makers and other actors. The notion of consuming crops that have been sullied by human waste may not be particularly appetizing at first blush, but it’s an important one to entertain as we seek a more sustainable future — especially since what we flush is too valuable to waste.
