In two copyrighted stories written by Duff Wilson , The Seattle Times has uncovered really startling information: it appears that much of the fertilizer being sold directly to the nation's farms, and in some instances to companies that manufacture residential fertilizers, may contain hazardous industrial wastes, sometimes at dangerous levels.

One article was published on November 13, 1997, entitled "Product or Waste." The second article was published on May 17, 1998 and was entitled "Testing on Garden Fertilizers Finds Some Safe, Some Not."

In this column, I will discuss some of the findings contained in these articles and derived from other sources as well. You can read both articles by going to the Seattle Times internet site. The issue is so significant that State regulators are beginning to consider it as well. Indeed, in New Jersey it is now common place for soil analysis to take place in the event that farmland sold to developers is planned for residential development.

In the 1998 article, the Times released its own test results of twenty home pesticide products. These were companies with names generally familiar to consumers. There products were purchased at local stores and hand delivered to an accredited laboratory for analysis.

Six of the twenty tested home products contain undisclosed toxic chemicals which were derived from industrial waste. This information is not readily discernable from package labeling. Thus without an investigation, consumers would have little hope of learning that their fertilizer contained hazardous industrial waste.

Three products contained particularly high levels of dangerous wastes. One product contained very high cadmium levels. Another contained very high lead and arsenic levels. The third contained excessive zinc levels.

How and why does this happen? It happens because industrial manufacturers end up with waste as a result of their operations. Often, the waste has hazardous levels of metals and other substances. Normally, the manufacturers must pay a company large sums of money to properly dispose of such hazardous wastes. Thus, as a normal rule, industrial waste represents a fixed cost to the manufacturing concern -- it generally is not a saleable asset.

However, in certain cases the waste can be re-sold for a beneficial use, such as, in this case, fertilizer. When the waste is sold to a farm or a fertilizer company, many of the same laws that apply to disposed of hazardous waste do not apply. And, when fertilizer companies re-sell this material to all of us, under current law there is no need to reveal that the material originated as a hazardous waste from some company's waste stream.

Often, environmentalists encourage re-use, rather than disposal. The problem is that re-use should not result in a health threat. The question now raised, and thus far not answered, is whether the use of industrial waste in fertilizers can make people sick either by contaminating food grown in the fertilizers, or by leaching into ground water and affecting drinking water. These questions are thus far not answered.

This is of particular concern because homeowners often use more fertilizer than called for on product directions. The idea is that more is better. But, the result might be that even small levels of bad materials can become harmful because of over-use.

Also, children tend to eat small amounts of soil, according to federal studies. If the soil contains dangerous fertilizer levels, the kids can become ill.

As if this wasn't bad enough news, now there is even more reason for concern. A study published in a recent edition of Environmental Science and Technology Magazine suggests that certain fertilizers may also contain another harmful substance, called perchlorate. Perchlorate is traditionally used to manufacture explosives and other products. The substance has been found in drinking water throughout the country and has long been a concern to scientists. The just published study suggests that fertilizer, at least certain kinds, may contain this substance as well.

I asked the Fertilizer Institute, the trade association for those in that business, to comment. I received no response regarding the first issue: industrial waste in fertilizer. As to the perchlorate issue, the Institute presented what appeared to be good reasons to question some of the study's findings, conclusions, and methodologies. The Institute's logic, as to the perchlorate issue, seems to be well grounded.

It seems to me that we are now on the verge of just knowing a little about fertilizer safety. Legitimate reasons exists to at least question the practice of using industrial waste in fertilizer. Farmers need answers too, as they may have to make changes to avoid potential legal liability. While this re-use might be a smart practice, additional regulation (perhaps any at all) seems plausibly justified.

If this issue concerns you, I suggest you start asking questions so that we can all become better educated. For example, is your state environmental agency examining this issue? Do you know exactly what is in the fertilzer that you are using on your vegetable garden? Even more importantly, what kinds of fertilizers are local farmers using?

If the Fertilizer Institute does respond to this industrial waste issue, I shall pass its response along.