The Perfect Storm: How SB 1383's "Green Bin Organic" Compost Is Endangering Our Farm-to-School Programs
David KIng
12/28/202516 min read
The Perfect Storm: How SB 1383's "Green Bin Organic" Compost Is Endangering Our Farm-to-School Programs
A Quarter-Century of Experience Meets an Unprecedented New Crisis
For over 25 years, I've worked as an agricultural consultant specializing in addressing the unintended outcomes from municipal and industrial waste compost. I've helped farmers recover from contamination, documented soil biology collapse under toxic loads, and guided growers through the invisible chemistry that makes or breaks their operations.
In my consulting practice, I've documented problematic municipal compost contamination for over 25 years. Client confidentiality prevents me from sharing specific farm names or locations, but the patterns with traditional municipal compost were clear and consistent: accumulation-based soil degradation that takes years to detect and can end farming operations.
The classic timeline with traditional municipal compost more often than not would follow this course:
Year 1-3: Soil looks healthy, crops grow well
Year 5-7: Subtle changes—reduced vigor, unexplained deficiencies
Year 10-15: Major problems—stunted growth, crop failure, elemental imbalances
When finally tested: Heavy metal accumulation 3-10x original levels with essential elements too far out of balance
But in the last two years, something has changed dramatically.
What I'm seeing now with SB 1383 compost is completely different: complete crop failure after the FIRST application. Not slow accumulation over a decade—immediate catastrophic damage. Farmers are experiencing devastating losses within months of applying material they were told was safe, approved, and beneficial.
This isn't the same problematic municipal compost I've documented for 25 years. This is something worse.
What's Changed in 2024:
SB 1383's organics diversion mandate has created a NEW municipal compost stream with characteristics I haven't seen before:
New municipal compost facilities processing unprecedented waste volumes
Broader contamination sources than traditional municipal compost
Different processing methods to meet diversion quotas
Less oversight as counties rush to meet mandates
Free delivery to schools and farms removing cost barriers
The result: Material that causes immediate crop failure on first application, PLUS the same accumulation problems that will compound over time if schools continue using it.
And this new, more dangerous material is being delivered for free to farm-to-school programs where:
Zero baseline testing before first application
Zero monitoring of immediate or accumulating impacts
Children work in the soil and eat the produce
Staff and volunteers are being exposed daily
We're not repeating the same 25-year-old mistakes. We're facing a new crisis that's dramatically worse—and schools are at the center of it.
The Paradigm Shift Courts Are Enforcing
We're living through a fundamental transformation in how California and federal agencies regulate environmental and agricultural practices. For decades, our institutions operated on narratives—good-sounding stories about sustainability, green solutions, and environmental stewardship. If something was called "organic," if it came from "green bins," if agencies approved it, we were told that was enough.
But that paradigm is ending. State and federal agencies are now demanding quantitative and qualitative analysis instead of narratives. The courts are supporting this shift:
California Supreme Court (2022): Strengthened requirements for groundwater protection, demanding measurable outcomes rather than assumptions in CEQA reviews
U.S. Supreme Court (March 2025) - City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency: Prohibited vague "end-result" permit conditions under the Clean Water Act. The Court ruled that permits must contain "specific instructions" and "concrete measures" rather than general requirements to achieve water quality standards. The EPA cannot simply tell permittees to "meet water quality standards"—they must specify exactly what steps permittees must take. This decision fundamentally rejects narrative compliance in favor of quantitative, measurable requirements.
EPA (April 2024): Finalized the first enforceable national drinking water regulation for PFAS, establishing numeric maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for specific compounds—moving away from narrative assumptions about "safe" biosolids toward parts-per-trillion testing requirements
USDA (December 2025): Announced $700 million Regenerative Pilot Program explicitly described as an "outcome-based conservation model" where "outcomes are tracked, measured, and credited back to the farmer." Secretary Rollins stated: "Each producer's results will be measured and credited back to the farmer through an outcomes report." The program requires whole-farm assessments, measurable results, and verification through Technical Service Providers—rejecting decades of narrative-based conservation programs in favor of quantifiable, verifiable outcomes.
Consumer Class Action (November 2024) - Calcagno v. Scotts Miracle-Gro: Two California consumers filed a federal class action lawsuit alleging that Scotts falsely advertises its Miracle-Gro "organic" soil and fertilizer products when laboratory testing detected PFAS (forever chemicals) in all Miracle-Gro organic products regardless of batch or location sold. The lawsuit states that "reasonable consumers do not expect Scotts' organic products to contain toxic forever chemicals like PFAS, especially when marketed for use in residential gardens to grow fruits and vegetables." This represents consumers demanding quantitative laboratory analysis over narrative marketing claims—the same paradigm shift courts and agencies are enforcing. When the "organic" label isn't backed by comprehensive testing, consumers are seeking legal remedy.
Here's the problem: While state and federal agencies—and now consumers through class action lawsuits—are making this paradigm shift from narrative to quantitative analysis, our county-level agencies are still operating inside the narrative paradigm. The collision between these two realities is creating a perfect storm, and our children are in the center of it.
SB 1383: A Mandate Without Adequate Safeguards
SB 1383 mandates diversion of organic waste from landfills to reduce methane emissions—a legitimate climate goal. But the implementation has pushed municipal and industrial waste compost onto our farms without the quantitative analysis required to ensure safety. This material is being called "green bin organic," which is partially true but dangerously incomplete.
What's Actually in Municipal "Green Bin Organic" Compost:
The reality is that "green bin organic" includes not just your kitchen scraps, but:
Food scraps → PFAS from decades of contaminated food packaging, heavy metals from soil and water the food grew in
Yard waste → Pesticide residues, persistent herbicides (aminopyralid, clopyralid, picloram), automotive fluids from driveways
Paper and cardboard → Industrial inks (lead, cadmium), coatings, PFAS waterproofing treatments
Allowed contamination → Glass, plastic, metal fragments up to regulatory limits
Unknown industrial inputs → Whatever made it into the municipal waste stream
Each of these can contribute heavy metals and persistent compounds:
Paper inks → lead, cadmium
Treated wood chips → arsenic, copper, chromium
Food scraps from contaminated soil → whatever was in that agricultural soil
Industrial inputs → variable contamination from unknown sources
Why SB 1383 Compost Is Different—And Worse:
Traditional municipal compost that I documented for 25 years caused slow accumulation problems. SB 1383 compost is causing immediate crop failure. Why?
Persistent herbicides that survive composting: Aminopyralid, clopyralid, and picloram from yard waste cause immediate, severe crop damage even at parts-per-billion levels. These herbicides:
Are used on lawns and roadsides (now going into green bins)
Survive the composting process completely
Cause immediate stunting, curling, and death in broadleaf crops
Remain active in soil for years
Are not tested for in standard compost analysis
Higher contamination loads: Rushing to meet SB 1383 diversion quotas means:
Less quality control at new facilities
Shorter curing times
Broader acceptance of contaminated inputs
Higher concentrations of industrial inputs
New contamination sources: SB 1383 brought materials into the waste stream that weren't there before:
Massive increase in food packaging (PFAS)
Expansion of accepted materials
Industrial inputs previously excluded
Processing shortcuts: New facilities processing unprecedented volumes:
Incomplete decomposition
Inadequate temperature control
Insufficient curing periods
Variable batch quality
The result: Material that causes IMMEDIATE crop failure (persistent herbicides, high contamination loads) PLUS the same long-term accumulation problems (heavy metals, PFAS) that compound over time.
This combination—immediate toxicity AND accumulation—is what makes SB 1383 compost unprecedented in my 25 years of experience.
The critical difference from Maine's biosolids:
Biosolids = concentrated industrial effluent + human waste
Green bin compost = diffuse consumer + landscape + paper/cardboard waste
But SB 1383 compost is showing contamination levels and immediate toxicity I've never seen in traditional municipal compost. The accumulation chemistry remains identical, but the starting contamination is worse.
And this material is being delivered for free to farm-to-school programs across Mendocino County and beyond—without batch-specific testing, without baseline soil testing, without accumulation monitoring, and without any testing for persistent herbicides that cause immediate crop damage.
Maine's Cautionary Tale: The Courage to Look at What Others Hide From
The perfect example of narrative thinking's catastrophic failure is unfolding in Maine right now—and it's a direct preview of what's happening in California with SB 1383.
Maine isn't unique in spreading contaminated biosolids. The practice of land-applying municipal sewage sludge as agricultural fertilizer has been widespread across the United States for decades. What makes Maine unique is that they had the courage to actually investigate what they'd been promoting and approving for 50 years.
Other states—including California—are fully aware of the potential contamination issues but lack the courage to look. Maine looked. Here's what they found:
Starting in the 1970s, Maine's Department of Environmental Protection approved and promoted the land application of municipal biosolids (sewage sludge) as agricultural fertilizer. The narrative was compelling: "beneficial reuse," "returning nutrients to soil," "sustainable waste management," "state-approved practice."
This wasn't just Maine. It was—and still is—standard practice nationwide, approved by the EPA and state environmental agencies across the country.
Farmers followed the guidance. They trusted the agencies. They used the free fertilizer that the state itself delivered and promoted.
When Maine Finally Investigated, the Results Were Devastating:
Fred Stone's 100-year-old Stoneridge Farm in Arundel: PFOS in milk at 1,600 parts per trillion—over 7 times Maine's action level. His drinking water well exceeded EPA advisory levels. Farm shut down.
Tozier Farm in Somerset County: PFOS contamination in milk from 12,700 to 32,200 parts per trillion—the highest levels ever recorded in North America, 153 times Maine's safety standard. Forced to immediately stop all sales.
Adam Nordell's farm in Unity: Contaminated and unviable for food production. Sold to Maine Farmland Trust as a PFAS research site—farming career ended by following state-approved practices.
First State Buyout (2025): Maine purchased contaminated farmland for $333,000. A third-generation farmer driven off what had been "prime farmland."
More than 700 potentially contaminated properties identified. At least a dozen farms confirmed with contamination severe enough to threaten operations.
Maine's Response Required:
$60-$100 million state relief fund
Land buyout program (first in the nation)
Livestock depopulation compensation (paying farmers to euthanize contaminated animals)
Water filtration systems for affected farms
Medical monitoring programs to reduce toxin levels in the farmers themselves
Income replacement during mitigation
State ban on biosolids land application (2022)—but the damage from decades of "approved practices" remains in the soil
The critical lesson: These farmers followed state-approved practices, used materials the state promoted and delivered, had no way to detect contamination until advanced testing became available, and now face financial ruin and health concerns.
And Maine—unlike other states still spreading the same materials—had the courage to investigate what they had approved for decades.
The state is literally paying for medical monitoring to reduce toxin levels in farmers' bodies because the "safe, approved, beneficial" biosolids contained persistent toxins that accumulated in their environments and in them.
Here's What Makes Maine's Story Truly Alarming:
Maine isn't experiencing a unique problem—they're experiencing a unique acknowledgment of the problem. The land application of municipal biosolids as agricultural fertilizer remains:
EPA-approved as a "beneficial use" of treated sewage sludge
Standard practice in states across the country
Actively promoted by state environmental agencies as sustainable waste management
Widely applied on farmland, including some farm-to-school gardens
The only difference between Maine and other states is that Maine had the courage to test comprehensively and face the results honestly.
What does this tell us about states that haven't looked? California, Mendocino County, and districts across the country continue spreading similar materials with minimal testing. The contamination doesn't respect state borders. The chemistry doesn't change because agencies choose not to measure it.
Maine's crisis started with the same narrative California is using now: municipal organic waste presented as an environmental solution, approved by state agencies, delivered to farmers without adequate testing or accumulation monitoring.
The only difference? Maine spread biosolids for agriculture. California is spreading similar materials on school gardens where children work.
The Regulatory Gap: 24 Agencies, Zero Soil Monitoring
Farmers across all sectors are navigating oversight from 24 different agencies—federal, state, and local authorities covering everything from food safety to environmental standards. Of these 24 agencies, 8 specifically oversee compost standards.
But farm-to-school programs face a unique and disturbing problem: they must comply with all 24 agencies' requirements while serving the most vulnerable population—children. And here's what should alarm every parent, teacher, and school administrator: Not one of these 24 agencies regulates or monitors the soil where children are working and where food is being grown.
The existing compost standards were developed for adult agricultural workers, not for children with:
Lower body weight (making them more vulnerable to toxic exposures)
Higher metabolic rates (increasing absorption and biological impact)
Developing organ systems (creating long-term health risks)
Direct soil contact (hand-to-mouth transfer, soil ingestion during play)
No agency has adjusted these standards for the unique vulnerabilities of children.
The Testing Failure: Why Current Protocols Don't Protect Anyone
Even if we accepted adult-based standards, the current testing regime is fundamentally inadequate:
1. Insufficient Testing Frequency and Data Points
Compost batches vary wildly in composition depending on:
Seasonal input changes
Industrial waste cycles
Collection area variations
Processing conditions
Yet testing is sporadic, with insufficient data points to characterize actual variability. A single test per batch—or even per several batches—cannot reveal the true range of contamination.
2. Test Results Don't Match Product Delivered
The compost tested in the lab is often not representative of what arrives at the farm gate. Sampling protocols, timing, and handling all affect results. By the time material reaches a school garden, its chemistry may bear little resemblance to the "clean" test report.
3. The Accumulation Problem: Why "Safe" Limits Aren't Safe
This is where the chemistry becomes critical, and where narrative thinking fails completely.
Let's use arsenic as an example:
The standard might set a limit of 40 ppm (parts per million) for arsenic in compost
A batch tests at 20 ppm—well within the "safe" limit
Schools apply this "clean" compost to their gardens
So far, the narrative says everything is fine. But the soil chemistry tells a different story.
Why Accumulation Works Regardless of Contamination Source:
Arsenic carries a 3+ or 5+ electrical charge—this is basic chemistry that doesn't change based on where the arsenic came from. Whether the arsenic originated from:
Industrial biosolids (like Maine's crisis)
Municipal green bin compost (SB 1383)
Wood ash
Legacy pesticides
Any other source
The chemistry is identical: These positive charges (3+ or 5+) bond electrostatically to negatively-charged soil particles (clay and organic matter). The bond strength depends on soil pH, clay content, and organic matter—NOT on the original source of the arsenic.
This is why Maine's biosolids crisis is a direct warning for California's SB 1383 compost: The accumulation mechanism is the same. The only differences are:
Biosolids = concentrated industrial + human waste
Green bin compost = diffuse consumer + landscape waste
But once arsenic is in the soil, the source doesn't matter—the chemistry matters. When you apply compost containing arsenic—even at "safe" levels—the arsenic doesn't leave. It accumulates, year after year, application after application.
After three years of applying "clean" 20 ppm compost:
Year 1: 20 ppm arsenic added → soil arsenic increases
Year 2: Another 20 ppm → Year 1's arsenic is still there (didn't leach out) + Year 2's addition
Year 3: Another 20 ppm → Years 1 & 2 arsenic still there + Year 3's addition
The compost passed the test every time. But the soil failed the children.
This accumulation principle applies to many elements:
Heavy metals (lead, cadmium, mercury) that pose direct toxicity risks
Essential minerals (copper, zinc, manganese) that become toxic in excess
Persistent organic compounds that don't break down
The same 3+/5+ bonding mechanism that makes arsenic accumulate from Maine's biosolids also makes it accumulate from California's municipal compost. Source doesn't change chemistry.
Even essential elements cause devastating problems when they accumulate beyond optimal ranges. Excess copper, for example, destroys the synergistic relationships between minerals that soil biology depends on. The soil's capacity to cycle nutrients collapses. Beneficial microbes die off. Plant health deteriorates.
4. Synergistic Elemental Relationships: The Hidden Complexity
Soil fertility isn't about individual elements—it's about the synergistic relationships between elements. When one element accumulates to excess, it disrupts the balance of others:
Excess copper interferes with iron uptake
Excess zinc blocks manganese
Excess sodium displaces calcium and magnesium, destroying soil structure
Heavy metal accumulation impairs microbial enzyme system
This narrative-based thinking affects all segments of farmers—not just those using SB 1383 compost. Even my organic and regenerative farming clients who would never touch industrial waste compost are suffering from the same fundamental problem: following narrative-based recommendations instead of quantitative soil analysis.
I have clients right now suffering from excess nitrogen in their soil—not from adding nitrogen fertilizer, but from mismanagement of cover crops. They haven't added any nitrogen. The excess came from biological processes that got out of balance. These are organic farmers doing everything "by the book" according to regenerative agriculture narratives about cover crops building soil health. But without quantitative monitoring of what those cover crops were actually doing to their soil chemistry, the synergistic relationships collapsed, and now they're dealing with fertility problems that will take years to correct.
When you add unknown quantities of unknown elements year after year, you're conducting an uncontrolled experiment on soil biology. The consequences may not appear immediately, but they are cumulative and potentially irreversible.
The Misleading "Green Bin Organic" Narrative
Schools and farmers are being told this compost is "green bin organic"—a term that sounds wholesome and safe. The narrative implies:
It's natural
It's sustainable
It's been approved by authorities
It's helping the environment
All of this is partially true. But what the narrative hides is:
Unknown contamination sources in the waste stream
Inadequate testing protocols that miss variability
Accumulation dynamics that turn "safe" into "toxic"
Children's heightened vulnerability to all exposures
Long-term soil degradation from elemental imbalances
Farmers and schools are trying in good faith to do the right thing. They're following guidance from agencies they trust. But they're being given a narrative when what they need—what California's 2030 framework demands—is quantitative analysis.
What We're Seeing in School Gardens: Red Flags Without Testing
In the school gardens I've assessed, I'm seeing concerning indicators that mirror the early warning signs from my 25 years of consulting work with contaminated commercial operations:
Unexplained poor crop performance despite adequate water and sunlight
Soil test results showing elemental imbalances consistent with heavy metal contamination patterns
Excess levels of indicator elements known to correlate with toxic metal accumulation
Yet zero baseline testing for heavy metals has been conducted
These are the same early warning signs I've documented in commercial operations that later tested positive for severe contamination. The timeline is consistent: subtle performance issues in years 1-5, followed by measurable soil degradation by years 7-10.
But schools aren't testing, so we don't know.
That's the fundamental problem—we're operating blind. Without baseline testing before compost applications began, and without ongoing monitoring of accumulation, we have no way to verify safety. We only have indicators suggesting concern, and a regulatory framework that doesn't require anyone to investigate further.
When I see poor quality produce and elemental imbalances in soil tests, professional responsibility demands I raise the alarm—even without comprehensive heavy metals testing to prove contamination. The patterns are too consistent with what I've seen lead to catastrophic outcomes in commercial agriculture over 25 years.
Why This Matters Now: The Timing Crisis
This perfect storm is happening right now because we're caught between two paradigms:
State and Federal Level (Outcome-Based Framework):
Demands measurable outcomes
Requires quantitative verification
Enforces accountability for actual results
Supported by recent court decisions
USDA (December 2025): $700 million for outcome-based regenerative agriculture with tracked, measured, verified results
Consumer class actions (November 2024): Lawsuits demanding laboratory testing to verify "organic" marketing claims for soil products
County Level (Narrative Framework):
Still operating on "approved practices"
Relying on categorical assumptions
Trusting labels and agency approvals
Delivering free compost to schools without soil monitoring
The collision between these paradigms is creating an immediate crisis:
Farmers are experiencing complete crop failure immediately when SB 1383 compost is applied
Schools don't know they're applying material that's causing unprecedented immediate toxicity in commercial operations
Children are working in soil and eating produce from gardens amended with untested material
Staff and volunteers are exposed daily to potentially contaminated materials
No agency is monitoring for persistent herbicides, PFAS, or accumulating heavy metals
The damage is happening now—not in 5-10 years, but immediately upon application
And because no agency requires batch-specific testing or soil monitoring, schools have no way to know they're applying material that's causing catastrophic failures on commercial farms across the state.
What Needs to Happen
Immediate Actions for Schools and Farm-to-School Programs:
Stop accepting SB 1383 compost immediately until comprehensive batch-specific testing is completed
Demand complete testing protocols for EVERY batch including:
Persistent herbicides (aminopyralid, clopyralid, picloram) - causes immediate crop failure
PFAS (forever chemicals) - accumulates in soil and food
Full metals panel with parts-per-billion sensitivity
Soil biology assessment (microscopy-based)
Synergistic elemental relationship analysis
Year-over-year accumulation tracking
Test existing garden soil immediately if compost has already been applied
Require testing that matches California's 2030 framework, not outdated narrative standards
Document all materials applied with batch numbers, test results, and application dates
What Agencies Must Do:
Require batch-specific testing for persistent herbicides, PFAS, and heavy metals before any compost delivery
Establish soil monitoring requirements for all farm-to-school programs
Adjust standards for children's unique vulnerabilities
Require accumulation-based limits, not single-application limits
Mandate baseline soil testing before any compost applications begin
Create emergency protocols for immediate crop failure incidents
Create accountability mechanisms for long-term soil health outcomes
What Parents and Community Members Should Know:
If your child's school has a garden program:
Ask what amendments have been applied and request ALL test results including persistent herbicides and PFAS
Ask if compost has been tested for aminopyralid, clopyralid, and picloram (persistent herbicides causing immediate crop damage)
Ask if crops are showing signs of damage (curling, stunting, poor growth)
Ask if baseline soil testing was done before compost applications
Ask how the school monitors accumulation of metals and minerals
Ask what agency oversees soil safety (the answer is currently "none")
Ask if any commercial farms have reported failures with the same compost source
These aren't adversarial questions. They're the questions California's 2030 outcome-based framework makes necessary—and they're questions that could prevent your child's exposure to contaminated soil and food.
The Role of ORCA Apprentices: Translators for a New Era
This is exactly why California needs programs like ORCA (Organic Regenerative Certified Apprenticeship). Our apprentices are being trained as translators between traditional farming knowledge and emerging regulatory compliance requirements.
Farm-to-school programs need professionals who understand:
Persistent herbicide contamination and immediate crop toxicity
Batch-specific testing protocols for multiple contamination pathways
Soil chemistry at parts-per-billion sensitivity
Microscope-based biology assessment
Regulatory frameworks across 24 agencies
Children's unique vulnerabilities
Both immediate toxicity AND long-term accumulation dynamics
Synergistic elemental relationships
ORCA apprentices can help schools navigate this paradigm shift, identify contaminated materials before application, protect children and staff, and build truly sustainable food production systems based on measurable outcomes rather than narrative assumptions.
Conclusion: From Narratives to Numbers—Before More Farms Fail
The shift from narrative-based to outcome-based regulation isn't a bureaucratic detail—it's a fundamental transformation in how we protect public health and environmental quality. The courts are enforcing this shift. California's 2030 framework is built on it. But our county-level implementation is lagging dangerously behind.
SB 1383's mandate to divert organic waste is a valid climate goal. But the implementation has created compost that's causing immediate catastrophic crop failures in commercial operations—and this same material is being delivered for free to schools where children work and eat.
"Green bin organic" is a narrative. What we need is:
Batch-specific testing for persistent herbicides, PFAS, and heavy metals
Parts-per-billion testing sensitivity
Accumulation-based limits, not single-application limits
Soil monitoring requirements for all applications
Standards adjusted for children's unique vulnerabilities
Accountability for measurable outcomes
Until these quantitative safeguards are in place, we're conducting an uncontrolled experiment on our agricultural systems—and most alarmingly, on our children in farm-to-school programs. Our farmers, our schools, and our community's long-term food security all deserve better.
The catastrophic losses I'm seeing among farmers aren't accidents. They're happening now, after first application. This isn't the slow accumulation I documented for 25 years. This is immediate crop failure from material schools are applying to gardens where children work.
Soil doesn't respond to good intentions or narrative labels. It responds to chemistry—to persistent herbicides that survive composting, to heavy metals that accumulate with each application, to PFAS that never break down, to synergistic elemental relationships that collapse under contamination loads.
Our farm-to-school programs—and all our farmers—deserve better. Our children deserve better. And California's regulatory framework—if we actually implement it at the county level with quantitative testing and monitoring—can give them better.
But only if we make the shift from narratives to numbers now—before more farms fail, before more soil is contaminated, and before the damage to our children's gardens becomes irreversible.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content discusses regulatory frameworks, compliance issues, and potential liability concerns related to soil contamination and farm-to-school programs.
If you are a school administrator, farm-to-school coordinator, farmer, or organization working with vulnerable populations and have concerns about soil safety, compost applications, or regulatory compliance, you should consult with qualified legal counsel in your jurisdiction. Legal requirements vary by location and circumstance, and professional legal advice is essential for addressing specific situations.
The author and ORCA (Organic Regenerative Certified Apprenticeship) are not providing legal advice and are not liable for any actions taken or not taken based on information in this article.
Additional Resources
For farmers and gardeners who want to learn more about poorly managed thermophilic compost:
The Hidden Dangers of Black Thermophilic Compost: What Lab Tests Don't Tell You
For school administrators, farm-to-school coordinators, and organizations serving vulnerable populations who need to understand the legal implications of untested soil:
The Hidden Liability: Legal Ramifications of Untested Soil When Serving Vulnerable Populations
David King
Executive Director, ORCA (Organic Regenerative Certified Apprenticeship)
Comptche, California
For more information about ORCA's apprenticeship program and how we're training the next generation of agricultural compliance professionals, visit [your website]. For consulting on soil testing, regulatory compliance, or farm-to-school program safety, contact [contact info].