ECONOMISTS, strategists and politicians have been engaged in many a forum to discuss survival strategies for the current economic crisis.

US President Barack Obama has been consistent in his advocacy and support of science and technology. He has vowed to put science in its rightful place and has backed this up with cash provided through his “stimulus package”. Of course, the issue of the environment and renewable energy are areas of particular emphasis.

World leaders are now being watched to see if they will follow his example. In Jamaica, the issues are many. Having awakened to the reality that we cannot escape the brunt of the economic fallout, as a country, all hands have to be on deck to tackle agreed priorities.

Food Security

Food security is one such priority. The Ministry of Agriculture has been unveiling a myriad of refreshing and impactful initiatives that aim to revitalise agriculture and return it to its once enviable position. Attention is being paid to inputs such as water, energy, technology, technical assistance and marketing. This is a good start.

Achieving food security is no easy task; it demands a multi-disciplinary approach, which requires nutritionists through to economists. The issue of food safety is enshrined in food security and it is therefore a travesty that we are taking so long to implement a food safety strategy. (Lack of reference to the policy is intentional).

Science and technology professionals cannot distance themselves from the dilemma we face as a country. We cannot allow history’s records to reflect us fiddling while “Jamaica burns”. As professionals, schooled to utilise objective analysis in both theory and practice, now is the time, if ever there was one, to rise to the challenge. The Scientific Research Council (SRC), as a state-owned-and-funded organisation, has been engaged in numerous activities which assist the country’s food security – directly and indirectly. One such technology, which has far-reaching implications, deserves widespread adoption. This is the optimisation of waste, primarily waste water, but also agricultural wastes from animals as well as plants.

The technology

The treatment of domestic sewage by a relatively simple technology which requires no use of energy (eg pumps) and operates in an airless environment, is increasingly being used by householders, primarily in the Kingston Metropolitan Area – particularly in areas where the water table is high and susceptible to contamination from sewage. The solution promoted by the SRC immediately solved the problem which had resulted from the restriction of soakaway pits (and therefore houses) in these areas. The SRC patented Biodigester Septic Tank produces valuable bio-energy and very little sludge.

This technology coupled with tertiary treatment systems provide relatively “clean” water that can be safely discharged into our waterways. And here it is important to note that if in close proximity to arable land, this treated waste water can also be used for irrigation. Now water is a major problem for farmers islandwide. Here is a proven technology which has the potential to provide suitable water to farms. Why is it not being used? The answer lies in an issue which has recently occupied our attention: public perception and public education.

Public fears and perception

The National Commission on Science and Technology, the SRC and the National Environment and Planning Agency embarked on a programme several years ago which provided empirical evidence that treated waste water could be used to safely and economically cultivate several crops without the use of fertiliser. The country’s health and well-being is of paramount importance. It is for this reason that every effort was taken to do the requisite risk assessment studies. This is part of the course in every environment and food related operation – the public health must be assured.

The planned replication of this model was, however, stalled due to the perception factor. Once the potential consumer was advised that waste water was involved, it was generally felt that the products could not be safe. Tests were conducted and results to the contrary were available. However these did not negate the perception factor. As a result, a massive public education programme was thought to be necessary. Needless to say, the cost of this was prohibitive. It may just be that the time is now right for us to revisit the model. We could start by sharing information that the World Health Organisation has standards which govern the use of waste water in agriculture and aquaculture. We could also note that countries in Asia and Africa have long been using waste water (some untreated) to produce foods – some of which are exported and consumed worldwide. We could point out that in Singapore there is an impressive programme which recycles the waste water, purifies it and makes it available as drinking water (of course, this has a heavy promotion and marketing bill attached). There is much that could be shared. While we share the information, we could start to ponder whether the world’s resources could really include its own waste.

Dr Audia Barnett is the executive director of the Scientific Research Council.