Public pressure is mounting on ministers and water companies over the use of sewage sludge on agricultural land after a new opinion poll found overwhelming support for tougher regulations amid growing concerns about pollution, food safety and river health.
A YouGov survey commissioned by River Action found that 92% of British people think water companies should be responsible for ensuring that sewage sludge spreads on farmland does not become contaminated, and nearly nine in 10 say the government should also take responsibility.
The findings were made public on December 16 when a petition signed by around 70,000 people calling for an end to the spread of contaminated sludge was presented before Defra in London.
This opinion poll highlights the huge gap between public interest and awareness. Three in five respondents said they were unaware that sewage sludge from water companies is commonly used on agricultural land, and around half believe this practice poses a risk to health and food quality. Nearly two-thirds said they believe water poses a health risk.
Activists say these concerns reflect weaknesses in the regulatory framework. Treated sewage sludge is sold to farmers as low-cost fertilizer, but the laws governing sludge treatment date back to the 1980s, before many modern contaminants were recognized, so water companies are not required to remove substances such as PFAS “permanent chemicals” or microplastics.
Support for stronger regulation was widespread across surveys. More than 85% of respondents supported legal limits on pollutants, increased monitoring and mandatory public reporting of pollution levels. Almost half supported a ban on spreading treated sewage sludge onto agricultural land, and 39% said water companies should find alternative treatment routes, even if it meant higher water bills.
Alongside the national poll, River Action also surveyed 105 farmers across the UK to understand the views of those directly affected. Although the sample was small, 83% of respondents said they were aware of the contamination risks of biosolids. More than 70% said they were concerned about water health impacts, and similar concerns were expressed about soil health.
Martin Lines, chief executive of the Nature-Friendly Farming Network, said the findings reflected growing anxiety within the sector. “These findings show how concerned farmers are about sewage sludge contamination,” he said, adding that responsibility should lie with water companies and governments, not farmers.
John Hall, a farmer from County Durham, wondered why agriculture had become a waste disposal route. “Water companies claim that sewage sludge is ‘valuable fertilizer’ and expect farmers to pay for the privilege of taking their waste,” he said, arguing that in most sectors the cost of safe disposal is borne by producers.
Another farmer in southern Scotland said past use of biosolids had raised concerns. “We have become increasingly concerned that natural by-products are being mixed with household chemicals and industrial waste,” they said, warning of long-term damage to soils, crops and the wider environment.
Water companies argue that treated sludge is safe when used in accordance with existing regulations and that its use is legal under current rules. But campaigners say public opinion, farmers’ concerns and new science point to the need for reform.
