As a part of the Law Commission’s overall Burial, Cremation, and New Funerary Methods project, their Consultation Paper was an important step towards their aim of making recommendations to Government about a future-proof framework which will enable the regulation of new funerary methods.
New funerary methods are ways to break down a body other than burial, cremation or burial at sea. Although not currently regulated in England and Wales, some new funerary methods, such as alkaline hydrolysis and human composting, are available in other countries.
I have written before about whether new funerary processes is a satisfactory description. I split funerary processes into either complete or partial processes. For instance, a natural burial is complete because the body is locked up in the grave. Although cremation is an incomplete process, because the bereaved are left with a portion of cremated remains, these can be placed in the crematorium grounds. Consequently, we can consider this a complete process.
However, the new processes, such as composting and alkaline hydrolysis (water cremation), are incomplete. These private firms have devised ways to reduce the body, but to leave a fair portion of remains for placement by the bereaved. They do not offer a location for this, and what remains e.g. compost or organic bone, need to be placed somewhere. Consequently, unlike burial and cremation, neither of these processes can conform to registration requirements that they identify the ‘person effecting the disposal’ of the body. They change the format of the body but do not dispose of it, which is the legal definition.
Neither of these processes appear to have had a trouble-free birth. Although both are in operation in other countries, they have not opened in the UK. That is after some years of proposals and various publicity. To me, that implies that, beneath the radar, problems have arisen. With composting, that is probably the avoidance of any DNA, bone or teeth fragments in the residue. It appears that screening the compost has become an essential and ever more expensive requirement. However, as an essentially simple process, I would like to see it work.
I could suggest ways to make this process work better. However, these ways would have to exist all over the country to make such a funeral process countrywide. For instance, local council’s own lots of land, including parks and cemeteries and often allotments. If they combined with a private composting business, they could find ways to use the compost. They could even realistically price their conventional cemetery costs, which would encourage people to choose composting. That would, potentially, remove their expensive liability to provide and maintain outdated cemeteries. Such a service could easily be countrywide, especially if supported by government.
Alternatively, if the firms offering composting outsourced the locations, say to local farms, then it could again be countrywide. An old barn or readily erected new farm building could be sufficient. Using this approach, the firm would fit composting units at the farm and monitor these over the composting period. The farmer would not have these skills. As soon as the compost is ready, it could be distributed sensitively by the farmer, over his or her fields. There would be no long haulage needs and a low carbon footprint. However, would the Environment Agency approve this?
As for alkaline hydrolysis, that appears to have gone through various iterations. For instance, at first the few hundred litres of waste fluid from the process was to be discharged into the sewerage system. That appeared an environmental negative as the sewage in rivers scenario worsened. Then, they proposed to spray it over natural burial sites, a suggestion that troubled me. Now, it appears that the fluid is going to be dried to a powder. However, that will require more energy and expense. Placing this on fields appears the ideal location, but again, would the Environment Agency agree to this? In the past, prions remaining from the body appear to have been a reason to refuse. A further weakness with this process is that it requires water, the supply of which, we are warned, is going to be a real issue within the next 50 years.
All this illustrates the difficulty in devising functional new processes. I feel sympathy for the companies developing these ideas. Firstly, there is an urgent need to phase out cremation, a polluting and highly processed method which results in toxic cremated remains. Secondly, the government should help these processes to develop by ensuring that various agencies, like the Environment Agency, do not frustrate such initiatives. Thirdly, government should initiate the research to help these companies find solutions. This is particularly important in that these companies need the confidence of investors, that a return can be made by putting money into these new funerary methods.
Neither of these two processes appear to have been subject to community research. Do people want them? If not, how do we encourage their uptake. Worse, with cremation not paying a carbon tax, and with most council and church burial grounds being subsidised, the funeral market is heavily distorted. Worse, many of the funeral directing companies have a vested interest in maintaining cremation. They may well not support these new processes, and they certainly stood in the way of natural burial for many years. Their gatekeeping role is powerful and has kept funeral costs high. In those high costs, little of the money goes to the functional portion of the funeral. The biggest profit lies in memorial sales, which are not a feature of these new processes. Memorials, particularly in stone, have a massive carbon footprint.
When we consider new funerary processes, it is principally about reducing carbon. We must not think of this in years, or decades, but in millennia. Clearly, government must be embedded in the decisions but, at this stage, we have no idea how they, and people generally, will respond to these new funerary processes.
Article by Ken West
The Stonehenge Pensioner
