Scientists make incredible breakthrough after studying human urine — here's how it could transform the way we grow food
A report from New Scientist will give you something to think about during your next bathroom break.
That's because experts are finding that human urine aged in the sun for a couple of months can be an effective fertilizer and pesticide. It was discovered during a trial in Niger that tested pee as a soil treatment. Pest management ability was proved, too. It's a solution on multiple fronts, as soil quality in West Africa is often poor, and fertilizer costs can be prohibitive, all according to the report.
What's more, excess chemical fertilizers and pesticides can leach off the field, contaminating water sources. The fallout can cause environmental and health problems, according to North Dakota State University and Earth.org.
For its part, urine has all the key components to be a replacement, containing nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, according to findings highlighted by Scientific Research Publishing. That article included experts Ibrahim Boukari Baoua and Laouali Amadou, from the Dan Dicko Dankoulodo University of Maradi and the National Institute of Agricultural Research in Niger, respectively. Both researchers were quoted in the New Scientist report.
"The odor is very, very strong," Amadou said in the story, describing the sunbathed containers of urine. It's part of a process that kills pathogens. And while it's unclear why the urine keeps insects away, the experts surmise that smell may play a role, per the news site.
Baoua sees urine as a potential money-saving lifeline for strapped farmers in the region, noting that the sandy dirt requires "very" expensive treatments.
"Soil fertility is very low in West Africa," he added.
That's why recycling the human waste stream is an exciting possibility for the experts.
"The team found that plots treated with synthetic pesticides had the lowest insect damage. But those treated with human urine had 20.5 times less infestation than control areas and their crop yields were 1.8 times higher," according to the New Scientist report.
This isn't the only case of human waste being used in farming. Biosolids — treated human and industrial streams — are already spread on American farm fields. But farmers and watchdogs are starting to worry about the impact because forever chemicals are turning up in the leavings. Contaminated biosolids are linked to cattle deaths in Texas, among other worrisome reports.
What is the biggest reason you don't grow food at home?
Not enough time
Not enough space
It seems too hard
I have a garden already
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Urine isn't absent of potentially dangerous chemicals, either. Researchers recently found a couple of substances in human samples from South China. And in many places in the U.S., treated sewer sludge used as fertilizer on farms, once thought to be beneficial, has recently been found to contain PFAS "forever chemicals," and thus direct urine usage would likely need testing or filtration methods to avoid this as well.
Other research for better fertilizer management includes a hydrogel in Texas that is being worked on to catch excess nitrate from additives before it causes problems. In Africa, the experts plan to study the urine approach more closely to better understand why it works and how to improve its impact.
It's a good reminder to stay educated about our food system and policies regarding what's allowed to be used during crop production. You can support cleaner brands and even grow your own food, too. Try composting for a fertilizer alternative. You can make your own soil treatment without harmful chemicals as another planet-friendly option.
Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New paper sheds light on experience of Black prisoners in infamous Stateville prison malaria experiments
Much has been said and written over the years about controversial malaria research conducted on inmates at Illinois' Stateville Penitentiary starting in the 1940s. But at least one part of that story has been largely ignored until now: the role of Black prisoners in that research, which helped lead to the modern practice of using genetic testing to understand how individual patients will react to certain medications, according to the authors of a newly published paper out of the University of Utah. 'We want to highlight the stories of Black prisoners that participated in this prison research in the 1950s onward and give them their due,' said Hannah Allen, a medical ethicist and assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, and first author of the paper, which was published as an opinion piece Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. 'They haven't been properly acknowledged in the past, and their participation in these studies was really foundational in launching the field of pharmacogenetics and, later on, precision medicine,' said Allen, who recently completed her doctorate at the University of Utah. Starting in the 1940s, researchers infected inmates at the Joliet-area prison with malaria to test the effectiveness of drugs to treat the illness as part of a U.S. military-funded effort to protect American troops overseas, according to the paper. A University of Chicago doctor was the principal investigator. The inmates consented to being part of the studies and were paid for their participation. At first, the research was greeted with enthusiasm. In 1945, Life magazine ran a spread about it, featuring a photo of a Stateville inmate with cups containing malaria-carrying mosquitoes pressed against his bare chest. The first line of the story reads, 'In three U.S. penitentiaries men who have been imprisoned as enemies of society are now helping science fight another enemy of society.' But as the years passed, attitudes began to shift. Questions arose about whether inmates could truly, freely consent to participate in medical experiments or whether they felt coerced into them because of their often dire circumstances. At the Nuremberg trials, defense attorneys for Nazi doctors introduced text and images from the Life article about Stateville prison, though an Illinois physician argued at the trials that the prisoners in Stateville consented to being part of medical research whereas Nazi prisoners did not, according to the JAMA paper. In the mid-1970s, news broke about a study at Tuskegee, in which Black men with syphilis went untreated for years — news that raised awareness of ethical problems in medical research. News outlets also began publishing more stories about prison research, according to the JAMA article. The Chicago Tribune published an article in 1973, in which an inmate participating in the Stateville malaria research said: 'I've been coerced into the project — for the money. Being here has nothing to do with 'doing good for mankind' … I didn't want to keep taking money from my family.' The experiments at Stateville came to a halt in the 1970s. A number of protections and regulations are now in place when it comes to research involving prisoners. Since the 1970s, the Stateville research has often been discussed and analyzed but little attention has been paid to its Black participants, said James Tabery, a medical ethicist and philosophy professor at the University of Utah who led the new research, which was funded by the federal National Institutes of Health. For a time, Black prisoners were excluded from the studies because of a myth that Black people were immune to malaria, Tabery said. Later on, once scientists had pinpointed the drug primaquine as an effective medication for malaria, they turned their attention to the question of why 5% to 10% of Black men experienced a violent reaction to the drug, according to the paper. Ultimately, the scientists were successful, finding that the adverse reaction was related to a specific genetic deficiency. 'There are people all over Chicago today that are getting tested, that clinicians are recommending they get a genetic test before they get prescribed a drug because they want to make sure that their patient isn't going to have an adverse reaction to the drug,' Tabery said. 'It's really sort of powerful and interesting that you can trace that approach to doing good clinical medicine right back to this particular moment and place and population.' But Tabery and Allen also found that the Black prisoners were not treated the same as the white prisoners who participated in research at Stateville. For one, they weren't paid as much as the white prisoners, the rationale being that the white prisoners were infected with malaria, whereas the Black prisoners were given the drug but not infected with the disease — though some of the Black prisoners got very ill after taking the medication, according to the paper. Also, researchers didn't protect the Black participants' privacy as well as they did for other participants. They published certain identifying information about the Black participants, such as initials, ages, heights and weights, whereas participants in the previous research were represented with case numbers, according to the paper. Researchers also recruited the Black prisoners' family members for the study, which they didn't do with earlier participants, according to the paper. 'You see them just doing things with the Black prisoners that they're not doing with the white prisoners,' Tabery said. Also, though scientists made an important discovery through the research on Black prisoners, the episode also highlights the difficulty that can occur in translating discoveries into real life help for patients. Though the World Health Organization now recommends genetic testing to protect people who are sensitive to antimalarials, many of the people who would benefit most from such testing still don't receive it because of financial barriers, supply chain issues and a lack of training, according to the paper. 'What we found is when you sort of shift to what was happening to the Black prisoners, these other lessons you hadn't thought of as being derivable from Stateville suddenly do become apparent,' Tabery said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
OSU falls victim to budget cuts, putting a damper on scientific research
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — The awarding of an OSU microfluidics research fund of $45 million has been called off by the Trump administration, leaving researchers fumbling for options. Microfluidics, the scientific study of the behavior of liquid on a microscopic level, is a recently established field and is hoped to aid in the medical realm as well as the manufacturing of semiconductors, a partially conductive component of many day-to-day electronic devices. The grant's cancellation has been a source of upset for researchers, but OSU is already looking ahead to future opportunities. Anti-ICE protests escalate outside Southwest Portland facility 'While we are disappointed in the notification of the EDA award cancellation for CorMic [Corvallis Microfluidics Tech Hub], we fully intend to participate in the EDA's next Notice of Funding Opportunity and remain well positioned to further national security interests as a global leader in microfluidics for semiconductor manufacturing, ' Tom Weller, Gaulke Professor and Head said. 'Oregon State University will continue to work alongside HP and other partners to further the commercialization of new microfluidics-connected technologies for semiconductor manufacturing, biotechnology, and advanced materials manufacturing.' This is not an isolated incident, with Trump having attempted to cut billions in allocated federal funding to scientific research since the beginning of his current term. White House spokesperson Kush Desai said, 'The Trump administration is spending its first few months reviewing the previous administration's projects, identifying waste, and realigning our research spending to match the American people's priorities and continue our innovative dominance.' Universities are getting hit with the full force of these budget cuts, with biomedical research being classified as 'waste.' Just in February, the National Institutes of Health proposed cutting billions of dollars to OHSU research looking at cancer and heart disease, among other afflictions. These cuts were immediately met with lawsuits from, but not limited to, the Association of American Universities and 22 state attorneys general. These lawsuits are still in progress. The Association of American Universities' lawsuit called the NIH cuts 'flagrantly unlawful' and expressed concern that 'our country will lose its status as the destination for solving the world's biggest health problems.' Scientists of the NIH itself have begun to speak out, publicly disagreeing with the institute's actions, claiming that the cuts 'undermine the NIH mission.' Cuts to scientific research are becoming a recurring source of contention as Trump's second term continues. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - We're cancer doctors. Here's why Medicare Advantage fails America's elderly.
'It's nothing,' Tom, a retired firefighter from rural Texas, thought when he had persistent stomach pain. After shedding 30 pounds in three weeks, his family physician ordered a CT scan. Tom was not concerned — after all, the 65-year-old had gotten Medicare Advantage earlier that year. Like millions, Tom switched his insurance after he was solicited by a broker who promised low premiums and a gift card. Absent from the sales pitch was the fact that Medicare Advantage plans — privately run and separate from government-funded traditional Medicare — often delay and deny coverage. One of us met Tom nearly three months after his CT scan, and his doctor discovered the abdominal mass. The job as the first oncologist he had been able to see after months of jumping through hoops was to get initial scans, identify an in-network provider, wait for further referral and approval processes and finally schedule and complete a biopsy. The delays became a death knell. Tom was diagnosed with Stage 3 pancreatic cancer. Tom's first question was, 'It's going to be fine, right?' Despite the urge to reassure him, Tom's life and treatment options were not up to a doctor. They were up to his insurance. The same insurance that delayed urgent testing and care. By definition, Medicare Advantage is meant to support elderly medical care and increase efficiencies; in function, it is a business model that allows the American government to decrease its liability for sick seniors. Instead of absorbing and managing costs, the responsibility is outsourced to third-party operators, such as UnitedHealth Group, Humana and CVS Health. While Medicare Advantage provides excellent coverage if you never get sick, this insurance can quickly become a precursor to medical bankruptcy if the patient develops a deadly disease, a highly probable outcome when you consider that nearly 40 percent of Americans get cancer in their lifetime. After nearly two decades of experimentation and $450 billion of taxpayer money, Medicare Advantage has proven porous in terms of corruption, fraud and abuse. Yet, 32.8 million elderly Americans (54 percent of the eligible Medicare population) are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage. In 2023 alone, Medicare Advantage plans fully or partially denied 3.2 million prior authorization requests. No one, especially among folks facing the daily drudgery of fighting cancer, truly understands how the cogs within the insurance machine work. Few of our elderly patients fight the goliath institution, and many succumb to poorer health outcomes in their quest for lifesaving treatment. Last year, countrywide and across disease groups, 79 percent of patients who experienced a delay or denial of coverage paid out of pocket for medication at least sometimes. Unsurprisingly, more than 100 million Americans are in medical debt. Of those who appealed between 2019 and 2023, over 80 percent were approved, implying that the initial claims were valid. This game of attrition directly contradicts Medicare Advantage's promise to provide efficient, patient-centered healthcare. These denials are not just medically dangerous because they enable deadly diseases to progress unchecked. They are also emotionally erosive. Daily, we see patients shrink in the face of denials, unable to emotionally navigate the complex Medicare system and the immense pain, isolation and depression resulting from this behemoth that stands between their disease and their hope to be free of it. During one of Tom's chemo visits, with thousands of dollars worth of IVs in his veins, his skin pale and translucent, he realized he was begging his insurance at every turn to support him. Stories like Tom's reveal the truth: Medicare Advantage is unapologetically failing its elderly cancer patients. Sick American seniors deserve more than insurance coverage in name only. We advise our patients to avoid Medicare Advantage. The better choice is traditional Medicare, plus a secondary or supplemental insurance. Often, people do not enroll in supplemental insurance because they do not understand its importance, believe they will never get sick, miss the deadline for approval without a medical exam (you must do this within three months before or after your 65th birthday), or think it is too expensive. Although supplemental insurance costs nearly $500 a month (exact amounts vary based on age and income), choosing this add-on — and paying roughly $6,000 a year — is much more affordable than Medicare Advantage's yearly out-of-pocket (potentially adding up to $8,500) and fighting for approvals for basic treatment. On Medicare Advantage, Tom quickly reached his maximum yearly out-of-pocket of $8,500, but then it reset on Jan. 1. After four months of treatment, he was responsible for paying $17,000 for 16 months of care, on top of his insurance premiums, simply to receive standard care. Of course, if you are one of the fortunate few to have never experienced illness — and we hope you are — Medicare Advantage can be a cheaper option. The question is, how can we make Medicare Advantage advantageous for the vulnerable? There is a bipartisan opportunity to change the narrative around this insurance model. During his confirmation hearing as the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Mehmet Oz criticized Medicare Advantage insurers for some of their practices. Strategic change — omitting out-of-pocket costs for cancer patients, curbing insurance companies' rights to deny claims submitted by doctors and speeding up the process — along with more rigorous oversight of the program are worthwhile goals the Trump administration and Congress should take on. While Democrats and Republicans disagree on many issues, we believe we can all agree that people like Tom — and the millions of other Americans enrolled in Medicare Advantage — deserve comprehensive and just care. Dr. Pramod Pinnamaneni, MD, MBA, and Dr. Nitya Thummalachetty, DrPH, are founders of the Nau Project, a start-up dedicated to helping everyday Americans navigate the complexities of our healthcare system. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
