Scrub Hub: What is a 'green' burial? (Hint, it involves decomposing into the earth)
Hoosiers may soon be able to choose a "water burial" after at least a decade of lawmakers trying to add it to the options funeral services may offer.
Rep. Mark Genda, R-Frankfort, once again introduced a bill that would legalize alkaline hydrolysis, a "green" form of cremation promoted as more environmentally friendly than other options. House Bill 1044 would mandate the state to create rules for the process before January 1, 2026.
Efforts to add water cremations to the list of funeral services for Hoosiers have been underway since at least 2015. Genda's bill this year has passed through the house and is awaiting a hearing with a Senate committee.
Alkaline hydrolysis has been used in the U.S. since 2003 and is available in roughly half of states across the country. The process does not involve the burning of fossil fuels nor produce the pollution that traditional cremation does. It does, however, use a significant amount of water.
The process involves dissolving a human's remains in a chemical mixture using heat and water. This, much like traditional cremation, leaves behind bone remains that can be memorialized.
Alkaline hydrolysis is not the only form of a green, or eco-friendly burial, there are other sustainable options Hoosiers can choose.
Green burial can mean different things to different people — to some, it means a very specific form of disposition, but to others it encompasses the broader umbrella of sustainable options for after-death care.
The Green Burial Council talks about 'any form of disposition that reduces impact on the environment,' said Sam Perry, president of the national group. 'We want to conserve land, protect natural resources and protect worker health, too.'
Perry, who also is a licensed funeral director in Indiana and Illinois, said the group also is working to change the term from green to natural burial, noting there can be negative connotations with use of the term 'green.' It also better represents what these options are and what they provide for families, he said.
Scrub Hub: Where can Hoosiers get help identifying, eradicating invasive plants?
Still, the GBC works with a particular definition of green or natural burial. For their organization, a natural burial focuses on three key elements that differ from the conventional version.
The first factor is how the body is prepared. In a traditional burial, bodies are often embalmed with a mixture of chemicals such as formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde and other solvents. In a natural burial, that doesn't happen and bodies typically are not embalmed, Perry said.
The second element of a natural burial is the container in which the body is buried. Usually, bodies are buried in a metal casket or one that is wood but lacquered and treated with other chemicals. These materials do not easily or readily break down.
With natural burials, bodies are placed in containers that will biodegrade. Perry said that can include caskets made from wicker or bamboo, for example, or even a simple pine box that is untreated.
The last aspect that makes for a natural burial is where the bodies are buried. Many cemeteries bury their caskets in vaults or liners, often made of concrete, which are meant to be protective receptacles. That very characteristic, however, goes against allowing bodies to decompose as part of a natural burial.
It's these elements — the lack of chemicals, non-biodegradable materials, as well as minimal carbon footprint as compared to cremation — that explain why natural burials are considered an environmentally-friendly option.
Environmental bill: 'Water cremation' could be coming to Indiana. What is it and why is new option important.
According to Perry, green burials are allowed in every state, including Indiana. That said, there are still accessibility issues for such services across the country.
In recent years, Perry has seen significant growth in both public interest and demand in natural burials and other sustainable disposition options. In response, he also is seeing more funeral homes and cemeteries wanting to learn more in how to offer natural services.
'People who come to natural burial usually are more comfortable with that natural decomposition and the breakdown of the body and going back to nature,' Perry said. 'It's the idea that we aren't separate from nature, but we are part of it.'
There are other types of sustainable after-death options that also are becoming more popular. These include the water cremation IndyStar previously wrote about or another process called human composting. While still a better alternative to traditional burial or cremation, Perry said, both of these options also have their drawbacks — such as water and energy usage.
If you have any more questions about green burials or any other sustainable alternatives, please ask us! You can submit a question to the Scrub Hub through the Google form below.
Call IndyStar reporter Sarah Bowman at 317-444-6129 or email at sarah.bowman@indystar.com. Follow her on Twitter and Facebook: @IndyStarSarah. Connect with IndyStar's environmental reporters: Join The Scrub on Facebook.
IndyStar's environmental reporting project is made possible through the generous support of the nonprofit Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust.
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: 'Green' burials grow in popularity as people want sustainable options
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
‘We're Just Becoming a Weapon of the State'
Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. Bhattacharya, the NIH, and the Department of Health and Human Services did not respond immediately to a request for comment. The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants —originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, ' the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
NIH scientists speak out over estimated $12 billion in Trump funding cuts
By Chad Terhune (Reuters) -Dozens of scientists, researchers and other employees at the U.S. National Institutes of Health issued a rare public rebuke Monday criticizing the Trump administration for major spending cuts that 'harm the health of Americans and people across the globe,' politicize research and 'waste public resources.' More than 60 current employees sent their letter to NIH director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee NIH. Bhattacharya is scheduled to testify Tuesday at the U.S. Senate appropriations committee about his agency's budget. Overall, more than 340 current and recently terminated NIH employees signed the letter, about 250 of them anonymously. In their letter, NIH staff members said the agency had terminated 2,100 research grants totaling about $9.5 billion and an additional $2.6 billion in contracts since President Donald Trump took office Jan. 20. The contracts often support research, from covering equipment to nursing staff working on clinical trials. These terminations "throw away years of hard work and millions of dollars" and put patient health at risk, the letter said. NIH clinical trials "are being halted without regard to participant safety, abruptly stopping medications or leaving participants with unmonitored device implants." Officials at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees NIH, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. In prior remarks, Bhattacharya has pledged support for Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again agenda, and he has said that means focusing the federal government's "limited resources" directly on combating chronic diseases. At his Senate confirmation hearings in March, Bhattacharya said he would ensure scientists working at NIH and funded by the agency have the necessary resources to meet its mission. NIH is the world's largest public funder of biomedical research and has long enjoyed bipartisan support from U.S. lawmakers. The Trump administration has proposed cutting $18 billion, or 40%, from NIH's budget next year, which would leave the agency with $27 billion. Nearly 5,000 NIH employees and contractors have been laid off under Kennedy's restructuring of U.S. health agencies, according to NIH staff. Dr. Jenna Norton, a program director within NIH's division of kidney, urologic and hematologic diseases, was one of 69 current employees who signed the letter as of early Monday. She said speaking out publicly was worth the risk to her career and family. "I am much more worried about the risks of not speaking up," Norton said. "There are very real concerns that we're being asked to do likely illegal activities, and certainly unethical activities that breach our rules." About 20 NIH employees who were recently terminated as probationary workers or "subject to reductions in force" added their names to the letter. In the letter, Norton and other NIH employees asked Bhattacharya to restore grants that were delayed or terminated for political reasons, where officials ignored peer review to "cater to political whims." They wrote that Bhattacharya had failed to uphold his legal duty to spend congressionally appropriated funds. One program director at the NIH's National Cancer Institute, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation, said she has repeatedly been asked to cancel research grants for no valid reason and in violation of agency rules. She said she fears she could become the target of lawsuits from grantees challenging those decisions. Dr. Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist and core director at NIH's Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said he and other researchers want to work with Bhattacharya on reversing the cuts and restoring the NIH as a "beacon for science around the world." "This is really a hit to the whole enterprise of biomedical research in the United States," Feldman said. Dr. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH, signed the letter and said he has heard from university researchers about patients losing access to novel cancer treatments in clinical trials due to the uncertainty over NIH funding. He also worries about the long-term effect from gutting NIH's investment in basic science research that can lead to lifesaving treatments years later. The NIH employees, based in Bethesda, Maryland, named their dissent the "Bethesda Declaration," modeled after Bhattacharya's Great Barrington Declaration in 2020 that called on public health officials to roll back lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. "Our hope is that by modeling ourselves after the Great Barrington Declaration that maybe he'll see himself in our dissent," Norton said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
What's a Medicaid cut? Senate GOP tiptoes around $800B question
When is a Medicaid cut not actually a cut? That's the $800 billion question facing Senate Republicans as they write their own version of the sweeping House-passed tax and spending bill. Administration officials and senators defending against attacks on the bill have coalesced around a message that there will be no cuts to benefits, and the only people who will lose coverage are the ones who never deserved it to begin with: namely immigrants without legal status and 'able-bodied' individuals who shouldn't be on Medicaid. 'This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more commonsense,' Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said during a recent CNN interview. 'That's what this bill does. No one will lose coverage as a result.' Among many provisions, the House bill would require states to deny Medicaid to people who can't prove they are working, looking for work, in school or volunteering for 80 hours a month. It would prohibit states from using their own money to cover immigrants without legal status and would deny coverage to other lawfully present immigrants who are currently eligible. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the legislation will result in nearly 11 million people losing health insurance coverage over the next decade. The Medicaid provisions alone would result in 7.8 million people losing their insurance. Those coverage losses would equate to hundreds of billions of dollars in savings for the federal government. However, GOP lawmakers and administration officials insist the legislation will protect Medicaid for 'deserving' people such as the elderly and disabled, while forcing others to prove they aren't freeloading. 'It's important for us to provide a nudge to some Americans to remember that they have agency over their future,' Mehmet Oz, the administration's Medicare and Medicaid chief, told reporters on Wednesday, following a closed-door meeting with GOP senators. Later Wednesday in an interview on Fox Business, Oz elaborated. 'Go out there, do entry-level jobs, get into the workforce, prove that you matter. Get agency into your own life,' he said. Republicans are wary about being attacked over health care cuts, and they're eager to reframe the debate and try to go on offense. Voter backlash over the 2017 ObamaCare repeal effort led to widespread GOP losses and cost them control of the House in the 2018 midterms. 'Give me a break, This is just fear-mongering from Democrats,' Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said in a post on the social platform X. 'No one's losing health care—unless you count the 1.4 million illegal immigrants getting Medicaid on your dime.' Most immigrants without legal status can't qualify for Medicaid at the federal level, but some blue states have extended health care coverage to them. The legislation would penalize those states if they continued to offer coverage by lowering their federal matching rate. In a CNBC interview Thursday, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said the people who lose Medicaid coverage will merely transition to employer-sponsored health care. 'It's not kicking people off Medicaid. It's transitioning from Medicaid to employer-provided health care. So yes, we've got 10 million people that are not going to be on Medicaid, but they then are going to be on employer-provided health care,' Lankford said. Yet according to the CBO, 'few of those disenrolled from Medicaid because of the policy would have access to and enroll in employment-based coverage.' A bloc of Republican senators has been raising concerns about some of the Medicaid provisions, and some have said they do not like the idea of anything that could be interpreted as a cut. But by and large, they've signaled the coverage losses aren't what's troubling. '[We need to] protect the program for the people that really deserve and need the help and need the program, you know, and that's children, disabled, seniors, on and on and on,' said Sen. Jim Justice ( 'That's what we got to do. You know, at the end of the day, we shouldn't be protecting the program for people that are abusing or people that shouldn't be eligible, or whatever.' Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has said he worries about the bill's potential impact on rural hospitals and pledged to withhold support from any bill that cuts Medicaid benefits. But what is a benefit cut? 'If my state tells me that, because of legislative changes in the House bill, the Senate bill, we're going to have to cut benefits. That's a benefit cut,' Hawley told The Hill. Missouri has 1.3 million Medicaid beneficiaries, but Hawley said he thinks there would only be a small number impacted by the work requirements. 'I'm fine with people who are able-bodied and not working … I'm all for that. So you know what, cut benefits from illegal aliens. Yeah, I'm fine with that, but I'm concerned about people who are here legally, residents of my state, citizens of my state, who are working and would lose health care coverage,' he said. Hawley has said that President Trump reiterated his opposition against any Medicaid cuts during recent conversations about the 'big, beautiful bill,' though the president supported the House version. Health experts say the impact of the cuts will go far beyond the small slice of the population Republicans claim. Work requirements will likely add layers of red tape for people to prove they meet the threshold. 'The people losing coverage aren't people who aren't working … but they're actually people who should satisfy the work reporting or should qualify for an exemption, but they can't navigate the complex systems for either reporting one's hours for work or other activities,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy. The legislation includes some exemptions, like for caregiving, but it doesn't specify what would qualify or how beneficiaries would prove they qualify. There's no requirement that states exempt people automatically, Park said, so many people who would be eligible likely wouldn't be enrolled. No matter how Republicans spin it, Park said, 'these are huge Medicaid cuts. They're going to take away coverage from millions of low-income people.' 'And those cuts are going to affect everyone throughout the Medicaid program, not just the expansion group, but also kids, seniors and people with disabilities,' he added. 'And it's going to have big ripple effects throughout the health care system.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
