Since the introduction of odor standards in 2010 (HN 121:2010), we have been actively discussing, regulating, measuring, and evaluating them. Here is where we stand in 2026:
- regulation in TIPK permits;
- more than one or two high-profile cases that continue to stir up strong emotions on all sides of the divide;
- public distrust and business uncertainty (at times)…
But do we have clear rules of the game after 15 years—how odor should be assessed, when it should be assessed, how it should be measured, and when it should be measured? Let’s ask ourselves some simple engineering questions and try to answer them:
- It is clearly defined how sources of odor pollution should be identified and marked in pollution sites and diagrams—this is not the case, although there is an analogy (perhaps not entirely complete with sources of chemical pollution);
- It is specified how odor dispersion should be calculated—the calculation area, the grid size, and how specific pollution sources (poultry farms, wastewater treatment plants, and other unorganized pollution) are assessed—no, it is not;
- It has been generally decided that barns are organized sources of pollution—should we assess each individual source or not? What parameters are being assessed?
- It is clear how odor measurements should be conducted at stationary pollution sources or diffuse pollution sources—how many samples to take, at what frequency, and in what quantities—but no, it is not;
- It has been explained to the public that the detection limit of the odor method is significantly (up to 10 times) higher than the threshold value, and what this means in terms of assessment—no, it has not;
- It is recognized that accredited odor detection methods sometimes specify the number of samples very clearly (for example, 10% of the barn area, which in many cases amounts to 150 samples), while in other cases it does not (open gates, loading and unloading processes), and a unified approach must be discussed and agreed upon by experts, rather than an approach that applies to one farm operator—no, it does not…
- Is the declared accredited testing method followed? No, it isn’t. However, that doesn’t prevent conclusions from being drawn from a single measurement—that’s certainly true.
That is why we are in this situation—the public does not trust evaluations and inspections, and rightly so, because it cannot trust anything done according to unclear procedures and interpreted however one sees fit.
They say we shouldn’t look back, but is that really true? We’ve all heard of Aristotle. He is also credited with this wisdom: “The state is established so that people may live, but it exists so that people may live well.” (Politics, Book I).
So people naturally form communities and establish rules, because without them there is neither order nor morality. Is 15 years enough time to roll up our sleeves and sit down to put everything in order? Otherwise, the question arises: who benefits from murky water? Probably not the fish in the water.
Žaidžiame Aplinkosaugą Team
