This commentary was submitted on behalf of several members of the group Land Conservation Natural Burial (conservationburialmn.org), which has the goal of establishing a conservation burial ground in the greater Twin Cities. Their names are listed below.

•••

Visiting departed loved ones in a natural setting, such as a forest, oak savanna or prairie, brings solace and healing to those grieving. We’re grateful that the Schramm family featured in the Oct. 6 article “Finding a shady, final resting spot in Minnesota” found an option that fits what they wanted at Better Place Forests. Unfortunately, the information presented in the article prevents families from making truly informed and environmentally friendly after-death decisions.

Better Place Forests is a leafy memorial forest where families may place remains at the base of a tree, or in the future, scatter them in the “shared grove.” It is not, as the article implies, a part of the growing conservation and green burial movement in the United States. In fact, there is no burial at Better Place, for that would require cemetery designation and regulation. It is also not fully protected by a land trust conservation easement, though it does have a Washington County conditional use permit.

Since only cremated remains are accepted, it bears stating that cremation is not exactly earth-friendly. Flame-based cremation of human remains is a significant source of mercury emissions, according to a 2020 study by the Environmental Protection Agency. This is due to mercury in dental fillings, as well as mercury in blood and tissues (when buried with the body, fillings remain inert). Other toxic emissions associated with flame-based cremation include, but are not limited to, carbon dioxide that exacerbates climate change, as well as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, which contribute to the formation of acid rain.

The article also misinforms readers about water cremation. Water cremation is not rare, but readily available in Minnesota — many people just don’t know that there are different cremation options. Flame-based and water-based cremation both have the same end result, but the process to get there is different. While flame-based cremation uses enough fossil fuel to drive a gas-powered car about 500 miles, water-based cremation uses significantly less fuel and has an overall lower carbon footprint making it a “greener” option.

Cremated remains have a very high sodium content — anywhere from 200 to 2,000 times the amount that plants can handle — and a pH of 11.8, which is two times too alkaline for soil (Lee Webster, New Hampshire Funeral Resources, Education and Advocacy). By simply scattering or placing cremated remains around trees, we’re actually harming them — certainly not something a true conservation organization would do!

Unlike this memorial forest, the groundwork for a conservation burial area in the Twin Cities metro area is actively being explored by our local group, Land Conservation Natural Burial. This will be a place that uses natural burial practices — no embalming fluids, no metal/hardwood casket, no concrete burial vault, no quarried granite marker — and current conservation practices to restore and protect the land in partnership with an officially recognized conservation organization.

Instead of using fossil fuels and harming plants, conservation burial sequesters carbon and restores native habitat. Being in nature is powerful, especially when we’re grieving. A conservation burial cemetery provides what people are looking for when they choose Better Place Forests, but it actually employs conservation practices to restore and protect the land that we love enough to choose as a final resting place.

Natural organic reduction (NOR), aka human composting, is also now legal in Minnesota and on the horizon for rolling out in July 2025. With conservation burial and NOR, truly green after-death options are increasingly available for Minnesotans.

Everyone should partake in preplanning and having the important conversations that accompany those plans. To make informed decisions, though, people need correct information. Dear readers, don’t be misled — do the research, ask the questions and get the answers before solidifying your after-death plans. There are greener options out there.

Signatories to this article: Anne Archbold, Jean Buckley, Marilaurice Hemlock, Peg Mahon, Jessica Manning, Linda Ridlehuber, Paul Sommers, Shelley Strohmaier, Alicia Waters, Zac M. Willette, Angela Woosley and Karen Zeleznak.