Proposed change to NOR law would be bad for consumers
Many New Yorkers are actively seeking additional environmentally sustainable alternatives to traditional burial and cremation, and natural organic reduction (NOR) expands the options available to New York families. NOR is a process that accelerates the biological decomposition of human remains in an above-ground system that naturally converts human remains to soil. But the NOR proposal inserted in Gov. Kathy Hochul’s executive budget would unintentionally allow for the unraveling of New York’s delicate balance of consumer protections related to the final disposition of human remains.
As presented in the budget, the NOR proposal would enable for-profit funeral chain operations to provide final disposition of human remains by operating natural organic reduction facilities. But in New York, our highly regulated nonprofit cemeteries are charged with the final disposition of human remains. Turning over final disposition of New York’s family members to out-of-state, for-profit corporate chains would reverse decades of beneficial state policy and would contradict New York’s existing consumer protection public policy goals.
New York’s Anti-Combination Law protects against one entity controlling costs, disclosures, and the process of handling human remains. The entire purpose of New York’s death care regulatory environment is to protect consumers, prevent price fixing, and advance the public purpose of the appropriate disposition of a loved one’s remains. No consumer will benefit if our existing system morphs to be focused on profits over compassionate services.
The existing NOR law – signed by the governor at the end of December 2022 after receiving strong support in the Legislature – maintains the consumer protections already in statute, and continues the historical and critical separation of final disposition between nonprofit cemeteries and for-profit funeral corporations. Now, just a few months later, this new law would be upended by a policy shift that amounts to a drive for profits over the care of families.
As a state funeral home lobbying organization noted when this separation of services was first enacted, to combine funeral services and disposition services could lead to sales practices that are unethical or even illegal, and certainly would not be in consumers’ best interests.
The interests of consumers and nonprofits must continue to take precedence over corporate profits and out-of-state corporations. This proposal needs to be jettisoned from the state budget.
No consumer will benefit if our existing system morphs to be focused on profits over compassionate services.