

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Tina Posterli, Waterkeeper Alliance, 212.747.0622 or tposterli@waterkeeper.org
Alex Formuzis, EWG, 202.667.6982 or alex@ewg.org
A first-of-its-kind interactive map revealing the locations of more than 6,500 concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, across the state of North Carolina was released today by Waterkeeper Alliance, North Carolina Riverkeeper organizations and Environmental Working Group (EWG).
In addition to swine and cattle CAFOs, the project documents the locations of over 3,900 poultry operations, which up until now have been shielded from the people of North Carolina.
The maps, which EWG and Waterkeeper Alliance researchers constructed over more than three years, provide a never-before-seen aerial view of the CAFOs blanketing the state. This includes the manure lagoons from swine operations, detailing how close they are to streams, rivers and other public water sources.
The maps feature satellite photos of each of the thousands of facilities.
The unprecedented mapping project identifies approximate locations of all swine, poultry and cattle CAFO operations in the state, as well as the size of the operations. The online maps allow users to view total estimated waste outputs on a facility, watershed, county or statewide scale. All told, researchers from the groups estimate more than 10 billion pounds of wet animal waste and 2 million tons of dry animal waste is generated annually in North Carolina from CAFOs, leaving tens of thousands of rural residents susceptible to air and water quality contamination.
"For far too long, North Carolinians have been kept in the dark about the true impact these industrial factory farms are having on communities and waterways," said Marc Yaggi, executive director of Waterkeeper Alliance. "Information is power and now that these sites are definitively identified, we will hold accountable the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for enforcing the Clean Water Act and fixing these massive pollution problems."
"Animal agriculture operations are one of the leading sources of water and air pollution in the country and are making people sick," said Ken Cook, president and co-founder of EWG. "These maps show for the first time, that thousands of CAFOs and the animal waste they produce are often adjacent to communities and vital water sources."
In 2015, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources published a wide-ranging study showing elevated levels of both nitrates and ammonia in waterways near hog CAFOs in eastern North Carolina. Researchers behind the three year USGS/DENR study found that "animal feeding operations have measureable affects on stream water quality in many agricultural watersheds in the North Carolina Coastal Plain" with nearly 60 percent of the watersheds where CAFOs are located having "distinct differences in water quality reflecting swine and/or poultry manure effects."
Nitrates at high levels in waterways can kill off fish, and when ingested through contaminated drinking water can cause the potentially fatal "blue baby syndrome" in infants, among other illnesses in humans.
Hog manure pits also contain a mix of dangerous pathogens, like Salmonella and pharmaceuticals, among many other agents that can leach into surface water sources. As the maps show, there are more than 4,100 manure pits in North Carolina, with nearly 50 percent of them located Duplin and Sampson counties alone.
Beyond the threat to water, the air in the communities next to many of these CAFOs is often polluted, too. The odor from the hog manure stored in these pits, a mix between rotten eggs and ammonia, regularly drifts into adjacent neighborhoods and homes, forcing residents to cover their mouths and noses with masks when outside. Studies, including one from researchers with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Michigan, found the ammonia released into the air from swine CAFOs in North Carolina "is potentially hazardous for nearby human populations at community locations, particularly homes and schools."
Additional research has shown the air pollution from CAFOs like those in North Carolina can elevate the risks for respiratory problems, eye and nose irritation, and increased mental stress for those who live and work near these animal feeding operations.
The noxious fumes from CAFO operations in Halifax County have sometimes forced nearby residents, who could afford it, to stay in area motels until the plumes that hung over their homes passed.
Other serious health problems associated with these animal agriculture operations include the growing threat of superbugs that are resistant to antibiotics. According to the Pew Charitable Trust's Antibiotic Resistance Project, roughly 70 percent of all antibiotics in the U.S. are used on hogs, chickens and cattle to make them grow faster. Estimates show farm animals in North Carolina receive more antibiotics than all Americans combined.
The map project also highlights key information, including statistics, that has never before been made available:
* 10 billion gallons of wet animal waste are produced each year in North Carolina.
* Across North Carolina, there is the equivalent of over 15,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools brimming with swine and cattle waste from CAFOs alone.
* Annually, poultry operations in the state produce more than 2 million tons of dry animal waste.
* 4,145 waste pits make up 6,848 acres of land (29,831,277 square feet).
* 37 waste pits are within 2,500 feet of a school.
* 288 waste pits are within 2,500 feet of a church.
* 136 waste pits are within 2,500 feet of a public water well.
* 170 waste pits are within the state's 100-year floodplain.
* Poultry housed in CAFO facilities outnumber residents by 20 to one.
Sam Perkins, the Catawba Riverkeeper, regularly flies over his basin in the Piedmont of North Carolina. "We have 1,000 poultry houses in the Catawba River basin in North Carolina," he stated. "With the public record exemption afforded by state regulations, the industry has exploded throughout this beautiful region, and these maps finally show just how extensive that growth is. Many of these operations cannot even take the simple measure of covering their waste piles with a simple tarp to prevent runoff. Downstream of many of these sites, the Catawba River is dammed into lakes, which serve as major regional drinking water reservoirs and provide tens of billions of dollars of property tax base critical to local economies. The toxin microcystin produced by harmful algal blooms - like those seen in eastern North Carolina and in Toledo, Ohio - fueled by nutrient runoff from these sites, would be disastrous for the Charlotte region."
Elsie Herring is a Duplin County resident affected by CAFO pollution. "For the first time, I can see a map of the entire state and look at where I live in the southeastern part and see the overwhelming concentration of these facilities in my community," Herring said. "On a local level, we now have the tools and information we need to protect ourselves and our waterways from the very real impacts of these facilities on our health, homes and community. This will force this industry to finally have transparency, as its lasting impact is projected and amplified for all to see."
The map project will be housed on Waterkeeper Alliance's and Environmental Working Group's websites, and will continue to be developed. Over the weeks and months ahead, locations of processing plants and feed mills will be added. The team behind this initiative will also produce similar maps for other states in the U.S. with significant CAFO operations to demonstrate the enormous impact the factory farm industry has on human health and the environment.
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982One congresswoman pointed out that "she does not have access to an official website for constituents to receive updates, an office phone number for constituents to call, or a congressional email."
Congressional Democrats were among the critics taking aim at US Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on Monday for the Louisiana Republican's "genuinely insane" remarks on his refusal to swear in Democratic Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva of Arizona.
Twenty days into a federal government shutdown that resulted from Republicans' fight for healthcare cuts set to negatively impact tens of millions of Americans, Johnson said he would administer the oath of office to Grijalva, "I hope, on the first day we come back."
"Instead of doing TikTok videos, she should be serving her constituents," Johnson added. "She could be taking their calls. She could be directing them, trying to help them through the crisis that the Democrats have created by shutting down the government."
Another Democrat elected to represent Arizonans, Congressman Greg Stanton, fired back at the speaker: "How pathetic. Mike Johnson is now blaming Adelita Grijalva for not doing her job. Quit taking orders from Trump and swear her in now."
Grijalva won the special election for her late father's seat last month, pre-shutdown. Johnson could have swiftly administered the oath of office, and despite the shutdown, he can still do so. He has denied that he has intentionally delayed swearing her in to push off a vote on releasing files about deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a former friend of President Donald Trump—but many critics don't believe him.
Responding to the speaker on Monday, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said: "Republicans refuse to swear in an elected member of Congress. Why? They are covering up the Epstein files."
As Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes threatens legal action over the delay—with a filing expected this week—Grijalva, Democratic lawmakers, and others have used various social media platforms to call out Johnson.
In one such video, posted online last week, Grijalva speaks with Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), the newest member of the House, about how he was sworn in just a day after winning his special election, like two of his GOP colleagues.
As viewers of Grijalva's videos know, she finally got access to her office on Capitol Hill last week, but her ability to functionally serve constituents remains limited.
Pointing to similar comments that the House speaker made last week on CNN, Congresswoman Kelly Morrison (D-Minn.) explained Monday: "Unlike Mike Johnson, I actually spoke to Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva this week. She does not have access to an official website for constituents to receive updates, an office phone number for constituents to call, or a congressional email to receive news like the rest of Congress. Why? Because until Johnson swears her in, she is not a member of Congress."
Podcaster and writer Matthew Sitman is among those highlighting how this is bigger than Grijalva. He said: "I really don't think it's possible to make a big enough deal of this. If it's accepted that this quisling has absolute, unilateral power to decide when, or even if, to swear in duly elected representatives, they will further abuse that power—why not refuse other Democrats?"
Writer Nick Field similarly wondered, "So why do we think Donald Trump and Mike Johnson will accept the results and seat new House members if they lose the majority in next year's midterms?"
"After crashing the soybean market and gifting Argentina our largest export buyer, he's now poised to do the same to the cattle market," said an Illinois cattle producer.
US ranchers and industry groups are responding critically to President Donald Trump's proposal that the United States "would buy some beef from Argentina," in a bid to "bring our beef prices down," while pursuing an up to $40 billion bailout for the South American country.
Trump made the suggestion to reporters on Air Force One Sunday, according to the Associated Press. A few days earlier, he'd said that a deal to cut the price of beef was "gonna be coming down pretty soon." The AP noted various reasons for "stubbornly high" US prices, including drought and reduced imports from Mexico.
"President Trump's plan to buy beef from Argentina is a betrayal of the American rancher," Christian Lovell, an Illinois cattle producer and senior director of programs at the organization Farm Action, said in a Monday statement. "Those of us who raise cattle have finally started to see what profit looks like after facing years of high input costs and market manipulation by the meatpacking monopoly."
"After crashing the soybean market and gifting Argentina our largest export buyer, he's now poised to do the same to the cattle market," he continued, referring to one of the impacts of Trump's tariff war. "Importing Argentinian beef would send US cattle prices plummeting—and with the meatpacking industry as consolidated as it is, consumers may not see lower beef prices either. Washington should be focused on fixing our broken cattle market, not rewarding foreign competitors."
"Trump has done more in the past month to help Argentina than he has to help the American people."
"With these actions, President Trump risks acting more like the president of Argentina than president of the United States," Lovell declared. The US leader is a key ally of the nation's actual president, Javier Milei, whose austerity agenda has created the need for a massive bailout from Washington, DC.
Farm Action's proposed fix for the US is to tackle the "structurally flawed system" with three steps: "Reinstate Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) for beef and pork, restore competitive markets by enforcing antitrust laws, and rebuild the US cow herd to achieve national self-reliance in beef production."
The group was far from alone in criticizing Trump's weekend remarks and offering alternative solutions to reduce US prices.
"We appreciate President Trump's interest in addressing the US beef market, which has been producing all-time record-high consumer beef prices," said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA, the nation's largest cattle association, in a statement. "We urge the president to address the fundamental problems in the beef market, not just its symptom."
"The symptom is that the US has shrunk its beef cow herd to such a low level that it can no longer produce enough beef to satisfy domestic demand," he continued. "But the fundamental problem is that decades of failed trade policies have allowed cheap, undifferentiated imports to displace the domestic cow herd, driving hundreds of thousands of cattle farmers and ranchers and millions of domestic beef cows out of the domestic beef supply chain."
"In addition, the nation's beef packers and beef retailers have been allowed to concentrate to monopolistic levels, enabling them to interfere with competitive market forces," he asserted. "Attempting to lower domestic beef prices simply by inviting even more imports will both exacerbate and accelerate the ongoing dismantling of the domestic beef supply chain."
Instead of promoting US beef production, Trump now wants to establish a preferred position for Argentine beef in the US. Why, exactly? Is this what America First means?
[image or embed]
— Scott Horton (@robertscotthorton.bsky.social) October 20, 2025 at 2:23 PM
National Cattlemen's Beef Association CEO Colin Woodall said that "NCBA's family farmers and ranchers have numerous concerns with importing more Argentinian beef to lower prices for consumers. This plan only creates chaos at a critical time of the year for American cattle producers, while doing nothing to lower grocery store prices."
"Additionally, Argentina has a deeply unbalanced trade relationship with the US," Woodall noted. "In the past five years Argentina has sold more than $801 million of beef into the US market. By comparison, the US has sold just over $7 million worth of American beef to Argentina. Argentina also has a history of foot-and-mouth disease, which, if brought to the United States, could decimate our domestic livestock production."
Justin Tupper, president of the US Cattlemen's Association, highlighted the rising costs that ranchers are enduring.
"The cost of producing beef today is accurately represented in the consumer markets where it is sold," he said. "Ranchers are facing historic highs for feed, fuel, labor, and land—and those costs have risen far faster than beef prices on grocery shelves."
"When policymakers hint at intervention or suggest quick fixes, they can shake the market's foundation and directly impact the livelihoods of ranchers who depend on stable, transparent pricing," Tupper warned in the wake of the president's recent remarks. "Sudden price moves make it harder for independent producers to plan, invest, and keep their operations running."
"Efforts to support consumers must consider the economic realities on the ground and ensure the voices of independent ranchers lead the discussion," he added. "Market-driven prices—not mandates or panic interventions—have delivered value for generations. Let's focus on transparency, market integrity, and maintaining the conditions for sustainable rural economies."
Trump's signal that the US may buy more beef from Argentina comes as poll after poll shows that Americans—whose federal minimum wage hasn't increased in over 15 years—are stressed about the climbing costs of groceries. In addition to beef, shoppers are facing higher prices for staples such as coffee and eggs.
The Democratic National Committee also called out Trump's proposal on Monday, with Kendall Witmer, the DNC's rapid response director, charging that "Trump has done more in the past month to help Argentina than he has to help the American people, who are struggling to afford everything from rent to groceries."
"Because of Trump, farmers are on the brink of bankruptcy, and the government has been shut down for almost a month," Witmer added. "You would think that the so-called 'America First' president would be focused on reopening the government and saving millions of Americans from skyrocketing healthcare premiums—but Trump is showing his true colors. He only cares about helping himself and his friends, even at the expense of the American people. Let's be clear: MAGA now stands for Make Argentina Great Again."
"For us all to have a future, the oil industry can have no future," said one campaigner.
As climate leaders and policymakers arrive in Belém, Brazil next month, for the global climate summit that officials have pledged will stand apart from previous conferences due to its emphasis on "implementation," the country's government-run Petrobras firm will be drilling for oil just over 200 miles away in the Amazon, after the company was granted a license Monday.
Petrobras said it plans to begin drilling immediately in a project that will last about five months at the mouth of the Amazon River—the Foz de Amazonas region.
Despite President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's reputation as an international climate leader, he has claimed that oil revenue will help fund Brazil's transition to renewable energy, but Ilan Zugman, Latin America and Caribbean director at the grassroots climate action group 350.org, said Monday that in granting the license, the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) was "doubling down on a model that has already failed."
Petrobras is planning to drill an oil well at an offshore site, Block 59, that is 310 miles from the mouth of the Amazon.
IBAMA previously denied Petrobras the license, saying the company had not provided adequate plans for how it would protect wildlife in the case of an oil spill.
"The history of oil in Brazil shows this clearly: huge profits for a few, and inequality, destruction, and violence for local populations."
In September, the agency approved a pre-operational environmental assessment and said a new "fauna simulation" would take place after the license was issued, allowed Petrobras to prove after obtaining permission for drilling that it would protect wildlife.
The Amazon region is home to about 10% of the planet's wildlife, and climate advocates have raised alarm that the river's currents would swiftly bring the damage from an oil spill straight to the habitats of many animals and plants.
Brazilian NGO the Climate Observatory said the approval of the license "sabotages" the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30), which World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Celeste Sauro said recently "aspires to be a turning point, a moment when the world shifts from ambition to implementation."
Last year was the first year to exceed 1.5°C above average preindustrial temperatures, and the previous 10 years have been the warmest on record. Scientists and the International Energy Agency have warned that no new oil or other fossil fuel projects have a place on a pathway to reaching net-zero global carbon emissions by 2050.
“The decision is disastrous from an environmental, climate, and sociobiodiversity perspective," said the Climate Observatory.
The group told The Guardian that civil society organizations would be taking the Brazilian government to court over the license, saying its approval was rife with "illegalities and technical flaws."
Despite IBAMA's approval, an opinion signed by 29 staff members at the agency in February said they recommended denying the license due to the risk of “massive biodiversity loss in a highly sensitive marine ecosystem."
Zugman called the decision a "historic mistake."
"The history of oil in Brazil shows this clearly: huge profits for a few, and inequality, destruction, and violence for local populations," said Zugman. "Brazil must take real climate leadership and break the cycle of extraction that has led us to the current climate crisis. We urgently need a just energy transition plan, based on renewables, that respects Indigenous, quilombola, and riverside peoples and guarantees them a leading role in decisions about climate and energy—including at COP30."
Earlier this year, Indigenous leaders representing dozens of Amazon ethnicities and tribes signed a declaration demanding that officials at COP30 "nullify oil blocks that have not had the consent of Indigenous people," "halt investment in new oil infrastructure," and create phase-out plans for oil and gas operations.
Nick Young, co-head of story and communications at Greenpeace International, called IBAMA's decision "disastrous."
"A spill here would be catastrophic and uniquely hard to contain in the Amazon plume," said Young. "And in addition to the risk of oil spills, the science clearly shows that we cannot afford to burn even existing oil reserves, let alone new ones."
"For us all to have a future, the oil industry can have no future," he added. "It makes zero sense to allow them to find new oil to throw on the fire."