

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.

Tom Pelton, Environmental Integrity Project, (443) 510-2574 or tpelton@environmentalintegrity.org
Alejandro Dávila Fragoso, Earthjustice, (202) 745-5229 or adavila@earthjustice.org
Darcey Rakestraw, Food & Water Watch, (202) 683-2467 or drakestraw@fwwatch.org
Maia Raposo, Waterkeeper Alliance, (212) 747-0622 x116 or mraposo@waterkeeper.org
Natalia Lima, Animal Legal Defense Fund, (201) 679-7088 or nlima@aldf.org
Betsy Nicholas, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, (202) 423-0504 or betsy@waterkeeperschesapeake.org
Hannah Connor, Center for Biological Diversity, (202) 681-1676 or hconnor@biologicaldiversity.org
John Rumpler, Environment America (617) 747-4306 or jrumpler@environmentamerica.org
Conservation groups today filed a formal notice of intent to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to update slaughterhouse wastewater guidelines as required by the Clean Water Act.
More than 8 billion chickens, 100 million hogs, and 30 million beef cattle are processed each year in more than 5,000 slaughterhouses across the country. An estimated 4,700 of these are currently allowed to discharge processed wastewater directly into waterways or to publicly-owned treatment plants.
"Many of these dirty slaughterhouses contribute to impairments in the waterways where they discharge their pollution," said Sylvia Lam, Attorney with the Environmental Integrity Project. "The most polluting plants also release far more pollution than the cleanest plants. EPA needs to step in, set stronger national water pollution standards for meat and poultry processing plants, and level the playing field.
The Clean Water Act requires the EPA to annually review, and potentially strengthen, industry-wide water pollution standards--called effluent limitation guidelines --for slaughterhouses to ensure the guidelines keep pace with advances in technology that reduce the amount of pollution animal processing and rendering facilities discharge into the nation's waterways.
Since at least 2016, the EPA has failed to conduct the required annual reviews for meat and poultry slaughterhouses. The agency last revised a subset of the guidelines for slaughter facilities discharging wastewater directly into rivers and streams in 2004. But some slaughterhouses are still operating under guidelines originally established as far back as 1974.
The EPA has also failed to review whether "pretreatment" guidelines should be developed for slaughterhouses that send their wastewater to publicly-owned treatment facilities.
"Slaughterhouses often release toxic pollutants that impair drinking water supplies around the country," said Peter Lehner, Managing Attorney at Earthjustice. "They are also the linchpin in the highly polluting industrial meat production chain. Nitrates run off from over-fertilized fields growing animal feed; manure lagoons leak and overflow; animal waste is spread on fields and flows into rivers. We need to clean up every stage. We need the government to do its job."
"Some of the world's largest meat companies are dumping huge volumes of pollution into America's rivers, contributing to toxic algae, dead zones, and fecal bacteria that can make swimmers sick," noted John Rumpler, Clean Water Program Director at Environment America.
The slaughtering and rendering processes generate wastewater that is contaminated with blood, oil and grease, and fats that contain oxygen-depleting pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorus, pathogens, and other contaminants. When released into waterways, these pollutants can drive excess algae growth, causing algae blooms that suffocate aquatic life, and turn waterways into bacteria-laden public health hazards.
"At a time when communities, businesses, and citizens across the country are facing the devastating consequences of massive toxic algae blooms, EPA must take urgent action to address the largest sources of pollutant discharges fueling those outbreaks," said Kelly Hunter Foster, Waterkeeper Alliance Senior Attorney. "Slaughterhouses are major sources of this pollution through discharges into rivers and streams, or into city wastewater treatment systems. Our cities' treatment systems often lack capacity and technology to properly treat this waste - overwhelming the treatment systems, increasing pollution and improperly putting taxpayers on the hook for the industry's waste treatment problem."
"The EPA must stop allowing slaughterhouses to treat many of the same rivers and streams we depend on for drinking water and recreation as industrial sewers," said Hannah Connor, Senior Attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Especially in rural communities, the Trump administration's ongoing failure to oversee slaughterhouse wastewater is putting wildlife and public health at risk."
America's largest slaughterhouses are clustered in rural areas, including northeast and northwest Arkansas, central Mississippi, Iowa, northern Georgia, east central Pennsylvania, eastern North Carolina, southern Indiana, and Sussex County, Delaware.
"Scattered throughout our region, there are several slaughterhouses that have discharged high levels of pollutants into our local waterways, violating their permits with little or no enforcement," said Betsy Nicholas of Waterkeepers Chesapeake. "As an example, in a recent 18-month period, a meat processing plant in Pennsylvania violated its water discharge permit 62 times, discharging excessive amounts of nitrogen pollution into a tributary to the Susquehanna River."
Updated regulations would lead to significant improvements in many waterways across the country, especially in those areas of greatest industry concentration.
"Slaughterhouses are some of the country's biggest polluters," said Tarah Heinzen, Senior Attorney with Food & Water Watch. "We will not let EPA continue to let the meat industry off the hook for polluting our waterways."
According to a 2018 report by the Environmental Integrity Project, "Water Pollution from Slaughterhouses," the most technologically advanced plants are the best performing plants, releasing far less pollution than the rest of the industry. Technology to dramatically reduce pollution from the industry clearly exists, but because of outdated guidelines, EPA and state agencies continue to set permit limits that allow slaughterhouses to discharge far too much water pollution. Meanwhile, 60 of the 98 plants reviewed by EIP release their wastewater to rivers, streams, and other waterways that are impaired because of the main pollutants found in slaughterhouse wastewater. In 2016, Environment America found that the processing plants of just a few large agribusiness companies discharged more than 250 million pounds of toxic pollution into America's waterways over a 5-year period.
"The pace and size of today's slaughterhouses create an extremely dangerous environment, in which animals suffer and toxic waste spews into our waterways," said Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells. "This contaminates water for wildlife and surrounding communities at unprecedented rates. The government must do its job to protect people, animals, and the environment -- and stop serving corporate interests at our expense.
The Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice are filing today's notice on behalf of Waterkeeper Alliance, Environment America, Center for Biological Diversity, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, Animal Legal Defense Fund, and Food & Water Watch.
To view the notice letter, visit: https://www.environmentalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Slaughterhouse-ELG-and-Pretreatment-Guidelines-Deadline-Suit-NOI.pdf
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500The Trump administration last week sued Minnesota after it passed a law banning prediction markets from operating in the state.
A Sunday report in The New York Times revealed how the Trump administration is using a key government agency to shut down any efforts to regulate online betting markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
According to the Times, the administration has stacked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with industry insiders who have systematically "mowed down" staffers at the agency who have expressed interest in providing oversight on prediction markets.
Among other things, the report documented how multiple officials at CTFC have been put on leave simply for asking questions about the betting markets' ties to members of President Donald Trump's family or for having past experience enforcing regulations related to cryptocurrencies.
What's more, the Times found that even being an industry insider isn't enough to guarantee good standing in the agency. Brian Quintenz, who was tapped by Trump to lead CTFC last year, saw his nomination withdrawn after he drew the ire of Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss for refusing to support their cryptocurrency exchange's complaint against the agency.
Revelations about industry insiders rolling over regulators at CTFC come as the Trump administration is fighting any attempts by states to regulate prediction markets.
As explained in a Thursday report from CNBC, the Trump administration is "fighting a multi-front battle to stop the state actions and assert its regulatory authority," with CTFC arguing that it is "the only entity that can regulate" betting platforms.
16 different states are engaged in legal proceedings against the platforms, and Minnesota last week passed a law to ban them outright, which immediately drew a lawsuit from the administration.
The new Minnesota law, which is scheduled to take effect in August, bans prediction markets "from hosting, creating or advertising in the state," according to ABC News.
In an interview with ABC, Minnesota state Rep. Emma Greenman (D-63B) said she authored the legislation because she has grown increasingly concerned about young people in the state seeing their finances drained from placing online bets.
"We're seeing studies come out that say [the companies] are targeting 18- to 21-year-olds," said Greenman, "and we are seeing gambling starting younger and younger."
CFTC Chair Michael Selig last month warned states against trying to regulate prediction markets, which he said would "circumvent the clear directive of Congress."
"Our message to Wisconsin is the same as to New York, Arizona, and others," said Selig. "If you interfere with the operation of federal law in regulating financial markets, we will sue you."
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz," said one critic of the war.
President Donald Trump revealed on Saturday that he is mulling a deal that would end his illegal war with Iran, and some hawks within the Republican Party are expressing alarm.
According to a Sunday report in The New York Times, many details of the agreement to end the war remain murky, with the fate of Iran's enriched uranium up in the air. US and Iranian officials have also given contradictory messages about the proposed deal's contents, suggesting there is much work still to be done before any agreement is finalized.
Regardless, three hawkish GOP senators on Saturday raised major concerns about the contents of the deal, warning against accepting any agreement that will leave Iran in a stronger position than before Trump illegally launched a war against it without any authorization from Congress in late February.
"If it is perceived in the region that a deal with Iran allows the regime to survive and become more powerful over time, we will have poured gasoline on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq," wrote Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who lobbied Trump to attack Iran repeatedly before the start of the war. "A deal that is perceived to allow Iran to survive and possess the ability to control the [Strait of Hormuz] in the future will put Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shia militias in Iraq on steroids.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), another longtime Iran hawk, said he was "deeply concerned" about what he's been hearing about the deal and expressed particular worry about Iran getting relief from US sanctions while still maintaining the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
"If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime—still run by Islamists who chant 'death to America'—now receiving billions of dollars," Cruz wrote, "being able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake."
Sen. Roger Wicker (D-Miss.) was even blunter in his condemnation of the reported agreement.
"The rumored 60-day ceasefire—with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith—would be a disaster," Wicker wrote. "Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!"
Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser for President Barack Obama, challenged Wicker's claims that Trump's illegal war had achieved anything of value.
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury," Rhodes wrote, "except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz."
Rhodes' criticism was echoed by Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who wrote that "everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury is already for naught."
Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, accused the Iran hawks of being delusional for thinking further bombing would force Iran to capitulate.
"DC's Iran hawks got two wars, nearly every conceivable sanction designation, a blockade, threw a wrench in global economy," Vaez wrote, "and will still claim that just a little more pressure and a touch more bombing will magically yield the concessions they still won't be satisfied with."
Data released by the University of Michigan and Gallup this week showed US consumer sentiment cratering even as stock markets hit record highs.
Multiple polls and surveys released in recent days have shown US consumer sentiment cratering—and all the while, the US stock market keeps hitting record highs.
The Kobeissi Letter, a financial newsletter, posted a graphic Saturday that matched consumer sentiment as measured by the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers with the performance of the S&P 500 stock index over a 30-year span.
The graphic shows that, up until around 2020, consumer sentiment matched stock market performance closely, although there was a large divergence between the two leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, where stocks briefly outperformed consumer sentiment before crashing downward as the housing bubble burst.
But throughout the last six years, the graphic shows, the S&P 500 has produced an almost continuous upward surge even as consumer sentiment spirals downward.
Absolutely incredible:
Over the last 6 years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952.
We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history. https://t.co/XGMR6DfuNc pic.twitter.com/2w7cRvn7ok
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) May 23, 2026
"Absolutely incredible," commented Kobeissi Letter. "Over the last six years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952. We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history."
Kobeissi Letter produced the graphic one day after the University of Michigan's latest survey found consumer sentiment hitting the lowest level on record.
Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, observed that "the cost of living continues to be a first-order concern, with 57% of consumers spontaneously mentioning that high prices were eroding their personal finances, up from 50% last month."
On the same day, Gallup published new data showing that Americans' economic confidence has fallen to its lowest level since October 2022, with just 16% of Americans rating the economy as excellent or good, and nearly half describing it as poor.
Axios reported on Saturday that even Republicans have been growing sour on the US economy, citing a recent poll from The Associated Press showing GOP approval of President Donald Trump on the economy to be at around 60%, down from 80% just three months ago.
"The growing GOP gloom could hardly come at a worse time for Trump and the party," Axios noted, "less than six months out from a midterm election that's likely to turn on the economy."
The gap between overall consumer sentiment and stock market performance also lines up with recent consumer spending trends. Data published by The Financial Times earlier this year showed that the top 10% of earners in the US now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, while the bottom 80% of earners now account for less than 40% of all consumer spending.
A February report from TD Economics economist Ksenia Bushmeneva noted that “the economic divide between America’s households at the top of the income spectrum and everyone else continued to widen last year,” as “upper-income households benefited from the still-robust wage growth, strong gains in equity markets, and better access to consumer credit.”