April, 06 2020, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Ryan Talbott, 503-329-9162, rtalbott@centerforfoodsafety.org
Jackie Filson, 860-306-0108, jfilson@fwwatch.org
New Swine Rules So Dangerous They Could Spur Another Zoonotic Pandemic
Analysis of newly released data reveals the New Swine Inspection System eliminates critical animal and carcass inspection.
WASHINGTON
Newly received data released today shows that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) new rules for swine slaughter plants, or the "New Swine Inspection System (NSIS)," dramatically curtail federal government inspection of animals and carcasses showing signs of diseases and other food safety or public health related conditions, including potentially those showing signs of diseases that can move from animals to people, such as coronaviruses.
Food & Water Watch's analysis of data obtained as a result of a federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit shows that USDA veterinarians were able to evaluate 3.5 times fewer potentially diseased animals and carcasses in plants that piloted USDA's NSIS rules, compared to plants that were operating under normal inspection, during the select years in the plants for which data was available.
The newly released data contradicts USDA assurances that long-standing inspection requirements would be unaffected by the new NSIS rules, which allow slaughter plant workers to first determine which animals are fit for slaughter, which carcasses are fit for commerce, and to set their own line speeds. The Federal Meat Inspection Act, first passed in 1906, mandates that government inspectors evaluate each animal arriving at a slaughter plant and every carcass after the animal is slaughtered. If not immediately condemned, federal inspectors tag those showing signs of disease and other abnormal conditions for further evaluation by a government veterinarian before they can proceed. This protects public health.
Food & Water Watch's data and analysis show that the NSIS system dramatically limits the numbers of swine that can be inspected by trained federal veterinarians, and instead leaves this evaluation in the hands of untrained or under-trained slaughter-plant employees. Meanwhile, the NSIS system allows plant employees to ship animals that are exhibiting signs of dangerous disease elsewhere, thus allowing animals containing spreadable disease to slip through the cracks.
"Self-regulation when it comes to animal movement, slaughter, and meat inspection is bad news. This data shows just how bad it really is. While people across the country are fighting against a dangerous pandemic believed to have come first from animals, USDA is eliminating necessary safeguards against the spread of infectious diseases from swine," said Zach Corrigan, Senior Staff Attorney, Food & Water Watch. "USDA is endangering public health. They should shut down NSIS immediately."
USDA rules, finalized in October 2019, are now being implemented in slaughter plants around the country, as companies were supposed to decide whether to participate no later than last week. USDA has so far rejected requests to stop plant transitions to the dangerous new system in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
"If this moment teaches us anything, it is that deregulating public health standards can have disastrous consequences. The reason we have federal regulation of meat is because the industry failed to protect public health a century ago," said Ryan Talbott, Staff Attorney, Center for Food Safety. "USDA's decision to walk away from its obligation to protect the public is shameful and will almost certainly result in more people getting sick and dying."
The new data was made public in an amended complaint, filed on Monday, April 6, 2020. The complaint added the Humane Farming Association to the Center For Food Safety and Food & Water Watch's ongoing suit challenging USDA's new rules.
"Until now, federal regulations have allowed slaughterhouses to kill as many as one pig every three seconds," said Bradley Miller, National Director, Humane Farming Association. "Apparently that's not fast enough for the pork industry. The Trump Administration has given the nation's largest hog slaughterhouses a green light to operate at unrestricted speeds, killing and inspecting pigs as fast, and as recklessly, as they want."
NSIS is the subject of three separate lawsuits filed by worker safety, animal welfare and environmental, and food safety advocates
Read the full analysis here.
Read the full amended complaint here.
Center for Food Safety's mission is to empower people, support farmers, and protect the earth from the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture. Through groundbreaking legal, scientific, and grassroots action, we protect and promote your right to safe food and the environment. CFS's successful legal cases collectively represent a landmark body of case law on food and agricultural issues.
(202) 547-9359LATEST NEWS
'Antithesis of the Rule of Law': ICC Judges Sue Trump Over Sanctions
"These judges are being punished for discharging their judicial duties independently by rendering decisions with which the Trump administration disagrees."
Jun 25, 2026
Three judges at the International Criminal Court on Thursday sued the Trump administration over sanctions placed on them by a 2025 executive order.
The three plaintiffs—Judges Kimberly Prost of Canada, Solomy Bossa of Uganda, and Reine Alapini-Gansou of Benin—have served on ICC panels related to alleged crimes committed by either the American or Israeli militaries, and are among the eight ICC judges who have so far been hit with sanctions by the US State Department.
The ICC drew ire of US President Donald Trump for issuing an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opening a case into alleged war crimes by US troops in Afghanistan.
The judges' lawsuit contends that Trump's executive order establishing the sanctions was manifestly unlawful and in direct violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which prohibits the government from making arbitrary and capricious policy changes.
The suit also claims that the US sanctions, which were invoked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, are illegal because their work at the ICC does not pose an "emergency" to the country's national security.
Andrew Loewenstein, attorney at Foley Hoag and lead counsel in the lawsuit, said the sanctions were designed to intimidate the ICC into dropping investigations related to the US and Israel.
"This sanctions regime is the antithesis of the rule of law,” Loewenstein said. "By targeting their financial and other personal interests, the sanctions are designed to exert extra-judicial pressure on Judges Prost, Bossa, and Alapini-Gansou and their colleagues on the ICC bench, with the objective of punishing them for past judicial decisions and coercing them into prioritizing their private interests over deciding cases on the basis of the law and facts."
Loewenstein also noted that "the sanctions obstruct the ability of victims and witnesses of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, as well as their lawyers, from being able to present evidence or argument in the judges’ courtrooms or otherwise participate in proceedings before them."
James Goldston, executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative and a co-counsel representing Judge Prost in the complaint, described the Trump administration's sanctions as "an unprecedented attack on judicial independence and the rule of law."
"These judges are being punished for discharging their judicial duties independently by rendering decisions with which the Trump administration disagrees," Goldston added. "This is an effort to pressure them to render future decisions more to the administration's liking."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Trump's Name Written All Over It': Supreme Court Sides With Monsanto Over Roundup Cancer Victims
"People who were exposed, workers who were never warned, consumers who trusted a label—they now have fewer tools to use to fight back. And the corporations responsible for that harm have more protection than ever."
Jun 25, 2026
Public health advocates, legal experts, and members of Congress were among those outraged on Thursday by the US Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Monsanto—and, effectively, against thousands of people who argue that its weedkiller Roundup caused their cancer.
Jay Feldman, executive director of the organization Beyond Pesticides, blasted the 7-2 decision as "a tragic setback for public and environmental health, allowing companies that produce toxic pesticides to evade the most basic of responsibilities, warning consumers that their products may cause cancer and other deadly diseases."
"In an age of deregulation, the ability of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for hazard warnings is the keystone to minimum protection of public health, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily," Feldman said in a statement.
The closely watched case stems from a state-level lawsuit and a resulting verdict in favor of John Durnell, a Missouri man who argued that Monsanto's glyphosate-based Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a blood cancer, which is in remission after multiple rounds of chemotherapy. A jury agreed the herbicide's label should have had a cancer warning.
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans over a decade ago, but the US Environmental Protection Agency and Bayer still insist it is safe. In a majority opinion penned by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the country's high court agreed with the company's argument that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts Durnell's failure-to-warn claim under state law.
In a dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that "the majority reads into FIFRA a labeling requirement that does not exist, and it reads out of FIFRA the statute's ongoing prohibition on misbranding. This interpretation cannot be squared with the text of FIFRA or our precedents. Ultimately, the effect of the majority's interpretation is both remarkable and regrettable, for it unjustifiably closes the courthouse doors to state tort plaintiffs like Durnell."
Bayer—which bought Monsanto in 2018—similarly noted in a Thursday statement that the ruling "should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles," which the company also said that it will keep trying to resolve by seeking final approval of its proposed $7.25 billion class settlement.
"This case was never just about Bayer," Environmental Working Group president and co-founder Ken Cook emphasized Thursday. "It was about whether states retain the authority to provide stronger protections for their residents when federal regulations fall short, and whether ordinary Americans can hold powerful corporations accountable when their pesticides cause harm."
Despite returning to office with a promise to "Make America Healthy Again" alongside Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump's administration "didn't sit on the sidelines—it lobbied the Supreme Court to strip Americans of their right to sue. And its tactics worked," Cook pointed out. "When a president uses the vast power of the federal government to protect a pesticide company from accountability—instead of the people he swore to serve—our system is no longer working for ordinary Americans."
"The ultimate losers are the American people," Cook concluded. "People who were exposed, workers who were never warned, consumers who trusted a label—they now have fewer tools to use to fight back. And the corporations responsible for that harm have more protection than ever."
Federal lawmakers who have fought against GOP efforts to pass a legislative "liability shield" for pesticide companies, including Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) joined Cook in ripping the ruling, as did Earthjustice senior attorney Patti Goldman, who said that it "allows Monsanto and other chemical companies to avoid responsibility when their labels leave people unprotected from serious harm."
As Farm Action president Angela Huffman also warned that the ruling "sets a dangerous precedent for other corporations seeking similar immunity," Sarah Starman, senior food and agriculture Campaigner at Friends of the Earth, took aim at the Supreme Court for issuing a decision that "sells out farmers, gardeners, and rural communities to multibillion-dollar pesticide corporations."
Food & Water Watch legal director Tarah Heinzen, also condemned the decision, declaring that "once again, the Supreme Court has sided with big business over people and the environment."
"Today's ruling is a disaster for public health—and it has Trump's name written all over it," said Heinzen. "If one needed any further proof that the president's feigned mission to 'Make America Healthy Again' was a farce, today's decision is all the evidence needed. Trump has been all too willing to endorse Bayer's crusade to pollute with impunity, while the administration doubles down on a failed pesticide regulatory scheme."
"Industrial agriculture is poisoning America," she stressed. "The fight against toxic pesticides does not end here. Congress must pass the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act to safeguard access to justice for all harmed by these toxic chemicals, and a Farm Bill that finally puts public health first. Until then, the Supreme Court has shut the courthouse doors to tens of thousands of sick and suffering Americans."
Kayla Hancock, director of Protect Our Care's Public Health Project, also called out Trump for dispatching US Solicitor General D. John Sauer to argue the case on the side of Bayer and its legal team.
"First Donald Trump signed an executive order plowing the field for increased glyphosate production despite the known health risks to help grow profits for his chemical industry donors," Hancock said. "Then Trump dispatched his [US Department of Justice] lawyers to help Big Chemical secure blanket immunity from at least 100,000 glyphosate-related liability claims."
"Sadly, the Supreme Court agreed to give glyphosate makers a free pass to poison Americans without warning," she added. "Donald Trump always has and always will prioritize big money corporate interests that benefit him, even if it means marginalizing the MAHA movement and concerned moms. And whenever Trump sells out public health to the highest industry bidder, there's no bigger apologist than his phony health secretary, RFK Jr."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'I Don't Think It Was Us,' Trump Says of Iran School Massacre as Cover-Up Fears Grow
"It’s been four months since the deadliest US airstrike against civilians in recent memory, yet we are no closer to getting answers," said Amnesty International USA.
Jun 25, 2026
President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he doesn't believe the US military was responsible for the missile strike that massacred more than 100 schoolchildren in Iran in late February, contradicting the Pentagon's reported conclusions, the findings of outside analysts, and physical evidence from the scene.
"I don't think it was us," Trump told reporters gathered in the Oval Office. The president did not offer a shred of evidence to support his view and said he has not seen the Pentagon's findings, which have reportedly been finalized amid mounting fears of a cover-up attempt.
"It’s horrible what happened, but there were missiles flying all over the place," Trump claimed. The Pentagon's preliminary findings indicate that the US struck the elementary school in Minab, Iran with a Tomahawk missile while attacking "an adjacent Iranian base of which the school building was formerly a part," The New York Times reported in March.
Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday that "we've taken the investigation very seriously" and that the findings would be released at the "appropriate time."
Watch:
Reporter: Have you seen the report into the Minab school attack, sir?
Trump: I have not seen it. I have to wait for it to be complete. I don’t know that they’re ever going to solve that problem. I don’t know that they’re ever going to say it was one of our missiles. Pete, I… pic.twitter.com/0csB46qL8d
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 24, 2026
Trump's latest remarks came days after he brushed aside persistent concerns about the deadly strike, saying the incident occurred "a long time ago" and that "nobody did that on purpose."
"Mistakes are made," added Trump, who initially tried to blame Iran for the Minab massacre. "War is nasty. But I know it’s under investigation."
Amnesty International USA lamented in a statement Thursday that "it’s been four months since the deadliest US airstrike against civilians in recent memory, yet we are no closer to getting answers from US authorities about why this happened and who was responsible."
"The Pentagon must urgently finish its investigation and publicly release the findings. The investigation must consider the military’s intelligence gathering and assessments, as well as targeting decisions, precautions taken, and its use of artificial intelligence. Where sufficient evidence exists, competent authorities must prosecute any person suspected of criminal responsibility," said Amanda Klasing, the group's national director for government relations and advocacy.
"Anything less," she added, "would amount to a cover-up of a serious breach of international humanitarian law and a betrayal of the victims and survivors of this horrific attack."
NBC News reported earlier this week that "there is growing concern in Congress and the Pentagon that the Trump administration will classify and shield" the results of its investigation from the public.
“Of course they are going to try to classify the report," said Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who sits on committees with jurisdiction over the Pentagon.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular