December, 15 2023, 04:01pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Nydia Gutiérrez, ngutierrez@earthjustice.org,
Tom Pelton, tpelton@environmentalintegrity.org,
Lori Harrison, lharrison@waterkeeper.org,
Mike Heymsfield, media@aldf.org,
EPA Proposes Improved Water Pollution Control Standards for Slaughterhouses and Rendering Facilities
Victory — In response to lawsuits, EPA begins process of mandating pollution reductions
Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new water pollution control standards for slaughterhouses and rendering facilities. EPA states in the proposal, which follows lawsuits from community and conservation organizations, that new rules could help to prevent at least 100 million pounds per year of water pollution by strengthening or imposing standards on a fraction of the country’s approximately 5,000 slaughterhouses and rendering facilities, which together are leading sources of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution.
On average, a total of more than 17,000 animals are killed each minute in slaughterhouses across the United States. Slaughterhouse byproducts such as fat, bone, blood, and feathers often are sent to rendering facilities for conversion into tallow, lard, animal meal, and other products. Both slaughterhouses and rendering facilities require a near-constant flow of water, and they discharge staggering quantities of dangerous and damaging water pollution into rivers and streams, including millions of pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus, along with bacteria, grease, and other pollutants.
“Pollution from slaughterhouses and rendering facilities disproportionately harms under-resourced communities, low-income communities, and communities of color,” said Earthjustice attorney Alexis Andiman. “We applaud the EPA for taking action to revise the outdated and under-protective standards governing pollution from these facilities. Together with our partners, we look forward to studying the details of the EPA’s proposal and working to ensure that the final standards adequately protect people and the environment.”
“EPA’s proposed rules are a long overdue, important step for reducing phosphorous, nitrogen, and other water pollution from the slaughterhouse industry that harms human health and the environment, including vulnerable and under-resourced communities,” said Sarah Kula, Staff Attorney for the Environmental Integrity Project. “We are evaluating the details of EPA’s proposal and look forward to working with EPA to ensure that any final rules comply with the Clean Water Act and protect downstream communities.”
Water pollution from slaughterhouses and rendering facilities threatens human health and the environment. For instance, exposure to nitrogen compounds in drinking water can cause colorectal cancer, thyroid disease, birth defects, and—in infants under six months of age—methemoglobinemia, or “blue baby syndrome,” a potentially fatal condition. In addition, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution feed algal growth, which can render water unsafe for drinking, unfit for recreation, and uninhabitable for aquatic life. As algae die and decompose, they consume oxygen, giving rise to “dead zones” in iconic waterways such as Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.
Pollution from slaughterhouses and rendering facilities exacerbates environmental injustice. Most slaughterhouses and rendering facilities are located within one mile of populations that, on average, the EPA classifies as “low income,” “linguistically isolated,” or at high risk of exposure to toxic substances. To make matters worse, slaughterhouses and rendering facilities are often located near additional slaughterhouses, rendering facilities, concentrated animal feeding operations, and other sources of pollution, compounding the risks they pose.
The federal Clean Water Act requires the EPA to set water pollution standards for all industries, including slaughterhouses and rendering facilities, and to review those standards each year to determine whether updates are appropriate to keep pace with advances in pollution-control technology. Despite this clear mandate, the EPA has failed to revise standards for slaughterhouses and rendering facilities for at least 19 years. Some slaughterhouses and rendering facilities are still subject to standards established in the mid-1970s. And the EPA has never published national standards applicable to the vast majority of slaughterhouses and rendering facilities, which discharge polluted wastewater indirectly through publicly-owned treatment works—also known as POTWs—even though the EPA has acknowledged for decades that, without adequate pretreatment, pollutants in slaughterhouses and rendering facility wastewater pass through many POTWs into our nation’s rivers and streams.
Today’s proposed rule follows two lawsuits brought by Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch, Rural Empowerment Association for Community Help, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, Waterkeeper Alliance, Humane Society of the United States, Food & Water Watch, Environment America, Comite Civico del Valle, Center for Biological Diversity, and Animal Legal Defense Fund. This coalition initially challenged the Trump Administration’s decision not to update water pollution control standards for slaughterhouses and rendering facilities in 2019. In response to that challenge, the EPA pledged to strengthen its regulations—but it did not commit to a timeline for doing so. The coalition filed a second lawsuit in December 2022 to press the EPA to act promptly, resulting in an agreement that committed the EPA to propose new standards by December 2023 and publish final standards by August 2025.
“Today, the EPA took a major step towards reducing the massive flow of pollution that slaughterhouses dump into America’s rivers,” said John Rumpler, senior clean water director for Environment America. “If the agency follows through with a strong final rule, it will mark significant progress in reducing threats to wildlife and public health - including toxic algae, pathogens and nitrate contamination of drinking water sources.”
“Many publicly owned wastewater treatment plants are not equipped to treat the waste they receive from one or more of the estimated 3,708 indirectly discharging slaughterhouses and rendering plants across the country, likely contributing to 73% of these facilities violating their clean water permit limits for pollutants typically released by those dischargers,” said Kelly Hunter Foster, Waterkeeper Alliance Senior Attorney. “It is imperative that EPA establish nitrogen, phosphorus, and other pollution limits for these indirect dischargers to ensure that the industry bears its own production costs, rather than polluting or passing the costs on to impacted communities and citizens that simply cannot afford to upgrade their plants.”
“In the Cape Fear Basin the largest slaughterhouses and rendering facilities discharge waste upstream of the largest drinking water intakes. EPA's commitment to updating pollution limits for these facilities is long overdue, but welcome. Strong regulations are essential to protect downstream communities and the environment and anything less would be a disservice to our region,” said Kemp Burdette, Cape Fear Riverkeeper.
"We are encouraged to see the EPA recognize the need to regulate one of the largest industrial sources of nutrient pollution in the country. Pollution from slaughterhouses and rendering facilities harm low-income and communities of color the most," said Robin Broder, Deputy Director of Waterkeepers Chesapeake. "We look forward to studying the proposed rule to see how it will help people in our communities suffering from the flagrant disregard by slaughterhouses and rendering facilities of the public health harms they have caused."
“We are heartened that the EPA has begun the long overdue process of curbing the daily discharge of blood, fat, nitrogen and other pollutants from industrial slaughter and rendering facilities into our waters. Limiting pollution from inhumane factory farming systems will be an important step toward protecting both people and animals, including wildlife impacted by this effluent,” said Rebecca Cary, special counsel for the Humane Society of the United States.
"Lax regulations allow industrial animal agriculture to profit while burdening communities with pollution and causing animals immense suffering," said Animal Legal Defense Fund Senior Staff Attorney Larissa Liebmann. "With these updated pollution standards, EPA is making slaughterhouses account for some of the costs of their unsustainable business model."
“We’re happy to see EPA take this long overdue first step towards cleaning up one of the nation’s dirtiest industries. For too long, corporate meat giants have profited off of under-regulated water pollution - often in communities also burdened by those same companies’ factory farms,” said Dani Replogle, Food & Water Watch Staff Attorney. “We know the meat industry will fight these needed reforms tooth and nail, and we will work to ensure that the final rules are as strong as possible.”
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) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
Netanyahu to Press for 'Another Round of War With Iran' in Meeting With Trump This Week
Amid a growing rift between Israel and the White House, one foreign policy analyst says the meeting "will signal whether Washington is prepared to continue underwriting open-ended escalation."
Dec 28, 2025
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu heads to Mar-a-Lago to meet with US President Donald Trump on Monday, amid a growing rift with the president and his advisers, reports say he'll seek to push the US back toward war with Iran.
Last week, NBC News reported that at the meeting, "Netanyahu is expected to make the case to Trump that Iran’s expansion of its ballistic missile program poses a threat that could necessitate swift action" and that "the Israeli leader is expected to present Trump with options for the US to join or assist in any new military operations."
"Netanyahu plans to press Donald Trump for US backing for another round of war with Iran, now framed around Iran’s ballistic missile program," said Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy. “Netanyahu’s pivot to missiles should therefore be read not as the discovery of a new threat, but as an effort to manufacture a replacement casus belli after the nuclear argument collapsed."
He noted criticisms levied against Netanyahu by Yair Golan, chair of the Democrats, a center-left party in Israel, earlier this week: "How is it possible that last June, at the end of the war with Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu solemnly declared that ‘Israel had eliminated Iran’s nuclear threat and severely damaged its missile array’; and that this was a ‘historic victory’—and today, less than six months later, he is running to the president of the United States to beg for permission to attack Iran again?" Golan said.
Iran is just one of several areas the two will likely discuss on Monday. According to Israeli officials who spoke to the Washington Post, Netanyahu also reportedly wants Trump to "take a tougher stance on Gaza and require that Hamas disarm before Israeli troops further withdraw as part of the second phase of Trump’s 20-point peace plan."
The chief of Israel's armed forces suggested earlier this week that its occupation of more than half of Gaza would be permanent, but walked those comments back after reported behind-the-scenes outrage in the White House. Meanwhile, Trump—invested in his image as a peacemaker—has reportedly balked at Israel's routine violations of the ceasefire agreement he helped to broker in October.
Near-daily strikes have resulted in the death of at least 418 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Media Office. Meanwhile, Israel's continued blockade of humanitarian aid has left hundreds of thousands of people—displaced from homes destroyed by Israeli bombing—to languish in the cold without tents. Desperately needed fuel, food, and medicine have entered the strip at far lower numbers than the ceasefire agreement required.
As Axios reported on Friday, Trump's advisers increasingly fear that Netanyahu is intentionally slow-walking and undermining the peace process in hopes of resuming the war.
Netanyahu also seeks Trump's continued backing of Israel's territorial expansion in Syria. Earlier this month, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) pushed through a UN-monitored demilitarized zone between Israeli and Syrian-held positions in the Golan Heights, which Israel illegally occupies.
This push into southern Syria went against the wishes of the Trump administration, which feared it could destabilize the Western-backed government that rules in Damascus following the ouster of former President Bashar al-Assad.
Israel has also routinely struck Lebanon in violation of the US-brokered ceasefire it signed with Hezbollah in late 2024, with bombings becoming a near-daily occurrence in December. Last month, the UN reported that at least 127 civilians, including children, had been killed in Israeli strikes since the ceasefire began.
"Netanyahu’s visit unfolds against a backdrop of unresolved fronts, with widening disputes with Washington over the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, including postwar governance, reconstruction, and Turkish involvement," Toossi said. "At the same time, Israel is seeking greater latitude to escalate again against Hezbollah in Lebanon, an end to US accommodation of Syria’s new leadership, and firm assurances on expanded military aid."
“Taken together, Netanyahu’s visit is less about resolving any single crisis than about postponing strategic reckoning," he continued. "The outcome will signal whether Washington is prepared to continue underwriting open-ended escalation, or whether this meeting marks the beginning of clearer limits on Israel’s regional strategy.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Khanna Hits Back as Silicon Valley Oligarchs Threaten Primary Challenge Over California Billionaires Tax
"We cannot have a nation with extreme concentration of wealth in a few places, but where... healthcare, childcare, housing, education is unaffordable," the San Francisco lawmaker said.
Dec 28, 2025
US Rep. Ro Khanna defended California's proposed tax on extreme wealth Saturday after a pair of prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalists threatened to launch a primary bid for his California House seat.
The proposal, which advocates are gathering signatures to place on the ballot in 2026, would impose a one-time 5% tax on those with net worths over $1 billion to recoup about $90 billion in Medicaid funds stripped from the state by this year’s Republican budget law. The roughly 200 billionaires affected would have five years to pay the tax.
While higher taxes on the superrich are overwhelmingly popular with Americans, the proposal has rankled many of California’s wealthiest residents, as well as California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said earlier this month that he’s “adamantly” against the measure.
On Friday, the New York Times reported that two of the valley's biggest powerbrokers—venture capitalist and top Trump administration ally Peter Thiel and Google co-founder Larry Page—were threatening to reduce their ties to California in response to the tax proposal.
This has been a common refrain from elites faced with proposed tax increases, though data suggests they rarely follow through on their threats to bail on cities and states, even when those hikes are implemented. Meanwhile, the American Prospect has pointed out that the one-time tax would still apply to those who moved out of the Golden State.
Khanna (D-Calif.), who is both a member of the House's progressive faction and a longtime darling of the tech sector, has increasingly sparred with industry leaders in recent years over their reactionary stances on labor rights, regulation, and taxation.
In a post on X, the congressman reacted with derision at the threats of billionaire flight: "Peter Thiel is leaving California if we pass a 1% tax on billionaires for five years to pay for healthcare for the working class facing steep Medicaid cuts. I echo what [former President Franklin D. Roosevelt] said with sarcasm of economic royalists when they threatened to leave, 'I will miss them very much.'"
Casado, who donated to Khanna’s 2024 reelection campaign according to OpenSecrets, complained that “Ro has done a speed run, alienating every moderate I know who has supported him, including myself.”
"Beyond being totally out of touch with [the moderate] faction of his base, he’s devolved into an obnoxious jerk," Casado continued. "At least that makes voting him the fuck out all the more gratifying."
Casado's post received a reply from another former Khanna donor, Garry Tan, the CEO of the tech startup accelerator Y Combinator.
"Time to primary him," Tan said of Khanna.
Tan, a self-described centrist Democrat, has never run for office before. But he is notorious for his social media tirades against local progressives in San Francisco and was one of the top financial backers of the corporate-led push to oust the city's liberal former district attorney, Chesa Boudin, in 2022.
Casado replied: "Count me in. Happy to be involved at any level."
Progressive commentator Krystal Ball marveled that “Tech oligarchs are now openly conspiring against Ro Khanna because he dared to back a modest wealth tax.”
So far, neither Casado nor Tan has hinted at any concrete plans to challenge Khanna in 2026. If they did, defeating him would likely be a tall order—since his sophomore election in 2018, a primary challenger has never come within 30 points of unseating him.
But Khanna still felt the need to respond to the brooding tech royals. He noted that he has "supported a modest wealth tax since the day I ran in 2016," which prompted another angry retort from Casado, who accused the congressman of "antagonizing the people who made your district the amazing place it is" with a tax on billionaires.
Khanna hit back at his critics with a lengthy defense of not just the wealth tax, but his conception of what he calls "pro-innovation progressivism."
"My district is $18 trillion, nearly one-third of the US stock market in a 50-mile radius. We have five companies with a market cap over $1 trillion," Khanna said. "If I can stand up for a billionaire tax, this is not a hard position for 434 other [House] members or 100 senators."
"The seminal innovation in tech is done by thousands, often with public funds," Khanna continued. "Yes, we need entrepreneurs to commercialize disruptive innovation... But the idea that they would not start companies to make billions, or take advantage of an innovation cluster, if there is a 1-2% tax on their staggering wealth defies common sense and economic theory."
"We cannot have a nation with extreme concentration of wealth in a few places, but where 70% of Americans believe the American dream is dead and healthcare, childcare, housing, education is unaffordable," he concluded. "What will stifle American innovation, what will make us fall behind China, is if we see further political dysfunction and social unrest, if we fail to cultivate the talent in every American and in every city and town... So, yes, a billionaire tax is good for American innovation, which depends on a strong and thriving American democracy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nigerian Village Bombed by Trump Has 'No Known History' of Anti-Christian Terrorism, Locals Say
“Portraying Nigeria’s security challenges as a targeted campaign against a single religious group is a gross misrepresentation of reality,” said Nigeria's information minister.
Dec 27, 2025
When President Donald Trump launched a series of airstrikes in Nigeria on Christmas, he described it as an attack against "ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians."
But locals in a town that was hit during the strike say terrorism has never been a problem for them. On Friday, CNN published a report based on interviews with several residents of Jabo, which was hit by a US missile during Thursday's attack, which landed just feet away from the town's only hospital.
The rural town of Jabo is part of the Sokoto state in northwestern Nigeria, which the Trump administration and the Nigerian government said was hit during the strike.
Both sides have said militants were killed during the attack, but have not specified their identities or the number of casualties.
Kabir Adamu, a security analyst from Beacon Security and Intelligence in Abuja, told Al Jazeera that the likely targets are members of “Lakurawa,” a recently formed offshoot of ISIS.
But the Trump administration's explanation that their home is at the center of a "Christian genocide" left many residents of Jabo confused. As CNN reported:
While parts of Sokoto face challenges with banditry, kidnappings and attacks by armed groups including Lakurawa–which Nigeria classifies as a terrorist organization due to suspected affiliations with [the] Islamic State–villagers say Jabo is not known for terrorist activity and that local Christians coexist peacefully with the Muslim majority.
Bashar Isah Jabo, a lawmaker who represents the town and surrounding areas in Nigeria's parliament, described the village to CNN as “a peaceful community” that has “no known history of ISIS, Lakurawa, or any other terrorist groups operating in the area.”
While the town is predominantly Muslim, resident Suleiman Kagara, told reporters: "We see Christians as our brothers. We don’t have religious conflicts, so we weren’t expecting this."
Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation with more than 237 million people, has a long history of violence between Christians and Muslims, with each making up about half the population.
However, Nigerian officials have disputed claims by Republican leaders—including US Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas)—who have claimed that the government is “ignoring and even facilitating the mass murder of Christians.”
The senator recently claimed, without citing a source for the figures, that "since 2009, over 50,000 Christians in Nigeria have been massacred, and over 18,000 churches and 2,000 Christian schools have been destroyed" by the Islamist group Boko Haram.
Cruz is correct that many Christians have been killed by Boko Haram. But according to reports by the US-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project and the Council on Foreign Relations, the majority of the approximately 53,000 civilians killed by the group since 2009 have been Muslim.
Moreover, the areas where Boko Haram is most active are in northeastern Nigeria, far away from where Trump's strikes were conducted. Attacks on Christians cited in October by Cruz, meanwhile, have been in Nigeria's Middle Belt region, which is separate from violence in the north.
The Nigerian government has pushed back on what they have called an "oversimplified" narrative coming out of the White House and from figures in US media, like HBO host Bill Maher, who has echoed Cruz's overwrought claims of "Christian genocide."
“Portraying Nigeria’s security challenges as a targeted campaign against a single religious group is a gross misrepresentation of reality,” said Nigerian information minister Mohammed Idris Malagi. “While Nigeria, like many countries, has faced security challenges, including acts of terrorism perpetrated by criminals, couching the situation as a deliberate, systematic attack on Christians is inaccurate and harmful. It oversimplifies a complex, multifaceted security environment and plays into the hands of terrorists and criminals who seek to divide Nigerians along religious or ethnic lines."
Anthea Butler, a religious scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, has criticized the Trump administration's attempts to turn the complex situation in Nigeria into a "holy war."
"This theme of persecution of Christians is a very politically charged, and actually religiously charged, theme for evangelicals across the world. And when you say that Christians are being persecuted, that’s a thing," she told Democracy Now! in November. "It fits this sort of savior narrative of this American sort of ethos right now that is seeing itself going into countries for a moral war, a moral suasion, as it were, to do something to help other people."
Nigeria also notably produces more crude oil than any other country in Africa. Trump has explicitly argued that the US should carry out regime change in Venezuela for the purposes of "taking back" that nation's oil.
Butler has doubted the sincerity of Trump's concern for the nation's Christians due to his administration's denial of entry for Nigerian refugees, as well as virtually every other refugee group, with the exception of white South Africans.
She said: "I think this is sort of disingenuous to say you’re going to go in and save Christianity in Nigeria, when you have, you know, banned Nigerians from coming to this country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


