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 “We applaud the EPA for taking action to revise the outdated and under-protective standards governing pollution from these facilities.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
In 'Abandonment of Public Education,' Louisiana to Allow Tax Dollars to Pay for Private Schools
"We must build and maintain a public education system that serves all children," said one Democratic lawmaker.
May 18, 2024
After an aggressive push by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, the Louisiana Senate advanced a bill this week that would allow public funds to be used for private school tuition—sending what one Democrat called an "abandonment" of the state's public schools to the state House, where it is expected to pass.
The state Senate approved the Louisiana Giving All True Opportunity to Rise (LA GATOR) Scholarship Program in a vote of 25-15 on Thursday, with just four Republicans joining the Democratic Party in opposing the bill.
The program would allow the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to create "education savings accounts" (ESAs), which would give families state tax dollars to pay for private school tuition, uniforms, and other expenses.
The grants would first be available to low-income families and special education students, but in the program's third year the ESAs are set to be available to all Louisiana families.
The legislation was briefly shelved this week over concerns about its cost, but Landry, backed by right-wing groups and donors, used television ads to push his party to support the ESAs.
Landry went as far as suggesting lawmakers could revise the state constitution to end a restriction mandating that certain public funds are set aside for K-12 public schools. He called on the state Senate to hold a special convention to do so, in order to unlock funding for the $520 million yearly cost of the LA GATOR program.
Moments before the Senate voted on Thursday, state Sen. Royce Duplessis (D-5) said the bill was "nothing short of an abandonment of public education."
"We as a state are making the decision and taking the step to say that it's too hard, it's too complex" to fund public schools, said Duplessis.
Landry told the Louisiana Illuminator that the success of the bill was "a big win for the kids of Louisiana," but local school board members, teachers, and superintendents lobbied Republicans ahead of the vote to protect funding for public schools, where a majority of students in the state are educated.
"These universal voucher bills are a step in the wrong direction," Larry Carter, president of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, toldPublic News Service earlier this month. "We've seen in other states around the country, like Arizona and Ohio, where these bills have been passed, [schools are] now facing a budget crisis, and we're hoping that we cannot go down that same road."
"If we're cutting that funding stream, Louisiana students will have fewer nurses and counselors, less options for after school programs, and certainly limited access to field trips and AP courses that help prepare them for their next step in life," he added.
Louisiana-based journalist Dayne Sherman said the LA Gator program will provide a lesson in "how to starve your local Louisiana public school, Clownfish-style."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Farm Bill Decried as Pro-Corporate, Anti-Family 'Waste of Everyone's Time'
The head of MomsRising said that "it would be mean-spirited and shameful for Congress to cut the SNAP benefits moms and families rely on; and it also would be damaging to our economy."
May 17, 2024
Echoing early May criticism of U.S. House Republicans' blueprint for the next Farm Bill, anti-hunger and green groups on Friday fiercely condemned the GOP's discussion draft text of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024.
Released by U.S. House Committee on Agriculture Chair Glenn "GT" Thompson (R-Pa.), the draft is competing with a Democratic proposal—Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow's (D-Mich.) Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act.
While Thomspon claimed that his bill "is the product of extensive feedback from stakeholders and all members of the House, and is responsive to the needs of farm country through the incorporation of hundreds of bipartisan policies," Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), the panel's ranking member, said that the draft "confirms my worst fears."
"House Republicans plan to pay for the farm bill by taking food out of the mouths of America's hungry children, restricting farmers from receiving the climate-smart conservation funding they so desperately need, and barring the USDA from providing financial assistance to farmers in times of crisis," he warned, referring to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The economic impact of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cuts alone "would be staggering," Scott emphasized. "A $27 billion reduction in food purchasing power would not only increase hunger, but it would also reduce demand for jobs in the agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and grocery sectors."
Leaders at advocacy groups on Friday similarly slammed the Republican bill. Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
reiterated her previous condemnation of GOP attempts to cut the benefits of hungry families, saying that "this is unacceptable; Congress should reject it."
"Every SNAP participant would receive less to buy groceries in future years than they would under current law, putting a healthy diet out of reach for millions of people. This would be the largest cut to SNAP since 1996 if enacted and these cuts would grow even deeper over time," Jones Cox explained, debunking Thompson's description of the changes.
"And the cut to future SNAP benefits isn't the only harmful policy in this bill. For example, it would allow states to outsource SNAP administration to private contractors. But prior privatization efforts delayed benefits for people in need, worsened errors, and increased costs," she continued. "Congress should reject Chair Thompson's harmful proposal and instead work to pass a farm bill that truly protects and strengthens SNAP."
Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, executive director and CEO of MomsRising, argued that "at this time when skyrocketing food prices have increased hunger and food insecurity, forcing tens of millions of U.S. families to make impossible choices between food and other essentials, it would be mean-spirited and shameful for Congress to cut the SNAP benefits moms and families rely on; and it also would be damaging to our economy."
Describing the benefits, formerly called food stamps, as "the nation's first line of defense against hunger," Rowe-Finkbeiner highlighted that "more than 42 million people count on SNAP benefits each month and nearly four in five of them are children, seniors, people with disabilities, or veterans."
"In contrast, the bipartisan Senate Farm Bill—the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act—aids farmers and treats hunger in America as the emergency it is," she noted. "It is a bold bill that would protect SNAP benefits and increase access to this essential program for groups that have long been excluded, reducing barriers to participation for older adults, military families, some college students, and others. It is an easy choice. Without question, the Senate Farm Bill is the version that should become law."
The GOP's efforts to restrict food assistance aren't limited to the United States, as Gina Cummings, Oxfam vice president for advocacy, alliances, and policy, pointed out Friday, declaring that "at a time when over 281 million people are suffering from acute hunger, any proposal to undercut crucial international food assistance programs is damaging."
As Cummings detailed:
The resilience-building programs housed in Food for Peace are vital to preparing frontline communities for future shocks that could impact their food security—whether it be from climate change, conflict, or economic downturns.
Oxfam has raised concerns about the American Farmers Feed the World Act, which is where many of the cuts to Food for Peace originate from—since its introduction last summer. The bill has proposed gutting funding for resilience-building activities that ensure communities can build up their local markets, withstand the next drought, flood, or conflict, and not go hungry. The House Farm Bill as it is currently written includes some of the most concerning provisions of the bill and would render these vital interventions inoperable, resulting in as many as 3 million fewer people being reached by these programs based on their current scale.
The House must reject the provisions of the American Farmers Feed the World Act included in the House Farm Bill draft as the bill goes for markup. The inclusion of such provisions is a threat to global food security and a shift towards a less-efficient model of international aid by the United States.
The AFL-CIO said on social media that it "strongly opposes" the Republican proposal, adding: "Families rely on Food for Peace—and also SNAP, SNAP's Thrifty Food Plan, and other federal nutrition and food security programs. We cannot support making harmful policy changes or funding cuts to any of them."
In addition to calling out the GOP for trying to leave more people hungry, advocates denounced Republican efforts to gut climate-friendly requirements from the Inflation Reduction Act and enact the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act.
"The Farm Bill is a seminal opportunity to reform our food and agriculture sector away from factory farms and corporate greed," said Food & Water Watch managing director of policy and litigation Mitch Jones. "Instead, House Republicans want to double down."
"Some of leadership's more dangerous proposals would take us backwards on animal welfare, and climate-smart agriculture—both the EATS Act and support for factory farm biogas must be dead on arrival," he asserted. "It's time Congress put the culture wars aside and got back to work on a Farm Bill that puts consumers, farmers, and the environment above politicking and Big Ag handouts."
Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that "weakening safeguards that protect people from pesticides, slashing protections for endangered species, and recklessly expanding industrial logging should have no place in the Farm Bill."
"It's unfortunate that chairman Thompson has put forward such a destructive farm bill to appease the most fringe members of Congress," Hartl added. "This bill can't pass the House and it's a waste of everyone's time."
In a joint statement released Friday after a meeting with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Democrats on Thompson's panel, Scott and Statenow stressed that members of their party are "committed to passing a strong, bipartisan Farm Bill that strengthens the farm and family safety nets and invests in our rural communities."
"America's farmers, families, workers, and rural communities deserve the certainty of a five-year Farm Bill, and everyone knows it must be bipartisan to pass," the pair said, blasting divisive GOP proposals. "Democrats remain ready and willing to work with Republicans on a truly bipartisan Farm Bill to keep farmers farming, families fed, and rural communities strong."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups Slam 'Malicious Crackdown' on Migrants and Civil Society in Tunisia
"The clampdown on migration-related work at the same time as the increasing arrest of government critics and journalists sends a chilling message," said one campaigner.
May 17, 2024
Human rights defenders on Friday decried what Amnesty International called "an unprecedented repressive clampdown" by Tunisia's increasingly authoritarian government on migrants, their civil society advocates, and journalists over the past two weeks.
Hundreds of Tunisian attorneys led a strike in the capital Tunis on Thursday to protest rising arrests of lawyers, one of whom, Mahdi Zagrouba, said he was tortured during interrogation—an allegation denied by Tunisian officials. Demonstrators chanted "No fear, no terror! Power belongs to the people!" as they marched on the Palace of Justice.
Sub-Saharan African migrants—recently described by Tunisian President Kais Saied as "hordes of illegal immigrants" who bring "violence, crime, and unacceptable practices" to Tunisia and threaten its "Arab and Islamic" character—have been particularly targeted, as have those who help them.
"On May 11, security officers stormed the Tunisian Bar Association's headquarters during a live television broadcast, arresting a media commentator and lawyer, Sonia Dahmani, for sarcastic comments made on May 7 questioning the claim that Black African migrants were seeking to settle in Tunisia," Human Rights Watch said Friday.
"Based on media reports, Dahmani's arrest and subsequent detention was based on Decree-Law 54 on cybercrime, which imposes heavy prison sentences for spreading 'fake news' and 'rumors' online and in the media, after she refused to respond to a summons for questioning," the group added.
Other recent arrestees include Saadia Mosbah, a Black Tunisian woman who heads the anti-racism group Mnemty (My Dream); and journalists Mourad Zeghidi and Borhen Bsaies
"The clampdown on migration-related work at the same time as the increasing arrest of government critics and journalists sends a chilling message that anyone who doesn't fall in line may end up in the authorities' crosshairs," Lama Fakih, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. "By targeting these civil society groups, Tunisian authorities jeopardize the vital support they provide migrants, refugees, and asylum-seekers living in extremely vulnerable situations."
According to Amnesty International:
Tunisian authorities have since May 3 arrested, summoned, and investigated the heads, former staff, or members of at least 12 organizations over unclear accusations including "financial crimes" for providing aid to migrants, including a Tunisian organization that works in partnership with the [United Nations] Refugee Agency, UNHCR, on supporting asylum-seekers through the refugee status determination process in the country. They have also arrested at least two journalists and referred them to trial for their independent reporting and comments in the media.
In parallel, security forces have escalated their collective unlawful deportations of refugees and migrants, as well as multiple forced evictions and have arrested and convicted landlords for renting apartments to migrants without permits.
"Tunisia's authorities have stepped up their malicious crackdown against civil society organizations working on migrants and refugee rights using misleading claims about their work and harassing and prosecuting NGO workers, lawyers, and journalists," said Heba Morayef, Amnesty's regional director for Middle East and North Africa.
"A smear campaign online and in the media, supported by the Tunisian president himself, has put refugees and migrants in the country at risk," she continued. "It also undermines the work of civil society groups and sends a chilling message to all critical voices."
"Tunisia's authorities must immediately end this vicious campaign and halt all reprisals against NGO workers providing essential support, including shelter, to migrants and refugees," Morayef added. "The European Union should be urgently reviewing its cooperation agreements with Tunisia to ensure that it is not complicit in human rights violations against migrants and refugees nor in the clampdown on media, lawyers, migrants, and activists."
Last July, the E.U. and Tunisia signed a memorandum of understanding that included up to €1 billion ($1.09 billion) in funding for the North African nation. Around 10% of that aid is meant to be spent on stopping migrants from reaching Europe.
"The European Union should be urgently reviewing its cooperation agreements with Tunisia to ensure that it is not complicit in human rights violations."
Romdhane Ben Amor of the Tunisian League for the Defense of Human Rights toldAl Jazeera Friday that "the regime's machinery is operating very efficiently, meaning it devours anyone who has a critical perspective on the situation... lawyers, journalists, bloggers, citizens, or associations."
"So, of course, Kais Saied from now until the elections has a long list of individuals, associations, parties, and journalists whom he will gradually criminalize to always maintain the sympathy of his electoral base," Ben Amor added, referring to this fall's expected presidential contest.
Over the past three years, Saied—who was initially supported by both leftists and Islamists when elected on an anti-corruption platform in 2019—has dissolved Parliament and suspended most of Tunisia's 2014 Constitution, allowing him to rule by decree. He has consolidated power by pushing through a new constitution, eroding the judiciary's independence, repressing civil liberties, undermining workers' rights, weakening democratic institutions, and other methods.
"Tunisian authorities must urgently reverse this significant backsliding on human rights," Morayef asserted. "They must cease this judicial harassment and release all those detained solely for the exercise of their freedom of expression and freedom of association. People should have the freedom to express themselves without fear of reprisal."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular