

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.

Phoebe Galt, Food & Water Watch, pgalt@fwwatch.org
Environmental Groups Urge EPA to Require Meat Processing Plants to Comply with Modern Technology Standards for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution
The federal government tomorrow is scheduled to publish proposed EPA rules that would require pollution reductions from fewer than half of the 3,879 slaughterhouses and meat processing plants that discharge waste to U.S. rivers, lakes, and streams.
The regulations would cut pollution significantly from the largest plants that pipe their waste directly into waterways, but largely ignore the far more numerous meat processing plants that send their effluent first to municipal sewage treatment plants, which are often overwhelmed and not equipped to treat the industrial waste.
Clean water organizations are responding by urging the agency to do more to crack down on slaughterhouses, which are the largest industrial source of phosphorus and nitrogen pollution (so-called “nutrients”) that feeds algal outbreaks and fish-killing “dead zones” in America’s waterways. EPA plans to hold an online public hearing on its proposed rules on Wednesday and a hearing at agency headquarters on January 31.
Dani Replogle, Food & Water Watch Staff Attorney, said: “Slaughterhouses have spent decades polluting our nation’s waters with abandon, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. EPA must seize this opportunity to rein in this dirty industry by enacting the most environmentally protective regulatory option without further delay.”
"It is well past time for slaughterhouses to put in place modern pollution controls that EPA acknowledges are widely available," said Sarah Kula, Environmental Integrity Project attorney. "EPA proposes significant reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus dischargers from big slaughterhouses that pipe their wastes into public waterways, and that is welcome news. But its preferred option would allow thousands of slaughterhouses to continue to dump nutrients into public sewage treatment plants that aren't prepared to handle them. All communities deserve relief from the slaughterhouse industry's harmful nutrient pollution."
Earthjustice attorney Alexis Andiman said: “EPA admits that pollution from slaughterhouses and meat processing plants disproportionately harms under-resourced communities, low-income communities, and communities of color. We applaud EPA for taking action to strengthen the outdated and under-protective water pollution control standards that govern this industry—but we urge the agency to ensure that its new standards protect the people most at risk.”
A coalition of 13 environmental organizations sued the EPA in 2019 and 2022 demanding that the agency follow the requirements of the Clean Water Act and modernize badly outdated technology standards for water pollution control systems for slaughterhouses and meat processing plants, which have not been updated in two decades.
In response to lawsuits, EPA released proposed rules scheduled for publication in the Federal Register tomorrow that include three options for cleaning up wastewater from slaughterhouses. EPA’s “preferred option” would strengthen nitrogen pollution limits and, for the first time, limit phosphorus discharges from an estimated 126 facilities that directly discharge into waterways. The new standards, if adopted, would eliminate nine million pounds of nitrogen per year from these direct dischargers, as well as eight million pounds of phosphorus.
However, EPA’s preferred option is the weakest of the three alternatives it has proposed because it would require no nutrient controls from the 3,708 slaughterhouses and meat processing plants that send their wastewater to municipal treatment facilities, which often lack the necessary technology to treat this pollution. Instead, EPA’s preferred option would only control oil and grease, total suspended solids, and biochemical oxygen demand from about 719 of these indirect dischargers. These indirect dischargers have gotten a free pass for decades.
“Many municipal wastewater treatment plants cannot handle the slaughterhouse and rendering facility waste they receive, likely contributing to 73% of these treatment plants violating their clean water permit limits,” said Kelly Hunter Foster, Waterkeeper Alliance Senior Attorney. “EPA must establish pretreatment pollution limits for this industry rather than allowing it to either pollute waterways or pass their treatment expenses off to impacted communities and citizens that cannot, and should not, bear those costs.”
Fortunately, EPA’s proposal includes a more protective alternative that would require over 40 percent of these indirect dischargers to remove nutrients from the wastes they dump into public sewer systems. EPA estimates that this option would eliminate another 67 million tons of nitrogen and 20 million tons of phosphorus every year. EPA has also publicly acknowledged that nutrient contamination is the most significant contributor to the contamination that keeps so many rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries from meeting the “fishable and swimmable” standards the Clean Water Act promised more than half a century ago.
The coalition of groups is demanding that EPA do more and, at a minimum, adopt the most environmentally protective alternative among the three that EPA has proposed to keep slaughterhouse wastes from overwhelming public sewer systems.
Background: The federal Clean Water Act requires the EPA to set water pollution standards for all industries and to review those standards each year to determine whether updates are appropriate to keep pace with advances in pollution-control technology. Despite this mandate, the EPA has failed to revise standards for slaughterhouses and meat processing plants 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 meat processing facilities, which discharge polluted wastewater indirectly through publicly-owned treatment works.
In response to this failure of EPA to update its standards, the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice sued the agency 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 meat processing plants 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 then 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.
EPA now plans to conduct public hearings on the proposed rule, including an online-only hearing on January 24, 2024, and an in-person hearing at EPA Headquarters on January 31, 2024. To provide comment during the January 24 virtual hearing, participants must register here by 5 pm EST on January 22. To provide comment at the January 31 in-person hearing, participants are encouraged to register here before 5pm EST on January 26.
Supporting materials for the rulemaking can be found at EPA's docket at regulations.govs.gov.
QUOTES FROM ALLIED GROUPS:
John Rumpler, Clean Water Director for Environment America, said: "If the price of a slightly cheaper chicken nugget is dead fish, toxic algae or people getting sick from pollution, I think most Americans would say no thank you. The EPA should strengthen its proposed rule to keep more than 300 million pounds of slaughterhouse pollution out of our rivers and streams, as current technology allows."
Robin Broder, Deputy Director of Waterkeepers Chesapeake, said: “We are disappointed that EPA has chosen the least protective option, which is bad news for the Chesapeake region since we have far more indirect discharging slaughterhouses and rendering facilities than direct dischargers. In our region that is already suffering from nutrient pollution, the lack of limits on nitrogen and phosphorus for the majority of our plants is incredibly short sighted, especially given that the technology to do this exists.”
Rebecca Cary, special counsel for the Humane Society of the United States, said: “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 from this pollution.”
Larissa Liebmann, senior staff attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, said: "Lax regulations allow industrial animal agriculture to profit while burdening communities with pollution and causing animals immense suffering. With these updated pollution standards, EPA is making slaughterhouses account for some of the costs of addressing their unsustainable business model."
For a copy of the proposed regulations, click here.
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) 683-2500"Regulating AI is winning issue for Democrats, but their own party leaders are too complicit with Silicon Valley to use it," said one observer.
Polls show that a majority of US voters—and especially Democrats—want more robust guardrails on artificial intelligence, but Democratic governors' silence on President Donald Trump's directive banning states from regulating AI has some observers asking if lobbying by the powerful industry is to blame.
Sludge's David Moore and Donald Shaw reported Friday that tech titans including OpenAI and Meta last week sent a small army of lobbyists to meet with attendees of the Democratic Governors Association’s annual meeting, held this year at the swanky Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix.
According to the report, lobbyists and governors—some of whom "are teasing White House bids in 2028 or rumored to be in the mix"—gathered for a closed-door meeting. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore were among those who reportedly met with the lobbyists.
Trump signed an executive order trying to prevent states from regulating AI and following through on the safety laws they enacted, but there was little public pushback from Democratic governors.AI lobbyists descended on the DGA winter meeting last weekend in Phoenix, per a list we obtained:
[image or embed]
— David Moore (@davidrussellmoore.bsky.social) December 12, 2025 at 11:15 AM
The meeting preceded Trump's Thursday signing of an executive order aimed at limiting states' ability to regulate rapidly evolving AI technology. The order directs the US Department of Justice to establish an AI Litigation Task Force empowered to sue states that enact “onerous and excessive" AI regulation. The edict also threatens to withhold federal funding from states that implement AI regulations that the Trump administration finds objectionable.
Democratic governors have been relatively muted on the order, especially given the overwhelming support for regulation of AI—which many experts say poses threats to humanity that may equal or outweigh its benefits—across the political spectrum.
As Moore and Shaw wrote:
While Democratic governors were silent, their Republican counterparts have been loudly arguing for months against the federal government preempting state AI policies. In June, 17 Republican governors sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune [R-SD] and House Speaker Mike Johnson [R-La.] warning them against preempting their states’ protections on AI use. Over the past couple months, a trio of Republican governors—Spencer Cox (Utah), Ron DeSantis (Fla.), and Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Ark.)—continued to make known their opposition to the Trump administration’s executive order.
Newsom, who many observers believe is eyeing a 2028 White House run, especially disappointed proponents of AI safeguards last year when he vetoed what would have been the nation's strongest AI safety regulations.
It's not just Democratic governors—congressional Democrats have increasingly partnered with an industry expected to soon be worth trillions of dollars. Some Democrats, like Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, are personally invested in AI stocks. The AI industry also made record contributions to political campaigns during the 2024 cycle.
Other Democrats, including some who may have their sights set on higher office—notably Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York—advocate stronger guardrails on AI development.
The public is worried about AI. Regulating AI is winning issue for Democrats but their own party leaders are too complicit with Silicon Valley to use it. www.thenation.com/article/poli...
[image or embed]
— Jeet Heer (@jeetheer.bsky.social) December 12, 2025 at 7:24 AM
"Voters want the party to get tough on the industry. But Democratic leaders are following the money instead," Jeet Heer, national affairs correspondent for The Nation, wrote Friday.
Citing voters' desire for stronger regulation, Heer argued that "Democrats have a tremendous opportunity to use the AI backlash for wedge politics," adding that "it's a way to win back working-class voters who are already disillusioned with the GOP and Trump."
The progressive congresswoman also warned that "an extension with abortion restrictions kills women."
The US House of Representatives is set to vote on extending Affordable Care Act subsidies next week, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez warned Friday that if Republicans let the ACA tax credits expire at the end of the year, "people are going to die."
The New York Democrat spoke to reporters in Washington, DC a day after only four Republicans voted with Democratic senators in an unsuccessful effort to pass legislation extending ACA subsidies, as over 20 million Americans face a surge in health insurance premiums. A GOP bill to replace the subsidies with annual payments to tax-advantaged health savings accounts also failed.
"We have to remember who's in charge of the House, the Senate, and the White House. Republicans have a House majority, they have a Senate majority, and Donald Trump is president of the United States, and JD Vance is vice president of the United States," Ocasio-Cortez said in remarks shared by her and multiple news sources on social media.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) "refused to engage" in a debate on the looming healthcare crisis and "kept Republicans home for over a month so that they would not negotiate," she said. Trump and Vance "did the same thing—they stuck their heads in the sand for the entirety of a... government shutdown where we were urging them to come to a solution on extensions of ACA premium subsidies," she continued, calling for a "clean" extension while the GOP sorts out its supposed healthcare plan.
Rep. @AOC on healthcare subsidy proposals: "An extension with abortion restrictions kills women." pic.twitter.com/HOCqHMGemp
— Forbes Breaking News (@ForbesTVNews) December 12, 2025
"People are gonna be kicked off of their insurance. Open enrollment is happening right now, and there are going to be millions of Americans that are affected—that aren't gonna be able to go to a doctor, aren't gonna be able to afford their prescription drugs, because of some petty fight in Washington," the congresswoman said, noting Democratic efforts to force votes on an extension.
As NBC News reported Thursday, early enrollment data from several states shows that "more people appear to be walking away from Affordable Care Act coverage or switching to cheaper plans for 2026 compared to this time last year," which "could reflect signs of financial strain for people who can't afford to pay hundreds of dollars more in monthly premiums once enhanced federal subsidies expire at the end of the year."
Demanding that her colleagues in DC recognize the urgency of the issue, Ocasio-Cortez—who supports Medicare for All—said Friday that "I don't understand why they can't just extend these subsidies so that we can save people's lives while they figure out whatever their political food fight is."
AOC also pushed back against GOP efforts to restrict reproductive healthcare in an ACA subsidy bill, saying "an extension with abortion restrictions kills women—so no, I'm going to allow this Republican majority to kill women in this country so that they can try to do whatever their victory lap is. I will not accept women, and the lives of women, as some political cost for them being able to extend these things. Reproductive care is healthcare. Period."
Since the right-wing US Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade and GOP-led states further restricted reproductive rights, multiple stories have emerged from places including Georgia and Texas exemplifying how "Republican abortion bans kill women."
After Johnson met with the House GOP's "Five Families" on Friday, he is expected to allow a floor vote to extend the subsidies next week and, according to Punchbowl News, is considering giving moderates an option without abortion funding restrictions.
As Politico reported Friday evening:
[GOP] leaders ultimately expect the extension vote to fail, resulting in skyrocketing premiums for millions of Americans when the subsidies expire at the end of the year.
Instead, according to House Republican leadership aides, Republicans are preparing to roll out a healthcare framework that would allow businesses that fund their own health plans to purchase "stop-loss" policies—which would protect businesses from going bankrupt from just a few unexpectedly expensive insurance claims.
It also would appropriate funds to pay for "cost-sharing reductions" in Obamacare and include some elements of a separate legislative proposal designed to crack down on pharmacy benefit managers—companies that negotiate drug prices on behalf of insurers and large employers.
Like Ocasio-Cortez—who has faced mounting calls to launch a 2028 primary challenge to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) over his handling of the March funding fight and recent shutdown—the upper chamber's top Democrat put the blame squarely on Republicans after both bills failed to advance on Thursday.
"Republicans must answer for why people will lose coverage. Republicans must answer why families see premiums double and triple over the next year," Schumer said. "Democrats' focus does not change. We fought like hell to stop these hikes, and we're going to continue to fight like hell to bring costs down for the American people on healthcare, on housing, on electric rates, on groceries."
"But Republicans are fighting like hell to send those costs right through the roof," he added. "They're fighting like hell to kick people off insurance. They're fighting like hell to cut taxes and give sweet giveaways to billionaires and the ultrarich. January 1st is coming. Republicans are responsible for what happens next. This is their crisis now, and they're going to have to answer for it."
"Palestinian babies freeze to death as shelters and lifesaving humanitarian aid—located just a few miles away—for 1 million civilians is blocked by Israel," noted one journalist.
A second Palestinian infant and a young girl died of hypothermia in Gaza as heavy rains and flooding—whose effects are exacerbated by Israel's genocidal annihilation and ongoing siege of the coastal strip—raised the death toll from Storm Byron to at least 16.
Taim Al-Khawaja—who was several months old—died in the Shati refugee camp in northern Gaza, while 9-year-old Hadeel al-Masri died in a shelter west of Gaza City, according to local officials. Their deaths follow that of Rahaf Abu Jazar, an 8-month-old who died Thursday of exposure after floodwaters inundated her family’s tent in Khan Younis.
At least five other people were killed when a building in Beit Lahia collapsed amid the storm, and two others were killed when a wall collapsed onto tents housing displaced Palestinians in the Remal neighorhood of Gaza City. According to Gaza's Government Media Office (GMO), at least 13 buildings have collapsed and more than 27,000 tents have been destroyed or left uninhabitable by Byron's winds, rain, and floodwater.
While farmers in neighboring Israel welcomed the torrential rains, which delivered relief from drought conditions, the storm is devastating Palestinians already reeling and weakened from nearly 800 days of war and siege. Israel's US-backed onslaught has left more than 250,000 Gazans dead, maimed, or missing and 2 million more starved, sickened, or displaced. Roughly 1.5 million Palestinians are currently living in tents or other makeshift shelters.
The recent hypothermia deaths evoked horrific memories of the past two winters in Gaza, when more than a dozen Palestinians—most of them infants and children—died from hypothermia caused by exposure. While many Israelis and their supporters abroad point to the relatively mild Mediterranean winters in an effort to deny these deaths, experts note that hypothermia can be deadly at temperatures over 60°F (15°C) in overexposed conditions such as those in Gaza.
Reporting from Gaza, Al Jazeera's Ibrahim al-Khalili said Friday that genocide-ravaged Gazans are now enduring “an added layer of suffering."
“The tents are collapsing. The cold is unbearable. Basically, they don’t have anywhere to go. What is unfolding is devastating,” he said. “It’s not just a storm; it’s a new wave of displacement even after the war has stopped. Many people here told me that a new war has really begun after this flooding, and people are being forced to flee whatever fragile shelters they had.”
Hamas spokesperson Hazem Qassem on Friday called the recent exposure deaths a "continuation of the war of extermination."
“The successive collapses of homes bombed during the war of extermination on the Gaza Strip, caused by the storm, and the resulting deaths, reflect the unprecedented scale of the humanitarian disaster left by this criminal Zionist war,” he said.
Jonathan Crickx, chief of communications for the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), told Agence France-Presse Friday that Gazans are also enduring "absolutely appalling hygiene and sanitary conditions."
"There aren't enough toilets; there are places—I saw some in Gaza City—where large pools of water are essentially open sewers right next to the displacement camps," he added.
While the shaky two-month ceasefire between Israel and Hamas has somewhat eased the Israeli blockade on Gaza, the GMO said Friday that “the occupation continues to close crossings and prevent the entry of humanitarian aid and materials that could provide shelter."
“This includes blocking the entry of 300,000 tents, prefabricated mobile homes, and caravans," the agency added.
The #Gaza Strip has been left flooded by #StormByron, destroying already damaged buildings and causing additional loss of life.MSF is concerned about the upcoming winter and heavy rain.Caroline Seguin, Emergency Coordinator, updates:
[image or embed]
— Doctors Without Borders / Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) (@msf.ca) December 12, 2025 at 2:02 PM
In a statement Friday, Doctors Without Borders Gaza emergency coordinator Caroline Seguin said that the charity is "very, very worried about the next month with the winter coming and the heavy rain."
"Last year we saw a huge increase in respiratory infections for children, diarrhea as well, and of course all the wounded that are living inside the tents will have big difficulties to heal their wounds and will have probably an increase of infection for the wound of the wounded," Seguin noted. "It's near to be not possible to live in this conditions."