

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) 683-2500One homeless advocacy group said the bill, which would require homeless people to perform unpaid labor to pay for involuntary treatment, "evokes debtor’s prisons, convict leasing, and the ugliest day of Jim Crow."
The Louisiana House of Representatives voted this week to pass what the National Homelessness Law Center says is "one of the cruelest anti-homeless bills in the country."
Like many other anti-homeless bills being advanced around the country following a 2024 Supreme Court decision allowing states and cities to criminalize homelessness, House Bill 211, which passed by a vote of 70-28, makes unauthorized sleeping in public spaces a crime.
It is punishable by a fine of up to $500, imprisonment for up to six months, or both. Repeat offenders could face one to two years in prison with hard labor and a $1,000 fine.
The bill, which will now advance to the GOP-controlled state Senate, has been nicknamed the "Streets to Success Act" because, according to its sponsor, state Rep. Debbie Villio (R-79), the goal is not to jail homeless people but to "connect them to service providers."
Those who are convicted of sleeping outdoors could be given the option to avoid jail time by instead entering into a mandatory treatment program for at least 12 months. The bill authorizes local governments to set up semi-permanent camps in remote areas, where defendants would be required to stay and receive treatment.
The bill requires homeless defendants to pay “all or part of the cost of the treatment program to which he is assigned," a steep cost for many, as the average cost for residential drug and alcohol rehab treatment in Louisiana is more than $4,400 per week, according to the addiction referral service directory Addicted.org.
According to the bill, those who cannot afford this steep cost would be required to perform unpaid labor for the state or a local community center in lieu of payment.
Bill Quigley, director of the Gillis Long Poverty Law Center at Loyola University New Orleans, called the bill's entire premise "a farce."
"If people had the resources to pay for housing and physical and/or mental health services, they would not be on the street," he told Common Dreams.
He described it as a "cruel theater of the absurd" based on "the lie that people choose to be homeless." The law, he said, "assumes our communities have plenty of affordable apartments and lots of mental and physical health services available."
In reality, he said, these services are chronically underfunded, and the city would need to build about 55,000 more affordable rental units to provide enough housing for its rent-burdened population.
Though it is not uncommon for homeless people to struggle with mental health or substance use issues, increases in the cost of housing have been shown to have a direct relationship with increasing homelessness.
Homelessness in New Orleans dropped considerably in the years following the Covid-19 pandemic, when Congress provided permanent housing subsidies for those in need. But after those funds have dried up, homelessness in the city shot up higher than before the pandemic, a study by the homelessness nonprofit UNITY of Greater New Orleans found in 2024.
New Orleans City Councilmember Lesli Harris (D), who has opposed the bill, pointed to the success of the city's Home for Good program, which took a "Housing First" approach to homelessness, providing rental subsidies and allowing people to move straight from encampments into housing without requirements that they obtain treatment.
According to a May 2025 report, the program had moved 1,133 people off the streets and into supportive housing and allowed eight homeless encampments to close.
"Through our Home for Good program, we house an individual for roughly $21,844 per year. By comparison, jailing that same person costs an average of $51,000—and failing to act at all can cost up to $55,000 in emergency room visits and crisis rehousing," Harris said. "HB 211 would steer Louisiana toward the most expensive option while producing no lasting housing, no services, and no real path forward for the people involved."
Harris has also decried the bill's creation of what she called "internment camps" for treatment. The bill's text requires these facilities to be far away from downtown and other high-value neighborhoods, which she said separates those trying to rebuild their lives from work, public transit, and other critical services, and further isolates them from society.
Since the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson, which allowed cities to enforce public-camping bans against unhoused people even when shelter is unavailable, around two dozen states and hundreds of municipalities have passed various measures criminalizing poverty.
The homeless advocacy group Housing Not Handcuffs points out that many of the bills were written by the Cicero Institute, a far-right think tank with heavy backing from billionaire tech investors that now has deep influence over the housing policy of President Donald Trump, who has taken a hacksaw to funding for public housing programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Housing Not Handcuffs said Louisiana's bill, which would almost certainly be signed by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry if passed by the state Senate, "is an extreme take on the already extreme copy-paste legislation" peddled by Cicero.
"This bill forces homeless people charged with a crime to make the false choice between jail or at least one year of forced treatment," the group said. "Louisiana has a long history—and present—of chain gangs, prison labor, and entrenched white supremacy. This bill clearly evokes debtor’s prisons, convict leasing, and the ugliest day of Jim Crow."
UN experts have said Israel's "destruction of urban and village housing that displaced persons would have returned to, is consistent with the pattern of domicide that was initiated during the genocide in Gaza."
Despite a ceasefire announced Friday, after US President Donald Trump said Israel was "PROHIBITED" from continuing to strike Lebanon, Israel continued to level villages and homes across southern Lebanon from Friday into Saturday in what has been described as a continuation of its "Gaza tactics."
Just as it did in Gaza, Israeli Army Radio announced Friday night that Israel had established a "yellow line" in southern Lebanon about 10 kilometers north of the Israeli border, effectively allowing Israel to occupy about 10% of Lebanese territory and maintain control of 55 towns and villages.
According to a report by Lebanon’s National Council for Scientific Research, Israeli forces have been destroying more than 1,000 homes per day since March 2, sometimes wiping out entire villages across southern Lebanon.
The campaign escalated later in the month after Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz ordered the military to "accelerate the destruction of Lebanese homes" near the Israeli border based on the "model in Gaza," where Israel has destroyed around 90% of all infrastructure and left most of the population sheltering in tents.
Israel has described this as an effort to destroy Hezbollah infrastructure. But the razing of entire villages has often appeared indiscriminate, and numerous attacks have targeted or damaged schools, hospitals, and other nonmilitary infrastructure. More than 40,000 homes have reportedly been destroyed or damaged.
Demolitions and land-clearing operations have continued after Friday's ceasefire, according to reporters on the ground in Lebanon for Al Jazeera. Israeli artillery also reportedly shelled areas around Beit Lif, al-Qantara, and Toul.
On Friday, Israel warned tens of thousands of displaced Lebanese civilians in southern Lebanon not to return to their homes despite the ceasefire, although some have begun to make the trek anyway. Many have found their former homes reduced to rubble.
“There’s destruction, and it’s unlivable," said one resident who was displaced from his home in Nabatieh. "We’re taking our things and leaving again."
Israel said Saturday that it had also carried out new airstrikes in southern Lebanon against people who approached the newly established yellow line. The Israeli military claimed that individuals crossed from north of the line toward Israeli troops, prompting "precise strikes" by air and ground forces against them.
An Israeli military statement described those approaching as "terrorists" who violated the ceasefire and said it carried out the strikes in "self-defense against threats." However, it did not specify what threat those approaching the line posed.
Previous attacks that Israel has said were directed at Hezbollah fighters have devastated civilian areas in southern Lebanon, as well as Beirut and its surrounding suburbs.
According to Lebanon’s Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between military and civilian casualties, more than 2,167 people have been killed since Israel renewed its attacks in Lebanon on March 2.
In Gaza, despite a ceasefire, nearly 100 Palestinians have been killed near the yellow line since it was established in October 2025. Those killed have included at least 36 women, children, and elderly people, according to TRT World.
On Wednesday, a group of United Nations experts denounced what they called Israel's "illegal aggression and indiscriminate bombing campaign" aimed at occupying land in violation of the UN Charter.
“The issuance of blanket evacuation orders, combined with the destruction of urban and village housing that displaced persons would have returned to, is consistent with the pattern of domicide that was initiated during the genocide in Gaza,” they warned.
On Saturday, a group of peacekeepers with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon also came under attack, resulting in the death of a French soldier. Lebanon's Foreign Ministry condemned the attack and pledged to identify the "perpetrators."
UN peacekeepers and French officials have said the attack was most likely carried out by Hezbollah, but Hezbollah has denied responsibility.
Israel's continued attacks on Lebanon also threaten to derail not only its ceasefire with Lebanon but also the US ceasefire with Iran.
After the announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon on Friday, Iran briefly reopened the Strait of Hormuz to unrestricted travel. But on Saturday, following reports of Israel's violations of the ceasefire, it was once again closed.
While Iranian officials said the proximate reason for the closure was the continuation of US President Donald Trump's blockade of the strait, they have also indicated that they want Israel to stop attacking Lebanon as part of the ceasefire.
Trump's recent actions have convinced Tehran that the US is not "a trustworthy partner for any kind of deal," according to one Iranian professor.
The ceasefire between the US and Iran is in grave peril after Iran announced on Saturday that, in response to the continued US blockade, it would once again impose travel restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz after briefly reopening it on Friday.
Iran has used the strait—through which about 20% of the world's oil passes—as a chokepoint on Western commerce in response to the illegal US-Israeli war launched in February, and it has been the linchpin of the two-week ceasefire between the two sides, which is scheduled to end Wednesday.
Tehran announced Friday that the strait was "completely open" again in response to a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, which had taken effect. That agreement is also already falling apart following a slew of apparent violations by Israel, which has continued shelling southern Lebanon and demolishing homes even as displaced civilians return.
Iranian officials said they opted to reimpose their blockade of the strait because they believe that by continuing its own naval blockade of Iranian ports and vessels, which began over the past weekend, the US is not upholding its end of the deal.
According to a social media post from US Central Command on Saturday, the US military has already turned around at least 23 ships near the strait since its blockade began on April 13.
US President Donald Trump claimed Friday that Iran had agreed to reopen the strait without conditions, but that the US blockade would “remain in full force” until a broader deal was reached surrounding Iran's nuclear program.
But Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh said during a panel Saturday that "That is not the term we agreed on."
Iran's military headquarters later issued a formal statement declaring that it would begin limiting travel through the strait.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran, following previous agreements met in the negotiations conducted in good faith, agreed to manage the passage of a limited number of oil and commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz," the statement said. "Unfortunately, the Americans, with their repeated breaches of trust that are part of their history, continue their acts of piracy and maritime theft under the pretext of a so-called blockade."
"This strategic waterway is under strict management and control by the armed forces," it continued. "As long as the United States does not end the complete freedom of movement for vessels from Iran to their destinations and back, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will remain under strict control and will remain as it was before.”
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) gunboats later opened fire on an oil tanker traveling through the strait on Saturday. No injuries were reported.
As Al Jazeera reporter Ali Hashem described, talks between the US and Iran have been brought "back to square one."
The gap appears increasingly unlikely to be bridged by Wednesday, as Trump continues to demand that Iran allow the US to remove all its enriched uranium, which Iran has said is a nonstarter.
US and Israeli strikes in Iran have already killed more than 1,700 civilians, according to the US-based Human Rights Activist News Agency, and more than 3 million Iranians have been displaced since the war began, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency.
Trump said Friday that perhaps he "won't extend" the ceasefire and that "the blockade is going to remain. If an agreement is not reached by Wednesday, he said, "unfortunately, we'll have to start dropping bombs again."
The president said that Iran "got a little cute" on Saturday by closing the strait again, but said Iran "can't blackmail us."
Shutting the waterway has, however, proven to be one of Iran's most effective points of leverage against the US. It has caused gas prices to soar above $4 and inflation to ripple through the entire Western economy, further tanking Trump's already grim approval ratings as the US midterm elections approach.
Jennifer Parker, an adjunct fellow in naval studies at the University of New South Wales, told Al Jazeera that the US blockade of the strait does not have the ability to cripple Iran in the same way Iran can cripple the US.
“It is not the US blockade on Iranian ports that is impacting the majority of shipping going through that strait. It is the attacks the Iranian navy and IRGC have undertaken on civilian ships,” she said. "To solve the problem in the Strait of Hormuz, there either needs to be an agreement for Iran to stop attacking vessels, or a forcible military intervention that stops them from attacking vessels, and then general reassurance across the strait that it is clear of mines and that if the IRGC start trying to attack merchant ships, they will be defended... We are a long way from all of that.”
Iranian professor Mostafa Khoshcheshm said that Trump's contradictory statements surrounding the ceasefire have convinced Tehran that the United States is not "a trustworthy partner for any kind of deal," and that, as Trump continues to behave erratically, "Iran will continue the war.”
He told Al Jazeera: "Iran believes it has the upper hand and that this must be established in any future confrontation."