Library Search

The Superior Court for the District of Columbia denied Tyson Food, Inc.’s efforts to avoid liability and allowed the case to move forward.

Judge Julie H. Becker denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Further industrializing animal agriculture is a short-sighted and dangerous response to food security; broader thinking leads to far better answers.

Overburdened communities in North Carolina face the harshest impacts of industrial animal production. Now, they’re taking a stand.

We’re suing one of the largest meat companies in the world for trying to deceive consumers about its climate impact.

Un grupo ambientalista acusa a la compañía de aprovecharse del interés de los consumidores en comprar alimentos favorables al clima, ya que afirma falsamente que alcanzará medidas ‘cero neto’ para 2050 con la comercialización de sus productos de carne industrial como ‘climáticamente inteligentes’

The Environmental Working Group filed the suit under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, or CPPA, in D.C. Superior Court. The suit targets Tyson’s claims that its industrial meat production operations will reach net-zero greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions by 2050 and that it produces “climate-smart” beef. EWG is represented by Animal Legal Defense Fund, Earthjustice, Edelson PC, and FarmSTAND,

Environmental group accuses Tyson of capitalizing on consumers’ interest in purchasing climate-friendly foods by falsely claiming it will be net-zero by 2050 and marketing its industrial beef products as “climate-smart”

Earthjustice and partners urge the Treasury Department to prohibit electricity producers that use biogas from animal manure from receiving Clean Electricity Tax Credits.

Peter Lehner, Managing Attorney, Sustainable Food & Farming Program: “Consumers are beginning to be aware of the fact that meat, and particularly beef, has a very, very high climate impact. JBS is fully aware of this, and trying to get ahead of that by telling consumers, ‘Oh, don’t worry, we’ve got it under control.’ But…

Stronger standards would prevent hundreds of millions of pounds of pollution from reaching rivers and streams, helping to protect more than 22 million people

Inadequately controlled water pollution from slaughterhouses and rendering facilities can make water unsafe for drinking, unfit for outdoor recreation, and uninhabitable for aquatic life, posing serious risks to human health and the environment, especially in vulnerable and under-resourced communities. After more than two decades, EPA finally has begun the process of strengthening water pollution control standards for these facilities, and the Agency now proposes to adopt the weakest of three regulatory options. EPA’s preferred option is inconsistent with the CWA and other federal laws.

Peter Lehner, Managing Attorney, Sustainable Food & Farming Program: “A big potential indirect impact is a bit of education of policymakers. Congress gives special exemptions to animal ag in part because they don’t know, or don’t want to believe, the real climate and pollution impact. So I hope this will get a few more policymakers…

On average, over 17,000 animals are killed each minute in slaughterhouses across the United States. Slaughterhouse byproducts such as fat, bone, and feathers are often sent to rendering facilities for conversion into tallow, animal meal, and other products. Both slaughterhouses and rendering facilities require a near-constant flow of water, and they discharge hundreds of millions of pounds of water pollution each year.

Requiring animal feeding operations to report their toxic emissions of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide will help community members better protect their health

AFOs emit the extremely hazardous gasses ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, and these emissions pose serious threats to people living nearby, including people living in communities of color and low-income communities. EPCRA requires facilities to report emissions of extremely hazardous substances.

The Farm Bill is the most important environmental bill Congress will address this year. Usually largely ignored by all but large-scale farmers and ranchers, agrochemical companies and food manufacturers — and their lawyers — it actually profoundly affects us all.

In response to lawsuits, EPA begins process of mandating pollution reductions