Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Most UK dairy farms ignoring pollution rules as manure spews into rivers

News Feed
Friday, April 19, 2024

The majority of UK dairy farms are breaking pollution rules, with vast amounts of cow manure being spilled into rivers.When animal waste enters the river, it causes a buildup of the nutrients found in the effluent, such as nitrates and phosphates. These cause algal blooms, which deplete the waterway of oxygen and block sunlight, choking fish and other aquatic life.Sixty nine per cent of the 2,475 English dairy farms inspected by the Environment Agency between 2020 and 2021 were in breach of environmental regulations, according to new data released under freedom of information laws.The problem is prevalent across the UK; in Wales 80% of the 83 dairy farms inspected by Natural Resources Wales between 2020 and 2022 were non-compliant with anti-pollution regulations. In Northern Ireland 50% of the 339 dairy farms inspected by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs between 2020 and 2022 were not compliant, and in Scotland 60% of the 114 dairy farms initially inspected by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency between 2020 and 2023 were in breach of regulations.Campaigners have linked this pollution scandal to that caused by the sewage crisis because it also involves ageing infrastructure and intensification of effluent discharges.They say that pricing pressures from supermarkets, where farmers are offered very little for milk, have caused producers to intensify their production by increasing the number of cows they keep.Charles Watson, the chair of the charity River Action, said: “The unacceptable pollution levels caused by the UK dairy industry is not dissimilar to the current UK sewage pollution crisis: aged infrastructure, designed for much lower volumes of effluent, being overwhelmed by the combination of intensification of use and more volatile weather conditions.”A pile of steaming manure. Campaigners are calling for better slurry management. Photograph: Wayne Hutchinson/Alamy“With a herd of 50 cows calculated to be capable of emitting the equivalent amount of pollution as a human settlement of 10,000 people, it is hardly surprising that the dairy industry is placing an unsustainable pollution burden on many river catchments across the country. Meanwhile, yet another chapter in the British river pollution scandal unfolds, our impotent regulators continue to watch on in a solely advisory capacity, and the giant supermarket groups happily count their profits at the cost of the continuous degradation of the environment.”River Action is calling for dairy processors to offer incentives to farmers who produce milk responsibly, either by less intensive farming or by investing to dispose of cow muck responsibly.It is also asking for a strengthened response from regulators, asking them to fully enforce existing anti-pollution rules. Many farms go years without inspections because regulators do not have enough staff owing to underfunding. River Action has asked the devolved national bodies responsible to expand and extend existing grant schemes to improve the infrastructure for slurry management.The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “We have set ambitious legally binding targets to reduce water pollution from agriculture and are taking wide-ranging action to clean up our waterways. This includes investing £74m in slurry infrastructure to help farmers cut agricultural runoff and rolling out new farming schemes to thousands of farmers to deliver environmental benefits and adopt more sustainable practices – all to reduce the amount of nutrients entering rivers.”

Exclusive: 80% of Welsh dairy farms inspected, 69% of English ones, 60% in Scotland and 50% in Northern Ireland breaching regulationsThe majority of UK dairy farms are breaking pollution rules, with vast amounts of cow manure being spilled into rivers.When animal waste enters the river, it causes a buildup of the nutrients found in the effluent, such as nitrates and phosphates. These cause algal blooms, which deplete the waterway of oxygen and block sunlight, choking fish and other aquatic life. Continue reading...

The majority of UK dairy farms are breaking pollution rules, with vast amounts of cow manure being spilled into rivers.

When animal waste enters the river, it causes a buildup of the nutrients found in the effluent, such as nitrates and phosphates. These cause algal blooms, which deplete the waterway of oxygen and block sunlight, choking fish and other aquatic life.

Sixty nine per cent of the 2,475 English dairy farms inspected by the Environment Agency between 2020 and 2021 were in breach of environmental regulations, according to new data released under freedom of information laws.

The problem is prevalent across the UK; in Wales 80% of the 83 dairy farms inspected by Natural Resources Wales between 2020 and 2022 were non-compliant with anti-pollution regulations. In Northern Ireland 50% of the 339 dairy farms inspected by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs between 2020 and 2022 were not compliant, and in Scotland 60% of the 114 dairy farms initially inspected by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency between 2020 and 2023 were in breach of regulations.

Campaigners have linked this pollution scandal to that caused by the sewage crisis because it also involves ageing infrastructure and intensification of effluent discharges.

They say that pricing pressures from supermarkets, where farmers are offered very little for milk, have caused producers to intensify their production by increasing the number of cows they keep.

Charles Watson, the chair of the charity River Action, said: “The unacceptable pollution levels caused by the UK dairy industry is not dissimilar to the current UK sewage pollution crisis: aged infrastructure, designed for much lower volumes of effluent, being overwhelmed by the combination of intensification of use and more volatile weather conditions.”

A pile of steaming manure. Campaigners are calling for better slurry management. Photograph: Wayne Hutchinson/Alamy

“With a herd of 50 cows calculated to be capable of emitting the equivalent amount of pollution as a human settlement of 10,000 people, it is hardly surprising that the dairy industry is placing an unsustainable pollution burden on many river catchments across the country. Meanwhile, yet another chapter in the British river pollution scandal unfolds, our impotent regulators continue to watch on in a solely advisory capacity, and the giant supermarket groups happily count their profits at the cost of the continuous degradation of the environment.”

River Action is calling for dairy processors to offer incentives to farmers who produce milk responsibly, either by less intensive farming or by investing to dispose of cow muck responsibly.

It is also asking for a strengthened response from regulators, asking them to fully enforce existing anti-pollution rules. Many farms go years without inspections because regulators do not have enough staff owing to underfunding. River Action has asked the devolved national bodies responsible to expand and extend existing grant schemes to improve the infrastructure for slurry management.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “We have set ambitious legally binding targets to reduce water pollution from agriculture and are taking wide-ranging action to clean up our waterways. This includes investing £74m in slurry infrastructure to help farmers cut agricultural runoff and rolling out new farming schemes to thousands of farmers to deliver environmental benefits and adopt more sustainable practices – all to reduce the amount of nutrients entering rivers.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

EPA urged to classify abortion drugs as pollutants

It follows 40 other anti-abortion groups and lawmakers previously calling for the EPA to assess the water pollution levels of the drug.

(NewsNation) — Anti-abortion group Students for Life of America is urging the Environmental Protection Agency to add abortion drug mifepristone to its list of water contaminants. It follows 40 other anti-abortion groups and lawmakers previously calling for the EPA to assess the water pollution levels of the abortion drug. “The EPA has the regulatory authority and humane responsibility to determine the extent of abortion water pollution, caused by the reckless and negligent policies pushed by past administrations through the [Food and Drug Administration],” Kristan Hawkins, president of SFLA, said in a release. “Take the word ‘abortion’ out of it and ask, should chemically tainted blood and placenta tissue, along with human remains, be flushed by the tons into America’s waterways? And since the federal government set that up, shouldn’t we know what’s in our water?” she added. In 2025, lawmakers from seven states introduced bills, none of which passed, to either order environmental studies on the effects of mifepristone in water or to enact environmental regulations for the drug. EPA’s Office of Water leaders met with Politico in November, with its press secretary Brigit Hirsch telling the outlet it “takes the issue of pharmaceuticals in our water systems seriously and employs a rigorous, science-based approach to protect human health and the environment.” “As always, EPA encourages all stakeholders invested in clean and safe drinking water to review the proposals and submit comments,” Hirsch added. Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Trump’s EPA' in 2025: A Fossil Fuel-Friendly Approach to Deregulation

The Trump administration has reshaped the Environmental Protection Agency, reversing pollution limits and promoting fossil fuels

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has transformed the Environmental Protection Agency in its first year, cutting federal limits on air and water pollution and promoting fossil fuels, a metamorphosis that clashes with the agency’s historic mission to protect human health and the environment.The administration says its actions will “unleash” the American economy, but environmentalists say the agency’s abrupt change in focus threatens to unravel years of progress on climate-friendly initiatives that could be hard or impossible to reverse.“It just constantly wants to pat the fossil fuel business on the back and turn back the clock to a pre-Richard Nixon era” when the agency didn’t exist, said historian Douglas Brinkley.Zeldin has argued the EPA can protect the environment and grow the economy at the same time. He announced “five pillars” to guide EPA’s work; four were economic goals, including energy dominance — Trump’s shorthand for more fossil fuels — and boosting the auto industry.Zeldin, a former New York congressman who had a record as a moderate Republican on some environmental issues, said his views on climate change have evolved. Many federal and state climate goals are unattainable in the near future — and come at huge cost, he said.“We should not be causing … extreme economic pain for an individual or a family” because of policies aimed at “saving the planet,” he told reporters at EPA headquarters in early December.But scientists and experts say the EPA's new direction comes at a cost to public health, and would lead to far more pollutants in the environment, including mercury, lead and especially tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs. They also note higher emissions of greenhouse gases will worsen atmospheric warming that is driving more frequent, costly and deadly extreme weather.Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican who led the EPA for several years under President George W. Bush, said watching Zeldin attack laws protecting air and water has been “just depressing.” “It’s tragic for our country. I worry about my grandchildren, of which I have seven. I worry about what their future is going to be if they don’t have clean air, if they don’t have clean water to drink,” she said.The EPA was launched under Nixon in 1970 with pollution disrupting American life, some cities suffocating in smog and some rivers turned into wastelands by industrial chemicals. Congress passed laws then that remain foundational for protecting water, air and endangered species.The agency's aggressiveness has always seesawed depending on who occupies the White House. Former President Joe Biden's administration boosted renewable energy and electric vehicles, tightened motor-vehicle emissions and proposed greenhouse gas limits on coal-fired power plants and oil and gas wells. Industry groups called rules overly burdensome and said the power plant rule would force many aging plants to shut down. In response, many businesses shifted resources to meet the more stringent rules that are now being undone.“While the Biden EPA repeatedly attempted to usurp the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law to impose its ‘Green New Scam,’ the Trump EPA is laser-focused on achieving results for the American people while operating within the limits of the laws passed by Congress,” EPA spokeswoman Brigit Hirsch said. Zeldin's list of targets is long Much of EPA’s new direction aligns with Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation road map that argued the agency should gut staffing, cut regulations and end what it called a war on coal on other fossil fuels.“A lot of the regulations that were put on during the Biden administration were more harmful and restrictive than in any other period. So that’s why deregulating them looks like EPA is making major changes,” said Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of Heritage's Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment.But Chris Frey, an EPA official under Biden, said the regulations Zeldin has targeted “offered benefits of avoided premature deaths, of avoided chronic illness … bad things that would not happen because of these rules.”Matthew Tejada, a former EPA official under both Trump and Biden who now works at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said of the revamped EPA: “I think it would be hard for them to make it any clearer to polluters in this country that they can go on about their business and not worry about EPA getting in their way.”Zeldin also has shrunk EPA staffing by about 20% to levels last seen in the mid-1980s. Justin Chen, president of the EPA’s largest union, called staff cuts “devastating.” He cited the dismantling of research and development offices at labs across the country and the firing of employees who signed a letter of dissent opposing EPA cuts. Relaxed enforcement and cutting staff Many of Zeldin's changes aren't in effect yet. It takes time to propose new rules, get public input and finalize rollbacks. It's much faster to cut grants and ease up on enforcement, and Trump's EPA is doing both. The number of new civil environmental actions is roughly one-fifth what it was in the first eight months of the Biden administration, according to the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project. “You can effectively do a lot of deregulation if you just don’t do enforcement,” said Leif Fredrickson, visiting assistant professor of history at the University of Montana.Hirsch said the number of legal filings isn't the best way to judge enforcement because they require work outside of the EPA and can bog staff down with burdensome legal agreements. She said the EPA is “focused on efficiently resolving violations and achieving compliance as quickly as possible” and not making demands beyond what the law requires.EPA's cuts have been especially hard on climate change programs and environmental justice, the effort to address chronic pollution that typically is worse in minority and poor communities. Both were Biden priorities. Zeldin dismissed staff and canceled billions in grants for projects that fell under the “diversity, equity and inclusion” umbrella, a Trump administration target.He also spiked a $20 billion “green bank” set up under Biden’s landmark climate law to fund qualifying clean energy projects. Zeldin argued the fund was a scheme to funnel money to Democrat-aligned organizations with little oversight — allegations a federal judge rejected. Pat Parenteau, an environmental law expert and former director of the Environmental Law School at Vermont Law & Graduate School, said the EPA's shift under Trump left him with little optimism for what he called “the two most awful crises in the 21st century” — biodiversity loss and climate disruption.“I don’t see any hope for either one,” he said. “I really don’t. And I’ll be long gone, but I think the world is in just for absolute catastrophe.”The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.