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.

Chicken manure can be classified as industrial waste, judge rules

News Feed
Tuesday, March 11, 2025

Industrial poultry farms face tough new regulations around the disposal of chicken manure after a judge ruled it can be classified as waste and requires a detailed and transparent plan to dispose of it without damaging the environment.The high court ruling means new US-style mega-farms in Herefordshire will have to deal with poultry manure as if it was industrial waste.The ruling has implications for industrial chicken units all over the country. It comes as the English and Welsh governments announced £1m in funding to investigate the devastating pollution of the River Wye, where about 23m chickens are being produced in the river catchment at any one time.The health of the river, which flows for 155 miles from mid-Wales to the Severn estuary in England, has been downgraded by Natural England from “unfavourable-improving” to “unfavourable-declining”, meaning its condition is poor and worsening. Its decline has been linked to intensive chicken farming in the catchment from the spreading of poultry manure, which contains high levels of phosphate, on to fields, which then leaches into the river.Studies have shown 70% of the phosphate in the River Wye catchment comes from agriculture, although not all is chicken-related. One study recommended an 80% reduction in poultry manure in the Wye catchment to protect the river and called for a cut in the overall number of birds and for the exporting of manure out of the area.The high court judgment defining chicken manure as industrial waste came after the National Farmers’ Union challenged waste rules set by Herefordshire council.The NFU said poultry manure should be treated as an agricultural byproduct, not as waste under the waste framework directive.But Mrs Justice Lieven in her ruling said it cannot be assumed that manure will be used in an environmentally safe way. Given the environmental problems caused by chicken manure in the Wye catchment area, she rejected the NFU challenge and said poultry manure amounted to “waste” in law up to the point it was sold or transferred to a third party.The ruling means that new chicken units in Herefordshire will have to provide a detailed plan at the planning application stage to ensure chicken manure can be disposed of safely, including full transparency on the manure’s destination and application.The campaign group River Action, which intervened in the case, said the ruling was a landmark decision that had implications for all new industrial chicken units.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionCharles Watson, the chair of River Action, said: “We believe the ruling clarifies once and for all that the intensive factory production of livestock is clearly an industrial manufacturing process, whereby the often-toxic waste that it produces must be treated as such.”Carol Day of Leigh Day, who acted for River Action, said: “People proposing new intensive poultry units in Herefordshire will need to put in place proper arrangements for dealing with the huge volumes of manure that is produced. The judgment should also now mean that proper environmental controls are put in place across the country to oversee the production and handling of manure from animals on farms.”

US-style mega-farms in Herefordshire face tough new regulations after high court rulingIndustrial poultry farms face tough new regulations around the disposal of chicken manure after a judge ruled it can be classified as waste and requires a detailed and transparent plan to dispose of it without damaging the environment.The high court ruling means new US-style mega-farms in Herefordshire will have to deal with poultry manure as if it was industrial waste. Continue reading...

Industrial poultry farms face tough new regulations around the disposal of chicken manure after a judge ruled it can be classified as waste and requires a detailed and transparent plan to dispose of it without damaging the environment.

The high court ruling means new US-style mega-farms in Herefordshire will have to deal with poultry manure as if it was industrial waste.

The ruling has implications for industrial chicken units all over the country. It comes as the English and Welsh governments announced £1m in funding to investigate the devastating pollution of the River Wye, where about 23m chickens are being produced in the river catchment at any one time.

The health of the river, which flows for 155 miles from mid-Wales to the Severn estuary in England, has been downgraded by Natural England from “unfavourable-improving” to “unfavourable-declining”, meaning its condition is poor and worsening. Its decline has been linked to intensive chicken farming in the catchment from the spreading of poultry manure, which contains high levels of phosphate, on to fields, which then leaches into the river.

Studies have shown 70% of the phosphate in the River Wye catchment comes from agriculture, although not all is chicken-related. One study recommended an 80% reduction in poultry manure in the Wye catchment to protect the river and called for a cut in the overall number of birds and for the exporting of manure out of the area.

The high court judgment defining chicken manure as industrial waste came after the National Farmers’ Union challenged waste rules set by Herefordshire council.

The NFU said poultry manure should be treated as an agricultural byproduct, not as waste under the waste framework directive.

But Mrs Justice Lieven in her ruling said it cannot be assumed that manure will be used in an environmentally safe way. Given the environmental problems caused by chicken manure in the Wye catchment area, she rejected the NFU challenge and said poultry manure amounted to “waste” in law up to the point it was sold or transferred to a third party.

The ruling means that new chicken units in Herefordshire will have to provide a detailed plan at the planning application stage to ensure chicken manure can be disposed of safely, including full transparency on the manure’s destination and application.

The campaign group River Action, which intervened in the case, said the ruling was a landmark decision that had implications for all new industrial chicken units.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

Charles Watson, the chair of River Action, said: “We believe the ruling clarifies once and for all that the intensive factory production of livestock is clearly an industrial manufacturing process, whereby the often-toxic waste that it produces must be treated as such.”

Carol Day of Leigh Day, who acted for River Action, said: “People proposing new intensive poultry units in Herefordshire will need to put in place proper arrangements for dealing with the huge volumes of manure that is produced. The judgment should also now mean that proper environmental controls are put in place across the country to oversee the production and handling of manure from animals on farms.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Bill would stop Texas oil drillers from secretly burying toxic waste on private property

House Bill 4572 would introduce new requirements for pits where drillers bury oil and gas waste.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. This story is published in partnership with Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, independent news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for the ICN newsletter here. A bill in the Texas Legislature would require oil and gas drillers to notify landowners before burying toxic waste on their property. In addition, House Bill 4572 would strengthen other regulations for reserve pits, where oil and gas companies permanently bury waste next to drilling sites. The Texas House Energy Resources Committee heard testimony on the bill Monday. The bill builds on rulemaking the Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates the oil and gas industry, completed late last year to update the state’s oilfield waste regulations. State Rep. Penny Morales Shaw, who filed the bill, said it would introduce “safeguards” for the state’s groundwater and property owners. Landowners, advocates and an oilfield waste professional spoke in favor of the bill this week at the Capitol. A representative of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association spoke in opposition to the bill. “Ranch owners can pour their life savings into their dream homestead, only later to find out that they bought a toxic waste reserve,” said Morales Shaw, a Democrat who represents parts of Houston and northern Harris County. “This bill will afford landowners the opportunity to make an informed decision and to know when their interests are at risk.” The waste streams from the oil and gas industry have evolved since the widespread adoption of fracking. Oil-based muds and lubricants are now used to frack wells. Waste from wells can be laced with carcinogens including benzene and arsenic. The bill is now pending in the Energy Resources Committee and faces several hurdles to passage by the full House, if it is voted out of committee. A companion bill, Senate Bill 3017, was introduced by state Sen. José Menéndez, a Democrat from San Antonio. The Senate bill has not yet received a hearing. The clock is ticking to June 2, the last day of the Texas legislative session. Morales Shaw said she has spoken with all the committee members about the importance of the bill and the “compelling testimony from lifelong industry members.” Bill seeks “balanced” approach to waste pits HB 4572 proposes new regulations for reserve pits, also referred to as Schedule A pits by the Railroad Commission. These earthen disposal pits are dug next to drilling rigs and are filled with oily waste, including mud and cuttings from the well. The pit is left open while the well is drilled. The waste is permanently buried underground once the well is complete. The bill would require the Railroad Commission to adopt standards for where reserve pits can be located and establish bonding and groundwater monitoring rules. The bill would also require standards for “providing notice to and receiving permission from” a landowner to permanently bury waste. Morales Shaw told the committee the bill “empowers landowners with the information and consent they deserve before toxic waste is buried beneath their property.” She referenced hundreds of violations of water protection rules the Railroad Commission has issued at waste pits. She also circulated photos of pollution caused by reserve pits and cows wading through drilling mud in a pit. State Rep. R.D. “Bobby” Guerra, a Democrat from McAllen, called the images “appalling.” “I have a ranch,” he said. “And I would be, excuse the expression, pissed off if I saw this kind of stuff going on on my place.” “It’s full of chemicals and lubricants and fluids and different emulsifiers and whatnot,” said state Rep. Jon Rosenthal, a Democrat from northern Harris County. “It’s poison, it smells bad and it’s probably not good for cows.” Texas revamped its oilfield waste rules last year for the first time since the 1980s. The updated rule on reserve pits, which goes into effect July 1, will require companies to register the location of these pits for the first time. The updated rule only requires reserve pits to be lined when groundwater is within 50 feet of the bottom of the pit. There is no groundwater monitoring required. Hundreds of people submitted public comments about reserve pits during the rule-making, many of them asking the Railroad Commission to require landowner notification. However, the Railroad Commission did not include a landowner notification requirement in the final rule. At the time, Commissioner Jim Wright’s spokesperson told Inside Climate News that it would be “up to the Texas Legislature” to determine how and whether landowners should be notified of pits on their property. Wright’s staff did not immediately comment on HB 4572. Morales Shaw said the existing rule does not go far enough. “It has been 40 years since these waste pits have been permitted, and they are just now trying to figure out where they all are,” she said. “The Railroad Commission’s rules do not take meaningful and necessary steps to protect land, water supply, and livelihoods of landowners.” Landowners speak in support Public comments, both delivered in person and submitted in writing, largely supported the bill. Comal County landowner Mark Friesenhahn, who spent his career in the oil and gas industry, said over time reserve pits have become larger and more toxic chemicals and additives have been used in drilling muds. Friesenhahn, who spoke in favor of the bill, said existing practices are “no longer practical given the toxicity and contamination concerns.” Laura Briggs, whose family ranch is in Pecos County in the Permian Basin, submitted written comments. She wrote that where waste pits have been dug on their property, “the land is dead ground that caves in, and belches half-buried black plastic.” “Landowner consent does not have to be burdensome to be effective,” she wrote. Commission Shift Action, the advocacy partner of the nonprofit organization Commission Shift, is also in support of the bill. Policy manager Julie Range said in an interview that expecting companies to be good stewards isn’t enough. “If we want best practices to be followed we should put them into our statutes,” she said. The sole public comment in opposition to the bill was registered by Michael Lozano on behalf of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association. Referencing the recent rulemaking at the Railroad Commission, he recommended lawmakers wait for the updated rule to be rolled out July 1 before passing legislation regarding waste pits. “What we’d like to see is how these new environmental protections … interact and engage with this,” he said. Lozano said the cases pointed out during the hearing were examples of companies breaking the existing rules. “Clearly there are problems that are happening,” he said. “I don’t think they’re indicative of every circumstance of these pits being built.” The committee adjourned without voting on the bill. Disclosure: The Permian Basin Petroleum Association has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

That Blue Origin flight was a success but isn't landing well among some stars: 'Disgusted'

Olivia Wilde and Emily Ratajkowski are among those slamming Blue Origin for its totally necessary 11-minute flight Monday, which had an all-female celebrity crew.

Earth to Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin: This week’s fleeting space launch featuring an all-female crew was a wasteful, performative and tone-deaf endeavor reminiscent of the “Hunger Games” dystopia — according to author, model and actor Emily Ratajkowski. The outspoken “My Body” writer did not mince words Tuesday as she continued to criticize Monday’s Blue Origin flight that launched six women including Katy Perry, Gayle King and Bezos’ fiancée Lauren Sanchez into space. The endeavor, which had been heavily hyped and promoted for more than a month, lasted only 11 minutes from takeoff to landing. (Previous Blue Origin flights, including the 2021 launch with “Star Trek” icon William Shatner, were equally as brief.)Ratajkowski dissected the New Shepard rocket mission in a TikTok video posted Tuesday morning, claiming that the women-led initiative was not as progressive as it seemed. While Monday’s celebrity launch was the nation’s first spaceflight where women filled each seat and “optically looks like progress,” Ratajkowski alleged, the “truth” was that Amazon executive Bezos just wanted to “take his fiancée and a few other famous women to space for space tourism.”“It just speaks to the fact that we are absolutely living in an oligarchy where there is a small group of people who are interested in going to space for the sake of getting a new lease on life while the rest of the population, most people on planet Earth, are worried about paying rent or having dinner for their kids,” she said. She added elsewhere in her video: “Being able to take the privilege that you have gained from exploitation and greed of the planet, of resources of human beings, and doing something like going to space for 11 minutes is not an accomplishment.”Tuesday’s video was the second Ratajkowski shared reacting to Monday’s launch. In a clip posted shortly after the Blue Origin crew returned to Earth, Ratajkowski said the space trip resembled “end times s—” and was “beyond parody.” She also called out the discrepancies between the environmental messaging surrounding the flight and the resources expended to send the women to space. “I’m disgusted,” she said. Blue Origin, founded in 2000 by Bezos, declined Monday to say how much the flight, a quick up-and-down trip from west Texas, cost or who paid for what. The launch precedes Sanchez and Bezos’ Venice, Italy, wedding in two months. Ratajkowski hasn’t been the only star to express disdain for the Blue Origin flight on social media. “Don’t Worry Darling” director-actor Olivia Wilde in a since-expired Instagram story reacted to the flurry of jokes inspired by the launch. “Billion dollars bought some good memes I guess,” she said sarcastically. Comedian Amy Schumer also poked fun at the flight Monday, joking she was a last-minute addition to the eclectic female crew. “I’m going to space and thank you to everyone who got me here and I’ll see you in space,” she said in an intentionally vapid-sounding voice, repeating the word “space” numerous times. Even before Blue Origin’s New Shepard lifted off with film producer Kerianne Flynn, scientist Amanda Nguyen, former NASA engineer Aisha Bowe and the others in tow, “Your Friends and Neighbors” star Olivia Munn dubbed the spaceflight a “gluttonous” stunt. During her April 3 guest spot on “Today With Jenna and Friends,” Munn questioned the purpose of the trip amid more pressing societal and political issues. “It’s so much money to go to space and there’s a lot of people who can’t even afford eggs,” she said before further scrutinizing media coverage of the endeavor.After returning from space, “CBS Mornings” co-host King told People on Monday that critics “don’t really understand what is happening here” and said she and her fellow passengers have heard “from young women, from young girls about what this represents.”Sanchez took another approach to the criticism, telling the outlet she invites skeptics to “come to Blue Origin and see the thousands of employees” that she said have devoted themselves to the New Shepard and the mission. The author and journalist, engaged to billionaire Bezos for nearly two years, added: “When we hear comments like that, I just say, ‘Trust me. Come with me. I’ll show you what this is about, and it’s, it’s really eye-opening.’”The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Ditch the balloons and swap the plastic toys for cake: how to have a waste-free birthday party

Low waste doesn’t have to mean no fun – with a little creativity you can celebrate an occasion without hurting the planet Change by degrees offers life hacks and sustainable living tips each Saturday to help reduce your household’s carbon footprintGot a question or tip for reducing household emissions? Email us at changebydegrees@theguardian.comWhen planning a big bash to celebrate my 40th last year, I wanted a stylish and memorable celebration that didn’t cost the earth.Between food waste, plastic packaging, single-use decorations and fast fashion, the environmental footprint of festivities can quickly add up. Thankfully though, low waste doesn’t have to mean no fun. Continue reading...

When planning a big bash to celebrate my 40th last year, I wanted a stylish and memorable celebration that didn’t cost the earth.Between food waste, plastic packaging, single-use decorations and fast fashion, the environmental footprint of festivities can quickly add up. Thankfully though, low waste doesn’t have to mean no fun.With a little creativity, out-of-the-box thinking and some help from my community, I was able to throw an entertaining and colourful back yard garden party that produced little waste – and was more affordable to boot. Here are some ideas to help you plan a low-impact party.Reduce food waste and packagingDisposable plates, cups and cutlery are among the most wasteful aspects of parties – they’re single-use, wrapped in plastic and usually get dumped in the rubbish. Over-catering food is also costly to both the environment and your hip pocket. I sidestepped all that by hosting a pot-luck dinner – where each guest brought a plate of food to share – served using metal cutlery and compostable plates.Disposable plates are among the most wasteful aspects of parties. Photograph: Penpak Ngamsathain/Getty ImagesAnother option, says zero-waste author Erin Rhoads, is the national Party Kit Network. Community members offer reusable tableware, decorations and even party games to borrow, use and return locally. Some party kits are free, while schools and childcare centres may charge a small hire fee for fundraising. “As a parent, planning a party for your child can be really stressful,” Rhoads says. “With the kit, everyone gets to see how easily reusables can be integrated into a celebration.”By hosting my 40th at my place, I could better control sustainable decisions around waste, decorations and food. For example, I placed recycling and compost bins in a prominent location with clear labelling, with the landfill bin further away. If you’re partying in a park or at a venue, consider bringing a compost bin to collect food waste.Reuse, borrow and rentConsider how you might source your get-together’s needs without purchasing new. I began by repurposing items I already had. I gathered couches and comfy chairs from around my house and set them up in the garden – after the party, they simply went back inside. In the weeks leading up to the event, I kept an eye on roadside rubbish and scored a free rug and a couple of extra chairs. Instead of buying new glassware, I used old jars.There’s no point giving a kid an eco-friendly gift they’ll never useWhen I needed extra items, I turned to my community and borrowed fairy lights, a fire pit, small coffee tables and extra seating. Buy Nothing groups are an excellent resource for free sharing and loaning in your neighbourhood. If you do need to buy, try second-hand first. I thrifted a drinks dispenser online – for one-third of the usual retail price – and sourced my entire 1920s-themed outfit, from headpiece to dress and shoes, at op shops.Skip presents or try a ‘fiver birthday’At this stage in my life, I have most things I need – and I’m fussy about what I want in my home. To avoid unwanted gifts, I simply asked for none. Alternatively, you could request experiences, consumable treats such as foods and drinks, and even second-hand gifts from thrift shops, eBay or Facebook Marketplace, helping normalise sustainable giving while reducing costs for your guests.Rhoads says a “fiver birthday” is a great option for children’s parties – and helps take the pressure off parents. Each guest contributes just $5 so the birthday child can buy themselves a larger gift afterwards. Handmade cards add a personal touch. Or just ask if there’s anything specific the child needs or wants. “There’s no point giving a kid an eco-friendly gift they’ll never use,” Rhoads says.Try newspaper, decorated with ribbons saved from previous presents. Photograph: Amanda Vivan/Getty ImagesAvoid disposable wrapping paper, which mostly can’t be recycled due to metallic dyes, plastic coating and stray plastic sticky tape. Instead, try newspaper or second-hand options such as old sheet music, fabric, scarves or tea towels, decorated with ribbons saved from previous presents. Ensure you choose biodegradable tape, too.Choose low-impact decorations and party bagsIf you make just one change at your next party – ban the balloons. Balloon pollution is a major threat to marine life including seabirds and turtles, which can die after mistaking balloons for food. Instead, consider homemade options made from compostable materials, such as wool, cotton, wood, paper and even plants and flowers from the garden or neighbourhood. Fabric bunting and paper garlands can be folded up and reused again for future parties.For the time-poor or craft-averse, explore Facebook Marketplace or local hire services. Or skip the decorations entirely. I allowed my garden and borrowed fairy lights to provide a natural background to my 40th festivities, combined with a broad ‘any-era’ vintage dress-up theme that made it easier for guests to shop their wardrobe for a costume rather than buying fast fashion.To make kids’ party bags more sustainable, avoid plastic-wrapped lollies or cheap plastic toys that break easily. Homemade play-dough in reusable jars or seed balls made from coconut coir, clay and flower seeds offer a fun, nature-friendly option. Or, Rhoads says, simply send guests home with a slice of birthday cake in a paper bag.“Showing these swaps aren’t that daunting and that events can still be joyful – and perhaps save money as a bonus – is a fun way to get people to rethink living sustainability without the lectures and statistics, which can scare them into inaction,” she says. “It helps shift habits and behaviours in the long term.”

Mysterious bags of ‘hazardous’ materials appeared in Mexico. Then we found more

An investigation found thousands of white bags near Monterrey, but aerial footage shows a bigger problemRevealed: US hazardous waste is sent to Mexico – where a ‘toxic cocktail’ of pollution emergesCall it the mystery of the white bags. After they were found to be sprawling across acres of land near the Mexican city of Monterrey, authorities ordered their “urgent” removal. Now visual evidence suggests the problem is more extensive than previously known.An investigation by the Guardian and Quinto Elemento Lab first identified the bags in January, piling up around a factory that recycles toxic waste imported from the US. Based on this finding, Mexican authorities demanded a cleanup of what they said was 30,000 tons of stored material with “hazardous characteristics”. Continue reading...

Call it the mystery of the white bags. After they were found to be sprawling across acres of land near the Mexican city of Monterrey, authorities ordered their “urgent” removal. Now visual evidence suggests the problem is more extensive than previously known.An investigation by the Guardian and Quinto Elemento Lab first identified the bags in January, piling up around a factory that recycles toxic waste imported from the US. Based on this finding, Mexican authorities demanded a cleanup of what they said was 30,000 tons of stored material with “hazardous characteristics”.But aerial and Google Street View photography shows there is at least one more outdoor site related to the company where hundreds more of the white supersacks, typically used to hold industrial chemicals, appear to have been stored. Mexico’s environmental enforcement agency said it would conduct an inspection.The issue of imported US toxic waste – and related concerns, such as the white bags – have become a lightning rod in Mexico and Canada in recent months, with commentators questioning why they should take the US’s discards as their countries face a new trade war instigated by the Trump administration.A sequence of images from 2020, 2024 and 26 February 2025 showing the piling-up, and then recent removal of, bags from Zinc Nacional. In 2024, the bags covered at least 5 acres. Photograph: Maxar TechnologiesDrone image from the same area in March 2025, with the area clear of bags. Photograph: El NorteIn Mexico, attention has focused on the Monterrey-area factory, which is owned by a company called Zinc Nacional and recycles toxic dust sent to the country by the US steel industry.According to the latest imagery, the company has now cleared all the bags located there following the order from regulators.But new photography shows that the bags also cover more than an acre of land 15km (9 miles) away at the plant of a company called Meremex. Business records show that it is majority-owned by Zinc Nacional and has also been licensed to recycle hazardous waste.Photographs taken on Wednesday by drone, in a collaboration between the Monterrey newspaper El Norte, the Guardian and Quinto Elemento Lab, show that the giant bags remain stacked around the Meremex industrial yard, with blue tarps partially covering them.Historical Google Earth and Street View photographs show that two more yards in the same industrial park were previously filled with bags that have been cleared over the last two years. They appear similar to the bags in the Meremex yard, and bags on a truck parked in front of one yard read “Made in Mexico by Zinc Nacional”.Imagery of these bags from 2022 shows that they were, in places, stacked three bags high and that some of them were broken open and spilling powders on to the bare ground. That site is 600 meters (1,969ft) from a river.Mexico’s environmental enforcement agency, known as Profepa, said it would inspect the sites, saying: “We will also examine the type of material stored to decide whether soil sampling is required and whether remediation is necessary.”At Zinc Nacional’s plant, authorities initially gave the company 15 days to move bags spread across a 20-acre (8-hectare) industrial scrapyard. Satellite imagery suggests the company was still working to remove bags as recently as 14 March, and drone imagery indicates this yard has now been cleared.Profepa says the company has told it that these bags contain zinc oxide, a final product that is extracted from the toxic waste and used in products such as rubber and fertilizer. Profepa says the material in the bags has “hazardous characteristics”.The agency ordered the company to sample the underlying soil and develop a remediation plan for any contamination.“The sacks are being placed in storage areas with reinforced concrete floors, walls, and steel sheet roofing,” said a statement from regulators at Profepa. It added that the environmental investigation was ongoing and that authorities were also reviewing the licenses of other companies that handle hazardous waste in the state of Nuevo León.The findings follow an investigation by the Guardian and Quinto Elemento Lab, a Mexican investigative journalism unit, that revealed that the United States exports about 760,000 tons a year of its hazardous waste to Mexico – a practice that environmentalists say raises the danger that the toxic material will not be handled as safely as would be required in the US.The Zinc Nacional plant in Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico, on 14 September 2024. Photograph: Bernardo De Niz/Quinto Elemento LabIn Mexico, Zinc Nacional is one of the largest importers of US toxic waste, and recycles contaminated metal dust sent to the country by major US steel companies in order to recover zinc.Toxicologist Martín Soto Jiménez, from the National Autonomous University of Mexico, conducted sampling in the neighborhood around the zinc plant and found high levels of lead, cadmium and arsenic in soil samples – including inside some homes and schools.In response to questions from reporters, the company said it was working with local and federal authorities and was responding to points raised in inspections.“We have successfully completed the removal of 100% of zinc oxide material from our operation yards,” it said.It said Meremex had been shut down in 2023, and that “we will complete the removal of its inventory in the next weeks”.In addition, the company said it had “serious concerns about both the methodology rigor and reliability of the study” by Soto Jiménez, and about the way it had been reported. It suggested that not enough sites had been tested for contaminants, that the resulting story selectively highlighted only the worst results, that many of the results had not been “alarming”, as the story said, and that the study had been inconclusive as to whether heavy metals found in the samples had originated in the company’s factory.After the original story was published, state and federal regulators began immediate investigations of the Zinc Nacional plant. Regulators said they shut down 15 unauthorized pieces of equipment at the plant, in addition to ordering the materials stored in the scrapyard moved.Environmental experts said it is troubling to see so much chemical material accumulating around the property of a plant that is handling hazardous wastes.“The volume itself is concerning,” said James Rybarczyk, a retired chemistry professor, who once served as an emergency responder to incidents involving chemical hazards in the US. “That’s an enormous quantity of anything – and to just be sitting there?”Rybarczyk, who has been looking into the activities of Zinc Nacional since the company proposed opening a plant in his home town of Muncie, Indiana, five years ago, said that such supersacks can easily leach chemicals or metals into the soil.“Where could all this volume come from?” he said. “Why isn’t it being sold? Why is it being stored? Those are my questions.”Other experts said that places where the bags have been stored require further work to make sure no chemical hazards remain.Javier Castro Larragoitia, a research professor of environmental geochemistry at the Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí, said sampling would be needed to know the most appropriate next steps.“If there is a contaminant in the soil, there is always the potential for it to move downward into the subsoil and eventually reach the underground water table,” he said.The three sites in the industrial park where Meremex is located are in the watershed of the Pesquería River, which flows into the Rio Grande.Zinc Nacional’s plant is also near an important watershed, according to Mexican environmental attorney Francisco Javier Camarena Juárez. This, he said, “requires stricter oversight of the situation”.The company said it hired a firm approved by regulators to determine whether there had been contamination from the white bags.But relying on companies to hire their own investigators could be considered a conflict of interest, said Gonzalo García Vargas, a toxicologist at Juárez University.“The community could organize and demand that the study be conducted by independent institutions, possibly a public university,” he said. “That’s what was done in Torreón,” he added, referring to contamination around a notorious lead smelter in that city in northern Mexico.

Alaska Natives want the US military to clean up its toxic waste

Now they're turning to the UN for help.

In June 1942, Japan’s invasion of the Aleutian islands in Alaska prompted the U.S. military to activate the Alaska territorial guard, an Army reserve made up of volunteers who wanted to help protect the U.S. So many of the volunteers were from Alaska’s Indigenous peoples — Aleut, Inupiak, Yupik, Tlingit, and many others — that the guard was nicknamed the “Eskimo Scouts.”  When World War II ended and the reserve force ceased operations in 1947, the U.S. approached the Indigenous Yupik people of Alaska with another ask: Could the Air Force set up “listening posts” on the island of Sivuqaq, also known as St. Lawrence Island, to help with the intelligence gathering needed to win the Cold War?   Viola Waghiyi, who is Yupik from Sivuqaq, said the answer was a resounding yes.  “Our grandfathers and fathers volunteered for the Alaska territorial guard,” she said. “We were very patriotic.”  But that trust was abused, Waghiyi said. The U.S. military eventually abandoned its Air Force and Army bases, leaving the land polluted with toxic chemicals such as fuel, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, that are known as “forever chemicals” because they persist so long in the environment. The contamination was largely due to spilled and leaking fuel from storage tanks and pipes, both above ground and below ground. More chemical waste came from electrical transformers, abandoned metals and 55-gallon drums.  Now, Waghiyi is the environmental health and justice program director at the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, an organization dedicated to limiting the effects of toxic substances on Alaska’s residents and environment. Last week, the organization filed a complaint to the United Nations special rapporteur on toxics and human rights, in partnership with the U.C. Berkeley Environmental Law Clinic.  Their complaint calls for the United Nations to investigate how military waste on Sivuqaq continues to violate the rights of the people who live there, such as the right to a clean and healthy environment and Indigenous peoples’ right to free, prior, and informed consent to what happens on their land.  “By exposing the Yupik people of Sivuqaq to polluted drinking water sources, air, and soil, and by contaminating local native foods; by causing pervasive human exposure to hazardous chemicals through multiple routes; by toxifying the broader ecosystem; and by not cleaning up contamination sufficiently to protect human health and the environment, the U.S. Air Force and Army Corps of Engineers violated human rights long recognized in international law,” the complaint says.  This submission from Alaska is part of a larger, global effort to raise awareness of military toxic waste by the United Nations. The U.N. special rapporteur on toxics and human rights is collecting public input on military activities and toxic waste until April 1. The information collected will be used in a report presented to the U.N. General Assembly in October.  The two shuttered bases in Sivuqaq, Alaska, are now classified as “formerly used defense,” or FUD, sites, overseen by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and more than $130 million has been spent to remove the contamination. John Budnick, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Alaska, said the cleanup is considered complete but that the agency is reviewing the site every five years “to ensure the selected remedies continue to be protective of human health and the environment.”  “We have completed the work at Northeast Cape, but additional follow-up actions may result from the monitoring phase of the Formerly Used Defense Sites Program,” he said. The last site visit occurred last July and an updated review report is expected to be released this summer. The federal Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, similarly concluded in 2013 that an additional EPA cleanup wouldn’t significantly differ from what the Army Corps of Engineers is doing and declined to place the sites on the EPA’s list of hazardous waste cleanup priorities. A 2022 study found that so far, federal cleanup efforts have been inadequate. “High levels of persistent organic pollutants and toxic metals continue to leach from the Northeast Cape FUD site despite large-scale remediation that occurred in the early 2000s,” the authors concluded.  The persisting pollution has garnered the attention of Alaska’s state Dept. of Environmental Conservation which oversees the cleanup of contaminated sites. Stephanie Buss, contaminated sites program manager at the agency, said her office has asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to do additional cleanup at Northeast Cape. “These active contaminated sites have not met closure requirements,” she said. The second former base, Gambell, was classified as completed but still lacks land use controls, she noted.  “DEC takes community health concerns seriously and will continue to provide oversight of the conditions at its active sites in accordance with the state’s regulatory framework to ensure an appropriate response that protects human health and welfare,” Buss said. That same 2022 study found that 89 percent of the fish around the Northeast Cape base contained mercury exceeding the levels the EPA deemed appropriate for people who rely on subsistence fishing. “All fish sampled near the FUD site exceeded the EPA’s PCB guidelines for cancer risk for unrestricted human consumption,” the researchers further found. Waghiyi said the contamination displaced 130 people, and has left her friends and family with a lasting legacy of illness.  “It’s not a matter of if we’ll get cancer, but when,” Waghiyi said. Her father died of cancer. Her mother had a stillborn child. Waghiyi herself is a cancer survivor and has had three miscarriages.  “We feel that they have turned their back on us,” Waghiyi said of the U.S. military. “We wanted our lands to be turned back in the same condition when they turned over.”  The U.S. military has a long history of contaminating lands and waters through military training and battles sites, including on Indigenous lands. Citizens of the Navajo Nation in Arizona and  Yakama Nation in Washington continue to raise concerns about the ongoing effects of military nuclear testing on their lands and health. In the Marshall Islands, fishing around certain atolls is discouraged due to high rates of toxicity due to nuclear testing and other military training. On Guam, chemicals from an active Air Force base have contaminated parts of the islandʻs sole-source aquifer that serves 70% of the population. Last year, a federal report found that climate change threatens to unearth even more U.S. military nuclear waste in both the Marshall Islands and Greenland.  In 2021, the Navy in Hawaiʻi poisoned 90,000 people when jet fuel leached from aging, massive underground storage tanks into the drinking water supply after the Navy ignored years of warning to upgrade the tanks or remove the fuel. The federal government spent hundreds of millions of dollars to remove unexploded ordnance from the island of Kahoʻolawe, a former bombing range in Hawaiʻi, but the island is still considered dangerous to walk on because of the risk of more ordnance unearthing due to extensive erosion.  The complaint filed last week by the Alaska Community Action on Toxics calls for the United Nations to write to U.S. federal and state agencies and call upon them to honor a 1951 agreement between the U.S. government and the Sivuqaq Yupik people that prohibited polluting the land.  The agreement said that the Sivuqaq Tribes would allow the Air Force to construct surveillance sites to spy on the Soviet Union, but they had four conditions, including allowing Indigenous peoples to continue to hunt, fish and trap where desired and preventing outsiders from killing their game. Finally, the agreement said that “any refuse or garbage will not be dumped in streams or near the beach within the proposed area.”  “The import of the agreement was clear: The military must not despoil the island; must protect the resources critical to Indigenous Yupik inhabitants’ sustenance; and must leave the island in the condition they found it, which ensured their health and well-being,” the Alaska Community Action on Toxics wrote in their complaint.  “This is a burden we didn’t create,” Waghiyi said. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Alaska Natives want the US military to clean up its toxic waste on Mar 19, 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.