

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.

Peter Hart, phart@fwwatch.org 732-266-4932
A coalition of national and regional research, policy, and advocacy organizations filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission today arguing that Smithfield, the nation's largest pork producer, routinely makes false and misleading claims about the sustainability of its pork products and the company's environmental record.
Instead of investing in sustainable production practices, the complaint demonstrates that Smithfield continues to destroy the environment while greenwashing its products by proposing massive anaerobic digesters to produce factory farm biogas, all in the pursuit of greater corporate profit.
While Smithfield relies on marketing terms like "sustainable" and "highest environmental standards," its products actually come from extremely unsustainable, industrialized production and processing facilities with long and ongoing records of environmental degradation.
"Smithfield's false and misleading marketing attempts to cover up its environmentally devastating factory farm model," said Food & Water Watch staff attorney Tyler Lobdell. "Instead of actually cleaning up its act, Smithfield is investing in slick tag lines and false solutions like factory farm anaerobic digesters to dupe consumers. This is classic corporate greenwashing, and the FTC must take action to protect the public and truly sustainable producers from this illegal conduct."
"Smithfield's false and misleading marketing claims deceive consumers and steal market opportunities from truly sustainable farmers and ranchers," said Joe Maxwell, President of Family Farm Action Alliance. "Smithfield claims they are nearing an environmental goal of 100% compliance 100% of the time. But, from polluting our drinking water, to spewing toxins into minority communities, and lying to customers, it seems the only thing they are 100% committed to is deceit."
The filing, led by Food & Water Watch, documents a litany of dubious claims made by Smithfield about the company's environmental stewardship -- claims that are thoroughly undermined by Smithfield's lengthy record of environmental violations and disregard for the health of communities living near its facilities. In reality, Smithfield is one of the biggest industrial polluters in the United States.
Smithfield claims it has an "industry-leading sustainability program" and is close to achieving an environmental goal of "100% compliance, 100% of the time." The company tells consumers that its facilities are "the opposite" of factory farms, and its sustainability website, as described in the complaint, "depict[s] sunny and bucolic farms that bear little resemblance to the actual facilities where the animals used in Smithfield's products are raised."
Indeed, the lengthy record of air and water pollution linked to Smithfield's operations makes a mockery of the company's "Good food. Responsibly.(r)" slogan. Smithfield is the third-largest water polluter in the country, and in 2019 the company was issued at least 66 notices of violations of already bare minimum environmental protection laws. Its Tar Heel, North Carolina plant has a long record of Clean Water Act violations, as well as serious air pollution violations. Smithfield's operations in the state have been linked to massive fish kills, and as recently as January of this year North Carolina officials called out the company over massive spills of hog waste into waterways and the local environment.
The massive amount of pig manure created by the company -- estimated at over 19 million tons per year-- creates substantial threats to water quality and public health. Those threats are only exacerbated by Smithfield's irresponsible practices, which include spraying pollution-laden waste on fields throughout the country.
A series of lawsuits in North Carolina documented an array of nuisances linked to Smithfield's waste lagoons and manure spraying. The company has been hit with millions of dollars in damages. As the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized, Smithfield's production practices are characterized by "interlocking dysfunctions" that the company "willful[ly]" and "wanton[ly]" ignored to maximize profit.
"Smithfield isn't a good neighbor - just ask the hundreds of people who filed nuisance lawsuits against the company, and the jurors in each of those lawsuits who found Smithfield guilty. Every time," said Kemp Burdette, the Riverkeeper with Cape Fear River Watch. "They aren't a 'green' company. They spray untold millions of gallons of untreated hog feces and urine onto the landscape of eastern North Carolina every year. They have not taken a single step in fulfilling the promises they made twenty years ago to put some of their billions of dollars of profits into improving waste management, and spills and violations are a regular occurrence on factory hog farms in the Cape Fear Basin."
By its own account, Smithfield's water usage and wastewater discharges are rising. In 2019, the company consumed over 11.14 billion gallons of water at just a fraction of the facilities involved in producing its products, which is more water than all the domestic fresh water users combined in approximately 20 U.S. states and territories.
The FTC complaint also zeroes in on an increasingly common corporate greenwashing tactic: Promoting the use of anaerobic digesters as a 'clean energy' innovation. As the filing lays out, installing digesters to produce factory farm biogas cannot be considered a sustainability initiative and is not "clean" energy.
These digesters serve to entrench some of the most dangerous factory farm practices -- in effect monetizing Smithfield's waste mismanagement rather than addressing the root causes of its greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution. The waste products left over after the digestion process can be even more environmentally hazardous, and the eventual burning of factory farm biogas still releases harmful pollutants like carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide.
The coalition's complaint asks the FTC to investigate and take enforcement action against Smithfield by requiring it to remove these misleading claims, and to enjoin the company from making similar misrepresentations in the future.
Joining Food & Water Watch in filing the complaint are Cape Fear River Watch, Dakota Rural Action, Family Farm Action Alliance, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Missouri Rural Crisis Center, Pennsylvania Farmers Union, and Socially Responsible Agriculture Project.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500"The administration’s legal maneuver sends a clear and devastating message: that the well-being of America’s most vulnerable is not important," said the president of the Food Research & Action Center.
The Trump administration will not give poor Americans food assistance without a fight.
Instead of following a federal judge’s ruling Thursday that ordered officials to release Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds to 42 million Americans by the next day, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked an appeals court to immediately block the ruling on Friday.
The Trump administration has argued that due to the government shutdown, the SNAP program, which provides food assistance to those making 130% of the federal poverty line or less, functionally does not exist.
In an emergency request to the 1st Circuit Court of the United States, the DOJ called the lower court's ruling, "unprecedented" and argued that it makes "a mockery of the separation of powers.”
Furthering what has been widely interpreted as an effort to pressure Democrats to cave on their demands in the government shutdown, the appeal stated that the lapse in SNAP funding was caused by “congressional failure, and... can only be solved by congressional action.”
US District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island, in his second ruling against the administration's efforts to choke off SNAP benefits, wrote the previous day that the administration's plan to partially fund the program was insufficient. The previous week, McConnell had ruled that the administration had to tap a $5 billion contingency fund to fund the program and make up for the shortfall by drawing from other sources.
The administration agreed to use the contingency fund but offered a plan that fell several billion dollars short of fully funding the program and would have amounted to a 61% benefit cut for the average SNAP recipient, leaving millions without benefits altogether, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
While the administration has sought to pin the blame for funding lapses on Democrats in Congress and has asserted that its hands are tied, McConnell described the administration's maneuvering as a deliberate political stunt.
"This is a problem that could have and should have been avoided," McConnell said. “The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP... It’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here."
He added that Trump had essentially telegraphed his plan to defy the court order over the weekend, writing on Truth Social that “SNAP payments will be given only when the government opens.”
This, along with messages on the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) website blaming Democrats for the lapse in funding, McConnell suggested, was evidence that “SNAP benefits are being withheld for political reasons.”
“Children are immediately at risk of going hungry,” McConnell said. “This should never happen in America.”
More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the SNAP program, 39% of whom are children. As the CBPP report explained, families with children would likely be those hardest hit under Trump's partial funding proposal.
"Nearly 1.2 million SNAP households with roughly 4.9 million people—roughly 1 in 9 SNAP recipients—will receive zero benefits because their normal benefit amount is less than the planned benefit reduction," it says. "Only one-or two-person households receive a minimum benefit under SNAP rules, leaving some households with three or more members—which are primarily households with children—at risk of receiving nothing."
The USDA has also issued a warning to grocery stores telling them it is illegal for them to offer special discounts to SNAP recipients hurt by the freeze, even though the government is allowed to grant them waivers. On Thursday, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a bill that would allow grocery stores to voluntarily offer discounts to SNAP recipients whenever their benefits are affected by a government shutdown.
“Donald Trump is the most powerful person in the world,” Wyden said. “Only a monster would use that power to deny help to millions of families that don’t know where their next meal is coming from.”
As the CPBB has noted, contrary to its claims, nothing is stopping the Trump administration from transferring funds from other food assistance programs to fund SNAP fully. It has already done this twice to sustain the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which a court ruled was legal.
"Instead of using the funding that has been readily available to feed people, this administration continues to fight to deny tens of millions from accessing the nutrition they need," said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center. "For some unfathomable reason, the Trump administration wants to punish the 42 million people, including children, working parents, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans, who rely on SNAP to put food on the table."
She added that "at a time when food insecurity is rising due to increasing grocery prices, the administration’s legal maneuver sends a clear and devastating message: that the well-being of America’s most vulnerable is not important."
"If the administration were serious about curbing waste and inefficiency, it would start by reducing the diversion of public funds to these corporate intermediaries," argues a new paper.
US President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress took a sledgehammer to Medicaid over the summer, justifying the unprecedented cuts by falsely claiming the program that provides health coverage to tens of millions of low-income Americans is overrun with waste and abuse.
But a new paper published Friday in the journal Health Affairs argues that if the administration actually wanted to target waste, fraud, and abuse, it would have been much better off taking aim at Medicare Advantage (MA) and Medicaid privatization.
The paper's authors estimate that overpayments to MA plans—which are funded by the government and run by for-profit insurers—and private Medicaid managed care will likely cost US taxpayers a total of $1.92 trillion over the next 10 years.
"Ending that waste would inflict losses on private insurers' shareholders and executives (the CEO of the largest MA firm made $26.3 million last year). But patients, not just government coffers, might gain," wrote Adam Gaffney, Danny McCormick, Steffie Woolhandler, and David Himmelstein.
"Even Congress' trillion-dollar cuts to Medicaid and food assistance amount to little more than half of the potential savings from de-privatizing Medicaid and Medicare," they added. "Reclaiming those funds would require reversing the decades-long trend of outsourcing to profit-seeking intermediaries and restoring Medicare and Medicaid as efficiently administered public programs."
Far from aggressively taking on Medicare Advantage fraud, the Trump administration handed MA plans a major gift earlier this year by approving an average federal payment increase of roughly 5.1%—more than double the 2.2% increase proposed by the Biden administration in January.
The authors of the new paper noted that the huge raise for MA plans, which are notorious for denying necessary care in pursuit of ever-larger profits, will add $25 billion in waste to the US healthcare system next year alone.
"If the administration were serious about curbing waste and inefficiency," they wrote, "it would start by reducing the diversion of public funds to these corporate intermediaries."
"We must dismantle the corporate architecture of impunity and kick these big polluters out of policymaking," said one campaigner. "Our future cannot be written by those who profit from its destruction."
Big polluters led by the fossil fuel industry—which knowingly caused the climate crisis—are expanding their outsize presence and influence at the key event meant to tackle the planetary emergency, a report published ahead of this month's United Nations Climate Change Conference in Brazil revealed.
The report, published Friday by the Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO) coalition, notes that "over 5,350 fossil fuel lobbyists have attended UN climate negotiations in just four years, with 90 of the corporations they represent responsible for nearly 60% of all global oil and gas production."
The analysis sounds the alarm on the "staggering scale of fossil fuel industry presence at the very negotiations that must urgently phase out their products" in order to meet the goal of keeping global temperature rise below 1.5°C as promised in the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement.
The world is failing to deliver upon that promise, and according to the report, "the primary reason for this failure is no secret—big polluters continue to be granted outsized presence, access, and influence at the very negotiations meant to address the crisis they knowingly caused."
"COP30 is set to proceed with effectively zero protections against interference in place."
"Among the world's largest fossil fuel corporations, Shell sent a total of 37 lobbyists to COP26-COP29, BP sent 36, ExxonMobil sent 32, and Chevron sent 20," according to KBPO. "These figures do not account for additional lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry's associated trade groups."
"As a result, they maintain a carefully orchestrated stranglehold on climate action, which consequently continues to fall way short of the strong and just global response we know we urgently need," the report states.
KBPO warned: "Despite the scale of fossil fuel industry presence revealed by this data, COP30 is set to proceed with effectively zero protections against interference in place. Ahead of COP30 happening in Belém from November 10-21, more than 225 organizations and networks around the world wrote to the COP30 presidency asking them to commit to a polluter-free COP by ensuring no fossil fuel ties or sponsorship and by advancing an Accountability Framework that protects the integrity and legitimacy of the [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change].
"In response," the report's authors lamented, "little to no meaningful action has been taken to protect these talks from the fossil fuel industry and other big polluters."
KBPO partner Fiona Hauke of Urgewald, an environmental and human rights advocacy group based in Germany, said in a statement Friday that “over the last three years, oil and gas companies that lobbied at COP have spent more than $35 billion each year looking for new oil and gas fields, exacerbating the problem the nations of the world had gathered to solve."
“These companies have defended their fossil interests by watering down climate action for years," Hauke added. "As we head towards COP30, we demand transparency and accountability: Keep polluters out of climate talks and make them pay for a just energy transition.”
Nerisha Baldevu, a KBPO member from groundWork/Friends of the Earth South Africa, asserted: "Corporate power is at the root of the climate crisis. Fossil, mining, and agribusiness giants are seizing our global institutions and turning climate negotiations into trade expos for polluters."
"For climate justice, we must dismantle the corporate architecture of impunity and kick these big polluters out of policymaking," Baldevu stressed. "Our future cannot be written by those who profit from its destruction."