Take action
Take action

Campaigns

Latest

View All

Toxic Sludge

View campaign

Up Your Standards

View campaign

Tag: Poultry

The Wildlife Trusts Report: More Proof Our Rivers Need Urgent Action

Posted on by Molly Allen
Download PDF

A Call for River-Friendly Farming: Why We Can’t Ignore Factory Farm Pollution

Today, The Wildlife Trusts released a powerful new report exposing the devastating environmental toll of the UK’s intensive pig and poultry industry. For those of us fighting to protect our rivers, its findings come as no surprise – but they provide yet more hard evidence of the scale of damage being caused by factory farming.

At River Action, we welcome this report wholeheartedly. Communities along the Wye, Severn and Kennet have long been raising the alarm about nutrient pollution from intensive farming. This report adds weight to their voices, strengthening the case for urgent change.

Why enforcement matters

The “Farming Rules for Water” already exist to stop pollution – but they remain largely unenforced. Without real accountability, factory farm pollution continues unchecked, leaving rivers overloaded with nutrients and communities paying the price. If the government is serious about protecting nature and rebuilding trust, it must enforce the law while helping farmers make the shift towards more sustainable practices.

River Action’s fight against factory farm pollution – Timeline

We have has taken major legal steps to hold polluters and the authorities enabling them to account:

Taken together, these legal battles underscore a simple truth: without urgent action to rein in the industrial farming model, our rivers and the wildlife that depend on them will continue to pay the price.

What’s next?

The evidence is overwhelming. The law is clear. And communities are demanding change. Now the government must act – ensuring regulations are enforced and farmers are supported in transitioning to sustainable, river-friendly farming practices.

Because nothing less than meaningful reform will do.

Fowl play: why this huge chicken farm has no place by the River Kennet

Posted on by Molly Allen
Download PDF
By Janet Coleman, River Kennet Campaigner

Seriously clucked off

As local residents lucky enough to live in Berkshire’s beautiful Kennet Valley we are seriously clucked off by the recent planning application from the landowner – the Sutton’s Estate – to locate a 32,000 bird intensive poultry unit at Bradfords Farm in a field designated AONB (National Landscape), on the edge of the floodplain just 200 metres from the River Kennet, SSSI. It beggars belief that Sir Richard Sutton Limited, a large commercial concern owning luxury hotels in London, and approximately 16,000 acres of land in UK, together with land in Ohio, US, couldn’t find somewhere more appropriate to locate their potentially polluting chicken factory.

We live very close to this site where we enjoy walking by the river and watching the abundant wildlife.  The thought that this treasured river, already under stress, will be put at further risk is completely unacceptable. Fortunately our campaign to fight off this threat to our environment and the potential damage to the River Kennet, one of only 200 chalk streams in the world, has prompted welcome and highly effective support from anglers, wildlife enthusiasts and organisations whose mission it is to care about our endangered environment. 

 

The River Kennet in Newbury © Steve Daniels

The game changer

Initially the objectors numbered a few dozen local residents but once we reached out to the likes of River Action and the Angling Trust the campaign really began to motor. Local angling clubs such as Newbury AA and Reading & District mobilised their members to the extent that there are now 232 formal objections. The Angling Trust made representations to both the Environment Agency and Natural England who have sent in comprehensive lists of concerns with the EA now escalating theirs to a formal objection. This, we feel, really could be a ‘game changer’.

We asked the applicants to a public meeting at which we were grateful to have the articulate support of James Wallace from River Action, Anna Forbes from Action for the River Kennel (ARK) – our local River Trust, Martin Salter (Head of Policy, Angling Trust) and various locals with knowledge of planning, avian flu and law.  It seemed to us that the applicant’s representatives were very ill prepared and unable to answer many questions. Fish Legal and Solicitors Leigh Day have also given valuable advice.

The case

Our case is simply this – 
  • We support responsible farming but this poultry unit on the proposed site would be an environmental disaster for the river.
  • Massive egg production units like this should be nowhere near any river and this applicant has plenty of environmentally more suitable land.
  • The only reasons given for the applicant selecting this field is its proximity to the farm manager’s house and convenient supply of electricity!
  • If permitted, the precedent will be set and all the other fields along the Kennet Valley owned by the applicant will have units for 32,000 chickens.  When asked this particular question the applicant’s representatives were unable to guarantee that this would be the only one.
  • The applicants have recently submitted a wholly inadequate Manure Management Plan.  They rely on their “circular farming” system which, in simple terms, means collecting waste from the unit, transporting it to another of their nearby farms for storage and then spreading it on land where they grow the grain to feed the chickens. This toxic waste has been legally classified as “industrial waste” and must be treated as such.
  • Hard evidence from the terminal decline of famous rivers such as the River Wye and Severn demonstrates that, far from being custodians of the land, many farmers cannot be trusted to look after habitats and water courses.

The LPA cannot allow this abomination

At the start of this campaign we felt everything was a struggle and that we were up against an applicant with sufficiently deep pockets that every point we raised would just be given to an expensive consultant for response. Fortunately the expensive consultant’s various reports were so inadequate that even we lay people could see there really was no justifiable reason for this poultry unit in this location, so close to the river.

Clearly the Environment Agency – rather better qualified than us to judge – found their reports more than inadequate and has formally objected in strong terms.  We are not there yet but with the EA’s support, and hopefully that of Natural England too, the local planning authority (LPA) surely cannot allow this abomination.

Campaigners demand Nando’s go public with promised audit of chicken suppliers harming UK rivers

Posted on by Molly Allen
Download PDF

Campaigners have welcomed Nando’s decision to carry out an independent audit of the environmental impact of its chicken supply chain in response to growing evidence of the ecological damage being caused to UK river catchments by the unsustainable disposal of the millions of tons of animal waste produced by chicken factory farms. However, they are also calling on the company to go further in ensuring full transparency and accountability and have written to Nando’s with their demands.

In a letter to the CEO of Nando’s Mark Standish, environmental campaign group River Action, alongside public figures including Dame Joanna Lumley, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, Chris Packham, Dominic West, Jo Brand, Mya-Rose Craig, Paul Whitehouse, Robert Plant, Robert Macfarlane, Johnny Flynn, Jim Murray and George Monbiot, have urged the restaurant chain to take stronger action. They have asked specifically that the company commits publicly to two key actions:

  • Environmental Leadership: Commit publicly to the protection of Britain’s rivers as a core pillar of its sustainability policies. These commitments must demonstrate rigorous standards to ensure that the vast quantities of potentially toxic chicken manure produced by Nando’s supply chain is managed in an environmentally responsible manner; and does not cause further diffuse pollution of UK river catchments.
  • Timely Transparency: Publish the full findings of the promised supply chain audit in full no later than three months from now, allowing consumers to make informed decisions about the brand’s procurement  practices.

Huge public interest

The campaign, coordinated by River Action, has sparked huge interest on social media, with fans engaging in conversations and amplifying the discussion. A social video post by activist-actor Jim Murray (The Crown, Masters of the Air) standing waist-deep in the River Wye, dressed in a sharp business suit and calling on Nando’s to stop polluting Britain’s rivers, has gone viral—so far amassing more than 4.5 million views. His powerful message has further fuelled public debate, putting increased pressure on the brand to respond.

These demands come as recent YouGov BrandIndex UK data revealed a sharp decline in customer satisfaction with Nando’s following the exposure of its river polluting supply chains.

River Action’s Head of Campaigns Amy Fairman said, “Factory-farmed poultry is wreaking havoc on Britain’s rivers, polluting vital waterways like the River Wye. But brands like Nando’s have the power and the responsibility to drive change. By demanding stricter environmental standards from their suppliers, they can help protect our rivers.

“Nando’s recent commitment to an independent audit is a step in the right direction, but transparency and accountability must follow. Now is the time for bold action. We urge Nando’s to lead the way, commit to protecting rivers, full transparency in their promised audit, and hold suppliers to the highest environmental standards. Our rivers can’t wait—will Nando’s rise to the challenge?”

Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, environmental campaigner and chef, added: “It’s encouraging to see Nando’s taking steps to investigate its supply chain, but true leadership means full transparency and a commitment to real change. Consumers deserve to know that their food choices are not contributing to environmental harm, and Nando’s has the power to set a new industry standard by holding their suppliers accountable.”

ENDS

Notes to editor
River Action met with Nando’s Chief Operations Officer, Head of Sustainability and Head of Reputation and Communication on 13 February to discuss concerns about their supply chain’s impact on UK rivers.Actor activist Jim Murray’s social video post has so far been viewed more than 4.5 million times. Breakdown:

  • Instagram: 2,700,000
  • TikTok: 1,800,000
  • LinkedIn: 61,000
  • X: 26,000
  • Facebook: 2,500

 

Dr Alison Caffyn: “We need Shropshire Council to stop allowing ever more levels of unsustainable industrial agriculture in Shropshire.”

Posted on by Molly Allen
Download PDF
Dr Alison Caffyn at the River Teme

It’s been an interesting start to 2025 as someone with my name on a current judicial review against a proposed new ‘chicken shed’ in Shropshire.….

First, both Steve Reed and Daniel Zeichner, perhaps panicked by angry farmers, say planning processes will be made easier for farm developments, so farmers can grow their businesses by putting up new ‘chicken sheds’. Then, Keir Starmer announces that judicial review (JR) rules will be amended to make it more difficult for NIMBYs to block and delay developments. Both announcements seem to be part of Starmer and Rachel Reeves’ growth agenda being pushed across all government departments.

To take the JR point first, I’m no legal expert but as I understand it you already have to prove there is a case to answer at the start of the process. It’s already a tough road to go down, with only a small proportion of cases being successful. So I’m not sure making it more difficult is necessary – maybe the announcement was just sending a pro development signal. With the case River Action and I are taking against Shropshire Council the judge agreed there was a case to answer on several grounds in our argument that Shropshire Council had inadequately assessed the environmental impacts of the proposed Intensive Poultry Unit (IPU).

It is unfortunate that citizens must take their local planning authority to court to stop more and more IPUs spreading across the landscape. But Shropshire Council has approved 64 applications for around 120 additional ‘chicken sheds’ housing over 5 million birds in the county in the last 10 years, taking the total chickens in the county to over 20 million at any one time. That’s 64 chickens per resident and maybe ten
times the amount of chicken poop than human poop.

Despite objections from local communities and businesses the Council continues to grant permissions without properly assessing the cumulative impacts of this industrial scale agriculture on air and water quality. That’s before you factor in risks such as antimicrobial resistance and bird flu. (Shropshire’s biggest IPU has had to cull two million birds in an outbreak this month.)

And that’s why it’s alarming to hear ministers suggesting government policies should support more ‘chicken sheds’ and make it easier to build them. There are many parts of the UK that are well beyond saturation point with intensive livestock farming. The River Wye catchment has proved the point and Shropshire, Lincolnshire, East Anglia, parts of Yorkshire and Northern Ireland are all on, or over, the brink of the same situation. Building more intensive livestock units will lock the UK even further into an industrial agriculture system, controlled by global multinational corporations, producing cheap but unhealthy food at the cost of nature, climate and communities.

And the crazy thing is we don’t even need more ‘chicken sheds’. The UK is already 90% self-sufficient in chicken and eggs. In fact, if we follow the advice of the Climate Change Committee and the National Food Strategy, we should be reducing meat consumption by 30%.

This type of agriculture is unsustainable and simply generates profits for supermarkets, fast food chains and global commodity giants. By all means make the planning system simpler and reduce the need for citizens to challenge planning decisions, but I would suggest doing it by developing clearer guidelines on, for example, how close IPUs can be built to neighbours, to watercourses and to other IPUs. In fact, why not introduce a moratorium on more IPUs in some areas? That would save everyone time and money!

If would be helpful if government policy focused on encouraging green growth and the types of farming that produce healthy food, boost local economies and help address our climate and nature crises.

– Dr Alison Caffyn, River Action Advisory Board member

Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.