Take action
Take action

Campaigns

Latest

View All

Justice for Lough Neagh

View campaign

Toxic Sludge

View campaign

Tag: River Wye

What do the results of the Senedd Elections mean for Welsh rivers? Beth mae canlyniadau Etholiad y Senedd yn ei olygu i afonydd Cymru?

Posted on by Molly Allen

By Ellie Roxburgh, Policy and Advocacy Manager

Plaid Cymru takes the Senedd

For the first time since devolution, a new party holds the reins in the Senedd. Plaid Cymru won the election with 43 seats, followed by Reform with 34.

As expected, the election was very much a two-party race, with Labour, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats doing somewhat worse than polls had predicted. Labour now holds 9 seats, Conservatives have 7, Greens have 2 and Lib Dems have 1.

Plaid falls short of the 49 seats needed for a majority, but with other parties doing worse than expected, they have limited options with whom to form a coalition. Labour and Plaid are unlikely to find common ground on much, given that Plaid just ousted the long-standing party. Reform and the Conservatives together make a substantial opposition, but we are yet to see if they will work together. Prior to the election, the Conservatives leader, Kemi Badenoch, indicated they would not work with any party that is not delivering, and that “the only deal we’re doing is a deal with the Welsh people”, which could be inferred as an alliance with Plaid over Reform.

In his victory speech on Saturday, Rhun ap Lorweth announced that Plaid will be seeking a minority government. He has now been announced as First Minister of Wales, supported by the two Green Party members.

Plaid Cymru yn cipio’r Senedd

Am y tro cyntaf ers datganoli, mae plaid newydd wrth y llyw yn y Senedd. Plaid Cymru enillodd yr etholiad gyda 43 sedd, wedyn Reform UK gyda 34.

Yn ôl y disgwyl, ras dau geffyl oedd yr etholiad hwn, gyda Llafur, y Gwyrddion a’r Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol yn gwneud fymryn yn waeth nag yr oedd y polau piniwn wedi’i ddarogan. Mae gan Lafur 9 sedd erbyn hyn, y Ceidwadwyr 7, y Gwyrddion 2 a’r Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol 1.

Mae Plaid ychydig yn brin o’r 49 sedd sydd eu hangen ar gyfer mwyafrif, ond gyda phleidiau eraill yn gwneud yn waeth na’r disgwyl, cyfyngedig yw’r opsiynau o ran ffurfio clymblaid. Go brin y bydd Llafur a Plaid yn canfod llawer o dir cyffredin ar lawer, o gofio bod Plaid newydd sgubo’r blaid hirsefydlog o rym. Mae Reform a’r Ceidwadwyr yn bresenoldeb gwrthbleidiol sylweddol, ond dydyn ni ddim eto’n gwybod a fyddan nhw’n cydweithio. Cyn yr etholiad, roedd arweinydd Ceidwadwyr Prydain, Kemi Badenoch, wedi dweud na fydden nhw’n gweithio gydag unrhyw blaid nad yw’n cyflawni, gan nodi “the only deal we’re doing is a deal with the Welsh people”, a allai awgrymu cynghreirio gyda Plaid Cymru yn hytrach na Reform.

Yn ei araith ddydd Sadwrn, cyhoeddodd Rhun ap Iorwerth y bydd Plaid Cymru yn ceisio ffurfio llywodraeth leiafrifol. Mae bellach wedi’i gyhoeddi’n Brif Weinidog Cymru, gyda chefnogaeth dau aelod y Blaid Werdd.

What will Plaid do for Welsh rivers?

In 2025, six of the ten UK constituencies with the highest combined sewage overflows were in Wales, cumulating to over 415,000 hours of pollution. Last year, Natural Resources Wales (NRW) announced that seven out of nine protected rivers are failing Good Ecological Status due to phosphorus pollution. Salmon are expected to disappear completely from some Welsh rivers by 2030.

However, while Plaid Cymru’s manifesto offered positive steps towards tackling environmental issues, rivers were notably absent from their first 100 days pledge, launched during the Parties’ Conference in February. Yet with wider water reforms from Westminster imminent, Plaid Cymru will need to outline its position on addressing river pollution.

Beth fydd Plaid Cymru yn ei wneud dros afonydd Cymru?

Yn 2025, roedd chwech o’r deg etholaeth yn y DU gyda’r lefelau uchaf o orlif carthffosiaeth gyfun yng Nghymru, gan gronni dros 415,000 awr o lygredd. Y llynedd, cyhoeddodd Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru (CNC) fod saith o bob naw afon warchodedig yn methu â chyrraedd Statws Ecolegol Da, dynodiad a bennwyd gan ddeddfwriaeth yr UE, yn sgil llygredd ffosfforws. Mae’r dirywiad mewn bywyd gwyllt yn arwydd o hyn, gyda disgwyl i’r eog ddiflannu’n llwyr o rai afonydd Cymru erbyn 2030.

Ond er bod maniffesto Plaid Cymru yn cynnig camau cadarnhaol tuag at fynd i’r afael â materion amgylcheddol, roedd afonydd yn amlwg absennol o’u haddewid 100 diwrnod cyntaf, a lansiwyd yng nghynhadledd y Blaid ym mis Chwefror. Ond gyda diwygiadau dŵr ehangach ar y gweill o du San Steffan, bydd angen i Plaid Cymru amlinellu ei safbwynt ar fynd i’r afael â llygredd afonydd.

Sewage hours by constituency ©TopOfThePoops

Closing the regulatory gap on river pollution

Westminster is expected to announce new legislation to clean up rivers tomorrow (Wednesday 13th May) in the King’s Speech through the ‘Water Reform Bill’. The UK Government has indicated its intention to create a new integrated regulator for the water sector, combining Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and some functions of the Environment Agency, with implications for the regulation of Welsh water companies. While Plaid has committed to seeking full devolution of powers over water, interim processes for interaction with NRW will need to be established. This could be a timely opportunity for Plaid to take action on NRW, the Welsh environmental regulator, which is widely recognised as not fit for purpose.

NRW as it currently operates is limited in impact, in part due to a lack of resourcing, but also a failure to implement an effective strategy for reducing pollution from both agricultural sources and the water sector.

One area that River Action has identified is the process by which NRW deals with pollution from industrial livestock. As it stands, NRW has chosen to ‘wash its hands’ of pollution by failing to take into account the environmental impact of manure once it leaves the farm boundary. Any reform of NRW must ensure that, as a regulator, it acknowledges and uses its full powers to act, including placing conditions on permits or refusing them where pollution risks cannot be properly controlled.

Cau’r bwlch rheoleiddio ar lygredd afonydd

Mae disgwyl i San Steffan gyhoeddi deddfwriaeth newydd i lanhau afonydd heddiw (dydd Mercher 13 Mai) yn Araith y Brenin drwy’r ‘Bil Diwygio Dŵr’. Mae Llywodraeth y DU wedi nodi ei bwriad i greu rheoleiddiwr integredig newydd ar gyfer y sector dŵr, gan gyfuno Ofwat, yr Arolygiaeth Dŵr Yfed a rhai o swyddogaethau Asiantaeth yr Amgylchedd, gyda goblygiadau i reoleiddio cwmnïau dŵr Cymru. Er bod Plaid wedi ymrwymo i geisio datganoli pwerau dros ddŵr yn llawn, bydd angen sefydlu prosesau interim ar gyfer rhyngweithio â CNC. Gallai hyn fod yn gyfle amserol i Plaid fynd i’r afael â CNC, rheoleiddiwr amgylcheddol Cymru, sy’n cael ei gydnabod yn eang fel un nad yw’n addas i’r diben.

Mae CNC fel y mae ar hyn o bryd yn gyfyngedig o ran effaith, yn rhannol oherwydd diffyg adnoddau, ond hefyd yn sgil methiant i weithredu strategaeth effeithiol ar gyfer lleihau llygredd o ffynonellau amaethyddol a’r sector dŵr.

Un maes a nodwyd gan River Action yw’r broses lle mae CNC yn delio â llygredd da byw diwydiannol. Fel y mae pethau ar hyn o bryd, mae CNC wedi dewis ‘golchi ei ddwylo’ ar lygredd trwy fethu ag ystyried effaith amgylcheddol tail ar ôl iddo adael ffiniau’r fferm. Rhaid i unrhyw broses o ddiwygio CNC sicrhau ei fod, fel rheoleiddiwr, yn cydnabod ac yn defnyddio ei bwerau llawn i weithredu, gan gynnwys gosod amodau ar drwyddedau neu eu gwrthod lle nad oes modd rheoli risgiau llygredd yn iawn.

Poultry factory farms are a lead perpetrator for agricultural pollution in Wales

What about the water companies?

Plaid’s manifesto set out a commitment to set up a new Welsh water regulator, with powers to set price controls, limit bonuses, and direct capital investment to reduce sewage spills, upgrade infrastructure and make environmental improvements.

While better regulation is certainly part of the solution, the ability of water companies to prioritise financial returns over customers and the environment remains a fundamental issue. As a not-for-profit, Dwr Cymru Welsh Water can still pay executives and bondholders high amounts. Although it does have lower bills than many English water companies and fewer pollution incidents, it continues to contribute to unacceptable levels of environmental pollution.

Plaid has also committed to setting out pathways towards the nationalisation of Welsh Water. Public ownership would help address the issue of financial extraction from essential water services. There are also other alternatives, such as municipally ownership, or community-interest models, which could attract the investment needed while prioritising environmental protection and public benefit. Whatever structure is chosen, water companies and the regulator should have a statutory duty to prioritise the environment and public health.

It is now up to this new Senedd Government to decide whether stronger regulation alone will set the Welsh water sector on a path to environmental recovery, or whether more fundamental structural reform of Dwr Cymru Welsh Water is needed to stop the pollution of Welsh rivers and waterways.

Beth am y cwmnïau dŵr?

Roedd maniffesto Plaid yn nodi ymrwymiad i sefydlu rheoleiddiwr dŵr newydd yng Nghymru, gyda phwerau i osod rheolaethau prisiau, cyfyngu ar fonysau, a buddsoddiad cyfalaf uniongyrchol i leihau achosion o ollwng carthffosiaeth, uwchraddio’r seilwaith a gwneud gwelliannau amgylcheddol.

Er bod rheoleiddio gwell yn rhan o’r ateb heb os, mae gallu cwmnïau dŵr i flaenoriaethu enillion ariannol dros gwsmeriaid a’r amgylchedd yn parhau’n broblem sylfaenol. Fel sefydliad nid-er-elw, mae gan Dŵr Cymru filiau is na llawer o gwmnïau dŵr yn Lloegr a llawer llai o achosion llygredd, ond mae’n parhau i gyfrannu at lefelau annerbyniol o lygredd amgylcheddol.

Mae Plaid hefyd wedi ymrwymo i fraenaru’r tir tuag at wladoli Dŵr Cymru. Byddai perchnogaeth gyhoeddus yn helpu i fynd i’r afael â’r mater o echdynnu arian o wasanaethau dŵr hanfodol. Mae yna ddewisiadau amgen eraill hefyd, megis perchnogaeth fwrdeistrefol, neu fodelau buddiannau cymunedol, a allai ddenu’r buddsoddiad sydd ei angen gan flaenoriaethu diogelu’r amgylchedd a budd y cyhoedd. Pa bynnag strwythur gaiff ei ddewis, dylai cwmnïau dŵr a’r rheoleiddiwr fod â dyletswydd statudol i flaenoriaethu’r amgylchedd ac iechyd y cyhoedd.

Mater i’r Llywodraeth newydd hon yn y Senedd yw penderfynu a fydd rheoleiddio cryfach ar ei ben ei hun yn gosod sector dŵr Cymru ar drywydd adferiad amgylcheddol, neu a oes angen diwygio strwythurol mwy sylfaenol ar Dŵr Cymru er mwyn atal llygredd afonydd a dyfrffyrdd Cymru.

Rivers in decline, communities take their fight to the High Court

Posted on by Molly Allen
By Emma Dearnaley, Head of Legal, River Action

It has come to this. 

More than 4,500 people, angry, frustrated and exhausted, have turned to the courts because they believe their rivers have been polluted and those allegedly responsible have not been held to account.

On Monday last week, the High Court heard the first stage of a landmark legal case led by law firm Leigh Day over pollution in the rivers Wye, Lugg and Usk. It is the largest claim ever brought over UK environmental pollution. Behind that headline figure are thousands of individuals who feel they have been left with no other option – and more people joining every week.

These are not abstract environmental concerns. These are rivers people live beside, rely on and identify with. They support wildlife, local economies, farming, tourism and public health. Yet they are now widely seen as being in serious decline.

Amy Fairman, Head of Campaigns at River Action, outside the Royal Courts of Justice

The legal claim

The legal claim is against Avara Foods, its subsidiary, Freemans of Newent, and Welsh Water. The allegation is that pollution from intensive poultry production and sewage discharges has combined to push these rivers beyond what they can sustain – materially impacting the rivers and local communities.

Avara Foods supplies poultry to some of the UK’s leading supermarkets and fast-food chains, producing chicken at an industrial scale in a concentrated area.

Communities along the Wye, Lugg and Usk argue that this industrial model carries a clear environmental cost, and that the corporate group directing the scale and profit of this intensive poultry operation cannot ignore their alleged role in driving the system behind the pollution of these rivers.

An example of an Industry Poultry Unit (IPUs) that are frequently operated by Avara Foods.

Welsh Water – a serial polluter

Welsh Water/Dŵr Cymru, the region’s sewerage operator, is also accused of materially contributing to pollution through the discharge of sewage into these rivers and through the production of sewage sludge applied to land in a similar way to poultry manure.

In 2023, Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water was responsible for over 916,000 hours of sewage releases across Wales and England, accounting for around 20% of the UK total, with over 70,000 hours believed to have occurred in the River Wye Catchment.

Communities say they are being forced to live with the consequences of a system that allows waste to enter waterways that should be protected.

Welsh Water discharges – Source: BBC News

A claim brought by the people, for the people

Outside the Royal Courts of Justice, peaceful demonstrators gathered in support, in an action organised by River Action UK. Many had travelled from Wales and Herefordshire. They beat drums, held a blessing of the rivers, and stood alongside the Goddess of the Wye, a 10-foot puppet symbolising the river. It underscored that this case is not only legal, but personal to a community who have suffered real losses.

At the centre of the case is nutrient pollution, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen, linked to sewage discharges and poultry manure spread on land and washed into waterways. These nutrients can trigger algal blooms and bacteria that strip oxygen from the water, damaging ecosystems and killing aquatic life. Sewage discharges and poultry manure are also alleged to have directly added further harmful bacteria to these rivers.

For the people bringing this claim, this is not theoretical. They say they have seen water quality decline, wildlife disappear, and rivers they once used become unsafe. Many point to impacts on livelihoods and the value of their homes, others to their health. All describe a sense that the situation has been allowed to worsen without effective intervention.

River Action, legal team and campaigners outside the Royal Courts of Justice

It is time for real accountability

This case is about accountability. It asks whether those who have operated in these catchments at an industrial scale should make right the damage the communities claim has been caused.

Last week’s hearing did not determine the outcome. Instead, it began to set out how the case will proceed, including timelines, whether more people can join, and what information must be disclosed by the Avara group defendants. These decisions matter. The clearer the scale of harm, the harder it becomes to ignore.

Claimants are seeking change. They want allegedly harmful practices addressed and reversed, and are asking whether those allegedly responsible should be required to repair the damage already done. The case comes at a time when the sustainability of intensive farming and the performance of wastewater systems are under increasing scrutiny. Both can cause serious environmental harm if done at a scale the eco-system cannot absorb.

For many involved, the aim is simple. They want clean, healthy rivers again. Rivers they can use, rely on, and pass on in a better state.

The River Wye

Change can no longer wait

What makes this case significant is not just its size, but what it represents. It reflects a growing belief that environmental protections are not keeping pace with the pressures on natural systems, and that legal action has become one of the few remaining routes for a community to demand change and seek redress.

Thousands of people are no longer prepared to accept that the decline of their rivers is inevitable. They believe these rivers have been pushed too far, and they are now asking the court to decide what accountability should look like. This case is not just about the Wye, the Lugg and the Usk. It is about whether environmental harm on this scale can be challenged, and whether communities can force change when other systems fail, with the potential for significant ramifications nationally.

Above all, it is about whether communities act when the damage is clear, and whether we are prepared to restore what has been lost.

What Are Welsh Parties Doing About River Pollution? Senedd Election 2026 Explained

Posted on by Molly Allen
By Ellie Roxburgh, Policy and Advocacy Manager, and Erica Popplewell, Head of Engagement

There’s a lot of noise ahead of May’s Senedd election – new voting systems, shifting polls, and speculation about who might form the next government. But beneath that sits a more important question: what kind of country does Wales want to be when it comes to its rivers? Because the decisions taken after this election will shape their future for decades.

This election matters precisely because it is so uncertain. No party is likely to win outright, which means priorities will be negotiated in coalition talks. In that kind of environment, issues only stay at the top if they are politically unavoidable—and river health has too often been treated as something that can be traded off. That’s a risk Wales cannot afford to take.

The reality is that Welsh rivers are already under serious strain. Sewage pollution, agricultural runoff and weak enforcement have pushed many waterways beyond ecological limits. Public awareness is growing, and rightly so, this is about health, nature and the places people live. Crucially, there are decisions to be made in Wales. The Senedd has the power to act.

River pollution near the River Wye ©TillyHunter

So what are the parties offering? 

River Action’s Red–Amber–Green analysis against the asks set out in our Cymru Elections Manifesto shows a familiar pattern: some recognition of the problem; however, few parties have set out credible solutions.

On water system reform, most parties acknowledge that water companies should be held accountable but stop short of fundamental change. Labour’s proposed Clean Water Bill and new regulator are steps forward, while others focus on infrastructure and sewage discharges without addressing the system itself. Only Plaid Cymru and the Greens clearly challenge the current model and treat water as a public good.

Senedd Elections 2026 – River Action’s RAG review for river pollution manifestos (Click image for full size)

Agriculture remains the biggest gap

Despite being a major source of river pollution, agricultural pollution is still politically under-addressed. In a bid to make lives easier for farmers by taking the approach of cutting red tape, Reform and the Conservatives will struggle to meet other commitments to clean up rivers.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats favour support and incentives over firm regulation, whereas Plaid Cymru takes the approach of replacing unfit regulations with something that is science-led and risk-appropriate. Only the Greens fully recognise the impact of intensive farming. The result is a clear mismatch between the scale of the problem and the strength of the response.

Intensive poultry units (IPUs) are commonplace in Wales and a major contributor to agricultural pollution.

Progress, but not enough to fix Wales’ rivers

There are some positive shifts. More parties are now framing river pollution as a public health issue, reflecting growing public concern. But stronger language is not the same as stronger policy. Without clear targets, monitoring and enforcement, many commitments risk falling short in practice.

Overall, the picture is one of partial progress but insufficient ambition. In a fragmented Senedd, that matters even more. Without clear commitments, river health risks being diluted in post-election negotiations.

This is why River Action is calling for a step change:

  • A water system that prioritises public and environmental health
  • Real action on agricultural pollution
  • Enforceable plans to restore rivers
  • A long-term approach to water resilience

These are not radical demands – they are the foundations required to get the system to work.

First court hearing for River Wye pollution claim

Posted on by Molly Allen

A first hearing for the rivers Wye, Lugg and Usk pollution claim will take place at the High Court in London on Monday, 27 April 2026.  

The claim, which is the biggest ever to be brought in the UK over domestic environmental pollution, now has more than 4,500 people on board.  

The hearing next week will determine key aspects of the way the case will be managed, including a timetable and a deadline for other residents and businesses to join the legal claim.  

River Action is supporting the legal claim and is organising a show of support outside the Royal Courts of Justice on the morning of the hearing. The giant Goddess of the Wye, a large-scale puppet symbolising the river, will appear outside the court alongside clean water campaigners calling for action to protect these threatened waterways. 

The legal claim is against industrial chicken producer Avara Foods Limited and its subsidiary Freemans of Newent Limited, as well as the region’s sewerage operator Welsh Water.  

It is argued that Avara’s and Freemans of Newent’s industrial chicken operations plus Welsh Water’s management of the sewerage system have resulted in widespread pollution in the rivers Wye, Lugg and Usk. All three defendants have denied the allegations. 

The High Court hearing on 27 April will see the parties appear in court for the first time to argue how the claims should be managed going forwards. The claimants will argue that the community should be given a longer opportunity to join this environmental legal action, and that the poultry defendants should be ordered to disclose details of the locations of their industrial poultry operations across the region.  

The legal claim against Avara, Freemans of Newent and Welsh Water alleges that pollution has been caused by water run-off from farmland containing high levels of phosphorus, nitrogen and bacteria from poultry manure spread on the land as fertiliser. It also alleges bacteria and nutrient pollution in the rivers has been caused by the discharge of sewage directly into the rivers from Welsh Water sewerage systems.  

The claim was filed at the High Court in autumn 2025.

Leigh Day partner Oliver Holland, who leads the claim, said: 

“This first court appearance marks an important step in the Wye, Lugg and Usk pollution claim. There has been a great deal of effort put in by the community and environmental campaigners to help drive the proceedings to this point, showing the strength of feeling from those involved about the state of the rivers. They feel that the government and regulators have not done enough to prevent the deterioration of these rivers, leaving court action as their only option to pursue environmental justice. 

“In this hearing, important aspects of case management such as deadlines for the next stages and disclosure of information by both sides will be determined. We are hoping for a positive outcome, and to be able to look ahead to presenting our clients’ arguments in full to the High Court in due course.”  

River Action’s head of legal Emma Dearnaley said: 

“This case comes at a critical time for some of our most cherished rivers and the communities connected to them. We believe industrial-scale chicken production supplying major supermarkets and fast-food chains has placed immense pressure on the Wye, Lugg and Usk, driving nutrient pollution levels that these sensitive ecosystems cannot absorb. Sewage pollution must also be reduced and stopped to reverse the decline of these rivers.  

“River Action supports this claim because it gives a voice to thousands of people who refuse to accept the continued degradation of their rivers. Communities should not have to live with the consequences of sewage pollution or an intensive farming model that we believe pollutes their waterways. This action offers an important way to hold those allegedly responsible to account and secure the systemic change needed to protect and restore our rivers for generations to come.”

Can Farming Save the Cleddau? Lessons from the Pembrokeshire Pasture

Posted on by Molly Allen
By Chloe Peck, Senior Engagement Coordinator and Ellie Roxburgh, Policy and Advocacy Manager (River Action)

As we drove down to Pembrokeshire in early February, there was a feeling of hopefulness in the air, with the first bright yellow daffodils popping up along the verges and the sun reflecting off a wild, rough sea. A walk on a pebbly Welsh beach was certainly inviting, but we weren’t just there for the scenery. We were there to see if the ambitious goals of nutrient rebalancing and regenerative farming actually hold water when they meet the daily reality of a working dairy farm.

Cleddau Bridge, Pembrokeshire

A River Under Pressure

The Cleddau is at the heart of Pembrokeshire’s landscape, with the Eastern and Western Cleddau rivers flowing together into a deep-water estuary. It is a vital part of the area, but is currently facing significant pressure. Agricultural pollution remains one of the most significant pressures on rivers across the UK, and the Cleddau is no exception. Nutrient runoff from fertilisers and manure can enter these waterways, contributing to ecological damage and declining water quality.

We went specifically to speak about nutrient pollution in the catchment and how farmers are already making practical changes in farm management, alongside support from supply chains, to make a difference, as well as what more needs to be done. On the ground, this looks like a shift in how the land and herds are managed. Perhaps most importantly, we saw how “river-friendly” farming focuses on grazing management. By moving away from traditional intensive methods toward systems like conservation grazing, farmers can better protect the soil and the water that runs through it. 

Our trip was organised by Ric Cooper, the local linchpin and lead of The Cleddau Project. Ric is the kind of campaigner who is able to navigate complex nutrient data one minute, coordinate citizen science volunteers the next, and then talk practicalities with farmers. Because he is such a trusted local voice, he was able to introduce us to a wide variety of perspectives across the catchment.

From Indoor Housing to Open Pasture

Through Ric’s introductions, we met with local farmers Mike Smith and Andrew Rees to learn firsthand how they are implementing practical measures to reduce their environmental impact. Both are part of the First Milk cooperative, a British farmer-owned dairy co-op focused on regenerative, grazing-based systems. First Milk requires its members to provide at least 120 days of pasture access per year, advocating for grazing as a vital alternative to intensive indoor housing.

The benefits of this approach are rooted in the local nutrient cycle. In indoor systems, cows are often fed imported feed, rich in phosphates and nitrates that were grown elsewhere, sometimes even in another country. This introduces “new” nutrients into the local environment. In contrast, when cows graze on pasture, they are consuming nutrients already present in the local soil. This means that when the cows produce slurry, the nutrients within it are local to that specific area. By spreading this slurry back onto the same farmland, the nutrients remain balanced with the land rather than overwhelming it. This closed-loop system is essential for protecting our rivers from the nutrient runoff that leads to eutrophication – where excess nutrients cause algal blooms that choke the river of oxygen – damaging the ecology of the river.

This transition toward “river-friendly” farming isn’t limited to grazing alone. We discussed a variety of other approaches, such as improved nutrient management and more precise manure and fertiliser control, which can significantly reduce the risk of runoff into the Cleddau. At Moor Farm, Andrew has turned the traditional high-input model on its head by significantly reducing fertilisers and chemicals. He believes that these changes aren’t just an environmental “nice-to-have” lower inputs can actually maintain or even improve profit margins while restoring the health of the land.

Collaboration Across the Supply Chain

Ric also introduced us to Christopher and Emma at Puffin Produce, the largest supplier of Welsh fresh produce and partial owners of the Pembrokeshire Creamery. This dual role puts them in a unique position to influence both the fields and the dairies. They are leveraging the Landscape Enterprise Networks (LENs) to bridge the gap between commercial supply and environmental health.

Through this network, they co-fund nature-based solutions that are designed by the farmers themselves. It’s a bespoke approach: rather than a top-down mandate, it empowers each farm business to propose the specific regenerative practices that will best protect that local area’s unique geography.

The Big Picture: A Future for the Cleddau

As we left Pembrokeshire, it was clear that protecting rivers requires coordinated action across the entire food and farming system, from the farmers in the pasture to the cooperatives, retailers, regulators, and policymakers. Encouragingly, our conversations with leaders like Andrew Rees, Mike Smith, and the team at First Milk showed that many farmers are already working to be part of the solution.

However, scaling these efforts will require more than just environmental ambition. We learned that the transition to regenerative farming is often seen as a risk that takes several years to realise. To succeed, we must shift the frame, to show that “river-friendly” farming can be economically viable.

The commitment we saw from Puffin Produce, First Milk, and Ric Cooper’s citizen science network proves that when local trust and supply chain support align, real change is possible. Supporting and scaling these collective efforts will be essential to restoring and safeguarding the health of our rivers for future generations.

Natural Resources Wales Must Prevent Pollution – Not Pass the Buck as the Wye and Severn Decline

Posted on by Molly Allen

By Emma Dearnaley, River Action’s Head of Legal

Across Wales, rivers that should be a source of pride – places for connection, wildlife and local identity – are in visible decline. 

In recent years, much of the public debate has focused on sewage discharges, storm overflows and Victorian infrastructure doing 21st-century damage. That remains an important focus. But if we are serious about restoring our rivers, another very significant source of pollution must be understood and addressed with an equivalent amount of resolve: nutrient pollution linked to intensive livestock production and, in Wales especially, the waste generated by industrial-scale poultry units. 

This is not about farmers trying to do the right thing in challenging circumstances. It is about whether the regulatory system governing intensive agricultural operations is working as Parliament intended and whether regulators are using the powers they have to prevent harm before it occurs. 

Pollution from intensive poultry production does not usually appear as a dramatic brown slick after heavy rain. Instead, it spreads more quietly. Vast quantities of chicken manure, rich in phosphorus and nitrogen, are being spread on land or exported and spread on other land that in some catchments is already saturated with nutrients. From there, rainfall can wash those excess nutrients into nearby streams and rivers, fuelling algal blooms that choke oxygen from the water, damage wildlife and smother riverbeds. By the time the ecological harm becomes visible, the pollution has already taken hold. 

‘Diffuse’ agricultural pollution comes from widespread activities across a catchment, making it harder to pinpoint and regulate than obvious point-source pollution such as a sewage discharge or a chemical spill. But complexity is not an excuse for inaction: it requires coordinated, consistent, catchment-wide management, not regulatory blind spots. 

That is why River Action has launched a judicial review challenging Natural Resources Wales (NRW)’s decision to approve permit variations allowing three intensive poultry units in Powys to expand. The issue is not whether intensive poultry farming should exist. It is whether Wales’ environmental regulator is properly doing its job by using the legal powers it has to prevent pollution linked to those operations. 

In approving the permit variations, NRW proceeded on the basis that it had no legal power under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 to regulate manure once it leaves the boundary of a permitted poultry unit. On that view, the environmental impacts of manure exported off-site fall outside the permitting regime and are instead matters for the planning system, but without NRW first being satisfied that effective and enforceable pollution controls would in fact be secured elsewhere.

In effect, NRW treated the boundary of the site as the boundary of its regulatory responsibility. Rivers, inconveniently, do not respect such lines.

Manure from intensive poultry farming is a major source of nutrient pollution affecting Welsh rivers, including the Wye and the Severn. This is not theoretical harm. Both rivers are already under severe ecological pressure from excess nutrients, causing declining water quality and damaged habitats.

Environmental permitting exists precisely to prevent unacceptable pollution before it happens. Parliament entrusted NRW, as Wales’ environmental regulator, with assessing whether permitted activities are likely to cause pollution and with imposing conditions to control and stop it. River Action’s case argues that NRW has taken an extraordinarily narrow view of its own powers and misdirected itself in law by excluding the potential off-site impacts of manure from its permitting decisions on the basis it has no legal power to address them. We say that approach is unlawful. The Environmental Permitting Regulations do not stop at the farm gate. If waste arises from a permitted activity and is likely to cause pollution wherever it ends up, NRW as the regulator must assess and, wherever necessary, control those impacts. That is both logical and, we say, what the law requires. Recent court judgments do not say otherwise, despite NRW’s insistence that its hands are tied.

What makes this more troubling is that NRW’s counterpart in England, the Environment Agency, accepts that it must consider and prevent water pollution through the permitting process including impacts that may occur beyond the site boundary. There is no rational basis for Wales’ regulator to do less, especially when making decisions in sensitive and protected catchments on the Welsh border. Environmental protection should not weaken when you cross Offa’s Dyke.

If NRW’s position is allowed to stand, the consequences extend far beyond these three poultry units in Powys. It risks creating a significant regulatory gap, allowing industrial-scale agricultural operations to expand in vulnerable catchments without effective oversight of one of their most environmentally damaging consequences.

This case is not about attributing blame after the damage is done. It is about prevention. Once excess nutrients enter a river system, they are extremely difficult and costly to remove. Rivers such as the Wye cannot be restored while pollution continues upstream without effective regulatory control. 

NRW exists to prevent environmental harm, not to assume that someone else will deal with it. Passing the buck to the planning system on a mistaken understanding of legal powers, without securing robust safeguards elsewhere, won’t wash.  

Wales rightly aspires to environmental leadership. It has strong and progressive environmental frameworks and internationally important rivers. But laws only matter if they are used and followed. 

River Action’s case asks the court to clarify a simple and fundamental point: to confirm that environmental regulation in Wales means what it says, NRW’s interpretation of its powers was wrong, and that pollution prevention does not end at a conveniently drawn boundary line. Our rivers cannot afford another lost decade of buck-passing. If we are serious about protecting and restoring them, we must ensure that those tasked with safeguarding them are equipped – and required – to use their powers in full.

River Action launches legal challenge, accusing NRW of “washing its hands” of intensive poultry pollution

Posted on by Molly Allen

We have launched a judicial review challenging Natural Resources Wales (NRW)’ approval of three expanded poultry farms in Powys, accusing the regulator of “washing its hands” of manure pollution by taking an unlawfully narrow view of its powers.

The case focuses on whether NRW is properly using its role as environmental regulator to prevent pollution from intensive farming or whether responsibility is being passed to others while Welsh river catchments such as the Wye and the Severn continue to deteriorate. 

The legal challenge follows NRW’s decision in November 2025 to approve permit variations allowing three intensive poultry units to expand in Powys. In doing so, NRW proceeded on the basis that the environmental impacts of manure once it leaves the farm boundary fall outside permitting and should instead be addressed through the planning system, without first being satisfied that effective and enforceable pollution controls would actually be put in place elsewhere.  

We say NRW’s approach is a serious misunderstanding of the law, and that NRW misdirected itself by proceeding on the basis that it had no power under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 to assess or regulate the off-site environmental impacts of manure, and so excluded those impacts from its permitting decisions altogether. We also say NRW has misinterpreted recent court judgments – including Squire v Shropshire Council, NFU v Herefordshire Council and Caffyn v Shropshire Council – to justify its position.  

We argue that, properly understood, the law requires NRW to assess and prevent potential pollution impacts that could arise if manure is exported off-site – rather than ruling them out or passing the buck. 

This case matters because environmental permitting is meant to prevent unacceptable pollution before it happens, and Parliament specifically entrusted NRW as Wales’ environmental regulator with making those decisions, rather than deferring responsibility on a mistaken understanding of its powers or assumptions about future planning controls. 

NRW’s sister regulator in England, the Environment Agency, accepts its responsibility for preventing and controlling potential water pollution through the permitting process. We believe there is “no rational basis” for NRW taking a narrower approach in Wales and not taking responsibility. 

If left unchallenged, NRW’s approach could create a significant regulatory gap. This could allow intensive poultry units, and potentially other industrial-scale agricultural operations, to expand without effective control of one of their most environmentally damaging consequences, even in protected and sensitive river catchments such as the Wye and Severn. 

“Pollution from intensive poultry farming doesn’t stop at the farm boundary, and regulation can’t lawfully stop there either,” said River Action’s Head of Legal, Emma Dearnaley. “NRW has treated the boundary of the installation as the boundary of its regulatory responsibility, even though the environmental harm caused by excess manure occurs well beyond that line.”

Manure from intensive poultry farming is a major source of nutrient pollution in Welsh rivers, contributing to algal blooms, declining water quality and ecological damage in catchments including the Wye and the Severn. River Action says that environmental permitting is a vital tool to prevent this harm, particularly where planning controls are absent, delayed or ineffective. 

“NRW exists to prevent pollution, not to pass responsibility elsewhere,” Emma Dearnaley added. “If the regulator assumes someone else will deal with manure pollution without securing meaningful safeguards, rivers like the Wye and the Severn will continue to decline.”

After months of objections, correspondence and pre-action engagement, We are asking the court to declare that NRW’s interpretation of its powers was wrong, make clear NRW must lawfully assess and regulate manure-related impacts through environmental permitting where they are a consequence of the permitted activity, and quash the three Powys permit decisions. 

The case is about ensuring environmental regulation works as Parliament intended, preventing pollution before harm occurs rather than wrongly passing responsibility to others or reacting after damage has already been done to our rivers.

Leigh Day solicitor Julia Eriksen said, “NRW’s decision to vary existing environmental permits on three intensive poultry farms will enable thousands more chickens to be housed and produce significantly more manure. River Action argues that it is NRW’s job to guard against any resulting pollution impacts.

“River Action has already secured a court ruling that rules around agricultural pollution should be properly enforced, and hopes this claim for judicial review will make it clearer still what responsibilities NRW has in this area.”

Our Pre-Action Protocol letter to NRW can be read here. NRW’s response is here. 

You can read our Statement of Facts and Grounds in full here.

It’s time our supermarkets expose Red Tractor’s greenwash and up their standards

Posted on by Molly Allen

By Charles Watson, Founder and Chairman of River Action UK

Britain’s rivers are in terrible shape, and our biggest supermarkets are up to their necks in it. For years, retailers like Tesco and Asda alongside their agribusiness suppliers have hidden behind the cosy logo of Red Tractor, telling customers their food is “farmed with care… from field to store all our standards are met”. This week the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) called time on this charade.

The regulator has ruled that Red Tractor, the UK’s largest farm assurance scheme, misled the public by suggesting its logo guarantees strong environmental protection. It doesn’t. And today we reveal that the most recent Environment Agency data shows a staggering 19,000 breaches across 60% of Red Tractor–certified farms between January 2020 and July 2025, exposing a systemic failure behind the label’s “environmentally friendly” claims.

This isn’t a marginal issue. It goes to the heart of how our food system operates, and how some of the biggest companies in Britain shield themselves from responsibility while rivers and lakes collapse under a deluge of pollution caused by intensive agricultural practices.

Take Tesco. Controlling nearly 30% of the supermarket sector, it is the single most powerful buyer of British farm produce. Its chicken and pork supply chains run through industrial-scale operators like Avara Foods and Moy Park. These are not quaint family farms but subsidiaries of US agribusiness giants Cargill and Pilgrim’s Pride. These companies have been linked to ecological crises such as the collapse of the River Wye and the ongoing algal disaster in Lough Neagh, the UK’s largest freshwater lake.

For years, supermarkets have pointed to the Red Tractor logo as their environmental alibi. But that line has now been shredded. In a landmark ruling, the UK’s ASA has concluded that Red Tractor’s environmental claims are misleading. This is no longer just campaigners or scientists calling the Red Tractor scheme inadequate. It is a regulator finding that Red Tractor’s advertising exaggerated and misled consumers on its environmental standards. Any retailer still brandishing that logo as a mark of environmental protection is not reassuring customers. They are engaging in greenwash.

The data is stark. Between January 2020 and July 2025, 7,353 Environment Agency inspections of Red Tractor–certified farms found 4,353 breaches — nearly 60% of farms failing environmental rules. These weren’t minor slip-ups: the violations included thousands of breaches designed to prevent slurry and fertiliser from pouring into rivers, fuelling algal blooms, killing fish, devastating ecosystems, and contaminating drinking water. In total, the inspections recorded a staggering 19,305 instances of non-compliance. 

This is not just a story about dirty rivers. It is about a food system where the biggest players, multinational agribusinesses and the retailers who buy from them, use weak, industry-controlled assurance schemes to insulate themselves from scrutiny. Red Tractor is not a neutral standard-setter. It is designed by the very interests it is supposed to regulate. And guess who controls it? The majority of seats on Red Tractor’s governing council are held by the UK’s various National Farming Union bodies. Yes, the farming lobby actually controls its own product quality scheme. 

Red Tractor’s defenders will say that criticising the scheme means attacking farmers. Let’s be clear, it does not. Many farmers care deeply about the land and waterways that sustain them and us all. They are being undercut by a system that rewards scale, intensification and cutting corners, while paying lip service to environmental protection.

As Martin Lines, CEO of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, has put it: “Consumers and farmers want real sustainability, not a sticker.” Farmers who are genuinely improving soils, protecting rivers and reducing chemicals see little reward for their efforts. Meanwhile, industrial producers hide behind the same Red Tractor logo. That isn’t fairness. It’s exploitation.

Supermarkets cannot claim ignorance. They have been told repeatedly about the links between their suppliers and river pollution. The Environment Agency rejected Red Tractor’s bid for “Preferred Status” precisely because it fails to meet good environmental standards. Yet retailers still rely on the logo as their shield.

This complicity matters because of their sheer market power. When supermarkets demand Red Tractor chicken, vast supply chains, from feed mills to slaughterhouses to contract farmers, are locked into a destructive model. This legitimises the industrial systems polluting our rivers. And when consumers challenge them, they point to the little tractor logo, as if that settles the matter.

The ASA ruling proves it doesn’t.

We now face a choice. Tesco, Asda, Aldi, Lidl, Morrisons and others can continue to sell food tainted with pollution, hiding behind a logo that regulators have called out as misleading on environmental performance. Or they can do the honest thing: demand genuinely high standards from suppliers, and pay farmers properly for producing food in ways that don’t wreck our rivers.

This isn’t just about protecting wildlife or river users such as this nation’s army of wild swimmers. Though that should be enough. It is also about restoring trust in our food system. Consumers deserve to know that when they buy British, they are supporting farming that safeguards our countryside, not destroy it. Farmers deserve a level playing field that rewards those who do right by the land. And companies that profit from selling us food have a duty to ensure their supply chains comply with legal standards, both under the law and broader social responsibility.

For too long, Red Tractor has allowed agribusiness and retail giants to dodge that duty. Thanks to the ASA, the greenwash is now exposed. The question is whether the supermarket giants will finally face up to reality, or whether they will cling to a broken system until public trust collapses.

Britain’s rivers cannot wait. Neither can the farmers who are trying to do the right thing. The time for excuses is over.

ASA ruling exposes Red Tractor as greenwash – River Action demands supermarkets act

Posted on by Molly Allen

New figures reveal staggering 19,000 breaches across 60% of inspected Red Tractor farms, exposing systemic failure behind the label’s “environmentally friendly” claims

River Action is calling on leading supermarket retailers including Tesco and Asda to stop relying on Red Tractor for environmental certification. The scheme has been exposed for serious environmental greenwashing in an Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruling.

Having filed the complaint in April 2023, the case is thought to be one of the longest investigations in ASA history.

 

ASA ruling: Red Tractor environmental claims ‘misleading’

The ASA has today upheld a complaint by River Action’s Chair and Founder, Charles Watson, ruling that Red Tractor – the UK’s largest farming assurance scheme – misled the public about its environmental standards and exaggerated the benefits of Red Tractor endorsement.

River Action challenged advertising for the Red Tractor scheme because of its concerns that environmental standards relating to pollution on Red Tractor farms were not being met – including the claim “When the Red Tractor’s there, your food’s farmed with care… from field to store all our standards are met”.

During its investigation, the ASA considered extensive evidence and arguments put forward by Red Tractor including that it was not an environmental certification mark specifically so “did not seek to replicate environmental law or even cover all aspects of pollution risks by farms”.

The ASA concluded that the evidence provided by Red Tractor to demonstrate compliance with basic legislative standards and a good environmental outcome was insufficient to substantiate the claim which “farmed with care… all our standards are met” conveyed to consumers. The advert breached BCAP Code rules 3.1, 3.2 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation) and 3.12 (Exaggeration).

 

Evidence of non-compliance and pollution

Red Tractor’s marketing claimed its farms take “a preventative approach to protect the environment”, citing reduced pesticide use, strict pollution controls, and rigorous soil management.

However, as part of its ASA complaint, River Action presented damning evidence – supported by Environment Agency (EA) data (2014 – 2019) – that Red Tractor farms are routinely linked to serious environmental harm:

  • Red Tractor farms were responsible for most agricultural pollution incidents in England over a five-year period.
  • 62% of the most serious pollution events (Categories 1 & 2) involved Red Tractor-certified farms.
  • Certified farms had worse compliance rates than non-certified farms (26% vs 19%).
  • In a North Devon case study (2016–2022), 87% of Red Tractor farms inspected by the EA were in breach of environmental rules.         

The EA rejected Red Tractor’s bid for “Earned Recognition” due to its failure to meet minimum environmental standards.

But more than two years on, River Action can now reveal – through Environmental Information Requests – that serious pollution and regulatory failures persist on Red Tractor–certified farms. The data covers the period January 2020 and July 2025 and reveals the following:

  • 7,353 Environment Agency officer inspections of farms claiming Red Tractor status. 
  • Alarmingly, 4,353 of these inspections (nearly 60%) identified at least one breach of environmental regulations.
  • A staggering 19,305 instances of non-compliance were recorded across failing Red Tractor assured farms.
  • Cattle farming accounted for just over 25% of non-compliance, with 13.2% from beef farms and 12.4% from dairy farms.
  •  1,373 follow-up inspections were required to address non-compliance.
  • Even when actions were completed by deadlines, a substantial number of farms still failed to meet environmental standards, with only 4,657 actions recorded as completed on time. 
  • This demonstrates that membership of the Red Tractor scheme does not guarantee compliance with environmental regulations.

 

Supermarkets: up your standards

River Action is now warning major supermarkets that by using Red Tractor to reassure customers they are buying food produced to basic environmental standards they risk complicity in misleading advertising, while pollution of the UK’s rivers continues.

Given their enormous market share and purchasing power, supermarket retailers wield significant influence over UK food supply chains and therefore have the opportunity to drive rapid action to address the environmental harm caused by the industry. 

For example, Tesco dominates the supermarket sector with nearly 30% of the market (28.1%), sourcing vast quantities of Red Tractor meat and poultry through suppliers such as Moy Park and Avara Foods.

According to a recent news report, Moy Park has been implicated in the devastating environmental catastrophe at Northern Ireland’s Lough Neagh, where recurring summer blooms of toxic blue-green algae threaten both wildlife and the health of the lake. 

Similarly, Avara Foods, owned by US agribusiness Cargill and linked to the ecological collapse of the River Wye, boasts on its corporate website: “You can trust that we do things ethically; all of our chicken is Red Tractor approved.”

 

Other major retailers in the frame

Tesco are not alone. River Action is also calling on Aldi, Lidl, Morrisons, Asda, and others to stop relying on Red Tractor as a mark of environmental standards and protection:

  • Asda – 11.9% market share; told Farming UK: “We continue to source all our other fresh primal chicken from UK Red Tractor Assured farms.” Its website states, “The Red Tractor badge is a standard of excellence….It’s about producing the best possible product in an environmentally friendly and sustainable manner.”  
  • Aldi – 10.9% market share; major buyer of Red Tractor products and states that “…you can trust the products you buy when you see the Red Tractor logo…..Red Tractor….(covers) animal welfare, food safety, traceability and environmental protection. Food and drink bearing the Red Tractor logo has been produced responsibly to some of the most comprehensive and respected standards in the world.”
  • Morrisons – 8.4% market share; states that “100% of the fresh pork, beef, lamb, poultry, milk and cheddar cheese we sell in our stores comes from farms certified by Red Tractor, or an approved equivalent scheme, giving customers assurance on food safety, hygiene, animal welfare standards and environmental protection.”
  • Lidl – 8.1% market share;  publically state that “we work closely with Red Tractor to ensure that our British meat, poultry, fruit and veg is responsibly sourced to strict food hygiene, animal welfare and environmental standards”.
  • Sainsbury’s, once a Red Tractor buyer, has already distanced itself from the scheme. In 2014, then-CEO Justin King called it “the refuge of scoundrels” and criticised it for setting a “low bar that frankly anybody could use.”

 

What Tesco says

Celebrating 25 years of Red Tractor, Natalie Smith, Tesco Head of Agriculture, said last month: “We’re proud to support British agriculture and the thousands of farmers and producers who provide us with quality, affordable, sustainable products year-round. Certification schemes play a key role in providing reassurance for customers, and over the past 25 years, Red Tractor has established itself as a mark of quality, standing for food safety standards, animal welfare and environmental protection.

“We recognise there is still more to do, and it’s essential we continue to work in partnership with Red Tractor to improve standards, and take quick action to drive forward change, strengthening the farming industry for generations to come.”

The Tesco website proudly states, “We require the majority of our meat, dairy, fruit and vegetable products produced in the UK to meet the Red Tractor standard, or an appropriate equivalent. The Red Tractor standards ensure that the production of these products does not have an adverse impact on the environment. For example, pesticides and fertilisers must be applied and stored in ways that minimise pollution of soil and groundwater; it also provides extensive guidance on manure management.”

 

River Action responds

Chair and founder of River Action Charles Watson said, “Red Tractor farms are polluting the UK’s rivers, and consumers trying to make environmentally responsible choices have been misled. This ASA ruling confirms what we’ve long argued: Red Tractor’s claims aren’t just misleading – they provide cover for farms breaking the law. The time has now come for our major food retailers to lay out credible plans as to how they will move away from this busted flush of a certification scheme and support farmers whose working practices are genuinely sustainable.

“Supermarkets and their suppliers now face serious reputational risk if they hide behind Red Tractor greenwash. By selling products linked to pollution, they deceive customers, undermine trust, and fail in their duty to ensure supply chains obey the law.”

 

Consumers want confidence, not greenwashing

River Action says that supermarkets need to use assurance schemes that give consumers genuine confidence that the products they buy are not linked to lawbreaking or environmental harm. At present, Red Tractor fails to provide this. An assurance scheme should be meaningful. Supermarkets already have credible models in place for fresh produce, so the same rigorous standards should be applied to livestock.

River Action has written to all the major supermarkets, calling on them to:

  • Publicly acknowledge the ASA ruling and findings by informing their customers of the misleading labelling and committing to driving change both within farming and food standards and within food certification.
  • Publish a clear and transparent roadmap showing how they will certify the environmental standards of all their food produce – including eggs, poultry, dairy, and fresh produce. This roadmap should set out rigorous environmental requirements, be backed by independent inspections, and ensure full public reporting, so customers can see and trust the standards behind the food they buy.

 

Red Tractor’s own data shows that its logo appears on approximately £18bn worth of food sold annually, meaning this greenwash reaches deep into Britain’s shopping baskets. Jim Moseley, Red Tractor’s CEO, has also boasted that consumer trust in the scheme is tracking at 74%.

Martin Lines, CEO of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, added: “Consumers and farmers want real sustainability, not a sticker. They want confidence that the British produce they buy does not harm the environment or our rivers. 

“Supermarkets and fast-food chains hiding behind Red Tractor need to sort out their suppliers or face low consumer confidence and difficult questions about the environmental violations in their supply chains that are damaging our rivers. Farmers committed to nature-friendly practices must be properly rewarded, or the system will continue to incentivise damaging methods”

Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall said, “As someone who will always support farmers who work positively with nature, protect the environment and feed the nation, I am deeply concerned by the ASA’s ruling exposing Red Tractor’s persistent greenwashing. For years, consumers have trusted the logo as a sign of environmentally responsible farming, yet the evidence shows widespread environmental breaches that are causing ongoing pollution all over the UK. 

“Supermarkets should not hide behind environmental certification that fails both the planet and honest producers. They have enormous influence and must use it to drive genuine progress that benefits the environment.  That means paying farmers properly for sustainable practices, supporting nature-friendly food production, and leading the way in either rigorously reforming or, if necessary,  completely dropping Red Tractor as a mark of environmental standards.

“Customers deserve more than misleading labels. They deserve assurance that their food supports farming that regenerates soils, protects wildlife, and respects the environment. It is time for supermarkets to step up, take responsibility, and make sustainability a real priority, not a fake one.”

River Action’s complaint to the ASA was prepared with the expert support of Leigh Day solicitors — Ricardo Gama, Carol Day, Julia Eriksen and Lily Hartley-Matthews — together with counsel Tom de la Mare KC and George Molyneaux of Blackstone Chambers. Their advice and representation were instrumental in securing this ruling.

Leigh Day partner Ricardo Gama, who represents River Action, said, “After a two and half year investigation, River Action is delighted that the ASA has finally ruled that Red Tractor was likely to mislead consumers when claiming that its certification scheme ensures high environmental standards. 

“The length of time of the investigation was a result of the contested nature of the case, with both River Action and Red Tractor arguing tooth and nail for their positions. This should set a precedent for other advertisers, including those in the food industry, that misinformation will not be tolerated.”

 

Consumers: demand better

River Action is urging the public to pressure supermarket retailers into telling their customers the truth about Red Tractor-labelled produce.

Support the campaign: Tell your supermarket to expose Red Tractor
If you shop at these supermarkets, tell them to clean up their supply chains and stop profiting from environmental harm. For more information and to find out how you can support the campaign, visit www.upyourstandards.riveractionuk.com.

 

 

Notes to Editor
The source for supermarket market share figures is a Kantar article published on 24 June 2025, which you can read here.

An assessment carried out by the Environment Agency (EA) in 2020, revealed that between 2014 – 2019 Red Tractor-assured farms were responsible for the majority of instances of agricultural pollution over a five-year period. The assessment revealed that of a total 4,064 pollution incidents RT farms were responsible for 62% of category 1 and 2 incidents and 56% of category 3 incidents. Significantly, the report concluded that RT farms were less compliant (26%) with EA inspections compared to non-RT farms (19%). As a result of this assessment, a request by Red Tractor for its assured farms to benefit from EA “Preferred Status” was denied.

When we received the data from the Environment Agency, they advised that many farms include more than one livestock or crop type. As a result, category totals may not add up precisely to the overall inspection figure.

Our research indicates that we could not find any ASA case that took longer to resolve than our complaint against Red Tractor. On its website, the ASA notes that, “A small number of our most complex cases can take six months or more to complete if, for instance, we need to appoint independent experts to help us assess evidence.”

At a webinar in April 2024, Red Tractor CEO Jim Moseley told the Tenant Farmers Association that the Red Tractor logo features on £18 billion worth of food sold each year. He also claimed that public trust in the Red Tractor scheme stands at 74% (watch from around 9 minutes 31 seconds).

ASA ruling of 15 October 2025:

  • River Action challenged a 2023 advert for Assured Food Standards’ Red Tractor Scheme because of its concerns that environmental standards relating to pollution on Red Tractor farms were not being met. 
  • The ASA considered extensive evidence and arguments put forward by Red Tractor, including its own claims that environmental protection was not its primary focus and that RT was not an environmental certification mark specifically so “did not seek to replicate environmental law or even cover all aspects of pollution risks by farms”. 
  • The ASA assessed how the notional average consumer, who was reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, was likely to view the ad. This included the claim “When the Red Tractor’s there, your food’s farmed with care… from field to store all our standards are met”, highlighting the use of Red Tractor labelling across all aspects of food production and farming. The ASA considered that at least some consumers would expect that, in giving assurances about high standards of farming and food production, Red Tractor’s standards would include measures to manage and mitigate environmental risk that arose through farming practices. The ASA also considered that consumers would expect that such standards incorporated compliance with or reflected at least basic legal requirements concerning food safety, animal welfare and environmental protection, and that measures were in place to help produce a high standard and quality of food (in line with the objectives of the Red Tractor scheme, which included environmental measures, as explained on Red Tractor’s website).
  • In reaching its decision, the ASA looked at Environment Agency (EA) reports and data which showed “around half of RT farms being not fully compliant” and led the EA to conclude “The evidence gathered through this project indicates that Red Tractor membership is not currently an indicator of good environmental performance”.
  • The ASA concluded that the evidence provided by Red Tractor to demonstrate compliance with basic legislative standards and a good environmental outcome was insufficient to substantiate the claim which “farmed with care… all our standards are met” conveyed to consumers. 
  • The advert therefore breached BCAP Code rules 3.1, 3.2 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation) and 3.12 (Exaggeration).

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

Posted on by Molly Allen

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.

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.