Take action
Take action

Campaigns

Latest

View All

Justice for Lough Neagh

View campaign

Toxic Sludge

View campaign

Tag: River Wye

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

Posted on by Molly Allen
Download PDF
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.

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.

Agricultural pollution run-off ©RiverAction

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
Download PDF

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
Download PDF
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
Download PDF

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
Download PDF

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
Download PDF

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
Download PDF

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
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.

Campaign Win! New DEFRA guidance a win for our rivers

Posted on by Molly Allen
Download PDF

DEFRA has issued stronger guidance on Farming Rules for Water. The change means that manure can now only be spread when crops actually need it – not at times it can just run off and pollute our river. After years of campaigning and legal pressure, we welcome this significant step forward that provides stronger protection for England’s rivers from agricultural pollution.

The stream of events:

June 2022 – Manure and fertiliser overuse is killing our rivers

In 2022 WWF and ClientEarth launched a legal complaint to the UK’s environmental watchdog the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP). The complaint was related to DEFRA’s guidance with regard to the overuse of manure and fertiliser which floods our rivers with nitrates and phosphates, fuelling algal blooms that choke ecosystems and suffocate wildlife.

May 2024 – Farming practice must change

As a result of our legal challenge against the Environment Agency (EA), the High Court ruled that farming practices must change to comply with the Farming Rules for Water – a response to the EA’s failure to prevent pollution in the River Wye and other threatened waterways. As a result of this legal action, Defra committed to reviewing its guidance.

June 2025 – New Farming Rules for Water

In June 2025, DEFRA released revised statutory guidance ‘Enforcing the Farming Rules for Water’. While this was a welcome step, it fell short in two key areas:

1) Autumn manure spreading: It didn’t go far enough to clarify the rules around autumn manure spreading – a practice often linked to river pollution.

2) A lack of clarity around enforcement thresholds: I.e. How are the rules actually going to be enforced.

In particular, some farming commentators wrongly interpreted the guidance to mean that autumn spreading could still go ahead as usual. However, The High Court ruling in River Action’s legal case demonstrated that it is unlikely to be compliant with the Farming Rules for Water unless it’s in exceptional and specific circumstances. The new guidance failed to set this out.

July 2025 – Closing the loophole

To address these issues, we wrote to DEFRA to seek urgent clarification. We’re pleased to say DEFRA listened. On 16 July, DEFRA issued additional new guidance to farmers called ‘How to comply with the Farming Rules for Water’. This new guidance made it explicit that manure must only be applied when it meets crop or soil need at the time of application – a critical clarification that closes a dangerous loophole and brings guidance in line with the law.

If accompanied by robust enforcement and clear advice for farmers, this should lead to much stronger compliance and significantly reduce agricultural pollution across England’s rivers. We’re grateful to DEFRA for taking these vital steps forward to rescue our rivers. We’ll continue pushing for the protections our rivers so urgently need.

Megafarms, Meet the Rule of Law: Why Methwold Matters

Posted on by Molly Allen
Download PDF
By: Lily O’Mara – Climate Justice Fellow and Ruth Westcott – Campaign manager. Both from Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming.

Finally holding livestock corporations to account

The landmark rejection of the Methwold Megafarm means livestock corporations must come clean about their climate impacts. With the recent victory for Herefordshire Council and River Action’s challenge of another chicken megafarm in Shropshire coming up, is legal action finally meaning we can hold intensive livestock corporations to account?

Cheers erupted in King’s Lynn town hall on 3rd April as it was announced that the council had unanimously said no to one of the largest megafarms in Europe. The community have been fighting against the plans for nearly three years, and the planning team were unequivocal in their recommendation to Council: Reject the application or risk legal action.

When Sustain first looked into the plans in 2023, it was clear there was no assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions – a huge omission. This concern was shared with the Council. Emissions from these units don’t come just from the animals themselves, but from manure, feed, transport, processing, and everything that happens after the animals leave the site.

The application wasn’t unusual, others for intensive livestock units (ILUs) have gone through the system without serious consideration of their climate impact. Local planning authorities (normally local councils) make planning decisions based on the environmental information presented to them, and that has routinely excluded greenhouse gas emissions. Councils have essentially been left in the dark on one of the most significant impacts of these facilities. In the Methwold case, the developer was alerted to the need to include a greenhouse gas assessment, and they still refused.

We argued, alongside local residents, other civil society organisations and lawyers, that this wasn’t just an oversight, but a legal failure. The planning officers agreed. They recommended the application be refused, saying councillors couldn’t make a lawful decision without understanding the likely climate impacts. The precedent they drew on was established in the Finch case back in June 2024, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a decision to build an oil field was unlawful because it failed to consider the direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions.

It sets a precedent in planning

This ruling is huge. It sets a precedent in planning: You can’t build a megafarm in the UK without showing and considering how it would affect the climate.

The opportunities for councils from this ruling are huge. 75% of the councils in the UK have declared a climate emergency – an amazing sign of leadership. There is also local and national policy encouraging councils to make planning decisions on climate grounds. The National Planning Policy Framework for England says that planning decisions ‘should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions’ (para 161) and that ‘The need to mitigate and adapt to climate change should also be considered in preparing and assessing planning applications, taking into account the full range of potential climate change impacts’ (para 163). Add to this that the UK’s latest carbon budget says we need to reduce livestock numbers by 39% to reach climate targets.

Intensive livestock units have colossal climate impacts. We estimated that the Methwold Megafarm alone would increase the borough’s total emissions by 6%. The bulk of these are ‘scope 3’ emissions which are indirect impacts like feed production, transport and processing. Avara Foods, one of the largest chicken agribusinesses in the UK, estimates their scope 3 accounts for 95% of total emissions. For pork giant Cranswick, it’s even higher – 96% – according to FAIRR.

As part of objecting to the Methwold Megafarm, we were also able to talk about the incredibly timely precedent set in the case brought by the National Farmers Union against Herefordshire County Council which clarified that manure from industrial agriculture should be handled as industrial waste. Referencing this case, planners in the Methwold case judged that the waste plan wasn’t comprehensive enough. They said; “The lawful application of pig slurry, pig manure and poultry litter to land requires that where they are used as a soil fertiliser to the benefit of crops, the land to which the effluent is to be applied is identified in advance and the effluent not to be ‘overspread’ based on the needs of that land.”

Looking ahead, the legal challenges are continuing. River Action has a hugely exciting judicial review hearing coming up, which will consider whether councils are required by law to take into account the pollution already being caused by livestock units in an area when deciding whether new units are permissible, particularly in already polluted catchments. The hearing is on 30th April and 1st May in Cardiff. It is hoped that this will further clarify the scrutiny that can and should be in place before ILUs are given the green light.

What can councils do now?

The two groundbreaking rulings from the last couple of months have rightly empowered councils and communities. But what’s next? Well, these aren’t unique cases and councils should look at applications that are in train. These rulings say that to be lawful they must contain:

  • A comprehensive greenhouse gas impact assessment, including direct and indirect emissions, so that climate change can be taken into account
  • If you are in an area in which river or soil pollution is an issue, the manure and slurry plan must identify where and how waste will be disposed of, demonstrating that there is a need, and won’t be overspread
  • Should the case being brought by River Action against Shropshire Council set a precedent, the cumulative environmental impact of developments must be properly considered.

To make sure applications are compliant when submitted, guidance on the above should be included in planning policy and guidance, and councils and communities that would like support can get in touch with either of us, ruth[at]sustainweb.org or lily[at]sustainweb.org

The actions of communities and councils to stand up to intensive livestock corporations is inspirational. These legal wins happened because people spoke up and councils listened, and councils recognised that they have power. They came from persistence and strategic planning – both from the community groups involved and NGOs. But we can’t rest on our laurels. If we want to keep this momentum going, campaigners must help by pushing councils to demand proper climate and waste assessments, backing communities resisting new factory farms, and making sure national planning policy reflects these new legal precedents. The tools are there now – what matters is how we use them.

 

River Action are currently raising funds to finance their legal future legal action. The Big Give are currently matching all donations, so all contributions will go twice as far. You can donate here.

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.