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

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.

River Action to intervene in legal challenge to manure waste plan

Download PDF

The campaign group River Action has been given permission to intervene in a claim made by the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) challenging Herefordshire County Council’s stricter plans for the management of manure from livestock.

As part of its claim, the NFU argues that manure from intensive poultry units (IPUs) and other agricultural developments should not be classed as waste under the council’s plans – an argument which River Action has now been allowed to contest alongside the council.

The NFU’s claim challenges the council’s Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP), which was adopted in March 2024 and sets out more stringent waste management requirements for agricultural developments such as IPUs to meet.

These requirements include stricter rules for the management of manure from livestock, as well as developments having to be ‘nutrient neutral’ in order to avoid causing pollution from excessive nutrients (such as phosphates) in soil.

Ground one of the NFU’s claim argues that the manure produced by agricultural developments like IPUs should not be classified as waste under its general definition in the Waste Framework Directive (WFD), meaning that it would not come under the scope of the council’s waste plans.

However, River Action has now been allowed to intervene and submit arguments opposing this ground. The group argues that livestock manure causes environmental harm and therefore should be categorised as waste as per the WFD – which includes substances that lead to adverse environmental impacts in its definitions for waste.

River Action has made submissions arguing that damaging algal blooms in the River Wye have arisen as a result of livestock manure causing excessive phosphates to build up in the soil, which then runs into waterways.

River Action also argues that it cannot be assumed that manure stored and then sold to a third party, which is common practice, will be used in an environmentally safe way. The charity argues that manure should be classified as waste at least until its point of use, and that controls need to be in place to ensure that waste producers take responsibility for disposing of waste in a lawful way.

Charles Watson, founder and chairman of River Action said:

“It is beyond preposterous that the tens of thousands of tons of animal excrement that spews each year out of Herefordshire’s intensive poultry factory farms is anything other than waste – and environmentally harmful waste at that. We feel that for the NFU to try and wriggle out of behaving responsibly and agreeing to cooperate with the county council’s plans to dispose of this waste in a sustainable manner is yet another lamentable example of the Big Agri lobby showing scarce regard to protecting the environment.”

Leigh Day environment team solicitor Ricardo Gama said:

“Herefordshire Council are trying to do the right thing by putting in place planning measures which would require agribusinesses to show that the waste produced by new developments such as industrial scale poultry units will be properly dealt with. It’s clear that action like that is needed because a September 2024 Environment Agency report found that even with 100% compliance with other regulatory and voluntary measures, there would only be a 34% reduction in diffuse pollution from agriculture to waterways.

“Our client is therefore pleased to be supporting Herefordshire Council in their defence of this claim. It’s not clear why the NFU are challenging the council’s plans given all they require is that agricultural developments show that they’ll be able to deal with any waste that they create.”

ENDS

For interviews, email Ian Woolverton at: ian@riveractionuk.com

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.