Crime Tyson Foods dumps 87BILLION gallons of toxic waste including cyanide, blood and feces into US rivers and lakes

[LeonardoBjj]

This is also by design:

A Coal Baron’s Takeover of the EPA Is Nearly Complete

Andrew Wheeler used to lobby for Murray Energy. Now he's making its CEO's deregulatory dreams a reality.

newrepublic.com

Pro-polluter Andrew Wheeler Gets Tapped to Head the EPA

Like Scott Pruitt before him, the current acting administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has spent the last six months rolling back environmental and health protections.

www.nrdc.org

And Clarence Thomas isnt the only blatantly corrupt SCOTUS Justice:

Gorsuch urged to recuse himself from supreme court case over ties to oil baron

Philip Anschutz has hosted rightwing justice at resort and stands to benefit if court strips power from federal regulatory agencies

www.theguardian.com

- This Vulture looking mofo also did the same thing:

https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder...ntrole-de-ibama-e-icmbio-sobre-amazonia.shtml

https://www.brasildefato.com.br/202...u-ao-fundo-do-poco-diz-ex-presidente-do-ibama

https://infoamazonia.org/2022/10/25...para-combate-ao-desmatamento/#google_vignette

 

[LeonardoBjj]

Isn't chicken and pork Tyson's primary thing? I'm not really a fan of eating fowl, swine, or water bugs. Eating birds, nah dude. Bring the Beef or GET THE FUCK OUT!! All of my steaks are sourced from local ranchers with a priority placed on quality, safety, and sustainability -- no antibiotics, added hormones, or feedlots.

- Giant animals do need a lot of natural resources.

Livestock farming is one of the main contributors to soil erosion around the world. Turning forests into pasture and overgrazing, or using marginal lands to grow feed, can lead to extreme loss of topsoil and organic matter that may take decades or centuries to replace.

WATER POLLUTION AND USAGE​

Disposal of cattle production waste without proper treatment leads to the pollution of water resources. Sediment resulting from poor grazing management contaminates surface water and groundwater. Beef production also requires a significant amount of water, most of which is used to grow feed for cattle.

INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION​

As the global cattle industry has expanded, the beef slaughter and leather industries have grown vigorously. When it is not properly treated, waste from slaughterhouses and tanneries—rich in organic matter, heavy metals and caustic solutions—is highly polluting without appropriate treatment.

SOIL DEGRADATION​

Livestock farming is one of the main contributors to soil erosion around the world. Turning forests into pasture and overgrazing, or using marginal lands to grow feed, can lead to extreme loss of topsoil and organic matter that may take decades or centuries to replace.

CLIMATE CHANGE​

Beef production has a considerable effect on climate change due to emissions of greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide. Research shows that ruminant livestock account for between 7% and 18% of global methane emissions from human-related activities.

https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/beef

Why Is Cattle Farming Bad for the Environment?​

Cattle farming is often romanticized as something essential for certain landscapes but the facts suggest otherwise. Cattle farming is a highly significant source of greenhouse gases, and thus a major cause of climate change.

Cattle farming has also often displaced local communities who have ensured more regenerative and balanced uses of land in their environments. It causes air and water pollution. The industry also treats living beings as commodities and shows little consideration for their welfare. Finally, cattle farming depends on clearing the land of forests, which is the habitat of many animals, thus threatening biodiversity.

Dirty Water​

A cow produces anywhere from 12 kilograms of manure per day for a baby cow to 62 kilograms per day and up for dairy cows. Cattle waste contains a lot of nitrogen, which can contaminate water sources around farms over time. Nitrate contamination from a cattle farm infiltrated most of the wells in the Central Sands region of Wisconsin in just four years, forcing many people to relocate.

Overuse of Antibiotics​

The easiest way for cattle farms to ensure the good health of animals is by feeding them antibiotics. However, this has a detrimental impact on the environment. The antibiotics may boost methane production in cattle, meaning the release of more of the powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Antibiotic overuse has a more obviously devastating unintended consequence for humans too, leading to the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

Inhumane Animal Care​

At the very least, “humane” behavior implies that one shows compassion and respect for the individuality and existence of another being. This implies that if someone does not consent to their bodies being used to earn profits in the market, then that choice should be respected. We are one among a billion species that together are important for the planet to thrive.

However, nothing that happens on a cattle farm matches this description of being humane. Right from birth, cattle are segregated according to their commercial use. The lactating cows are assigned to spend the rest of their lives being hooked up to machines that suck out their milk, the calves are either bred to become milk producers or are killed for meat, leather and other purposes, while bulls are bred to extract their semen or fattened up for beef.

Throughout this process, the calves get little to no access to the milk meant for them. Cattle born with horns are dehorned, which is a painful process that targets many nerve endings. They are sometimes kicked and beaten.

Global Warming​

Global warming is one of the clearest aspects of climate change. Temperatures rise as greenhouse gas emissions increase and heat is trapped in the atmosphere. Methane and nitrous oxide are among the most powerful greenhouse gases over a period of decades, and animal agriculture is a leading source of these emissions. Beef and dairy cattle, in particular, are responsible for the release of these gases because of enteric fermentation during digestion. This means that the process that cattle undergo to break their food into soluble components builds up a lot of methane.

Grass-fed cattle are often considered to be a sustainable solution for global warming. However, not only do they release emissions, but they also use a lot of land and run the risk of overgrazing.

Cattle Farming Facts and Statistics​

The world has 1.49 billion cattle being used to produce different commodities. From these cattle, humans take 841.84 million tonnes of milk per year, and 71.61 million tonnes of beef. Beef, soy, and palm oil account for 60 percent of tropical deforestation. Soy production is not primarily driven by plant-based milk, but beef and dairy production, since soy forms a major component of cattle feed.

When we look at land use, agriculture takes up almost half of the world’s habitable land, and 77 percent of this land is not even being used to grow crops for human consumption, but the grazing and feed of farmed animals, including cattle.

https://sentientmedia.org/cattle-farming/

 

[Natural Order]

Yeah, the guy who thinks we shouldn't exterminate mother nature and cover our planet in mother nature death factories, is the one who thinks quite poorly of her.

When you don't understand Mother Nature has been destroying herself long before humans ever wandered out of the fray....I think you're aware of the number of species that have existed.

Your anger at the unfairness is palpable. Your extremism and hyperbole is unbecoming.

 

[StonedLemur]

Tyson Foods dumps 87BILLION gallons of toxic waste scientists reveal

But the study by the Union of Concerned Scientists looked at just two percent of meat processing plants nationwide leaving the total figure terrifyingly uncertain.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Tyson Foods dumps 87BILLION gallons of toxic waste including cyanide, blood and feces into US rivers and lakes- enough to fill 132,000 Olympic-size pools​

The chemicals have been linked with cancer, blood disorders, thyroid disease and brain defects in children

The sheer scale of the poison flowing into the country's rivers and waterways is starting to emerge after scientists took a look at one of America's biggest meat processors.

Tyson Foods released 87 billion gallons contaminated with cancer-causing cyanide, nitrates, chloride, phosphorous and oil directly from 41 plants into public waters across 17 states between 2018 and 2022.

The toxic water would cover 165 square kilometers to a depth of two meters and fill three Olympic-sized swimming pools every hour.

But the study by the Union of Concerned Scientists looked at just two percent of meat processing plants nationwide leaving the total figure terrifyingly uncertain.

The report's authors slam feeble federal regulation and state houses in the pocket of a 'Big Ag' which can pollute with impunity.

'As a multibillion-dollar company, Tyson can treat even hefty fines and penalties for polluting the environment as simply the cost of conducting business its way,' they wrote. 'This has to change.'

'There are over 5,000 meat and poultry processing plants in the United States, but only a fraction are required to report pollution and abide by limits.'

Agriculture consumes more fresh water than any other human activity, and meat processors use nearly a third of that, leaving it awash with toxic chemicals, blood, feces, micro-organisms and pathogens including E. Coli and Enterococcus.

WATER POLLUTANTS DISCHARGED FROM 41 TYSON PLANTS: 2018 TO 2022
POLLUTANT TOTAL DISCHARGE (lbs)
CHLORIDE138,073,780
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS82,506,383
SULFATE 40,263,163
NITROGEN 34,248,180
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 27,644,162
BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (MICRO-ORGANISMS)15,242,691
CHLORIDES AND SULFATES 13,460,291
SODIUM 7,564,800
PHOSPHOROUS 5,061,259
OIL AND GREASE 3,951,391
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 2,439,085
CARBONACEOUS 1,041,834
FLUORIDE 76,127
ALUMINUM 57,476
IRON 41,768
BORON 31,759
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE 8,548
ZINC 5,300
COPPER 1,031
BARIUM 799
FOAMING AGENTS 770
MANGANESE 749
CYANIDE 510
HYDROCARBON 364
TOTAL PHENOLS 165
SELENIUM 164
NICKEL 161
CHROMIUM 73
SILVER 15
MERCURY 0.01
ALL POLLUTANTS 371,722,803

Fifteen states suffer drinking water with higher than permitted levels of nitrates which lead to blood disorders and brain defects in infants, and have been estimated to cause up to 300 cases of cancer a year in Iowa alone.

Half of the contaminants found in the study were dumped into the waters of Missouri, Illinois and Nebraska, including 8,000 tons from Tyson's biggest plant at Dakota City, just 500 feet from the Missouri river.

'This Tyson plant helped put me through college and supports a lot of migrant workers,' Rogelio Rodriguez of Conservation Nebraska told the Guardian.

'But there's a dark side like the water and air pollution that most people don't pay attention to because they're just trying to survive.

'If regulations are lax, corporations have a tendency to push limits to maximize profits, we learnt that during Covid.'

Tyson is poisoning people's water supply and causing health problems.

I don't expect anything to be done about this because it is a multibillion-dollar company.

They'll get a 10 million dollar fine and the government won't do shit about it sir.

 

[emefer]

Most fast food chains have something about the chicken that makes it unique. For instance, KFC has its secret signature spice blend, and McDonald's uses celery salt to give McNuggets its signature taste. But regardless of how different the end products taste from one another, most of these restaurant chains are actually using the same chicken, provided by the same company.

As it turns out, the very same Tyson Foods that manufactures our favorite dinosaur nuggets also manufactures chicken products for chains like Taco Bell, KFC, McDonald's, Burger King, Popeyes, and Chick-fil-A. So, you're really kind of eating the same chicken no matter which fast food restaurant you choose to visit for dinner.

Read More: https://www.mashed.com/1386211/company-provides-chicken-fast-food-tyson/

 

[Mr Holmes]

Most fast food chains have something about the chicken that makes it unique. For instance, KFC has its secret signature spice blend, and McDonald's uses celery salt to give McNuggets its signature taste. But regardless of how different the end products taste from one another, most of these restaurant chains are actually using the same chicken, provided by the same company.

As it turns out, the very same Tyson Foods that manufactures our favorite dinosaur nuggets also manufactures chicken products for chains like Taco Bell, KFC, McDonald's, Burger King, Popeyes, and Chick-fil-A. So, you're really kind of eating the same chicken no matter which fast food restaurant you choose to visit for dinner.

Read More: https://www.mashed.com/1386211/company-provides-chicken-fast-food-tyson/

Its best to avoid all of that factory farmed bullshit.

 

[Seano]

All those years of dumping shit in the bay contributed to providing an imbalance in the water, causing the green water.

No, it was actually the dredging to allow more pleasure ships into the bay. The industry has been gone n the town for decades.

edit- not saying I'm pro dumping waste into the water, it was more a nostalgic observation.

 

[Deorum]

I don't eat living creatures that I love.

You say that I'm "black pilled" and then you just reinforce why that is. You are not abnormal in this regard. You are indicative of 99% of humanity - you will not inconvenience yourself or change your habits one iota for the betterment and prosperity of others. People like you are why I'm black-pilled. Our species is going to go extinct, and we're going to take most of the life on this planet with us because deep-down, we're all soulless, greedy, selfish, murderous little monkeys that only care about short-term pleasure.

I mean, I don't eat bucking bulls. They rightly live like kings with ample opportunities to dole out cartoonish punishment to humans in vengeance for their castrated counterpart brethren. I live better, more comfortable, and more happily than 99.9% of humans to ever exist on this planet. It is completely abnormal, and the privilege isn't lost on me. In the aggregate, my consumption and carbon footprint are really a fraction of their potential; my vice is grass-fed beef.

The misanthropy is strong with this one!

You think quite poorly of Mother Nature.

"Our Species Is Going Extinct!!!"

Also:

human beings are greedy and selfish to their core. deep-down, we're all soulless, greedy, selfish, murderous little monkeys.

 

[spamking]

It really isn't though. Something is either sustainable or it is not. Either a certain practice, at a certain scale, can be maintained indefinitely, or it cannot be. At current meat consumption levels, you would need multiple planet earths for it to be sustainable. Once you factor in trends like population growth and rising meat/beef consumption - yeah this shit isn't even remotely sustainable my guy.

I mean, I guess, sure? In the same way that McDonald's is responsible for more heart attacks than a singular McDonald's location. The Tysons of the world are causing far more issues than some feedlot in texas, because the Tysons of the world own that feedlot in texas, and many many others.

Sustainable farming exists. Sustainable ranching exists. Every farm/ranch isn't a Tyson's feed lot. A 500-acre ranch has nowhere near the environmental impact a feedlot does. Anything NOT a feedlot can be and is often sustainable. That was the point.

I'm aware that different types of land can sustain different volumes of livestock -_- it isn't that complex. I was just pointing out the total magnitude of land that is required to make all of that shit happen. A land mass the size of Africa, is emitting GHGs instead of absorbing GHGs. A land mass the size of Africa, is being used to "produce" food at a ratio of 25 calories in for every 1 calorie you get out, which creates food scarcity around the world.

And I'm pointing out that this land mass you're harping on isn't wall-to-wall cattle emitting GHGs.

This isn't out of any sort of beneficence from cattle ranchers. This is because capitalism necessitates this higher degree of control over inputs and outputs in order to maximize profits.

So that makes it useless and not beneficial?

I don't think anything you've mentioned here is done at any kind of scale.

Based on what?

Do you think every cattle ranch is mismanaged to the point nothing benefits the local land/environment at all?

You can continue to make appeals to the very best case scenarios where "mom and pop" cattle ranchers do all these nice little sustainability practices and damage mitigation efforts. But the reality is that those things are not and will not be done at any kind of scale.

If I'm making appeals to best-case scenarios involving actual real-life ranching operations you're equating every ranch to a large feedlot with zero grass or benefit to the local environment.

Capitalism necessitates that you maximize profits and minimize costs. Everything you're talking about is costly and will not be done at scale to feed a majority of the population.

You've discovered this to be the case in all your travels where you've thoughtfully investigated ranching practices around the country?

Yeah - isn't it weird how the environment can naturally sustain life? Then it no longer can after we get done with it? Do I really need to point out the differences between mega-herds of Buffalo grazing around the vast, open and unrestricted American prairie vs jamming tons of animals onto one plot of land? Do you really think those two things are comparable?

I figured you'd take this route as part of your response . . . earlier you claimed to understand how various parcels of land support different numbers of animals. But yet you don't understand how vast in size the ranches are where those buffalo roamed? And you think that it's comparable to lump in a feedlot to one of those ranches but have an issue with a large ranch in Montana in the 10s of 1000s of acres today being compared to that same land supporting 1000s of buffalo a 100 years ago?

What I pointed out to you is just what happens with cattle ranching. It has nothing to do with cattle ranchers going scorched earth. Dude, wtf are you talking about? Are you literally just completely ignorant as to what happens to biotic diversity on a plot of land from cattle ranching?

Really? You're saying every cattle ranch destroys a plot of land and offers no benefits.

First - the land has to be clear cut and plowed.

No it doesn't. Native grasslands exist on ranches all over the country without the need to remove trees or plow up land. Buying a piece of land for a cattle ranch doesn't mean that every inch is going to be clear-cut. Sure, there will be underbrush that gets removed to allow for better vegetation growth.

Where do all of the animals go that were living there? What happens to the soil after you've stripped the grass off and dumped feces onto it for years?? Do I really need to post a picture of a natural grassland vs a cattle ranch and include little picture graphics like a children's schoolbook that points out the biological characteristics and changes that occur from cattle ranching?

Holy smokes . . . take your superiority and shove it. All cattle ranchers aren't stripping grass off their land and dumping feces onto it. You're once again lumping commercial feedlots and cattle ranches into the same category. Maybe I need to post a picture of an actual cattle ranch and a feedlot so you can see the differences.

Animal agriculture is in and of itself going "scorched earth" on land. That's what I'm trying to get through to you. Are you really completely unaware of the atomic bomb that animal agriculture has dropped on biological diversity? There is a huuuuge amount of scholarship available for you to read on the topic if you'd like to know more about it.

I don't need you to get anything through to me . . . I know the difference between a commercial feedlot and a cattle ranch. I know the difference between a dairy operation and a cattle ranch. You're trying to push the idea that all three have the same impact on the environment.

Maybe I do need to create a kid's picture book to explain this as you seem to think that buffalo living on the vast American prairie pre-colonization can be compared to keeping animals on feedlots? You seem to have no understanding of the cycles and processes of nature and the environment and how what we do completely fucks that up.

That comparison was only made in your head . . . but do go ahead and continue to talk down to me.

I would again just reference what I said previously. You keep mentioning the best-case scenario, when I'm talking about what's actually done at scale to produce the majority of the meat for the majority of people that eat it. Your best-case scenarios aren't done at scale because of the costs.

I mention very common scenarios. You're putting feedlots and ranches in the same category when they're vastly different.

Yes, it is pretty shocking that the American taxpayer is giving/has given billions and billions of dollars to subsidize the profits of an industry that is going to drive the taxpayer's species extinct. It's like a sick, twisted, Lovecraftian cosmic horror-comedy. Imagine a planet that is completely covered in death factories that industrially slaughters tens of billions of living creatures every year. Imagine that it's been scientifically confirmed that this practice is going to drive the life on that planet extinct. Then just imagine, the "intelligent" and "dominant" species of that planet is actually paying a part of their individual salaries/wages to hasten their own extinction with this practice. It's really, really fucking sick.

I say again . . . wow.

 

[spamking]

Yeah, the guy who thinks we shouldn't exterminate mother nature and cover our planet in mother nature death factories, is the one who thinks quite poorly of her.

Wait . . . you think we have feedlots, chicken farms, and pig farms to the extent that we're covering the planet with them?

 

[jefferz]

No, it was actually the dredging to allow more pleasure ships into the bay. The industry has been gone n the town for decades.

edit- not saying I'm pro dumping waste into the water, it was more a nostalgic observation.

What do you think happens when there’s years of pollution that gets disturbed by something, let’s say a dredge.

 

[Seano]

What do you think happens when there’s years of pollution that gets disturbed by something, let’s say a dredge.

I'm not convinced that dumping chicken feet and heads in the bay 35 years ago is why it looks dirty now.