Could New EPA Rule Bankrupt Small Meat Processing Facilities?

based on Dr. Robert Malone, the U. S. The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) has adopted a new rule that will entitle thousands of meat processing facilities to its authority. The agency’s overreach is through the ‘Clean Water Act. ’The EPA claims the proposed rule will improve water quality, protect animal health, and protect the environment. But, critics say the regulation will put little processing facilities out of business. Per the Federal Register:The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA or the Agency ) is proposing a regulation to revise the technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards ( ELGs ) for the meat and poultry products ( MPP ) point source category. By reducing the discharge of nutrients and other pollutants into the nation’s surface waters, the proposed rule would improve water quality and safeguard both human health and the environment. The chosen option discussed in this notice is one of several regulation options that EPA is proposing. The preferred option is estimated to cost$ 232 million annually and reduce pollutant discharges by about 100 million pounds annually. Malone states the proposed regulation will bring 3,879 meat and poultry products ( MPP ) processing facilities under the agency’s jurisdiction. This was quickly followed by a condensed comment period that ended on March 25, 2024, and therefore the rule change’s fast application. All determined by the presence of nitrogen and phosphorus in the wastewater from animal meat processing, which is consistent with the WEF’s goal to reduce nitrogen runoff from Western farms, which has sparked the common farmer protests in the European Union, ” Malone writes. “EPA Threatens Locally Produced Beef,”
Mission Creep: Presented EPA Rule Shuts Down Small Meat Producers”
Follow the link in the comments for the article: pic. twitter. com/ealSGVe6jK— Robert W Malone, MD ( @RWMaloneMD) April 8, 2024 “Small facilities will either shut down, resulting in fewer local meat sources for consumers. Or they’ll sell out larger corporations, contributing to even greater consolidation in the meat industry, ” The Defender reports. Tracey Barton, Kansas Natural Resource Coalition’s executive director, spoke to the outlet about the impact of the EPA’s rule. According to the proposed EPA rule, meat processing facilities will need pricey upgrades. The anticipated cost is$ 300,000-$ 400,000 for the initial upgrade with annual maintenance fees of$ 100,000. Some small meat processors in Kansas are able to pay these costs and will be forced to shut down their operations. For the facilities that are able to sustain the increase in capital, the costs will be passed onto farmers/ranchers as well as consumers, driving meat prices, which are at an all-time high, even higher, ” Barton explained. Per The Defender :Margaret Byfield, executive director of American Stewards of Liberty, said, “ What is very concerning to us is that in the rule, they have several alternatives … The most extreme of these would apply to, by their own numbers, around 3,700 meat processors. But, that ’s going to capture your tiny local meat processor. ”According to American Stewards of Liberty, the EPA’s present rule, enacted in 1974 and next amended in 2004, applies only to “approximately 150 of the 5,055” little processors in the U. S. Byfield claimed that the regulation will cause little meat processors to shut down and cause more concentration in the meat industry. It is taking away Americans ’ ability to choose if they want to buy their food locally. ” And you probably know that there is a big movement of people right now that they are concerned about the consolidation of food in America, with only four major meat processors, the large ones. An estimated 910 million pounds of protein are expected to be removed from the United States, according to Barton. S. food supply if the rule change is implemented as intended. Farmers and ranchers are also subject to indirect negative effects, including limiting access to local meat processors, restricting local consumers ‘ purchases, and requiring herd reduction or liquidation. ”“It’s been reported that the initial cost to install a water filtration system bringing them into compliance be$ 300,000-400,000 with a minimum of$ 100,000 annual maintenance. This would cause a number of smaller, rural meat processing facilities to shut their doors, Malone writes. For meat processing facilities, expensive upgrades will be required by the proposed EPA rule. The anticipated cost is$ 300,000-$ 400,000 for the initial upgrade with annual maintenance fees of$ 100,000. https ://t. co/IRfGcdqtri— Sasquatch School ( @OregonSwineherd ) April 21, 2024Malone noted the regulation is a direct attack on the buy local foods movement, explaining local meat producers would likely no longer have a nearby facility to process meat. As a result, local meat producers would n’t be able to provide their products directly to customers. The EPA slammed right away on March 25, 2024 as a finalized version of its devastating new interpretation of the Clean Water Act, which it has titled” Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category, ” demonstrating that the “comment period ” was mere window dressing to meet formal federal comment requirements. This is a clear example of violent, arbitrary, and capricious EPA regulation overreach, which is directly comparable to West Virginia v. West Virginia’s recent Supreme Court decision. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U. S. 697 ( 2022 ), a landmark decision of the U. S. Supreme Court regarding the Clean Air Act and the ability of the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions in response to climate change. After months of research and testing to find bacteria, viruses, etc., the EPA discovered Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the wastewater of processing facilities. Two of the fundamental elements which all living things are composed of ( Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus ). The EPA has therefore recommended that the entire meat industry, from beef to poultry, marinas to packaging, must now retrofit existing facilities with lagoons and biomass dissipates to convert “nutrients ” into C02 and methane to stop these “pollutants ” from entering local water supplies. The EPA anticipates that these new regulations will at least lead to the closure of 16 processing plants across the nation at a time when our nation’s meat producers are now having trouble surviving as a result of bottlenecks in USDA licensed facilities. But, on the high side EPA estimates include an impact range of up to 845 processing facilities. This is an illustration of the government selecting winners and losers. The losers are farmers/ranchers and modest meat processors who cannot afford to comply with the capital investment to meet the EPA standards, ” Barton said, according to The Defender. It’s up to anxious Americans to spread the word about the overreach of the national government, despite the legislation that has been proposed to stop the rule. The Defender explained :Byfield said that a proposed congressional bill, H. R. 7079, also known as the “Beef Act, ” would “stop this rule, ” urging the public to call their local congressional representatives. “Additionally, we believe there is going to be an effort to defund the rule through the appropriations process, ” Byfield added. Consumers must step off and voice their opposition to these oppressive government policies, Vlieger said. Little farmers have a smaller population, and their voices do not carry the weight that various consumer groups do. ”“More than ever, it is crucially important to know your farmer and know your food, ” Vlieger said. [[{“value”:”

Dr. Robert Malone claims that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has implemented a rule which will bring thousands meat processing plants under its jurisdiction. The EPA’s overreach can be traced to the ‘Clean Water Act’. The EPA claims that the proposed rule will improve the water quality, protect human and environmental health. Critics claim that the regulation will force small processing plants out of business. According to the Federal Register, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a rule to revise technology-based effluent limitation guidelines and standards (ELGs), for the meat and chicken products (MPP) category point source. The proposed rule would improve the water quality, protect human health and the environmental by reducing the discharges of nutrients and other pollutants into the nation’s surface water. EPA proposes several regulatory options including the preferred option described in this notice. The preferred option will cost approximately $232 million per year and reduce pollutant emissions by about 100 million pounds each year. Malone says the proposed regulation would bring 3,879 facilities that process meat and poultry products under the agency’s jurisdiction. “This was quickly followed by a short comment period that closed on March 25, 2020, and then the immediate implementation of rule change. “All justified by wastewater levels containing Nitrogen and Phosphorus from animal meat processing. This mirrors the WEF agenda of minimizing Nitrogen runoff on European farms, which has sparked widespread farmer protests across the European Union,” Malone wrote. “EPA Threatens locally Produced BeefMission Creep – Proposed EPA rule shuts down small meat producers”

Follow the link in the comments for the article: pic.twitter.com/ealSGVe6jK — Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) April 8, 2024 “Small facilities will either shut down, resulting in fewer local meat sources for consumers. The Defender reports that they will either sell out to larger corporations, resulting in even more consolidation of the meat industry. Tracey Barton spoke to the outlet regarding the impact of the EPA rule. The proposed EPA rule would require expensive upgrades for meat-processing facilities. The initial upgrade is expected to cost $300,000 – $400,000. Annual maintenance fees are $100,000. Many small meat processors in Kansas are unable to afford these costs, and will have to close their doors. Barton explained that the cost of the capital increase will be passed on to farmers/ranchers and consumers. This will drive meat prices even higher, which are already at an all-time record high. Margaret Byfield, executive of American Stewards of Liberty told The Defender that “what is very concerning to our organization is that they have several alternative options in the rule. The most extreme of them would apply, by their numbers, to around 3,700 meat processing companies.” This means that your local meat processor will be affected. According to American Stewards of Liberty’s executive director Margaret Byfield, the EPA rule, enacted by the EPA in 1974 and amended in 2004, only applies to “approximately” 150 of the 5,055 small processors operating in the U.S. It takes away Americans’ choice to buy local food. Barton said that if the rule changes are implemented as written, 910 million pounds (or a third of the U.S.’s food supply) of protein will be removed. There are indirect negative effects for farmers and ranchers, including limiting access to local processors, limiting the ability to sell locally and requiring herd liquidation or reduction. Malone writes that this would force many small food processing facilities to close their doors. The proposed EPA rule requires expensive upgrades for meat-processing facilities. The anticipated cost is $300,000-$400,000 for the initial upgrade with annual maintenance fees of $100,000.https://t.co/IRfGcdqtri — Sasquatch School (@OregonSwineherd) April 21, 2024 Malone noted the regulation is a direct attack on the buy local foods movement, explaining local meat producers would likely no longer have a nearby facility to process meat. Local meat producers would not be able to sell their products directly to consumers. Robert Malone writes that the EPA’s “comment period” is merely a window dressing for meeting formal federal comments requirements. On March 25, 2024, the EPA rushed through a finalized copy of its devastating interpretation of the Clean Water Act. This is directly analogous to West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (597 U.S. 697) – a landmark Supreme Court decision relating to the Clean Air Act and the extent to EPA can regulate carbon dioxide emission related to climate changes. The EPA claims that after months of testing and studying to find bacteria, viruses, etc., they found Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the wastewater from processing facilities. All living things are made up of two of the five fundamental elements (Carbon, Hydrogen Nitrogen Oxygen Phosphorus). The EPA has therefore decided that all meat processing facilities, from slaughtering to poultry, marinas, to packaging, must retrofit their current facilities with biomass dissipates and lagoons to convert “nutrients” to C02 and methane to prevent these “pollutants”, from entering local water sources. The EPA expects that these new rules will result in the closing of 16 processing plants across the country. This is at a time where our country’s producers are already struggling due to bottlenecks at USDA certified facilities. On the high end, EPA estimates could have an impact of up to 845 facilities. “This is a prime example of government picking winners and losing. Barton told The Defender that the losers were farmers/ranchers, and small meat processors because they could not afford the capital investment required to meet EPA standards. It is up to the concerned Americans to spread awareness of the federal government’s overreach. There is proposed legislation that would stop the rule. The Defender explained that Byfield stated that a proposed federal bill, H.R.7079 (also known as the “Beef Act”) would “stop this regulation” and urged the public to contact their local congressional representatives. Byfield said, “We also believe that there will be an attempt to defund the regulation through the appropriations processes.” Vlieger said that consumers need to speak out and protest against these draconian actions by the government. “The number and influence of small farmers are small. Their voice is not as powerful as that of consumer groups.”

“}]]