Farmers should not carry blame for Wye pollution, lawyers argue

Environment lawyers representing thousands of residents have hit back at claims farmers are responsible for pollution in the River Wye, arguing accountability should lie with large-scale poultry producers instead.

The legal team at Leigh Day, acting for residents across the Wye catchment, criticised statements made by food giant Avara Foods, which said that “individual farmers are responsible for how nutrients are used in their arable operations”.

The High Court case, filed in autumn 2025, centres on pollution in the rivers Wye, Lugg and Usk — a long-running environmental issue that has raised national concern over water quality and intensive farming.

Residents say the pollution has damaged property values, harmed local businesses and reduced public enjoyment of the rivers.

Lawyers dispute Avara’s position, arguing it is not reasonable to expect individual farmers to be responsible for pollution across an entire river system spanning three counties.

Instead, the case claims responsibility rests with industrial-scale poultry production and the companies that profit from it.

The case comes amid wider debate over river pollution, with farmers often highlighting that multiple sources — including sewage discharges — contribute to water quality issues.

It is alleged that poultry operations linked to Avara Foods and its subsidiary Freemans of Newent have contributed to high levels of phosphorus entering waterways, driven by run-off from large volumes of chicken manure. This has been linked to environmentally damaging algal blooms.

More than 4,000 people have joined the legal action, which claims the companies exert significant control over their supply chains and the farms that supply them.

Lawyers say Avara’s response mirrors arguments previously used by its parent company, Cargill, in similar pollution cases in the United States — where courts have already found poultry companies liable for environmental damage.

In those cases, Cargill argued it “has neither the ability nor authority to control” how poultry waste is applied, and maintained that pollution was “not defendants’ conduct”.

However, a 2023 US ruling found companies were “vicariously liable for poultry waste causing phosphorus to physically invade” river systems, concluding that manure run-off had caused environmental damage and that firms had long been aware of the risks.

Commenting on the UK case, Leigh Day partner Oliver Holland said claimants “do not agree” with Avara’s position and reject the idea that individual farmers are responsible for widespread pollution.

He said the case argues responsibility lies with “industrial scale poultry production”, adding that while farming takes place locally, the scale and control of production must be considered.

Holland added that US rulings show companies within the same corporate group have been aware of the environmental impact for decades.

“The two rulings in the US indicate that members of this corporate group have known about the environmental impact of manure produced by intensive poultry units within river catchments since at least the 1980s,” he said.

“This claim aims to hold alleged polluters… to account for the damage caused.”

The case is ongoing, with potential implications for how environmental responsibility is assigned across the UK farming sector.