

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Mark Kastel, 608-625-2042
Passions flared at the semiannual meeting of the USDA's National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), last week in Albuquerque, New Mexico, as the federal advisory panel approved a number of synthetic ingredients for use in organics, over the objection of the majority of industry participants.
The meeting came on the heels of the release of a report by an organic industry watchdog, The Cornucopia Institute, outlining corrupt practices in the constitution of the board and their past approval processes. The NOSB, created by Congress, is legally mandated to ensure that no substances are allowed in organic foods that pose a threat to human health or the environment.
The most controversial material approved at the meeting was carrageenan, a stabilizer and thickener synthesized from seaweed. Carrageenan has been shown to trigger gastrointestinal inflammation, which is known to cause serious intestinal disease, including cancer. "Degraded carrageenan," which is present in all food-grade carrageenan, is classified as a "possible human carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Academy of Science in United States.
"If there was ever a poster child for an ingredient that has no business being in organic food, or any food for that matter, it's carrageenan," said Charlotte Vallaeys, Director of Farm and Food Policy at Cornucopia.
In their report, The Organic Watergate, issued earlier in May, Cornucopia documented what they called "systemic corruption" at the USDA that resulted in what was characterized as biased technical reviews and approvals of synthetics for use in organics. Their findings illustrated that the materials were being evaluated by food scientists working directly for corporate agribusiness and then approved by a body (the NOSB) illegally stacked with agribusiness representatives.
"The beauty of the law that was passed by Congress, the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), was that the majority of 15 NOSB seats were reserved for farmers, consumer advocates, environmentalists and others public interest representatives as a balance to corporate power," said Mark Kastel, The Cornucopia Institute's Codirector. "The law has been ignored and the organic chickens are now coming home to roost--undermining the integrity of the organic label."
"The Organic Trade Association (OTA), an industry lobby group, and its powerful members, can now get approval for virtually anything they want. It has turned the entire regulatory process into a mockery," Kastel added.
The Cornucopia Institute, which is preparing to challenge the inappropriate board composition in federal court, also just filed a formal complaint with the USDA's Office of Inspector General (OIG), Ms. Phyllis Fong, asking her to investigate the organization's allegations.
In their complaint, they used NOSB member Carmela Beck as an example. Ms. Beck was appointed by USDA Sectary Tom Vilsack to serve on one of the seats reserved for an individual who "owns or operates" an organic farm. Ms. Beck neither owns nor operates an organic farm, but is a full-time employee of a giant privately-owned agribusiness, Driscolls, the largest conventional and organic berry producer in the United States.
"This is a clear-cut violation of OFPA, in which Congress charged the USDA with protecting organic stakeholders and consumers," explained Kastel.
Cornucopia's letter to the OIG also cited direct conflicts of interest on the board that should have caused certain members to recuse themselves from voting on carrageenan's relisting on the National List of approved substances in organics.
Ms. Wendy Fulwider, a full-time employee at the CROPP Cooperative (Organic Valley) and a NOSB member, appropriately disclosed a conflict of interest. Organic Valley had sent a representative to publicly lobby the board to approve carrageenan, citing Organic Valley's use of the material in soymilk, whipping cream and chocolate milk. In addition, NOSB members reported direct contact from Organic Valley's CEO, who had called them individually to lobby for their vote. And Organic Valley submitted written comments in advance of the meeting advocating that the board vote for the synthetic material.
However, the staff at the USDA's National Organic Program ruled that Ms. Fulwider's disclosure did not constitute a conflict of interest that required her to abstain from voting.
"If the direct economic impact of this vote on Organic Valley, and their covert and overt lobbying for carrageenan, does not constitute a conflict of interest, then nothing presented to this board will ever disqualify a member from voting," lamented Cornucopia's Kastel. "The fix is in."
At the meeting, Michael Potter, CEO of Clinton, Michigan based Eden Foods, illustrated that companies do not need to sacrifice foundational organic values in order to compete in the $30+ billion industry. Potter, whose company is a respected and leading producer of diversified organic groceries, pleaded with the NOSB to act as a "gatekeeper" for the authenticity of organic food. He asked the board to employ the "Precautionary Principle" and to "always be certain that what they do is appropriate for organic food."
Potter, who started his oral testimony by stating for the record that Eden Foods is not a member of the Organic Trade Association, told the board, "Organic food is supposed to be an alternative to industrialized food" and that he objects to "the greenwashing for more, easy, and cheap to produce, quasi-organic food." He then poignantly asked the Board: "Should organic food be better for large corporations, or better for the people?"
After learning about the scientific research pointing to carrageenan's serious human health impacts, Potter committed to removing carrageenan from the handful of Eden Foods products that currently contain it. This is in stark contrast to other companies, like Dean Foods (Horizon and Silk), Organic Valley, and Dannon (Stonyfield), which all sent representatives to the NOSB meeting to lobby for carrageenan's approval in organics.
In addition to carrageenan, the board approved synthetic inositol and choline, two nutraceuticals, for use in all infant formula. This was a controversial decision as well, since the FDA only requires that these synthetic nutrients be added to soy-based infant formula.
"These nutrients are found naturally in dairy-based formula and many foods. It's a risky gimmick to add their synthetic version to organic foods, which is the last refuge for parents seeking to avoid chemical additives and give truly natural food to their infants and children," said Cornucopia's Vallaeys.
The Cornucopia Institute has taken the official position that the NOSB, which is not a scientific panel, should leave decisions about required food fortification with synthetic nutrients to the FDA. At last fall's meeting, the NOSB approved the use of the controversial synthetic ingredients DHA and ARA, patented by Royal DSM/Martek Biosciences Corporation, for use in formula and other organic foods. Neither are recommended or required by the FDA.
"The organic regulations allow any nutrient required by the FDA to be added to organic food. The NOSB should not be listening to lobbyists from pharmaceutical companies and trade groups like the International Formula Council. They should leave scientifically based decisions about the essentiality of synthetic nutrients to the FDA," said Vallaeys.
"The decision to relist carrageenan, and to allow the synthetic nutrients choline and inositol for infant formula, prevailed by one vote," Kastel observed. "There is no doubt that if the board were legally constituted, with truly independent members instead of corporate imposters, the decisions would be radically different and the true values of the organic movement would be upheld."
While The Cornucopia Institute remains bullish on the organic label, it has published a series of studies and scorecards rating organic brands, to address the shortcuts some corporations are applying to organic production. These reports and scorecards empower consumers and wholesale buyers to make informed purchasing decisions. They can be found on the Cornucopia website.
"There is currently no alternative for consumers, who are seeking safe and nutritious food, other than direct, local marketing by farmers," concluded Kastel. "Despite the corporate take-over of organics, dedicated organic customers are not going to go back to conventional food. There are just a few of the 300 or so synthetic and non-organic ingredients approved for use in organic food that are questionable--and we are going to work like hell to get them out. But in conventional food, there are thousands of highly toxic inputs, and there's no doubt about the danger of many of these compounds."
"The integrity of organic farming and food production," noted Kastel, "is worth caring about."
The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit farm policy research group, is dedicated to the fight for economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Their Organic Integrity Project acts as a corporate and governmental watchdog assuring that no compromises to the credibility of organic farming methods and the food it produces are made in the pursuit of profit.
"The case for windfall taxes has never been clearer," said 350.org's chief executive.
An analysis released Monday estimates that oil and gas price spikes driven by the US-Israeli war on Iran have so far cost consumers and businesses around the world over $100 billion—money that has flowed into the coffers of some of the wealthiest, most powerful fossil fuel companies on the planet.
The new analysis by 350.org finds that, just over a month into the war, consumers and businesses have lost between $104.2 billion and $111.6 billion to rising oil and gas prices—an estimate that the environmental group acknowledges is likely conservative, given it doesn't account for "wider knock-on effects, such as rising fertiliser and food costs, declines in economic output and employment, or broader inflation driven by fossil fuel price volatility. "
The more than $100 billion, 350.org said, "has been siphoned from ordinary people to oil and gas companies."
“On top of the incalculable suffering of families and communities torn apart by the war, ordinary people around the world are paying an extraordinary price through fossil fuel-driven energy spikes," said Anne Jellema, 350.org's chief executive. "Over $100 billion has gone straight into the pockets of fossil fuel companies, while families struggle to afford energy and basic necessities."
"The case for windfall taxes," Jellema added, "has never been clearer.”

The analysis was published as global oil prices rose again following a weekend missile attack on Israel by Yemen's Houthis and Trump's threat to "take the oil in Iran," signaling another potential escalation in a war that has already killed thousands, sparked an appalling humanitarian crisis, and destabilized the global economy.
One key beneficiary of the chaos is the fossil fuel industry, which is set to reap billions in windfall profits thanks to rising oil and gas prices. Reuters reported late last week that analysts covering Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil have significantly raised earnings estimates for the fossil fuel giants in response to war-fueled price surges.
"US shale producers and other companies without major operations in the Middle East should gain the most, benefiting from higher prices without costs associated with shut-in production, stranded tankers, or expensive repairs to war-hit facilities," Reuters noted. "Still, executives said the big profits will probably not boost their planned capital spending on new production."
Earlier this month, Democratic lawmakers in the US Congress introduced legislation that would impose a windfall profit tax on large American oil companies and return the money to consumers in the form of quarterly rebates. The bill stands no realistic chance of getting through the Republican-controlled Congress, which is awash in Big Oil campaign cash.
“American consumers are once again getting squeezed at the gas pump as President Trump’s war of choice in Iran sends gas prices soaring and money flowing to his Big Oil donors,” said US Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), the bill's lead sponsor in the Senate. “We should send any big windfall for Big Oil back to the hardworking people who paid for it at the gas pump."
The president's decision means the US "will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil," said one observer.
President Donald Trump said Sunday that his administration would let a Russia-owned tanker carrying an estimated 730,000 barrels of oil to reach Cuba, loosening the illegal fuel blockade that has intensified the island's already-grave humanitarian crisis.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said that "if a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem," backing off his previous threat to tariff any nation that supplied the besieged island with fuel. Cuba has not received any oil imports since January 9, sparking nationwide blackouts and food shortages and leaving hospitals without critical supplies—with deadly consequences for patients.
Trump insisted that the oil on the Russian tanker—which experts say is enough to buy Cuba at least several weeks of energy—is "not going to have an impact," declaring, "Cuba is finished."
"They have a bad regime, and they have very bad and corrupt leadership," added Trump, who presides over what analysts have deemed the most corrupt administration in US history. "Whether or not they get a boat of oil is not going to matter."
Reporter: There's a report that the US is going to let a Russian oil tanker go to Cuba?
Trump: If a country wants to send some oil into Cuba, I have no problem with that.
Reporter: Do you worry that that helps Putin?
Trump: It doesn’t help him. He loses one boatload of oil.… pic.twitter.com/8Vh6gHwaxs
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 30, 2026
Trump's comments came after The New York Times reported that, "barring orders instructing it otherwise," the US Coast Guard would not intercept the Russian tanker as it approached Cuba.
The Russian vessel, known as the Anatoly Kolodkin, is expected to reach the island by Monday night, providing some reprieve to a nation whose economy has been strangled by unlawful US economic warfare for decades. In recent days, an international convoy of activists has delivered tons of food, medicine, and other aid to the island, but the shipments are a Band-Aid on a gaping wound.
Michael Gallant, a member of the Progressive International Secretariat, welcomed news that the US is allowing the Russian tanker to reach Cuba as "very good news"—but said Trump's decision is hardly deserving of praise.
Very good news. “The US will allow,” of course, means “will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil” https://t.co/YF2RRIXC2S
— Michael Galant (@michael_galant) March 29, 2026
Trump imposed the fuel blockade in January, absurdly characterizing Cuba as an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to US national security.
Earlier this month, Trump threatened to "take" Cuba by force, calling it a "very weakened nation." Trump's remarks prompted Cuba's president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, to vow "impregnable resistance" to any US attempt to seize the island. The Trump administration is reportedly seeking Díaz-Canel's removal as a necessary condition in talks with the Cuban government.
Trump's threats led Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) to introduce legislation last week that would prohibit the administration from using federal funds for any attack on Cuba without congressional authorization.
"Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba," Jayapal said in a statement. "These military attacks put our troops in danger, endanger innocent civilians, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and are not what the American people want."
"Trump promised to end forever wars—he lied," Jayapal added. "Congress alone has the power to declare war, something Trump clearly does not respect. He has no plan to improve conditions for the Cuban people or promote democracy, and we must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.