

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.
Katherine Paul
Email: katherine@organicconsumers.org
Phone: 207-653-3090
The million-strong Organic Consumers Association (OCA), North America's leading watchdog over organic and fair trade standards, said today that it is encouraged by Whole Foods Markets' plan, announced last week, to support consumers' right to know by requiring labeling of all foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in its U.S. and Canadian stores by 2018.
However, the OCA called on Whole Foods, the nation's largest national organic foods retailer, to move up its labeling deadline to July 2015, and to take the lead in the organic industry to end deceptive labeling practices by requiring all the stores' products that include the word "natural" in their labeling or packaging to be GMO-free.
"We are pleased that Whole Foods has finally recognized consumers' right to know about GMOs," said Ronnie Cummins, National Director of the OCA. "This is a major victory for U.S. consumers who have for far too long been denied basic information which would enable them to make safe, healthy food choices. This also represents a major defeat for Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry who have been deceiving consumers since they first conspired more than 20 years ago with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to uphold the myth that genetically engineered crops and food are "substantially equivalent" to non-GE crops and foods, that they are perfectly safe, and shouldn't require labels.
But the Whole Foods plan does not go far enough, Cummins said. "We ask that Whole Foods step up its timetable for GMO labeling, to coincide with the July 2015 deadline prescribed by I-522, the citizens' initiative for GMO labeling in Washington State. We also call on Whole Foods to stop selling products that contain GMOs under the misleading "natural" label, and to require any product in its store called "natural" be GMO-free."
Washington's I-522 is expected to pass in November 2013, becoming the first statewide mandatory GMO labeling law. The law establishes July 2015 as the deadline for compliance. Whole Foods Markets already complies with the U.K.'s mandatory GMO labeling law in its seven stores in that country.
Whole Foods came under fire last year when the company dragged its feet in supporting Proposition 37, California's Right to Know GMO Labeling citizens' initiative. In October, CEO John Mackey confirmed in a blog post that Whole Foods stores knowingly sell Monsanto's genetically modified corn, without labeling it.
Last week, the OCA launched a new nationwide campaign: Organic Retail and Consumer Alliance (ORCA). The new alliance will aggressively promote organic food and products, and expose and eliminate the rampant "natural" labeling and marketing fraud that has slowed the growth of America's $30-billion dollar organic sector.
"Routine mislabeling and marketing fraud has confused millions of U.S. consumers, and enabled the so-called "natural" foods and products sector to grow into a $60-billion- a-year powerhouse, garnering twice as many sales in 2012 as certified organic products," said Cummins. "It's time we stopped allowing food companies to market unhealthy food products, containing GMOs, pesticides, and synthetic and chemical compounds, as "natural," and we call on Whole Foods Market to take the first step."
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots 501(c)3 nonprofit public interest organization, and the only organization in the U.S. focused exclusively on promoting the views and interests of the nation's estimated 50 million consumers of organically and socially responsibly produced food and other products. OCA educates and advocates on behalf of organic consumers, engages consumers in marketplace pressure campaigns, and works to advance sound food and farming policy through grassroots lobbying. We address crucial issues around food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, children's health, corporate accountability, Fair Trade, environmental sustainability, including pesticide use, and other food- and agriculture-related topics.
"So much for Make America Healthy Again and saving Americans from addiction and suicide," said US Sen. Patty Murray.
The Trump administration, which has claimed its illegal boat bombing spree in international waters and assault on Venezuela were motivated by a deep desire to combat the drug overdose crisis in the US, moved late Tuesday to eliminate up to $2 billion worth of federal grants supporting mental health and addiction services across the country.
Organizations that provide street-level support to people experiencing mental health crises, homelessness, and addiction said they were notified of the cuts overnight in the form of emailed grant termination letters.
NPR first reported the cuts by the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), which is overseen by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The estimated $2 billion in cuts represents roughly a quarter of SAMHSA's budget.
Ryan Hampton, founder of the nonprofit Mobilize Recovery, told NPR that his group is out $500,000 because of the Trump administration's move, which could impact thousands of organizations nationwide.
"Waking up to nearly $2 billion in grant cancellations means front-line providers are forced to cease overdose prevention, naloxone distribution, and peer recovery services immediately, leaving our communities defenseless against a raging crisis," Hampton said. "This cruelty will be measured in lives lost, as recovery centers shutter and the safety net we built is slashed overnight. We are witnessing the dismantling of our recovery infrastructure in real-time, and the administration will have blood on its hands for every preventable death that follows."
Jonathan Cohn of The Bulwark reported that impacted organizations "had applied for these grants, had them approved, and were operating with the funds—and then, on Tuesday night, received notices that those grants had been terminated."
"The affected programs include ones that provide services like housing and peer support for people who are in recovery, as well as ones that train substance abuse professionals," Cohn observed.
Yngvild Olsen, a national adviser at Manatt Health and former director of SAMHA’s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, told Cohn that the cuts mean "tens of thousands of people" will "lose access to services" and many providers will "lose access to their training and technical assistance resources."
"These organizations are going to have to lay off staff," Olsen warned. "They don't have high margins and other sources of funding that they can necessarily turn to. I heard from one grantee that said she doesn't know how she's going to pay staff and bills.”
News outlets that reviewed the grant termination emails sent out late Tuesday reported that the administration characterized the funding as out of step with its priorities, even as the White House claims it is waging a righteous war on the drug overdose crisis.
"Every boat that we knock out, we save 25,000 American lives," President Donald Trump claimed, without evidence, during an October press conference. "So when you think of it that way, what we're doing is actually an act of kindness."
US Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in a statement Wednesday that, in light of the massive grant cuts to mental health and addiction-related grants, "this administration’s claims about taking on the opioid crisis couldn’t be more hollow."
“So much for Make America Healthy Again and saving Americans from addiction and suicide," said Murray. "This decision is going to mean real people in Washington state and every part of the country do not get the care and treatment they are counting on—and that could save their life. Republicans must join me in demanding these cuts be reversed.”
"We stand with our membership in protecting their voice on the job."
TJ Sabula, the Michigan auto worker who was suspended from his job at Ford after calling President Donald Trump a "pedophile protector," has the backing of the largest US auto union.
United Auto Workers (UAW) on Wednesday pledged to support Sabula, whom it described as "a proud member of a strong and fighting union," further noting that "he believes in freedom of speech, a principle we wholeheartedly embrace, and we stand with our membership in protecting their voice on the job."
UAW vowed that Sabula will receive "the full protection of all negotiated contract language safeguarding his job and his rights as a union member."
Sabula on Tuesday accused Trump of being a "pedophile protector"—in reference to the president's reluctance to release files related to the criminal investigation of late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein—while the president was visiting a Ford truck plant in Dearborn, Michigan.
Trump responded by giving Sabula the middle finger, while appearing to mouth or yell "fuck you" back at the auto worker.
WATCH: Trump shows his middle finger and appears to say "fuck you" after Ford worker yells "pedophile protector" - TMZ pic.twitter.com/aFsDmrvkr7
— BNO News (@BNONews) January 13, 2026
Sabula has received an outpouring of support since heckling Trump. A GoFundMe campaign aimed at raising money in support of the suspended auto worker has so far raised more than $350,000.
In a Tuesday interview published by the Washington Post, Sabula said he had "no regrets whatsoever" about yelling at the president, despite the uncertain future he now faces at his job.
"I don’t feel as though fate looks upon you often, and when it does, you better be ready to seize the opportunity,” Sabula told the Post. “And today I think I did that.”
"The First Amendment unequivocally protects the right to observe, monitor, and take pictures and video of government officials conducting their duties in public."
Since President Donald Trump returned to power and unleashed Immigration and Customs Enforcement on US cities, members of the National Coalition Against Censorship have periodically reminded Americans that "yes, you have the right to film ICE." The NCAC did so again on Tuesday, as videos emerge of agents telling observers to stop recording.
"We join together as nonprofit civil rights and free expression advocates to condemn the Trump administration's statements that it is illegal to record videos of ICE agents. These claims are incorrect as a matter of law, directly contrary to our First Amendment values, and deeply troubling for democratic governance," NCAC said in a statement.
"The ability to hold the government accountable is at the very core of our democracy. To preserve that ability, the First Amendment unequivocally protects the right to observe, monitor, and take pictures and video of government officials conducting their duties in public. This explicitly includes law enforcement officers engaged in their public duties," the coalition continued, citing decisions from all federal appellate courts that have addressed the issue.
In a Wednesday appearance on KQED's podcast Close All Tabs, CJ Ciaramella, a criminal justice reporter at Reason, similarly highlighted that while the US Supreme Court "actually hasn't put out a ruling saying there's an unambiguous First Amendment right to film the police," the circuit courts "that have considered the issue have pretty much said there is a First Amendment right to record the police and observe the police, and they've all decided that pretty unambiguously."
"And this ranges from, you know, the 9th Circuit, which is traditionally a pretty liberal leaning court, to the 5th Circuit, which has a reputation as a more conservative circuit court," Ciaramella explained. "The 5th Circuit looked at it and said, you know, based on the First Amendment tradition, the Supreme Court precedents, this seems pretty unambiguous to us."
"So it's not a completely like black and white issue, but it's also not... a thorny or divisive First Amendment question. Every court that's looked at it has said, yeah, based on our long First Amendment traditions. And in America, you have a right to record the police," he added. "Now, Minnesota is in one of the circuits that hasn't yet ruled on this."
The NCAC statement comes amid a flurry of videos of violent and otherwise problematic ICE actions, especially in Minneapolis, where Trump has sent thousands of troops and ICE officer Johnathan Ross fatally shot Renee Nicole Good in the head last week. Ross was recording on his phone, and amid mounting calls for his arrest and prosecution, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has put out a "propaganda" video defending the actions of ICE agents.
Journalists and other critics of Good's killing have debunked DHS claims in part by pointing to bystanders' footage from the scene.
While the NCAC statement doesn't point to any specific incidents with agents, it does sound the alarm about Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's suggestion last July that videotaping ICE operations is "violence" and anyone "doxing" agents will be prosecuted.
After playing a clip of Noem's remarks on Close All Tabs, host Morgan Sung said: "Notice the use of the word doxing here. That's the act of posting private information about someone to target and harass them, usually like their home address or personal phone number. The Trump administration has equated identifying and publicly naming ICE agents to doxing."
NCAC argued that "statements such as Secretary Noem's misinform the public about their First Amendment rights and chill constitutionally protected speech. As a policy matter, threats to punish those who monitor law enforcement increase the likelihood that people will be intimidated out of exercising their constitutional rights and lead to precisely the outcome such oversight is intended to prevent—law enforcement agents who act with impunity as transparency is demonized by political leaders."
Like ICE, agents with Customs and Border Protection, another DHS agency, have been sent to various cities and recorded behaving violently in recent months, often while donning masks. After Ross killed Good, Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino—who is currently in Minnesota—sent a "legal refresher" to agents in the field stating that taking photos and recordings is protected activity under the First Amendment.
The coalition said that "regardless of one's views on immigration policy, the increased budget and enforcement operations of ICE were a core campaign issue in the presidential election, and are a widespread topic of conversation and concern."
"Recordings of law enforcement directly inform the public, shape policy discussions, and even serve as the catalyst for large-scale political movements across the political spectrum. They have helped to expose horrific and illegal acts by the government," NCAC pointed out. "At the same time, they also protect law enforcement officers. If an officer is acting within the bounds of the law, a recording will help prove as much."
"We stand behind the public's well-established right to record public officials, law enforcement, and ICE agents engaged in their public duties. We jointly condemn this administration's refusal to recognize the First Amendment right to record officers in public. And we call on this administration to recognize that constitutional rights are a feature, not a bug, of democratic governance," the coalition concluded. "For our constitutional rights to be real, our public officials must uphold them—as they have sworn to do."
The groups that signed on to the statement are the ACLU, Center for Democracy & Technology, Center for Protest Law & Litigation at the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, Defending Rights & Dissent, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Government Information Watch, Knight First Amendment Institute, National Coalition Against Censorship, People for the American Way, Public Citizen, Tully Center for Free Speech, and Woodhull Freedom Foundation.
Joining them as individuals are writer and historian Pat McNees, and three experts from Yale Law School: David A. Schulz, Stacy Livingston, and Tobin Raju.