

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.
Dylan Penner, the Council of Canadians,
613-795-8685, dpenner@canadians.org
Joe Cressy,
Polaris Institute, 613-769-7118, joecressy@polarisinstitute.org
Hugh Wilkins, Staff Lawyer, Ecojustice Canada, 416-368-7533 Ext. 34,
hwilkins@ecojustice.ca
Mark
Goldberg, Wellington Water Watchers, 519-766-1000, goldberg@globaltox.ca
As Toronto City Council gathers to consider passing a city-wide ban on bottled water, a new coalition is challenging advertising claims made by Nestle Waters that "bottled water is the most environmentally responsible consumer product in the world". The group, which includes Ecojustice, Friends of the Earth Canada, the Polaris Institute, the Council of Canadians, and Wellington Water Watchers, is filing a complaint today under Canadian Code of Advertising Standards against Nestle Waters North America. The groups argue that Nestle is attempting to mislead the public on the true impacts of bottled water. Copies of the coalition's complaint against Nestle Waters are available upon request.
The complaint relates to a full-page advertisement that appeared in the Globe and Mail in October and made a series of statements, including that: "most water bottles avoid landfill sites and are recycled"; "bottled water is the most environmentally responsible consumer product in the world"; and, "Nestle Pure Life is a Healthy, Eco-Friendly Choice". The groups argue that Nestle Waters' ad contravened the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards by making false and misleading statements regarding the environmental impacts of its product. The complaint also alleges that some of the statements in the ad are contrary to guidelines that have been set by Canada's Competition Bureau and the Canadian Standards Association to ensure environmental claims are specific and verifiable.
"For Nestle to claim that its bottled water product is environmentally superior to any other consumer product in the world is not supportable," says Meera Karunananthan, National Water Campaigner, the Council of Canadians. "With this ad, we believe Nestle has infringed the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards requirements of honesty, truth, accuracy, fairness and propriety in advertising."
"We believe that the claims provide a misleading impression to the public of the environmental impacts of Nestle's bottled water," says Joe Cressy, Campaigns Coordinator, Polaris Institute.
"The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards clearly states that advertisements must not contain inaccurate or deceptive claims, or statements," adds Hugh Wilkins, Staff Lawyer, Ecojustice (formerly Sierra Legal Defence Fund). "The ASC has an important role in ensuring that claims in ads are substantiated and honest. We look forward to the ASC's determination on whether this is such a case."
"Based on our review of the representations made by Nestle Waters in this advertisement, it is clear that they are not based on fact," says Beatrice Olivastri, Chief Executive Officer, Friends of the Earth. "The truth is that many water bottles are not being recycled, a phenomena that Nestle Waters itself - in direct contradiction to its own advertisement - admits in its 2008 Corporate Citizenship Report." Olivastri points out that Nestle Waters states in the report that many of its own bottles end up in the solid waste-stream and that most of its bottles are not recycled even though almost all beverage bottles are recyclable.
The debate on banning bottled water at Toronto City Council will take place this afternoon. If the ban is approved, Toronto will join the 16 cities across Canada that have already voted to ban bottled water.
As Canada's only national environmental law charity, Ecojustice is building the case for a better earth.
"Trump has dressed up yet another corporate giveaway as a boon to patients," said one watchdog. "Real drug price reform doesn’t look like a website."
US President Donald Trump on Thursday launched a website, branded with his name, in a purported effort to help patients buy prescription drugs at lower prices.
But experts, watchdog groups, and Democratic lawmakers said TrumpRx will likely do little for consumers—or for the broader goal of bringing down exorbitant medicine costs—while further enriching Big Pharma and potentially lining the pockets of his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr.
TrumpRx.gov, launched in partnership with pharmaceutical giants, points users to direct-to-patient sales platforms hosted by drug companies to facilitate the purchase of an extremely limited selection of medications. For example, TrumpRx's listing for Farxiga links users to AstraZeneca Direct, where patients can pay out of pocket for the type 2 diabetes medication.
Donald Trump Jr. is on the board of BlinkRx, a prescription drug platform that stands to benefit from the Trump administration's promotion of direct-to-patient medicine sales. In December, the president's son reportedly met with top drug company executives and administration officials responsible for regulating the pharmaceutical industry—a gathering hosted by BlinkRx.
Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement Thursday that TrumpRx "not only threatens patients’ health, safety, and privacy, but also likely includes kickback schemes designed to enrich President Trump, his family, and their friends."
"TrumpRx has been shrouded in secrecy from the beginning because the administration clearly does not want anyone to know it likely won’t save patients money," said Pallone. "However, we do know Trump only slaps his name on things when there’s something in it for him."
Last week, a group of Democratic senators sent a letter to the inspector general of the US Department of Health and Human Services warning that "without stricter safeguards before its official launch, TrumpRx could be used as a potential vehicle for unlawful kickback schemes that result in excessive costs for the federal government."
In addition to sending users to direct-to-patient sales sites, TrumpRx offers Trump-branded coupons for some medications. To obtain a coupon, site users must accept terms that state: "You agree that by redeeming this coupon, you (and anyone else acting on your behalf) agree not to seek reimbursement from any insurance plan for out-of-pocket costs for prescriptions purchased with this coupon. You also agree not to count the cost of prescriptions toward your deductible or true out-of-pocket costs."
The Washington Post reported that pharmaceutical companies "have agreed to list their drugs on TrumpRx.gov."
"TrumpRx is designed to help Big Pharma keep its prices high by diluting the bargaining power of insurance companies, weakening an important check on pharma."
Experts warned that patients who use TrumpRx could end up paying more for their medications than if they pursued other available options.
"TrumpRx’s offerings are very limited, fewer than 50 drugs listed, and most are niche products used by few patients," Rena Conti, an associate professor at Boston University, told ABC News. "Many are available in generic form at even lower prices or already available to consumers at low or even very low prices elsewhere. This suggests it pays for consumers to check their insurance coverage and ask their regular doctor or pharmacist before they use this service."
Peter Maybarduk, access to medicines director at Public Citizen, offered a more scathing assessment of TrumpRx, saying the president has "dressed up yet another corporate giveaway as a boon to patients."
"Most patients will do better through their insurance than through TrumpRx. Many patients without insurance will not be able to afford drugmakers’ still-high prices funneled through TrumpRx," said Maybarduk. "But drugmakers certainly will appreciate TrumpRx’s free promotion of their products, delivered with a false veneer of price accountability. TrumpRx is designed to help Big Pharma keep its prices high by diluting the bargaining power of insurance companies, weakening an important check on pharma."
“TrumpRx also appears to be another example of this president’s repeated corruption," he continued. "Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., sits on the board of BlinkRx, a key business that may benefit financially from TrumpRx. Getting serious about medicine affordability means getting serious about challenging Big Pharma. For all Trump’s talk, Big Pharma is getting a lot of special favors from this White House, while patients still are waiting. Real drug price reform doesn’t look like a website."
Throughout his second White House term, Trump has made outlandish promises to cut drug costs and hosted top executives at the White House to tout splashy deals—only for pharmaceutical giants to continue jacking up prices. Reuters reported last month that drugmakers planned to "raise US prices on at least 350 branded medications, including vaccines against Covid, RSV, and shingles and blockbuster cancer treatment Ibrance" in 2026.
Merith Basey, CEO of Patients for Affordable Drugs Now, said in a statement that the Trump administration's "voluntary agreements" with drug companies "lack clear enforcement mechanisms and still put the power to set and increase prices firmly in the hands of pharmaceutical corporations."
"Patients in our community will soon learn if they can reliably access these discounts at the pharmacy counter, where the program will ultimately be tested and where affordability matters most," Basey said of TrumpRx.
"The most foundational racist idea is likening Black people to apes," said Howard University historian Ibram X. Kendi.
President Donald Trump, a documented racist, drew swift condemnation on Friday night after he posted a video on his Truth Social account depicting former President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama as monkeys.
As reported by The Guardian, the racist depiction of the Obamas was part of a longer video that featured "false and disproven claims that ballot-counting company Dominion Voting Systems helped steal the 2020 presidential election" from Trump.
The outrage over the post was immediate, even as Trump's racism is well known and documented over many years.
"The most foundational racist idea is likening Black people to apes," said Howard University historian Ibram X. Kendi in a social media post. "Since humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, racist ideas cast white people as the most evolved people and the furthest away on the evolutionary scale from apes. Racist ideas cast Black people as the least evolved people and the closest on the evolutionary scale to apes. Almost all racist ideas build on this foundational one expressed by Trump."
A screenshot of the video Trump shared:

Tom Jocelyn, senior fellow at the Reiss Center on Law and Security, predicted how Trump and his allies would defend his promotion of obvious racism.
"Let’s call out a game Trump and MAGA play," he wrote. "1. Trump posts, says or does something racist. 2. Some point out it’s racist. 3. Trump (with MAGA’s help) pretends to be the victim for being called a racist. MAGA stews in its imaginary grievances. 4. Rinse and repeat."
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, called out the New York Times for writing that it was "unclear if Mr. Trump was aware" that the racist depiction of the Obamas "had been included in the video before he shared it."
"What the hell is the New York Times doing?" he asked. "In its article on Trump posting a video that included a clip of the Obamas as apes, NYT tries to help him come up with an excuse."
Ben Rhodes, former deputy national security adviser under Obama, argued that Trump's post was yet another sign that he will be remembered as a deeply loathsome historical figure.
"Let it haunt Trump and his racist followers that future Americans will embrace the Obamas as beloved figures," he wrote, "while studying him as a stain on our history."
"It is time for us to focus on what really matters: unrigging this economy, making sure we reclaim our democracy—and it starts right now," Mejia said as the race officially remained too close to call.
This is a developing story... Please check back for updates...
Progressive organizer Analilia Mejia emerged late Thursday as the leader of a crowded Democratic primary race for a vacant US House seat representing New Jersey's 11th Congressional District, potentially notching a stunning upset in a contest that saw outside groups—including one linked to AIPAC—spend millions.
The bulk of that money came from the United Democracy Project (UDP), a billionaire-funded pro-Israel group that spent big to defeat former Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ) in favor of its preferred candidate, Tahesha Way. The investment appears to have backfired in embarrassing fashion: Way is currently sitting in a distant third place, while UDP's attacks on Malinowski—regarded as a pro-Israel Democrat during his time in Congress—appear to have harmed him enough to propel Mejia, who has called Israel's assault on Gaza a genocide.
While the primary race is officially too close to call, some analysts said they expect Mejia to win after the remaining ballots are counted. As of this writing, Mejia—whose campaign was backed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and other prominent progressives—is holding to a 486-vote lead.
"New Jersey, I am so excited to say that we have delivered people-powered victory," Mejia, a supporter of Medicare for All and other progressive policy ambitions, said in a video posted to social media shortly after midnight. "It is time for us to focus on what really matters: unrigging this economy, making sure we reclaim our democracy—and it starts right now."
My message to New Jersey voters. pic.twitter.com/8u8EBy02f7
— Analilia Mejia for NJ (@AnaliliaForNJ) February 6, 2026
The New Jersey Working Families Party, which endorsed and supported Mejia, said in a statement that "while every vote must still be counted, Analilia Mejia’s performance is historic."
"Analilia shocked the New Jersey political establishment and did what so many people said she couldn’t,” said Antoinette Miles, the organization's state director. “Voters are hungry for working-class leaders, and tonight they showed it.”
Prominent outlets, including Decision Desk HQ, were forced to retract their earlier projections of a Malinowski win after the progressive candidate took the lead. Mejia rubbed it in by posting to X the famous photo of Harry Truman holding up a copy of the Chicago Daily Tribune that featured the erroneous banner headline, "Dewey Defeats Truman."
The winner of the 11th Congressional District primary and April 16 general election will fill the remainder of New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill's congressional term, which expires in January 2027.
Progressives who backed Mejia's campaign attributed her late surge to persistent organizing and a last-ditch advertising push. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) noted that while Mejia "was outspent by millions," strategic spending by progressive PACs helped boost her campaign in the final days of the primary.
"When there’s a real organizer running, we don’t need to match $ for $—we just need to be in the ring," Jayapal wrote on social media late Thursday.
Observers also marveled at AIPAC's blundering intervention in the race. UDP's ads against Malinowski did not mention Israel; rather, one of the spots condemned the former congressman for voting in 2019 to fund President Donald Trump's "deportation force," possibly pushing voters toward the candidate who has called for the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
"ICE is not reformable nor fixable, and New Jerseyans know this," Mejia said last month. "We need members of Congress who are willing to stand up to authoritarianism and terror. The same old blue just won’t cut it."