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.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest
is warning consumers not to enroll online in supposedly free trials of
diet products made with the trendy Brazilian berry acai (pronounced
a-sigh-EE). There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that acai pills
will help shed pounds, flatten tummies, cleanse colons, enhance sexual
desire, or perform any of the other commonly advertised functions. And
thousands of consumers have had trouble stopping recurrent charges on
their credit cards when they cancel their free trials.
Even web sites purporting to warn about acai-related scams are themselves perpetrating scams, according to CSPI.
"If
Bernard Madoff were in the food business, he'd be offering 'free'
trials of acai-based weight-loss products," said CSPI senior
nutritionist David Schardt, who authored an expose of the scam in the April issue of CSPI's Nutrition Action Healthletter. "Law enforcement has yet to catch up to these rogue operators. Until they do, consumers have to protect themselves."
CSPI
says that if-despite the total lack of evidence that the product
works-you still want to take advantage of a "free" trial of acai, use a
prepaid credit card with a low credit limit or a virtual credit card
that shields your real credit card number from unscrupulous online
vendors. Visit the web site of the Better Business Bureau, which in January announced that it had received thousands of acai-related complaints.
Look for the BBB seal on e-commerce sites and click on the seal to confirm its legitimacy, CSPI advises.
Acai
began attracting attention in 2005 on the belief that its juice was
especially high in antioxidants. In truth, acai juice has only middling levels of antioxidants-less
than that of Concord grape, blueberry, and black cherry juices, but
more than cranberry, orange, and apple juices. Even so, the extent to
which antioxidants by themselves promote health is a matter of some
debate. No credible evidence suggests antioxidants promote weight loss.
In early 2008, Acai got a jolt of publicity when
Dr. Mehmet Oz included acai among tomatoes, blueberries, broccoli, and
other healthy foods in a segment on Oprah.
A guest on Rachael Ray also discussed an acai beverage. Since then, ads
on Google, Facebook, and major news media web sites have misleadingly
steered consumers to sites with names like Oprah-best-acai.com , OprahsAmazingDiet.com, DrOzMiracle.com, rachaelray.drozdiet-acaiberry.com
and dozens of others. OprahsAmazingDiet.com links to a blog post by a
woman who supposedly lost 57 pounds using Oprah-endorsed products, and
displays authoritative-looking biographies of Oprah and Dr. Oz. It then
links to an offer for AcaiBurn, sold by a company that lists an address
in Cyprus as its headquarters. Other sites link to FWM Laboratories of
Ft. Lauderdale and Hollywood, Fla., which has an F rating from the
Better Business Bureau and scores of horror stories about it on Internet complaint forms.
Oprah Winfrey, Mehmet Oz, and Rachael Ray have all publicly
disassociated themselves from the acai sites that make unauthorized use
their names.
"When I logged on to my Hotmail account, I saw an
ad about how Oprah lost weight on this diet, and I enrolled in what I
thought would be a free trial," said M Chanel Pinkett, a graduate
student from Gaithersburg, Md. who signed up for a free trial at AcaiBerryDetox.com,
a site run by FWM Laboratories. Pinkett's "free" trial actually cost
$174.26. After posting a complaint on complaintsboard.com, which has
thousands of acai-related complaints, she told her story to
Washington's WJLA-TV.
"There are no magical berries from the Brazilian
rainforest that cure obesity-only painfully real credit card charges
and empty weight loss promises," said Connecticut Attorney General
Richard Blumenthal. "Aggressive Acai berry pitches on the Internet
entice countless consumers into free trials promising weight loss,
energy and detoxification. These claims are based on folklore,
traditional remedies and outright fabrications-unproven by real
scientific evidence. In reality, consumers lose more money than weight
after free trials transition into inescapable charges. We will
investigate these allegedly misleading or deceptive nutrition and
health claims and take action under our consumer protection statutes-as
we have done with other food products."
FWM Laboratories, Advanced Wellness Research, and
other acai companies benefit from dozens of fake diet blogs that steer
unsuspecting consumers to sites plugging free acai trials. The woman
depicted on Tara's Diet Blog, Olivia's Weight Loss blog, Alicia's Diet Blog, Becky's Weight Loss blog, and at least 75 other blogs is a German model named Julia
who has nothing to do with acai or any weight-loss product. The German
photographer who made the original photos of her available on
Istockphoto.com said the pill companies manipulated some of the "after"
images to give the impression of weight loss. The fake blogs were first
uncovered by a real blog, wafflesatnoon.com, written by an ad-industry
insider.
"These diet 'bloggers' are just a mirage,"
Schardt said. "Their weight loss is courtesy of Photoshop, not acai."
Other acai companies with F ratings from the BBB include Pure Acai
Berry Pro (Advanced Wellness Research), AcaiBurn, Acai Berry Maxx (FX
Supplements), and SFL Nutrition.
One of several online purchases of acai attempted
by CSPI was blocked when the fraud department of the credit card's
issuing bank called the group, flagging the charge as suspicious. The
reason? The funds would have been routed to an overseas bank.
Of course there's good reason why some Internet
supplement scammers might want to stay safely outside the U.S.: The
company behind Enzyte,
an herbal "male enhancement" pill advertised on late night television
with grating "Smiling Bob" commercials, similarly charged consumers'
credit cards after free trials ended. Company founder Steve Warshak is
now serving a 25-year sentence in federal prison.
Since 1971, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has been a strong advocate for nutrition and health, food safety, alcohol policy, and sound science.
More than 7 million borrowers booted from a Biden-era loan forgiveness program will have to quickly switch to a new plan using a system that's been backed up for months.
After axing a Biden-era student loan repayment program, the Trump administration is threatening to kick its millions of mostly low-income beneficiaries onto the government's most expensive plan unless they switch to a new one quickly.
The Washington Post reported on Friday that the Department of Education was beginning to email the more than 7 million people enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, telling them they needed to change their plan within the next 90 days.
Around 4.5 million of those borrowers earn incomes between 150% and 225%, allowing them to qualify for zero-dollar monthly payments under SAVE, which the Trump administration effectively killed in December after settling with Republican states who'd brought lawsuits against the program under former President Joe Biden.
Anonymous officials told The Post that those who do not switch plans within three months of receiving the email will automatically be re-enrolled in the Standard Plan. Unlike SAVE, which is income-based, the Standard plan has borrowers pay a fixed rate over 10 years.
Standard typically carries the highest monthly payments, and those transitioning to it from SAVE could pay more than $300 extra per month in some cases, with the poorest borrowers seeing the sharpest increases.
While 90 days may seem like plenty of time to switch to a less expensive repayment plan, it's not nearly that simple.
Due to the large exodus of borrowers, the Department of Education has struggled to process all the forms, processing only about 250,000 per month. Many borrowers who have tried to transition have found themselves waiting months for a reply.
To make matters more confusing, many of these borrowers will have to switch programs again soon, since all but one repayment program will be dissolved on July 1, 2028 as a result of last year's Republican budget law. The remaining plan will also be income-driven, though it is still expected to cost borrowers more each month.
According to a report released last month by the Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers, two groups that support loan forgiveness, nearly 9 million student loan borrowers are in default. During Trump's first year back in office, the student loan delinquency rate jumped from roughly zero to 25%, which it called "precedent-shattering."
"Much of the rise in delinquencies can be linked to the Trump administration’s actions aimed at increasing student loan payments," the report said. “The US Department of Education blocked borrowers from accessing more affordable payments through income-driven plans, having ordered a stoppage in application processing for three months and mass-denying 328,000 applications in August 2025. As of December 31, 2025, a warehouse’s worth of 734,000 applications sat unprocessed.”
Being in default has major ramifications for borrowers' finances. Those with delinquent loans saw their credit scores decrease by an average of 57 points during the first three quarters of 2025, dragging around 2 million of them into "subprime" territory, which forces them to pay thousands of dollars more for auto and personal loans and makes them more likely to have difficulty finding housing and employment.
The report estimated that if those booted from SAVE defaulted at the same rate as other borrowers, the number of student loan borrowers in distress could rise as high as 17 million.
According to Protect Borrowers, the typical family will pay more than $3,000 per year in additional costs as a result of the end of SAVE.
The end of SAVE comes as oil shocks caused by Trump's war in Iran have spiked gas prices and threaten to raise them throughout the economy, adding to the already elevated costs of food, housing, and transportation resulting from the president's aggressive tariff regime.
"In the middle of an affordability crisis driven by Donald Trump," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), "Trump is killing a plan that lowers student loan costs. It's shameful."
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament... Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp."
Multiple reports published in the last two days have indicated that President Donald Trump is seeking to wrap up his illegal war in Iran, which has significantly hurt his domestic political standing—partially by raising gas prices at a time when polls show US voters are primarily concerned about the cost of living.
While ending the Iran war will not be simple, some foreign policy experts believe that it can be done if both the US and Iran truly understand that deescalation is in both nations' best interests.
George Beebe, director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and former director of the CIA’s Russia analysis, and Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, have written an essay published on Thursday by Foreign Policy outlining what an achievable Iran "exit plan" would look like.
The authors acknowledged the immense challenges in getting both sides to meet one another halfway, but said this option is preferable to a drawn-out war that will leave both nations poorer and bloodied.
On Iran's side, argued Beebe and Parsi, a deal would involve renewing "its stated commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons," re-opening the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping vessels, and making a commitment "to denominating at least half of its oil sales in US dollars rather than the Chinese yuan."
The US, meanwhile, would "grant sanctions exemptions to countries prepared to finance Iran’s reconstruction" and "would also permit a specified group of states—such as China, India, South Korea, Japan, Turkey, Iraq, and others in the Gulf—to resume trade with Tehran and the purchase of Iranian oil, thereby easing global energy prices."
Beebe and Parsi emphasized that this deal would only be a first step, and they said the next step would be restarting negotiations to establish a nuclear weapons agreement similar to the one previously negotiated by the Obama administration that Trump tore up during his first term.
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament," they wrote. "Neither can compel the other’s surrender. Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp—one that does not hinge on the other’s humiliation."
Even if Trump takes this course of action, however, there is no guarantee it will succeed, in part because of how much he has already damaged US alliances across the world.
In an analysis published Thursday, Sarah Yerkes, senior fellow at the Carnegie International Endowment for Peace's Middle East Program, argued that even nations in the Middle East that stand to benefit from a weakened Iran are now thinking twice about their dependence on the US for their security needs, given that Trump's war has resulted in Iran launching retaliatory strikes throughout the region.
Yerkes also highlighted how Trump's handling of European allies is making it less likely that they will play a significant part in helping him end the conflict.
"Europe, which is not eager to enter what it sees as a war of choice, has refrained from proactively joining US and Israeli strikes," Yerkes explained. "One of the clearest examples of the transatlantic rift was over the initial reaction to closures in the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping channel for approximately 20% of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG traffic. Multiple European countries refused to cow to Trump’s demand that they send warships to help keep the strait open, inviting public ire from Trump."
The bottom line, warned Yerkes, is that "each day the war continues, without explicit goals or a clear exit strategy, opposition to the United States—from friends and foes, inside and outside—is also likely to grow, making America less safe and less secure."
"We should attract the best and brightest in our country to become teachers and pay them the decent wages that they deserve."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday rejected First Lady Melania Trump's vision of a near-future in which artificial intelligence-powered humanoid robots do the work of human school teachers, arguing that society should instead do better by its human educators.
The wife of President Donald Trump entered Wednesday's gathering of the Global First Ladies Alliance accompanied by Figure 03, an AI-powered "general purpose humanoid robot" developed by the Sunnyvale, California-based company Figure.
“The future of AI is personified," Trump told attendees, who included Brigitte Macron of France, Sara Netanyahu of Israel, and Olena Zelenska of Ukraine. “It will be formed in the shape of humans. Very soon artificial intelligence will move from our mobile phones to humanoids that deliver utility.”
“Imagine a humanoid educator named Plato," she said. “Access to the classical studies is now instantaneous: literature, science, art, philosophy, mathematics, and history. Humanity’s entire corpus of information is available in the comfort of your home.”
Responding to Trump's remarks, Sanders (I-Vt.) said Friday on social media: "Call me a radical, but NO."
"We should not be replacing teachers in America with robots," the senator added. "We should attract the best and brightest in our country to become teachers and pay them the decent wages that they deserve."
Trump and Macron also warned about the dangers technology poses to children in remarks that came the same week that a New Mexico jury ordered tech titan Meta to pay a $375 million penalty for endangering youth and jurors in a landmark social media addiction trial found that Meta and YouTube harmed a child user of their platforms.
The office of California Gov. Gavin Newsom—who is believed to be a likely contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination—also slapped down the idea of robot teachers, as did ordinary social media users.
"They want to replace human beings. Where will we work? How do we make money?" asked one X account with tens of thousands of followers. "No one wants this. We did not ask for it. Fuck all of this shit."