

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.
Tim Newman, tim.newman@ilrf.org, 202-347-4100 x113 or
617-823-9464
This Wednesday, Mars,
Incorporated announced a commitment to source 100,000 metric tons of cocoa
certified by the Rainforest Alliance annually for use in Mars products.
The first product to use Rainforest Alliance certified cocoa will be Galaxy
Chocolate in the UK and Ireland
beginning in 2010. While Mars refers to the commitment as a
"milestone" in advancing sustainable cocoa farming, organizations
like the International Labor Rights Forum have been pushing Mars to adopt
stronger labor standards to end child labor in their cocoa supply chain and to
support organic farming for eight years.
Rainforest Alliance standards for cocoa production are not the
strongest in terms of sustainability certification programs. However, one
important aspect of the standards is that they apply at least to the
cooperative level. For years, major chocolate companies have argued that
it is impossible to establish a certification program on the farm or cooperative
level, but Mars' announcement shows that it is indeed possible.
Rainforest Alliance certification is an important improvement over the
"certification" process established by major chocolate companies as
part of the Harkin-Engel Protocol, which does not include any labor or
environmental standards. Other major US food companies like Kraft have
used Rainforest Alliance certified cocoa for years.
Mars' announcement comes a little over a month after Cadbury
announced that it would seek Fair Trade certification for the top selling
chocolate bar in the UK
market by the end of this summer. Even before Cadbury announced its
commitment to supporting Fair Trade, companies like Divine Chocolate, Equal
Exchange and Sweet Earth Organic Chocolates have led the way in embracing
ethical and sustainable cocoa sourcing practices. Sixty chocolate
companies and organizations have endorsed a statement outlining how the
chocolate industry can embrace a more ethical cocoa supply chain titled
"Commitment to Ethical Cocoa Sourcing" (available
online here).
Bama Athreya, Executive Director of
the International Labor Rights Forum, said, "While it is important that Mars is
taking a step forward toward sustainable cocoa farming, this recent
announcement does not do enough to ensure that workers are not exploited in the
company's global supply chain. We have been calling on chocolate
companies to support Fair Trade since 2001 and we encourage Mars, as well as
other major US
chocolate companies like Hershey, to go further in ensuring that they
contribute to higher working and living standards for cocoa farmers."
Ryan Zinn, Campaigns Coordinator of
the Organic Consumers Association, said, "Consumers are demanding ethical and
sustainable chocolate with strong labor standards for cocoa farmers. The
Organic Consumers Association urges Mars to incorporate certified USDA organic
and Fair Trade cocoa into its supply chain."
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.
"It is abundantly clear that Republicans and the Trump administration want to strangle the VA until it all gets privatized," said the advocacy group VoteVets.
Before the end of the year, the Trump administration is planning to eliminate up to 35,000 healthcare jobs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, a chronically understaffed agency that has already lost tens of thousands of employees to the White House's sweeping assault on the federal workforce.
The Washington Post reported over the weekend that the targeted positions—many of which are unfilled—include doctors, nurses, and support staff. A spokesperson for the VA, led by former Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), described the jobs as "mostly Covid-era roles that are no longer necessary."
VA workers, veterans advocates, and a union representing hundreds of thousands of department employees disputed that characterization as the agency faces staff shortages across the country.
"We are all doing the work of others to compensate,” one VA employee told the Post. “The idea that relief isn’t coming is really, really disappointing.”
Thomas Dargon Jr., deputy general counsel of the American Federation of Government Employees, said remaining VA employees "are obviously going to be facing the brunt of any further job cuts or reorganization that results in employees having to do more work with less."
The advocacy organization VoteVets cast the job cuts as another step toward the longstanding GOP goal of privatizing the VA.
"This is outrageous," the group wrote on social media. "It is abundantly clear that Republicans and the Trump administration want to strangle the VA until it all gets privatized."
"We must expand the VA, not hollow it out."
News of the impending job cuts came months after the Trump administration moved to gut collective bargaining protections for many VA employees and as recent staffing cuts continued to hamper veterans' services nationwide.
"Wait times for new mental health appointments have increased sharply since January in my home state, Connecticut," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said during a Senate hearing earlier this month. "For example, the most recent data shows the current wait time for a new patient mental health appointment at the Orange VA Clinic in Connecticut—an outpatient facility specializing in mental health—is 208 days."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said in a statement Sunday that "it is unacceptable that the US Department of Veterans Affairs plans to eliminate as many as 35,000 healthcare positions this month."
"This is especially outrageous given the reality that VA facilities in Vermont and across the country already face severe staffing challenges," said Sanders. "When someone puts their life on the line to defend this country in uniform, we in turn must provide them with the best quality healthcare available. These layoffs are unacceptable and must be reversed. We must expand the VA, not hollow it out. And I will do everything I can to make that happen."
"The 'Nobel Peace Prize' continues thanking the US for the maximum pressure against her own country," said one critic.
Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, the winner of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, is taking criticism for lending support to US President Donald Trump's campaign of military aggression against her own country.
In an interview that aired on Sunday on CBS News' "Face the Nation," Machado praised Trump's policies of tightening economic sanctions and seizing oil tankers that had been docked at Venezuelan ports.
“Look, I absolutely support President Trump’s strategy, and we, the Venezuelan people, are very grateful to him and to his administration, because I believe he is a champion of freedom in this hemisphere," Machado told CBS News.
Machado elaborated that she supported Trump's actions because the Maduro government was "not a conventional dictatorship," but "a very complex criminal structure that has turned Venezuela into a safe haven of international crime and terrorist activities."
Trump's campaign against Venezuela has not only included sanctions and the seizing of an oil tanker, but a series of bombings of purported drug-trafficking vessels that many legal experts consider to be acts of murder.
Trump has also said that he would soon authorize strikes against purported drug traffickers on Venezuelan soil, even though he has received no congressional authorization to conduct such an operation against a sovereign nation.
Machado's embrace of Trump as he potentially positions the US to launch a regime-change war in Venezuela drew swift criticism from opponents of American imperialism.
SussexBylines columnist Ross McNally questioned whether someone who is going on the record to support military aggression against her own country was really the right choice to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
"The Nobel Committee's decision to give the Peace Prize to Machado is bizarre for several reasons," he explained. "Firstly, its description of Machado’s ‘tireless work promoting democratic rights’ ignores the fact that she supported the attempted coup against democratically elected President Hugo Chávez in 2002... Alongside her encouragement for Trump’s military escalation, this jars somewhat with the Committee’s description."
The Machado interview was also criticized by Venezuelan journalist Madelein Garcia, who argued in a post on X that it was ironic to see that "the 'Nobel Peace Prize' continues thanking the US for the maximum pressure against her own country."
Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi also excoriated the Nobel Committee for overlooking Machado's support of militarism when it decided to award her a prize intended for peacemakers.
"Nobel Farce Prize Winner Maria Corina Machado is not a freedom fighter, she’s a CIA asset and de facto spokeswoman for US corporations," he wrote. "Here she is smiling gleefully at the prospect of selling $1.7 trillion of infrastructure and resources should the US carry out regime change in Venezuela and install her in Miraflores, promising 'we have a massive privatisation program waiting for you.'"
"Every US representative will face a simple, up-or-down choice on the House floor this week: Will you stand up for the Constitution and vote to stop Trump’s illegal warmaking or not?"
With floor votes expected this week, top members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are urging fellow lawmakers in the US House to back a pair of resolutions aimed at preventing President Donald Trump from launching an unauthorized war on Venezuela.
“As Trump once again threatens ‘land strikes on Venezuela,’ every US representative will face a simple, up-or-down choice on the House floor this week: Will you stand up for the Constitution and vote to stop Trump’s illegal warmaking or not?" said Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Chuy García (D-Ill.), respectively the deputy chair and the whip for the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). "This is not a partisan issue: Three in four Americans oppose a regime-change war to overthrow the Venezuelan government, including two-thirds of Republicans."
Trump's belligerent rhetoric and recent military action in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific—including the illegal bombing of vessels and seizure of a Venezuelan oil tanker—are "driving us toward a catastrophic forever war in Venezuela," Omar and García warned, urging lawmakers to pass H.Con.Res. 61 and H.Con.Res. 64.
The first resolution, led by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), would require Trump to "remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with any presidentially designated terrorist organization in the Western Hemisphere, unless authorized by a declaration of war or a specific congressional authorization for use of military force."
The other, introduced earlier this month by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), is explicitly designed to prevent a direct US attack on Venezuela.
"Congress hereby directs the president to remove the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization for use of military force," reads the measure, which is co-sponsored by two Republicans—Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Don Bacon (R-Neb.).
In their statement over the weekend, Omar and García said that "both Democrats and Republicans must send a strong message to the Trump administration: Only Congress can authorize offensive military force, not the president."
"Trump is deploying U.S. personnel to seize Venezuelan oil tankers in international waters. He has launched double-tap airstrikes killing capsized and defenseless individuals. Trump declared a no-fly zone on Venezuelan airspace, deployed F-18 fly-overs in the Gulf of Venezuela, and refused to rule out troop deployments, while threatening to overthrow heads of state across the region," the lawmakers said. "These are illegal hostilities that could destabilize the entire region and fuel mass migration. Congress must stop this unconstitutional military campaign by passing these War Powers Resolutions."