

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
kastel@cornucopia.org
Family farmers from around the country, who produce organic milk, are
petitioning president Obama, and the White House's Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), for the swift adoption of new strict rulemaking that will rein in
the abuses of a handful of factory farms they claim are violating both the
spirit and letter of the federal organic law.
The pending rewrite of the organic livestock standards, with an
emphasis on assuring compliance with provisions that require that ruminants,
like dairy cows, be grazed, is currently under review at OMB, where the
administration is being heavily lobbied by industrial farming interests to
water down the rules.
To meet the explosive growth in the organic industry, over the last
five years, a number of large industrial dairies, milking as many as 7200 cows,
have exploited the stellar reputation that organic dairy products have earned
in the eyes of consumers who are looking for safer and more nutritious food for
their families.
"With the flattening of demand for organic food, these giant
dairies have flooded the market with cheap milk that is now crushing the family
farmers who have built this industry," said Mark Kastel, Senior Farm
Policy Analyst at The Cornucopia Institute. "These CAFOs
(concentrated animal feeding operations) are anathema to organic consumers
investing in a more environmentally sensitive approach to food production and
humane animal husbandry. Ironically, one of the reasons they are willing
to pay extra for organic milk is they think that the farmers who produce it are
being fairly treated."
The current surplus of organic milk, caused by factory farms, has
forced prices down for family farmers. Sadly, there have been reports
around the country of a number of suicides of both conventional and organic
dairy producers. Some organic farmers are now facing foreclosure, a stark
contrast to the economic promise of organics over the past two decades of
growth.
Organic farmers are particularly resentful of two corporate players
that heavily lobbied the USDA during both the Bush and Obama administrations,
attempting to weaken regulatory language that requires dairy cows to be managed
in a way that promotes their natural instinctive behaviors, including grazing
on open pastures rather than spending most of their lives confined in barns and
dirt feedlots.
The largest villain, in the eyes of dairy farmers, is Aurora
Dairy. The $100 million corporation owns five "factory
farms," managing thousands of cows each, in arid regions of Texas and Colorado.
Owning its own manufacturing plant, Aurora
packages and ships milk for sale as storebrand products at Wal-Mart and a
number of leading supermarket chains. Aurora's factory farm milk reaches
every corner of this country, undercutting ethical farmers and their marketing
partners.
"Although the president of Aurora Dairy, Mark Retzloff, has
heavily contributed to the Democratic Party, President Obama, and Tom Vilsack,
former Iowa
governor who is now USDA Secretary, we trust that the current administration
will focus on the suspect practices of his company rather than their past
financial and political support," Kastel stated.
In what has been described as the largest scandal in the history of the
organic industry, in 2007, the USDA found that Aurora had "willfully" violated 14
tenets of the federal organic law including confining their animals, instead of
grazing, and bringing illegal conventional cows into their factory farm
operations.
The Bush administration let Aurora
off without a cent in fines, instead placing the company on a one-year
probation. Since then, 19 class-action lawsuits by consumers, charging Aurora with consumer
fraud, has been working its way through the federal court system.
More disturbing to many organic consumers and farmers alike, especially
in California, is the revelation that a previously respected and popular
organic brand, Straus Dairy, has actively partnered with Aurora in attempting
to scuttle enforcement of the pasture requirements for organic cattle under
evaluation by the OMB.
"Albert Straus has repeatedly stated in public, and now is
petitioning the Obama administration, claiming that it's impossible in his
environment, north of San Francisco, to comply with the new proposed federal
requirements for pasturing his cattle," said certified organic dairy
producer John Mattos, who farms about 10 miles further north of the Straus
operation in Sonoma County. Mattos is a member-owner of Organic Valley,
a cooperative of family farmers that competes with Straus.
Mattos purposely chose to milk Jerseys, and Jersey crossbreeds, instead
of the more productive and more common Holsteins,
because they thrive when grazing in more marginal areas. "I graze 5 1/2
months a year, my cows are outside year round, I have no problems with the
proposed standards," Mattos affirmed.
There were no cows out on pasture at the Straus dairy when it was
observed by Kastel when he visited the Straus operation, and other area dairy
farms, in 2008.
"It is grossly unfair that just a handful of dairies, for selfish
reasons, are trying to derail strict enforcement," said Bob Camozzi, an
organic farmer who also ships his milk to Clover Stornetta, another local North Coast California
dairy brand.
"Our farmers are committed to maximizing pasture consumption by
our cattle due to the economic benefits, the profoundly positive impact it has
on the health of the animals and the superior nutrients that are contained in
pasture-based organic milk," Camozzi explained.
Meeting with and lobbying the OMB in Washington, along with Aurora, is
not the first time Albert Straus has angered other members of the organic dairy
community by speaking against strict enforcement of organic dairy regulations.
"Albert has portrayed his brand as coming from his small family
farm. But as his brand succeeded and grew in the marketplace, he
apparently added too many cows to be grazed on the available land he owns and
then he further grew his operation by buying from other area farmers,"
said Tony Azevedo, a San Joaquin Valley dairyman and president of the Western
Organic Dairy Producers Alliance. "It's a shame that he chooses not
to pasture on a regular basis."
"It would be a national scandal, as some of us face losing our
farms due to the industrial dairy scofflaws, if the Obama administration sides
with the 'bad actors' in our industry," affirmed Bruce
Drinkman, an organic dairy farmer from Glenwood
City, Wisconsin, who
milks 55 cows.
"We are in dire financial straits because of the same kind of unethical
competition from factory farms that put so many of our conventional neighbors
out of business. We need the President and the USDA on our side!"
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.
"At a time when Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza... Congress should be cutting off military support—not integrating the US military and Israeli defense sector," said one critic.
A US congressional committee on Thursday rejected an amendment to strip a provision from next year's Pentagon funding bill aimed at deepening integration of the US and Israeli militaries under the guise of reducing aid.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to strike Section 224—which would establish a formal "United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative"—from the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. The proposed NDAA authorizes $1.15 trillion in baseline military spending, while the Trump administration’s full defense request seeks an unprecedented, debt-exploding $1.5 trillion in armed forces and related funding for the coming fiscal year.
Section 224 would require the US defense secretary to designate a Pentagon executive agent responsible for coordinating and expanding US-Israel defense technology cooperation.
In Thursday's voice vote, members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) from both parties rejected the amendment to remove Section 2024 from the NDAA, with only Khanna and Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) backing the measure.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza—has called Section 224 "my plan."
While proponents of Section 224 contend that the measure would reduce US taxpayer funding for Israel, Khanna argued that the provision amounts to a blank check for a country that most Americans oppose sending more aid to.
“The American people are tired of the arrogance and insolence of Prime Minister Netanyahu telling America what we should do," the congressman said Thursday while promoting his amendment. "The entire country of Israel has a GDP that is less than a single town in my district, yet somehow Netanyahu thinks he could tell the American people what we should do."
“I am for Team America," Khanna added. "I am for the interests of this country, and I believe that's what [President] Donald Trump ran on. That includes American interests against any foreign country. We should have American sovereignty and make it clear that we strike 224. If we want to give aid to Israel, if we want to sell them weapons, that should be a vote for the entire Congress.”
In a letter to Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.)—who is not on the HASC—Netanyahu said he is "heartened" by Section 224's plan to “develop a new Memorandum of Understanding with the United States government” that will reduce “US financial military assistance over the next decade” and replace it with “a new framework of joint defense cooperation, codevelopment, coproduction, and mutual investment."
The US has provided more than $20 billion in armed aid to Israel during the Biden and Trump administrations since Netanyahu launched the genocidal war on Gaza in retaliation for the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023. The current 10-year Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Israel, signed in 2016 during former President Barack Obama's tenure, provided Israel with $38 billion in US military aid and expires in 2028.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)—who has partnered with Khanna on introducing or supporting war powers resolutions aimed at curbing Trump's ability to wage unconstitutional wars in countries including Yemen, Venezuela, and Iran—said last month that if Section 224 made it out of committee, he would work with Khanna to "offer an amendment to strip it from the bill on the floor."
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is urging Americans to contact their members of Congress to tell them to reject Section 224.
"This is not 'America First.' It is Israel First," ADC argues on its website. "The resolution language attached to this proposal gives it away: it expresses support for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s initiative to transition the US–Israel relationship toward mutual defense cooperation and joint economic investment. This language turns Congress into a vehicle for advancing Netanyahu’s agenda and asks the American people to treat it as their own national security policy."
"Section 224 would move US support for Israel away from the more transparent foreign aid framework and into a maze of Pentagon procurement, licensing, data-sharing, and backdoor deals that are harder for Congress, taxpayers, and future administrations to monitor, cap, condition, or unwind," the group continued. "Concerns of undefined 'network integration' and 'data fusion' should alarm every American who cares about sovereignty, privacy, civil liberties, and democratic oversight."
"At a time when Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, exporting surveillance technologies used against activists and journalists around the world, marketing military technology tested on Palestinians, and carrying out terrorist attacks as seen in the cell phone [bombings] in Lebanon, Congress should be cutting off military support—not integrating the US military and Israeli defense sector and making accountability harder than ever," ADC added.
In an opinion piece published this week by Common Dreams, Ben Freeman, director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote that "lawmakers should reject Section 224 from the NDAA to avoid deep integration with Israel’s military at a time when a growing number of Americans oppose Israel’s actions in the region."
"This unprecedented level of US-Israeli military integration stands in stark contrast to the traditional aid model of defense cooperation, in which Israel already stood out as the top recipient of US military assistance," Freeman said.
"Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion."
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries helped Republicans tank Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s war powers resolution to limit US military involvement in Lebanon on Thursday, holding up the effort to curb the conflict for at least another several weeks.
Despite Israel’s invasion of Lebanon pushing deeper, with more than 3,500 people killed and 1.2 million displaced since early March, the Michigan Democrat's resolution was defeated in a 324-92 vote, with a large number in her own party joining Jeffries (D-NY) and the Republican majority against it.
In a joint statement shortly ahead of the vote on Tlaib's resolution, House Minority Leader Jeffries of New York, along with Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), said: “We stand with the Lebanese people, the government of Lebanon, and the Lebanese Armed Forces in their efforts to live peacefully and defeat Hezbollah." The statement included no mention of Israel.
The lawmakers said they’d support a different resolution introduced by Tlaib on Wednesday, which was crafted in tandem with Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
That resolution likewise required President Donald Trump to remove US forces “from any hostilities in Lebanon” within seven days of passage. But it also added the caveat that it could not be construed to "prevent or limit security cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces."
Jeffries, Clark, and Aguilar said, "There are no US servicemembers involved in combat operations or hostilities in Lebanon."
However, supporters of Tlaib's original measure have noted that the US military is heavily involved in Israel's actions in the country without having boots on the ground.
"The US is actively cooperating with Israel on coordinating strikes, intelligence sharing, and planning, including Trump green-lighting major attacks on Lebanon multiple times," Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy Project at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Common Dreams.
While the resolution's passage wouldn't "end US involvement overnight," she said, "it fundamentally changes the landscape of accountability" by giving opponents of US collaboration a legal mechanism to conduct oversight.
And while the resolution would not cut off US military aid to Israel, Abou-Elias said Israel could continue its occupation "only for a limited period of time" without US assistance.
"Israel would be absorbing losses while also draining its broader manpower and firepower reserves," she said. "At some point, the cost-benefit of continuing their occupation without US support would shift."
Because war powers resolutions are privileged, they can be forced to a vote even without approval from the Republican majority.
However, committees are given 15 days to act before a resolution is forced onto the floor, followed by three days for a House vote. This means it could take until June 21 for the new version to pass. The Senate would also have to pass it, and it would then take another week to go into effect.
"The people of Lebanon can't wait another month for Congress to act," Tlaib said on social media following news that the proposal would be voted down. "Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion. Congress must pass today's Lebanon war powers resolution."
Abou-Elias said that despite the setback, Tlaib's introduction of the measure was not a wasted effort.
"Even if the resolution doesn't pass today, the vote forces every representative on record on the US participation in the attacks on Lebanon," she said. "That alone has value."
Though resolution failed, proponents of the measure championed the 92 lawmakers who did vote in favor.
“Congress’s failure to act has thus far enabled multiple Israeli invasions of Lebanon and war crimes against Lebanese civilians,” said Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, in a statement. “Tonight’s vote demonstrated that a growing block of members of Congress are beginning to listen to their constituents. Americans don’t want the US involved in atrocities against Lebanese, Palestinians, Iranians, or anyone. This vote is just the beginning, and we will continue to organize until all of Congress acts to end these atrocities.”
"The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off the program to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy," said US Rep. Shontel Brown.
Rep. Shontel Brown on Thursday confronted US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins for her past boasts about kicking millions of Americans off food assistance.
During a House Agriculture Committee hearing, Brown grilled Rollins for saying it was "good news" that 4.5 million fewer people are now enrolled in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) than before President Donald Trump took office last year.
"The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off the program to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy," said Brown. "Families and children are not leaving the SNAP program because they are doing better."
Rep. @ShontelMBrown: Recently, you described it as good news that roughly 4.5 million people have been moved off SNAP. The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. They are not doing better--
Rollins: They are. pic.twitter.com/qcB2WlAHLv
— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) June 4, 2026
"They are," Rollins replied, without citing any evidence.
"They are being forced off because of eligibility changes, new administrative barriers, and states preparing for the enormous cost shift that they know is coming," Brown shot back. "And you know this. So I'm really struggling to understand why you think pulling the rug out from under children, seniors, veterans, and families that have fallen on hard times [is] good news."
Rollins then baselessly claimed that all of the people who had been removed from SNAP had been added to the program fraudulently, including "200,000 dead people."
The Associated Press last month published a fact check that examined a similar Rollins claim about the number of people removed from food assistance over the last year, and determined that the most likely culprit were changes made to the program by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a 2025 budget law that slashed funding to SNAP by $186 billion over a decade.
"What we’ve seen in terms of the data is that the trend in participation declines seems to be related to the program being harder to access,” Roger Figueroa, an assistant professor at Cornell University, explained to the AP.