

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.
Charlotte Vallaeys, 978-369-6409
Mark Kastel, 608-625-2042
With the
growing success of organics, and increasing consumer interest in buying foods
that were grown on sustainable farms without toxic chemicals, Sara Lee
Corporation has launched, with much fanfare, a marketing campaign for its Earthgrains bread, chock-full of
environmental-friendly catchphrases.
Sara
Lee claims that "Eco-GrainTM," an ingredient actually used in
small proportions in its Earthgrains brand breads, is more sustainable than organic grain.
What has been described as a "crass and exploitive marketing ploy"
has angered many in the organic community.
"Corporations
like Sara Lee clearly want to profit from consumers' interest in
ecological and healthy food production. But unlike organic companies,
Sara Lee is doing practically nothing to ensure its ingredients are truly
ecologically produced," said Charlotte Vallaeys, a Food and Farm Policy
Analyst at The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based organic industry
watchdog. "It's a crass example of a corporation trying to
capitalize on the valuable market cachet of organic, while intentionally misleading
consumers-without making any meaningful commitment to protect the
environment or produce safer and more nutritious food."
The
Cornucopia Institute, a farm policy research group, points out that the farmers
who grow Eco-Grain differ very little from most conventional grain producers
who use petroleum-based fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides, and have little
in common with certified organic farmers.
The
one attribute that Sara Lee uses to differentiate Eco-Grain production is that
the farmers, although they use chemical fertilizers, incorporate technology
that has reduced fertilizer usage by 15%. In contrast, as mandated by
federal law, organic farmers are required by law to reduce their synthetic
fertilizer use by 100%.
Organic
farmers use natural fertilizers, compost and crop rotations to enrich the
long-term health of the soil, without damaging the environment or potentially
contaminating the food produced.
However,
Cornucopia's Vallaeys points out that, "Even if their new fancy wheat were
truly superior, each Earthgrains 24 ounce loaf contains only 20% flour from
Eco-Grain, with the remainder of the bread's wheat coming from regular,
conventional wheat. The total reduction in chemical fertilizer use in a
loaf of EarthGrains bread therefore amounts to a meager 3%."
"Even
though they've done a countrywide media rollout, including underwriting spots
on National Public Radio, Sara Lee is, in essence, playing a shell game,"
said Mark A. Kastel, Codirector at The Cornucopia Institute. "Even
as they had the audacity to promote a bread with just 20% of their 'value
added' wheat, the rest of their product line has 0% content of the
Eco-Grain. If advertising executives could be charged with malpractice,
this would be a major felony," Kastel said.
The
Cornucopia Institute has written to the
CEOs of both Sara Lee and NPR requesting that the "misleading and
unethical" packaging and advertising campaign, and associated advertising
and underwriting, be immediately suspended while the corporations investigate
their propriety.
In
addition to the organic prohibition against chemical fertilizers, federal
regulations also prohibit organic farmers from using toxic pesticides that are
commonly applied to conventional wheat fields, including those growing
"Eco-Grain."
One
such pesticide typically used in conventional wheat production is
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), which EPA researchers have correlated
with numerous birth defects of the respiratory and circulatory systems, as well
as defects like clubfoot, fused digits and extra digits. Other research
has linked the use of toxic pesticides on wheat fields to increased cancer
mortality rates.
And,
in addition to chemical fertilizers and pesticides, conventional wheat farmers
sometimes use synthetic fungicides and other chemicals to treat their fields.
"For
Sara Lee to claim that their wheat is ecologically grown and sustainable, when
they appear to make no effort to reduce or eliminate their use of toxic
pesticides, that have terrible effects on the environment and public health, is
highly disingenuous," says Nathan Jones, who grows organic wheat in King
Hill, Idaho and chairs the Organic Advisory Board of the Idaho State Department
of Agriculture.
In
addition to shunning toxic agrochemicals, organic farmers are required to
improve the long-term health of their soil, and increase biodiversity on their
farms.
"Unfortunately,
this is another example of a major agribusiness trying to blur the line between
products labeled 'organic' and 'natural'," stated
Kastel, who acts as Cornucopia's Senior Farm Policy Analyst. "It
seems that some corporations, like Sara Lee, appear more interested in
corporate profit and greenwashing than true environmental stewardship, and are
doing everything they can to take advantage of this confusion among
consumers," Kastel added.
"The
term 'natural' on products like bread is not regulated by state or
federal government," says Marion Nestle, Professor of Nutrition at New York University. "Companies that use
the term 'all natural' essentially come up with their own
definition."
In
addition, some of Sara Lee's other bread ingredients, such as soy oil and soy lecithin,
are grown and processed using genetic engineering and chemical extraction with
the toxic solvent hexane, both technologies that are banned in organic
production.
In
online marketing materials, Sara Lee even claims that farming methods used to
produce its "100% Natural" bread "have some advantages over
organic farming." They cite only one ecological advantage, claiming
that organic farmers require more land than conventional growers.
"This
claim does not hold up against recent scientific data," said Alison
Grantham, Research Manager at the Rodale Institute in Kutztown, Pennsylvania,
an agricultural research, education and outreach group. "Long-term
trials, such as our nearly 30-year-old Farming Systems Trial, show long-term
average organic farming systems' crop yields match conventional farming
system yields, and that the improvements in soil health achieved by organic
management actually support higher yields during droughts."
"I
just can't believe that Sara Lee would claim to be more sustainable than
organic bakers like me," affirms Daniel Leader, a certified organic bread
baker and owner of Bread Alone Bakery in the Hudson Valley, New York.
"In deference to my customers, I've made an investment in real
sustainability by going organic, and for Sara Lee to tarnish the good name of
organics, and even claim to be superior to organic bread, is simply
unacceptable." Bread Alone Bakery is certified by the Northeast
Organic Farmers Association, a certifier accredited by the USDA.
Sara
Lee's longtime ad jingle campaign doesn't seem to be ringing true for
organic farmers, bakers and consumers-"Everybody doesn't like
something, but nobody doesn't like Sara Lee." It will remain
to be seen whether spending more money on marketing and advertising than on
Eco-Grain itself will pay off for the agribusiness giant.
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.
"If you can sign up with one click, you can cancel with one click," said New York City's democratic socialist mayor.
In a move proponents say will save constituents up to $162.5 million annually, Mayor Zohran Mamdani and other New York City officials on Friday unveiled a "click-to-cancel" rule aimed at ensuring people can end online subscriptions as easily as they start them.
Days after entering office in January, Mamdani signed a pair of executive orders, "Combating Hidden Junk Fees" and "Fighting Subscription Tricks and Traps"—his 9th and 10th mayoral edicts—to protect consumers and make it easier "for New Yorkers to know the real price of what they are buying and to stop paying for the services they no longer want."
Following up on the orders, Mamdani and New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) Commissioner Samuel A.A. Levine proposed a rule "requiring transparent, all-in pricing that bans hidden junk fees, alongside a final 'click to cancel' rule that guarantees consumers can cancel subscriptions as easily as they sign up for them."
The landmark proposal is part of Mamdani's affordability agenda, which includes the rent freeze and universal childcare programs he's partially enacted, as well as the free city buses, municipal grocery stores, affordable housing expansion, and redistributive taxation his administration is pursuing.
“For years, companies have built their business model around making it harder for working people to hold onto their money,” Mamdani said during a Friday press conference at Asser Levy Recreational Center in Manhattan's Kips Bay neighborhood. “Whether it’s hidden fees that suddenly appear at checkout or subscriptions that take one click to sign up for and a dozen steps to cancel, the result is the same: Working people pay more while corporations profit. That ends now. If you can sign up with one click, you can cancel with one click.”
Levine said that “these two rules will ensure that the price you see is the price you pay—no hidden charges, no endless subscription services, and no advantages for businesses that cheat. Requiring companies to compete on price will lower costs for all New Yorkers and level the playing field for honest businesses.”
Deputy Mayor for Economic Justice Julie Su spoke at the press conference, saying, “Every dollar a family loses to a hidden fee or a subscription they couldn’t cancel is a dollar stolen from them, a dollar that could have gone toward rent, groceries, childcare, or anything else."
"And just as important, the hours spent trying to cancel a subscription or membership you no longer want is stolen time," the former acting US labor secretary added. “That’s what affordability means in practice—closing the small holes that drain people’s paychecks and their time month after month. These rules put New Yorkers back in control.”
Former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan—who implemented a similar rule while serving in the role during the Biden administration before it was killed after President Donald Trump returned to office—also spoke Friday, arguing that “nobody should be trapped in subscriptions they can’t escape or stuck paying junk fees they can’t avoid."
“These predatory tactics cheat people out of billions of dollars each year," she added. "With today’s rules, Commissioner Levine and DCWP are cracking down on corporate ripoffs, protecting families and honest businesses alike. The Mamdani administration’s work to tackle the affordability crisis and promote economic fairness continues to set a new standard nationwide, modeling effective governance and a relentless focus on using all of the city’s levers to improve life for New Yorkers.”
"I've never seen a more dangerous and purposeful attempt to make people sick and hungry," said one Pennsylvania state lawmaker.
Last week marked the first anniversary of President Donald Trump signing H.R. 1, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
But a new report from the progressive advocacy group Defend America Action, obtained exclusively by Common Dreams, demonstrates that while the bill has indeed been beautiful for the richest households, it has been anything but for working-class Americans.
"Republicans sacrificed the American people's financial future, healthcare, and food security to pay for massive tax breaks for big corporations and the ultrawealthy," the report said. "The richest people on the planet got a handout, and working families got the bill."
According to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the richest 1% of Americans will see $117 billion in net tax cuts in 2026, an average windfall of roughly $66,000 each and more than the entire bottom 60% will receive combined.
At the same time, the law contained the largest cuts to federal healthcare funding in US history, slashing over $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) over the next decade.
The report found that as of March 2026, less than a year after the bill passed, enrollment in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) had already fallen by 3.8 million.
And after Republicans allowed ACA marketplace subsidies to expire, insurance premiums are projected to increase 114% on average, leading one in five enrollees—over 4.2 million people—to drop their coverage entirely.
Additionally, 11 million low-income Americans no longer receive zero-dollar premiums through the marketplace, while deductibles rose an average of 37% for those buying insurance on their own.
In total, more than 8 million people are estimated to have lost insurance coverage due to cuts to these programs, according to Protect Our Care. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that as many as 15 million could lose insurance by 2034 as a result of the law and other policy changes over the next decade.
US Rep. Dina Titus (D) said that the cuts have hit her state of Nevada especially hard, as many people work in the service industry and don't receive employer-sponsored insurance.
"An estimated 100,000 Nevadans are impacted by this, [could be] kicked off Medicaid, including 22,000 just in my one congressional district, and it's children, it's seniors, and it's people with disabilities who are going to be impacted so directly."
"The failure to continue the [ACA] tax credits... has knocked more people off," she said. "Then people who do have it pay higher rates to cover that. So it doesn't just impact the people who are on Obamacare. It impacts everybody."
According to an analysis by Protect Our Care, more than 1,000 hospitals, nursing homes, maternity wards, and other critical care facilities around the country have either shut down, are at risk of closing, or have cut essential services since the law went into place.
"In my more than 25 years as a practicing physician and now a legislator for the last four years, I've never seen a more dangerous and purposeful attempt to make people sick and hungry," said Pennsylvania state Rep. Arvind Venkat (D-30), an emergency physician who represents the suburbs outside Pittsburgh.
"There are a number of hospitals in Pennsylvania that have closed or are under threat to close as a result of the devastation that's being caused by this legislation," he said.
After $187 billion was cut from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more than 4 million low-income people—10 % of enrollees—no longer receive food assistance, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Millions more are expected to also lose benefits as stringent new work requirements go into effect. This includes 3 million people aged 18-24, according to a report from the Urban Institute, which noted that young adults often have greater difficulty finding stable jobs that allow them to meet the work requirements.
An analysis from ProPublica last month found that across just 12 states that break down data based on age, at least 776,000 children are no longer appearing on SNAP rolls.
"I think when we're talking about SNAP, we should start from the fact that the average benefit per person is [less than] $3 per meal," said Jared Bernstein, who served as the chair of the United States Council of Economic Advisers under former President Joe Biden.
"Nobody's getting rich off of SNAP," he said. "What's happening is people, including a lot of children, are getting fed."
"There's a long line of careful research showing long-term benefits for not just the beneficiaries themselves, but for the broader society," he said, noting that receiving benefits early in life is associated with "better academic performance, long-run health, educational attainment, and economic self-sufficiency."
The report from Defend America Action also said the Trump budget law squashed "an unprecedented American clean energy and manufacturing boom" that began during the Biden years, which created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The law eliminated clean energy tax credits and led hundreds of projects to be canceled. Citing an analysis by Climate Power, the report said that over 140,000 clean energy jobs have been lost, are at risk, or have been delayed due to H.R. 1, stemming from 382 canceled or delayed projects that represented $69 billion in investment.
This has also contributed to the $92 billion spike in energy bills since Trump took office, the report said. Those canceled projects could have powered more than 17 million homes.
The law also killed the $7,500 electric vehicle (EV) tax credit, which has locked consumers into driving gas-powered cars that cost more to power, especially as Trump's war with Iran has sent gas prices soaring.
Bernstein noted that EV sales "fell off a cliff" after the tax credits were canceled.
"I can't begin to describe how shortsighted this is," he said. "Not just in terms of the environment, but also in terms of the US ever having a chance to capture market share in what I believe already is a do-or-die product development for the auto sector."
He noted that the US abandonment of clean energy, even as its use grows worldwide, has led China to dominate the market.
"This isn't China just eating our lunch," Bernstein said. "This is us serving our lunch to them."
Defend America Action's report notes that at the time of its passage, H.R. 1 was the most unpopular piece of legislation to pass through Congress since at least 1990, with just 31% approving and 55% disapproving, according to an average of four major polls.
Just months before the midterm elections, the bill remains equally unpopular, with only 33% of Americans saying they favor it and 48% opposing it, according to a recent survey by Navigator Research.
Titus told Common Dreams that one year ago, her colleagues in the GOP were very excited to pass H.R. 1.
Now, she said, "They don't really talk about it."
"They always are up for cutting programs," Titus said. "They call it fraud, waste, and abuse, but it's not. It's benefits that people needed."
"I think as you get closer to the election, there will be more concern about it," Titus said. "You know they cleverly made some of these cuts not go into effect until after the election, so they had to have been aware that they weren't very popular."
"I think we need to get the message out as much and as often as we can," she said, "and that's been kind of focused on affordability because all these different programs that we mentioned tie together."
"It's not just one little hit," Titus said. "It's across-the-board hits."
"If animals don’t have a place to live, they can’t live," said one critic.
President Donald Trump's administration on Friday paved the way for letting US corporations destroy the habitats of endangered species by rescinding a longtime interpretation of the Endangered Species Act.
As reported by The New York Times, the Interior Department and the Commerce Department announced that they were narrowing the law's definition of what constitutes harming endangered species.
Whereas the law has for decades been interpreted as protecting endangered animals' habitats from significant "modification or degradation," the administration said that offenders would have to directly injure or kill an endangered animal to be considered in violation of the law.
"The change could open the door for fossil fuel companies, agricultural interests, land developers, and others," wrote the Times, "to disturb or even destroy the habitats of vulnerable species."
The Endangered Species Act has been interpreted as protecting animals' habitats for decades, and that interpretation upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1995.
Environmental advocates expressed horror in response to the rule change, which they said would put endangered species at unprecedented risk.
Kristen Boyles, attorney for Earthjustice, vowed that the administration would face legal challenges for its rule change, which she said would jeopardize endangered animals' ability to "raise their young, or search for food."
"Let’s be clear: There is no support for the Trump Administration’s rule—no scientific support, no legal support, no public support," Boyles said. "We will see the Trump Administration in court."
Ben Greuel, wildlife campaign manager at the Sierra Club, called the rule changed "a direct attack on the foundation of the Endangered Species Act" that, if kept in place, would put species "on a path to extinction."
"This rule ignores that reality in an unlawful attempt to open the door for corporate polluters to degrade vitally important habitats, wildlife be damned," Greuel emphasized. "The Endangered Species Act is a bedrock law that must be followed."
Tara Zuardo, a senior campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity, pointed out that "habitat destruction is the number one threat to endangered species," while calling the Trump administration's new policy "a death knell for America’s wildlife."
"If animals don’t have a place to live, they can’t live," Zuardo said. "Spotted owls, Atlantic salmon, Florida panthers, and thousands of other species need protections for the wild places where they make their homes."
Andrew Bowman, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, accused the Trump administration of embracing an "erroneous and nonsensical interpretation" of the Endangered Species Act that he vowed to challenge in court.
"We intend to fight back with the full force of the law," said Bowman, "to defeat this attack and innumerable others by the administration on the statutes and regulations that protect America’s cherished wildlife."