

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.
Alexis Baden-Mayer, 202-744-0853, alexis@organicconsumers.org
Jan Buhrman, 508-360-4491, jan@kitchenporch.com
John Mayer, 925-681-9780, johnm@organicconsumers.org
The
Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) blocked
scores of citizens from participating in a public hearing held on
Monday, May 10, 2010, to examine controversial proposed regulations
restricting public access to raw milk. The Organic Consumers
Association (OCA) has sent a formal letter of complaint (see below) to
Attorney General Martha Coakley seeking a full investigation of what is
a serious violation of the state's open meetings law. OCA is a
national organization with thousands of members in Massachusetts. It
promotes healthy organic foods such as raw milk.
Last Monday,
May 10, hundreds of citizens, and at least one dairy cow, descended on
the State Capitol to protest and testify against proposed MDAR
regulations that would end, for all intents and purposes, the ability
of most Massachusetts citizens to obtain fresh raw milk directly from
the farm. The proposed regulations would put out of business many
family farms during these hard economic times.
Despite the
peaceful nature of the public hearing, scores were kept from attending
the proceedings and were not provided with any alternative means to
hear, see or participate in them.
"These dictatorial proposed
rule changes have sparked outrage among Massachusetts milk drinkers and
dairy farmers," said Jan Buhrman, a chef and farmer advocate who
attended the hearing. "The Department of Agriculture knew this was a
contentious issue, and yet the hearing was held in a room much too
small for the number of attendees. We call upon Attorney General
Coakley to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation and force MDAR
and Commissioner Soares to comply with Massachusetts law regarding
public meetings."
Commissioner Soares has violated the
Massachussetts open meetings law. The proper and immediate sanction is
to do it right - open this process anew and conduct another public
hearing with no lock-outs and full and fair public participation.
Attorney General Martha Coakley can be reached at (617) 727 2200, ago@state.ma.us
Robert Nasdor, Director, Division of Open Government, can be reached at (617) 727 2200, Robert.Nasdor@state.ma.us
MDAR Commissioner Scott Soares can be reached at (617) 626 1701, Scott.Soares@state.ma.us
THE COMPLAINT:
May 13, 2010
Attorney General
Martha Coakley
Office of the
Attorney General
One Ashburton Place,
20th Floor Boston,
Massachusetts 02108
Via Email, Fax and Overnight Certified Mail
Attn: Robert Nasdor,
Division of Open Government
Re: Open Meeting Law
Violation
Dear Attorney General Coakley:
I am writing to ask you to investigate an open meeting law violation that
occurred on Monday, May 10, 2010 during a hearing conducted by the
Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources ("DAR").
The meeting occurred pursuant to a notice advertising changes to the DAR's
regulations regarding raw milk. It
took place in meeting rooms D and E on the second floor of 100 Cambridge Street
in Boston. A number of people (we
estimate between 50 and 75) were prevented from entering the hearing room by
DAR staff who stated that allowing additional people to attend the hearings
would exceed the rooms' capacity. These people were directed to another room that lacked any visual or
sound connection to the hearing room. Only as individuals left the hearing room were additional people
allowed, on a one-by-one basis, to enter the hearing room. As a result, a large number of
interested persons were prevented from attending the meeting at all.
I strongly believe that preventing people from entering the meeting
violates the open meeting law, which provides:
All meetings of a governmental body shall be open to the public and any
person shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided by
this section. G.L. c. 30A, SS 11A1/2.
In this
case many "person[s]" were not "permitted to attend" this
meeting. No exceptions in SS 11A 1/2
apply, as there was no declaration of an executive session and no basis for
excluding anyone. The same is true
under the version of the Open Meeting Law that will become effective on June 1,
2010. G.L. c. 30A, SS 20(a).
There is no exception for a room that is too small, as DAR claimed. I
recognize that there are codes limiting the number of people in hearing
rooms. That places the burden on
the agency to secure a large enough room or at least to provide for video and
audio feeds into and from any room holding people who are turned away from the
live hearing. Responsibility for
the size of the room falls upon the agency having control over the
arrangements, not upon members of the public who are trying to exercise their
rights to address and petition their government. Failing to provide adequate space cannot be allowed as an
excuse for non-compliance with the open meeting law.
Moreover, the DAR itself anticipated a large amount of interest in its
proposed regulations. In an
attempt to reduce attendance, it posted an announcement on its website after
hours on Friday, May 7, attempting to withdraw a controversial provision of the
proposed regulations and contacted at least one large organization, which
withdrew its request for its members to attend. Enforcing the government's open meeting
responsibilities to allow "any person . . . to attend any meeting" is
particularly important when the agency tries to match room size and audience by
taking active steps to reduce attendance instead of providing a large enough
room, with overflow capability by video and audio feed. The DAR is not, after all, without
resources to comply with the minimal open meeting burdens that the legislature
has imposed upon it.
I respectfully request an investigation.
Signed,
Alexis Baden-Mayer,
Esq.
Political Director
Organic Consumers
Association
cc: Deval Patrick, Governor
Ian A. Bowles,
Secretary
Scott J.
Soares, Commissioner
###
Learn more at www.organicconsumers.org/raw-milk
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.
The agency demanded that all parties protect civilians and reiterated the secretary-general's call "to end the fighting and engage in diplomatic negotiations."
Since the United States and Israel launched an unprovoked war on Iran at the end of February, more than 1,100 youth have been killed or injured in related violence across the Middle East, the United Nations Children's Fund said Wednesday, calling for a swift diplomatic resolution.
"The situation is becoming catastrophic for millions of children across the region," UNICEF said in a statement, noting that at least 200 children are reportedly dead in Iran, 91 in Lebanon, four in Israel, and one in Kuwait. "These numbers will likely climb as the violence intensifies and spreads."
Most of the kids killed in Iran died in what mounting evidence suggests was a US attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' school in Minab on February 28. That attack killed an estimated 175 people, mostly students ages 7-12, part of an overall death toll that the Iranian government has said exceeds 1,300.
Responding to the school bombing, Gordon Brown, a former UK prime minister who's now the UN special envoy for global education, argued in a Guardian opinion piece Thursday that "the world will now need stronger mechanisms to ensure accountability," such as a body complementing the International Criminal Court but specifically for children, "focusing its attention on the bombing of schools, abductions of pupils, and militias that enslave boys and girls."
With the widening conflict in the Middle East, UNICEF noted Thursday, "widespread disruption to education has left millions of children out of school across the region, while hundreds of thousands of children have been displaced by unrelenting bombardment."
In Lebanon, where Israeli attacks are allegedly targeting the Lebanese political and paramilitary group Hezbollah despite a November 2024 ceasefire deal, nearly 800,000 people, including around 200,000 children, have been forced from their homes, according to Mercy Corps. The Lebanese government has said at least 570 people have been killed and 1,444 injured.
"Civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and water and sanitation systems—upon which children depend to survive—have been attacked, damaged, or destroyed by parties to the conflict," UNICEF said. "Nothing justifies the killing and maiming of children, or the destruction and disruption of essential services that children depend on."
"Grave violations against children in armed conflict can constitute violations of international law, including international humanitarian law, and international human rights law," the UN agency continued.
Across Iran, several United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage sites have also been damaged by the US-Israeli war, which experts worldwide argue violates both the US Constitution and UN Charter.
The UN Security Council, which is currently led by President Donald Trump's administration, on Wednesday adopted a resolution condemning Iran's retaliatory attacks on Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan—nations that host US military bases—without even mentioning the US-Israeli bombing campaign.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres last Friday demanded a return to negotiations. Trump, who abandoned a previous Iranian nuclear deal during his first term, ditched recent talks with Iran in favor of bombing the country with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who has used war on Iran to again close crossings into the Gaza Strip, or as critics have put it, reinstate a "starvation policy" in the Palestinian territory devastated by Israel's 29-month genocidal assault.
In addition to reiterating "the secretary-general's call on parties to the conflict to end the fighting and engage in diplomatic negotiations," UNICEF on Wednesday urged everyone involved "to take all necessary precautions in the choice of means and methods of warfare to minimize harm to civilians, including by avoiding the use of explosive weapons that disproportionally affect children."
"The region's children—all 200 million of them—are counting on the world to act quickly," the agency concluded.
A Wednesday letter signed by every member of the US Senate Democratic Caucus but Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.)—who previously helped Republicans block a war powers resolution intended to halt Trump's assault on Iran—called for a probe of the Minab school attack and sounded the alarm about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's rhetoric that "only serves to endanger civilians."
Specifically, Hegseth has said that the US assault on Iran, which they're calling Operation Epic Fury, would have "no stupid rules of engagement," and there will be "death and destruction from the sky all day long."
"The oil market challenges we are facing are unprecedented in scale," said the executive director of the International Energy Agency.
The International Energy Agency said Thursday that the US-Israeli war on Iran and its reverberating impacts across the region have sparked "the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market," with flows of crude and other fossil fuel products through the Strait of Hormuz plummeting and Gulf nations slashing production as they run out of storage space.
The agency noted in its monthly report on the state of the global oil market that "oil prices have gyrated wildly since the United States and Israel launched joint airstrikes on Iran on 28 February," pointing to "disruptions to Middle Eastern supplies due to attacks on the region’s oil infrastructure and the cessation of tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz," which have "sent Brent futures soaring, trading within a whisker of $120/bbl."
The IEA's report came a day after the agency's 32 member nations—including the US—agreed unanimously to release a total of 400 million barrels of oil from their emergency reserves to "address disruptions in oil markets stemming from the war in the Middle East."
"The oil market challenges we are facing are unprecedented in scale, therefore I am very glad that IEA member countries have responded with an emergency collective action of unprecedented size,” said the agency's executive director, Fatih Birol.
The IEA assessment on Thursday came as oil prices surged again as Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran's new supreme leader, vowed to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed. An estimated 20% of the world's oil passes through the route each year.
Earlier on Thursday, Iraq—which has among the largest confirmed reserves of crude oil in the world—suspended all of its oil terminal operations after two vessels were attacked off the nation's coast. NPR reported that Iran "took responsibility for attacking one of the tankers, which it said was owned by the US."
The US and Israel have also bombed Iran's oil infrastructure, choking Tehran with black smoke and spraying toxic rain that prompted warnings from the World Health Organization (WHO).
"The black rain and the acidic rain coming with it is indeed a danger for the population, respiratory mainly," WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier told reporters in Geneva earlier this week.
Heba Morayef, Amnesty International's regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, said Wednesay that "the potential for vast, predictable, and devastating civilian harm arising from strikes targeting energy infrastructure, including uncontrolled deadly fires, major disruptions to essential services, environmental damage, and severe long-term health risks for millions, means there is a substantial risk such attacks would violate international humanitarian law and in some cases could amount to war crimes."
“Regardless of whether a military objective is cited to justify targeting energy infrastructure, under international humanitarian law all parties have a clear obligation to take all feasible precautions to reduce civilian harm and refrain from attacks that cause disproportionate death or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects," said Morayef. "This includes any foreseeable knock-on, indirect adverse effects on civilians’ life and health, such as exposure to toxic chemicals.”
“No one is safe from making these trade-offs,” said a researcher at Gallup, which found even insured Americans in higher income brackets have avoided daily expenses to pay medical bills.
As the Trump administration spends an estimated $1 billion per day in taxpayer money bombing targets across Iran that have reportedly included an elementary school and healthcare facilities, Gallup released a survey Thursday that found one-third of Americans reported making financial trade-offs in order to pay for medical expenses last year.
The West Health-Gallup Center on Healthcare in America polled nearly 20,000 US adults between June and August 2025 and found that roughly one-third of them—equivalent to about 82 million people in the richest country in the world—were forced cut back on at least one expense in order to afford healthcare.
Eleven percent of respondents—equivalent to 28 million Americans—skipped a meal or intentionally drove less in order to pay a medical bill. Fifteen percent, the equivalent of nearly 40 million people, said they prolonged a current prescription or borrowed money, and 9% cut back on utilities.
Those numbers were strikingly similar among people who have health insurance, with 14% of insured people prolonging prescriptions to avoid paying for a new one and 9% skipping meals. Among insured Americans, 29% made at least one trade-off to afford healthcare.
The crisis is also not exclusively affecting low-income people. A quarter of people in households earning $90,000 to $120,000 per year skipped meals or other expenses to pay medical bills, and 11% of people in households earning $240,000 or more did the same.
“No one is safe from making these trade-offs,” Ellyn Maese, a senior researcher at Gallup and research director for the West Health-Gallup Center, told The New York Times.
Sixty-two percent of people without healthcare coverage were forced to make trade-offs, and 55% of people with household incomes lower than $24,000 per year as well as 47% of people earning $24,000 to $48,000 avoided expenses.
Gallup also released the results of a separate poll taken between October and December 2025, which showed how Americans are delaying major life decisions as well as altering their daily lives to afford healthcare under the for-profit insurance system.
As the Trump administration's policies slashed healthcare for 15 million Americans and raised healthcare premiums for tens of millions of people—and as the White House demanded that families have more children—6% of respondents said they had postponed having or adopting a child due to healthcare costs, equivalent to about 16 million Americans.
Nearly 30% said healthcare costs led them to avoid taking a vacation, 18% said they delayed finding a different job, 15% said they postponed pursuing education or job training, and 14% said they postponed buying a home.
The polls are “telling a consistent story here,” Maese said.
The survey results were released weeks after the Trump administration proposed new regulations for healthcare plans purchased through the Affordable Care Act marketplace that would charge deductibles as high as $15,000 for individuals and $31,000 for families to offset lower monthly premiums—underscoring how the healthcare law passed 16 years ago has left American households vulnerable to rising costs under the for-profit health insurance system.
A survey taken last November by Data for Progress found that 65% of voters support expanding the Medicare system to everyone in the US, a proposal that would save an estimated $650 billion annually.
But as Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—who has sponsored Medicare for All legislation in the House—noted on Wednesday, Republicans and establishment Democrats continue to claim the proposal is unaffordable.
"When we ask for Medicare for All it’s 'too expensive,' and we 'don’t have the money,'" said Jayapal. "When the president drags us into his own personal war, no expense is spared. Our priorities are backwards."