

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.
Will Fantle, 715-839-7731
A federal
appeals court ruled today, overturning a lower court decision, that a group of California almond
farmers have the right to challenge a USDA regulation requiring the treatment
of their raw almonds with a toxic fumigant or steam heat prior to sale to
consumers. For the past three years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
has denied American consumers the right to buy raw almonds, grown in the USA,
when they shop in grocery and natural food stores.
View the full news release at:
A
group of almond growers sued the government to challenge USDA's rule, but
the federal district court ruled that courtroom doors were closed to the
growers' claims. The controversial rule has cost individual farmers
millions of dollars in lost sales since it was enacted in September 2007.
"We
are delighted by the court's decision," said Will Fantle, of The
Cornucopia Institute, a farm policy and research group that has been
coordinating the legal strategy and the lawsuit brought by 13 California almond growers. Cornucopia
has been coordinating the legal strategy for the farmers' lawsuit.
"At long last the farmers who have been injured by this rule will have
the opportunity to stand in court and state why this poorly thought out
regulation should be thrown out," Fantle added.
The
USDA and the Almond Board of California imposed the treatment scheme to
minimize the risk of salmonella contamination outbreaks like those that had
occurred with almonds in 2001 and 2004. USDA investigators were never
able to determine how salmonella bacteria somehow contaminated the raw almonds
that caused the food illnesses but they were able to trace back one of the
outbreaks, in part, to the country's largest "factory farm,"
growing almonds and pistachios on over 9000 acres.
Family-scale
growers have argued that the onerous and expensive mandated treatment regime is
only needed by the giant industrial producers, who have less control over the
quality of their nuts, and has hurt their market because of consumer resistance.
Many
in the industry have questioned the logic exempting foreign-grown almonds from
the treatment scheme. Imports have displaced raw domestic nuts in many
major markets and retail locations across the U.S. This regulatory loophole
is part of what has been crushing California
producers.
"I
am very happy with this first step in overturning this destructive
regulation," said Nick Koretoff, an almond farmer and plaintiff in the
lawsuit. "The treatment mandate has been a financial catastrophe
for me. My consumers want raw, untreated healthy almonds and I have been
denied the opportunity to sell them what they want."
Attorney
John Vetne, who has been representing the almond farmers, said the Appeals Court made
a "very strong decision affirming farmers' rights." The
USDA had been arguing that farmers did not even have the right to legally
challenge the USDA regulation. "We are pleased that the Appeals Court
rejected USDA's argument that courthouse doors are closed to
farmers. We now intend to demonstrate to the federal district court that
USDA acted outside of authority granted by Congress when it denied California
almond growers a consumer market for raw almonds," Vetne added.
Tens
of thousands of consumers have expressed their discontent with the raw almond
treatment rule in comments to the USDA. Organic and raw foods enthusiasts
were particularly incensed that the nuts, despite being processed with
propylene oxide (identified as a carcinogen by the federal EPA) or steam-heat,
were still allowed to be labeled as "raw" - many
believe that essential nutrients in food can be destroyed by heat, radiation
and toxic chemicals.
The
Cornucopia Institute, an organization known for its research and defense of family
farmers involved in organics, artisan and local food production, was impressed
with how many consumers have a real passion for maintaining the availability of
raw food and nuts, including almonds, and have been willing to financially
support the farmers in their legal challenge. "Contributions
continue to flow in supporting this effort," Fantle noted.
"I
and many of my friends look forward to the day when we will once again be able to
easily purchase truly raw, authentic almonds from California in my local
store," said Joan Levin, a Chicago resident and raw foods consumer.
"We hope this Appeals Court
ruling brings that day closer," she said.
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.
His comments came one day after the largest power grid in the US announced massive rate hikes and said the "primary driver of that growth is data centers."
After New York’s Democratic governor enacted a temporary ban on the construction of large data centers to curb their enormous power consumption, President Donald Trump’s energy secretary, Chris Wright, made the evidence-free claim that the facilities are actually the “greatest tool” for reducing the sharp increases in energy prices.
On Tuesday, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed an executive order barring for one year the construction of "hyperscale" data centers that can consume 50 megawatts of power or more, saying that unchecked expansion "threatens to hike up utility bills, deplete our natural resources, and create uncertainty for New Yorkers."
New York was the first state to place a moratorium on data center development, and more than a dozen other states have considered enacting moratoriums as evidence has mounted that data centers tend to spike power demand and drive up costs.
But as the rapid growth of data centers has sparked furious backlash in communities of all political stripes, the industry has maintained a steadfast ally in the Trump administration, which has continued to champion rapid data center buildout by fast-tracking permits, opening federal land to developers, promoting new energy infrastructure, and offering federal financing and tax incentives to new projects.
On Wednesday morning, Wright took to Fox News to blast Hochul's block on data center development.
"Gov. Hochul has it exactly backward," he said. "Data centers are the greatest tool we have right now to stop the rise of electricity prices and ultimately to bring them back down."
Wright, a former fracking executive, protested that “Democrat green energy policies” were responsible for driving up energy prices in New York, pointing to its ban on fracking, the blocking of a major natural gas pipeline, and an “insane climate law” requiring the state to transition away from fossil fuels by 2040.
"Energy is extremely expensive in New York and now sparse because of bad Democrat policies," he said. "Nothing to do with data centers."
Wright did not elaborate on how exactly data centers could be used as a "tool" to bring down energy prices. But if this is the case, nobody has informed the energy companies themselves.
His comments came just a day after PJM, which serves 67 million customers and is the nation's largest electric grid operator, released the results of an electricity auction that added $6.3 billion in costs to consumers' energy bills in 2028-29 due to growth in energy demand.
"The primary driver of that growth is data centers," the company said in a press release. "New data center facilities and expansions of existing sites can be developed quickly, up to two to three times faster than many of the electricity generation technologies that are necessary to serve them and allow PJM to maintain the reliability customers expect."
That increase is not confined to the future. It has already begun. According to Monitoring Analytics, PJM’s independent market monitor, since 2024, the auctions have added $29 billion in costs to the customers across the 13 states plus Washington, DC, where it operates. New York is not one of the states supplied by the PJM grid.
The Natural Resources Defense Council has found that recent PJM auction increases have added as much as $20-30 to monthly bills in some parts of the company's regions, and projects that continued data-center growth could eventually add roughly $70 per month for an average household.
The labor-focused media organization More Perfect Union, which has published many pieces documenting the effects of data centers on American communities, called Wright's claim "one of the most blatant lies we’ve ever heard."
"Data centers are pushing energy prices up," the outlet said. "That is not a matter of debate, it’s a fact."
"These stops are not effective at 'fighting crime.' They’re effective at terrorizing immigrants," said one critic.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday demanded that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement restart its traffic stops just one day after the agency mostly paused them.
In a Truth Social post, Trump argued that the government "CANNOT give up one of ICE's most important and effective Crime Fighting tools, THE TRAFFIC STOP!"
"Once we do, we are playing right into the criminal’s (sic) hands," the president added. "The Radical Left Dumocrats would like to see this done, but it won't happen on my watch. ICE, be judicious, fair and smart, and go back and do your very important job."
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Tuesday announced it would temporarily halt traffic stops after ICE officers fatally shot two people—52-year-old Mexican national Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Texas and 26-year-old Colombian national Joan Sebastian Guerrero in Maine—in the span of a week.
The shootings sparked outrage and prompted Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the most vulnerable Senate Republican this election cycle, to ask Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to stop ICE traffic stops.
Trump's demand to reinstate the stops drew sharp criticism.
Journalist Radley Balko said that Trump's purported concern for crime was just an excuse for him to carry out a nationwide intimidation campaign.
"These stops are not effective at 'fighting crime,'" Balko wrote. "They’re effective at terrorizing immigrants. That’s what he doesn't want to give up."
Gail Helt, a former CIA analyst, similarly argued that the traffic stop policy "has nothing to do with fighting crime."
"It is effective at terrorizing the American public though," Helt added. "I suspect that’s the point."
Attorney Will Stancil, who monitored ICE actions during its siege of Minnesota earlier this year, said the reversal on traffic stops raises broader questions about Americans' tolerance for a rogue law enforcement agency.
"I’m probably biased but it’s starting to feel like the conflict over ICE is going to be the defining feature of Trump’s second term," Stancil wrote. "Will America have an unaccountable paramilitary terror force serving at the whim of the regime, or will we be a nation of laws?"
Andrew O'Neill, national advocacy director for Indivisible, summed up Trump's policy reversal by remarking that "the state-sanctioned murders will continue until morale improves."
Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief at MeidasTouch, said Trump's announcement will be damaging to Collins as she faces a tough campaign this year. Collins recently voted to approve tens of billions of dollars in additional funding for ICE.
"Susan Collins assured the people of Maine yesterday that she persuaded Markwayne Mullin to stop ICE traffic stops," Filipkowski wrote. "Trump overruled her."
Brian Finucane, senior adviser with the US Program at the International Crisis Group, said that Collins still had options for forcing Trump's hand to end the traffic stops.
"The chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee might be able to do something about this if she wanted to," Finucane wrote.
"The government is violating the constitutional rights of American citizens in order to shield officials of a foreign government who have committed a genocide."
A pair of advocacy organizations on Wednesday sued President Donald Trump and top members of his administration over sanctions targeting the International Criminal Court and its supporters, arguing the punitive measures violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution and illegally "muzzle Palestine advocacy."
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Manhattan by Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) and the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide (TAAG), contends that Trump's Executive Order 14203 unlawfully restricts Americans' ability to seek "justice on Palestine at the ICC" and work with human rights organizations sanctioned "solely for calling on the ICC to investigate Israeli and American nationals."
"The Trump administration is using the blunt instrument of economic sanctions not only to punish human rights defenders but to police the political expression of millions of Americans," said Omar Shakir, executive director of DAWN. "The government is violating the constitutional rights of American citizens in order to shield officials of a foreign government who have committed a genocide."
DAWN notes that, under Trump's February 2025 executive order, the administration has sanctioned ICC officials "as well as leading Palestinian human rights groups al-Haq, al-Mezan, and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR)," as well as Francesca Albanese, the United Nations' special rapporteur for the human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Trump's order authorizes sanctions against "any foreign person" deemed to have "materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of," ICC efforts to "investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute" Americans or officials from allied nations, such as Israel.
The organizations behind the new lawsuit explain that "because the government can interpret the term 'service' to encompass anything that confers a benefit on the recipient, groups like DAWN and TAAG could face civil and criminal charges if they engage in routine advocacy with the sanctioned parties—for example, filing a brief with the ICC encouraging it to investigate possible crimes, sharing evidence or advocacy ideas with Palestinian human rights groups or Ms. Albanese, or working with them on a campaign to lift the sanctions."
“The chilling effect on plaintiffs has been profound,” the lawsuit states. “They now face prison terms and ruinous fines if, in their interactions with the designated parties, they provide or receive anything that defendants could plausibly characterize as a ‘service’—an extraordinarily capacious term that potentially reaches any act that confers a benefit on its recipient. Fearing liability, plaintiffs—and countless others like them—have turned to self-censorship.”
Tarik Kanaana, president of TAAG, said that "with this executive order, Trump has put himself and those in the U.S. government above the law, shielding them from any accountability for their roles in the genocide in Palestine and Lebanon and for war crimes around the globe funded by US taxpayers."
"As US taxpayers, we have the right to hold our government accountable for how it uses this public resource," said Kanaana. "That right cannot be taken away."
The lawsuit comes days after the US State Department launched a sweeping broadside against the ICC, an independent tribunal based in The Hague that investigates and prosecutes individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other atrocities. In late 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, one of the Trump administration officials named as a plaintiff in the new lawsuit, vowed on Monday to "dismantle" the ICC with increasingly aggressive sanctions against the court and its supporters and international pressure. (Neither the US nor Israel are party to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC.)
Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International's secretary-general, warned in a statement on Tuesday that if nations fail to fight back against the US assault on the ICC, "they will acquiesce to a new era of lawlessness, impunity, and rampant injustice."
"Now is not the time to appease. Now is the time to resist," said Callamard. "For the good of humanity, victims’ hopes of justice, and the prospect of lasting global security, the international community must come together, stand up to the bullies in the White House and State Department and protect the international rule of law. We must not accept a reality where the most powerful have the least legal responsibility.”