

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.
As the nation reels from the impact of a massive egg recall that has
sickened well over 1,500 people, survivors of foodborne illness and
consumer advocates say that antiquated laws and poor enforcement are to
blame. According to a new report, the massive egg recall
is only the latest--but largest--of 85 recalls that companies made while
food safety reform legislation has been pending in the Senate, and since
similar legislation passed the House in July of 2009. All told, at
least 1,850 people have been sickened from foods subject to a recall,
according to a report issued today by three consumer groups. And since
foodborne illness is dramatically underreported, the actual toll of
illness is almost certainly in the tens of thousands.
"Recalls and outbreaks are the most public consequence of our
'horse and buggy' food safety system," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest.
"Consumers are sometimes sickened and everyone up and down the chain
has to check for, remove, and destroy the contaminated products. Only
Congress can fix the underlying problems by passing legislation that has
been languishing in the Senate for over a year."
In the 13-month period since the House passed H.R. 2749, the
Food Safety Enhancement Act, researchers from CSPI, Consumer Federation
of America, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group identified 85
separate recalls linked to at least 1,850 illnesses. 36 of those
recalls were due to Salmonella contamination of lettuce, alfalfa
sprouts, green onions, and ground pepper. Hydrolyzed vegetable protein
contaminated with Salmonella spurred the recall of a wide variety of
soup and dip mixes, dressings, and seasonings. 32 recalls, mostly from
contaminated cheeses, were due to dangerous Listeria bacteria. E. coli
bacteria on shredded romaine lettuce sickened at least 26 people in 23
states and the District of Columbia.
At a press conference
in Washington, representatives from the consumer groups said that the
Senate needs to take up food safety legislation immediately after it
reconvenes. A conference committee will then have to craft a final bill
before it can be sent to the President.
For survivors of foodborne illness and their families, the wait has
been too long.
"I want to know that the food on my plate is safe," said 13-year-old Rylee Gustafson,
of Henderson, Nev. In 2006, Rylee spent two-weeks on life support and
was hospitalized for a month after eating spinach contaminated with E.
coli. Since her illness, Rylee has been active with Safe Tables Our
Priority (S.T.O.P.), which assists victims of foodborne illness and
advocates for reform. "I hope that the Senate can finish work on the
food safety bill, and that other kids won't have to suffer from a
foodborne illness like I did."
Both the House-passed bill and the bill pending in the Senate
require food manufacturers to develop written food safety plans and to
implement preventive measures. Both bills give the FDA a mandate to
conduct inspections of food processing facilities, and to conduct
microbial testing. Under current law, many facilities go for five or
10 years without an inspection. The Senate bill would require high-risk
producers to be inspected more frequently. Both bills give the agency
the authority to order companies to recall potentially tainted foods.
"Most Americans probably assume that FDA inspects farms and
food processing plants are inspected regularly and that when problems
arise, FDA can quickly order tainted eggs or spinach off the market,"
said Chris Waldrop, director of the Consumer Federation of America's
Food Policy Institute. "In fact, neither of those assumptions is true.
The Senate food safety bill would give the FDA the authority it needs
to do its job."
"Unfortunately, the FDA is often in reactive mode, chasing
down the source of an outbreak long after much of the food in question
has been sold," said Elizabeth Hitchcock, public health advocate for
U.S. PIRG, which is activating its nationwide grassroots network to push
for a vote on S. 510. "We need this food safety reform legislation so
that the FDA can focus on preventing contamination in the first
place--before the food ends up in Americans' cupboards and
refrigerators."
In 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid assured young
Rylee, the survivor of the 2006 spinach outbreak, that food safety was a
priority. "We're going to do everything we can to get this legislation
done," Reid said. A month later, the bipartisan food safety bill was
unanimously reported out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions Committee. But more than a year--and 59 recalls--later, no vote
has been scheduled.
"My Salmonella infection from eggs was the most devastating
thing I have ever been through," said Sarah Lewis, a mother of two from
Freedom, Calif. "I would hate for anyone else to have to go through
anything like it, especially if they have small children who need care.
The fact that this egg outbreak could happen on such a large scale
makes it clear to me that food regulation needs to be improved."
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that
76 million people suffer from foodborne illness each year. 325,000
will be hospitalized. And approximately 5,000 Americans will die.
Children and the elderly are most likely to experience severe cases of
illness and death from foodborne pathogens.
Since 1971, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has been a strong advocate for nutrition and health, food safety, alcohol policy, and sound science.
A trio of ex-officials filed a formal complaint demanding an investigation into the Justice Department lawyers who authored the legal rationale justifying the US abduction of Venezuela's president.
A group of former US ethics officials filed a complaint Wednesday demanding an investigation into the Justice Department lawyers who crafted the legal rationale justifying the Trump administration's patently unlawful assault on Venezuela and ongoing effort to plunder the country's natural resources.
The trio of ex-officials, who worked under both Republican and Democratic presidents, specifically called for an immediate ethics probe into whether attorneys at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) "violated their professional legal responsibilities in providing guidance justifying the recent invasion of Venezuela and abduction of its president, Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, as well as legal advice that has apparently been given by the Department to President Trump to justify his recent threats to take additional military action against Venezuela, Columbia, Cuba, Iran, and Denmark."
"Such unilateral use of military force absent an imminent threat to the United States violates international law and furthermore unconstitutionally intrudes on the power that rests with Congress alone to declare war," wrote Norman Eisen, Richard Painter, and Virginia Canter in their complaint. "In sum, the president and the Department of Defense, presumably relying on yet another confidential and classified memorandum from OLC, or perhaps more than one memorandum, have engaged in illegal acts of war and threats of illegal acts of war against sovereign nations."
The complaint was announced after Trump administration officials reportedly told US lawmakers in closed-door meetings this week that the Justice Department developed a new legal opinion in an attempt to justify the abduction of Maduro, an operation that killed at least 100 people, according to Venezuelan officials.
US Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday that he believes the OLC opinion will declare the deadly military assault on Venezuela legal "because it was assisting a law-enforcement action."
BREAKING: Trump & enablers may THINK they can get away with invading Venezuela to seize its oil
But we @DDFund_ are not going to let them
Our push for legal accountability starts with our ethics complaint against the lawyers authorizing this illegality 👇
Much more to come... pic.twitter.com/ZJYgPb0GVM
— Norm Eisen (@NormEisen) January 8, 2026
The former ethics officials behind the new complaint against the Trump Justice Department said they are also filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request demanding that the OLC memo on the Venezuela assault be made public.
"Even before the weekend’s outrageous events, that illegality was on sharp display through Trump’s attempted escalation into a conflict with Venezuela through dozens of illegal strikes on alleged drug smugglers in international waters," the former ethics officials wrote in a blog post on Wednesday. "But the invasion of Venezuela represents a new—and wholly illegal—escalation."
The ex-officials emphasized that their push for transparency is just part of what must be an all-hands-on-deck effort to stop the administration's military assault on Venezuela and potentially other sovereign nations.
"Congress must look at other vehicles to limit the president’s unlawful aggression, perhaps with terms in spending bills that he could not so easily veto. The responsibility now lies with Congress to stop Trump," the former officials wrote, noting that GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate are likely to vote down War Powers Resolutions aimed at constraining the lawless president.
"But it does not end there," they added. "Others must step up as well, and that is why we are launching our dual legal actions of an ethics complaint and a FOIA demand. The cost of inaction against Trump’s forays into foreign wars is too high, and the window for safeguarding our nation from his illegal and corrupt blood for oil adventurism is narrowing."
"Republicans shamefully voted it down—demonstrating once again that they have never cared about law and order or keeping our communities safe," said the congresswoman.
Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley told her fellow members of the US House Oversight Committee on Wednesday that a motion she was introducing during a hearing was "pretty straightforward": The committee, she said, should conduct oversight regarding a federal agent's fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good, a woman in Minneapolis who was killed in her car earlier in the day.
But the motion failed, with every Republican on the panel voting against it.
Pressley (D-Mass.) introduced the motion during a hearing regarding a fraud scandal in the state, hours after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot Good, who was in the driver's seat of her car as multiple officers approached her. Good was acting as a legal observer, according to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), monitoring ICE actions following the Trump administration's surge of federal agents into Minnesota, in part to target members of the Somali community.
Footage of the shooting shows an officer trying to open the car door and the driver turning the wheel before starting to drive forward. An agent who had approached the driver-side bumper draws his gun and shoots the driver multiple times.
Despite what is shown in the widely available video, President Donald Trump, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Vice President JD Vance were quick to place blame on Good. Trump said she “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over” the ICE agent, while Noem said Good had committed an "act of domestic terrorism."
Pressley called on the congressional committee to investigate the case.
"Since this committee is responsible for oversight of federal law enforcement, we must investigate," she said. "This subpoena will get to the truth, and it should have bipartisan support."
Pressley condemned her GOP colleagues for blocking the effort to get to the bottom of what happened in Minneapolis, which has also been described by multiple eyewitnesses who dispute the Trump administration's narrative.
“DHS’ claim that an agent shot in self-defense is a bold-faced lie and the video footage is damning," said Pressley. "But after I moved to subpoena all records and footage related to this killing, Republicans shamefully voted it down—demonstrating once again that they have never cared about law and order or keeping our communities safe.
“What happened today is a despicable consequence of Donald Trump’s campaign of terror, fear, and demonization of vulnerable communities and we cannot allow it to be normalized in America," said Pressley. "I demand a thorough and independent investigation into this tragedy so the victim, her loved ones, and the public get the accountability and transparency they deserve. It’s time for the Trump administration to end its cruel, unlawful mass deportation agenda once and for all.”
The ACLU on Wednesday noted that Good was killed as Congress negotiates the Department of Homeland Security's budget for the coming year, months after lawmakers voted to add "an unprecedented $170 billion to the Trump administration’s already massive budget for immigration enforcement."
“For months, the Trump administration has been deploying reckless, heavily armed agents into our communities and encouraging them to commit horrifying abuses with impunity, and, today, we are seeing the devastating and predictable consequences,” said Naureen Shah, director of policy and government affairs at ACLU. “Congress must rein ICE in before what happened in Minneapolis today happens somewhere else tomorrow. That means, at a minimum, opposing a Homeland Security budget that supports the growing lawlessness of this agency.”
"Trump cutting ties with the world’s oldest climate treaty is another despicable effort to let corporate fossil fuel interests run our government."
President Donald Trump on Wednesday withdrew the United States from dozens of international treaties and organizations aimed at promoting cooperation on the world's most pressing issues, including human rights and the worsening climate emergency.
Among the treaties Trump ditched via a legally dubious executive order was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), making the US—the world's largest historical emitter of planet-warming greenhouse gases—the first country to abandon the landmark agreement.
The US Senate ratified the convention in 1992 by unanimous consent, but lawmakers have repeatedly failed to assert their constitutional authority to stop presidents from unilaterally withdrawing from global treaties.
Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement that "Trump cutting ties with the world’s oldest climate treaty is another despicable effort to let corporate fossil fuel interests run our government."
"Given deeply polarized US politics, it’s going to be nearly impossible for the U.S. to rejoin the UNFCCC with a two-thirds majority vote. Letting this lawless move stand could shut the US out of climate diplomacy forever," Su warned. "Withdrawing from the world’s leading climate, biodiversity, and scientific institutions threatens all life on Earth."
Trump also pulled the US out of the International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the UN International Law Commission, the UN Democracy Fund, UN Oceans, and dozens of other global bodies, deeming them "contrary to the interests of the United States."
The president's move came as he continued to steamroll domestic and international law with an illegal assault on Venezuela and threats to seize Greenland with military force, among other grave abuses.
Below is the full list of international organizations that Trump abandoned with the stroke of a pen:
(a) Non-United Nations Organizations:
(i) 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact;
(ii) Colombo Plan Council;
(iii) Commission for Environmental Cooperation;
(iv) Education Cannot Wait;
(v) European Centre of Excellence for Countering
Hybrid Threats;
(vi) Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories;
(vii) Freedom Online Coalition;
(viii) Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund;
(ix) Global Counterterrorism Forum;
(x) Global Forum on Cyber Expertise;
(xi) Global Forum on Migration and Development;
(xii) Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research;
(xiii) Intergovernmental Forum onMining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development;
(xiv) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
(xv) Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services;
(xvi) International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property;
(xvii) International Cotton Advisory Committee;
(xviii) International Development Law Organization;
(xix) International Energy Forum;
(xx) International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies;
(xxi) International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance;
(xxii) International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law;
(xxiii) International Lead and Zinc Study Group;
(xxiv) InternationalRenewable Energy Agency;
(xxv) International Solar Alliance;
(xxvi) International Tropical Timber Organization;
(xxvii) International Union for Conservation of Nature;
(xxviii) Pan American Institute of Geography and History;
(xxix) Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation;
(xxx) Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combatting Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia;
(xxxi) Regional Cooperation Council;
(xxxii) Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century;
(xxxiii)Science and Technology Center in Ukraine;
(xxxiv) Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme; and
(xxxv) Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.
(b) United Nations (UN) Organizations:
(i) Department of Economic and Social Affairs;
(ii) UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) — Economic Commission forAfrica;
(iii) ECOSOC — Economic Commission forLatin America and the Caribbean;
(iv) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific;
(v) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia;
(vi) International Law Commission;
(vii) International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals;
(viii) InternationalTrade Centre;
(ix) Office of the Special Adviser on Africa;
(x) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General forChildren in Armed Conflict;
(xi) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict;
(xii) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children;
(xiii) Peacebuilding Commission;
(xiv) Peacebuilding Fund;
(xv) Permanent Forum on People of African Descent;
(xvi) UN Alliance of Civilizations;
(xvii) UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions fromDeforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries;
(xviii) UN Conference on Trade and Development;
(xix) UN Democracy Fund;
(xx) UN Energy;
(xxi) UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women;
(xxii) UN Framework Convention on Climate Change;
(xxiii) UN Human Settlements Programme;
(xxiv) UN Institute for Training and Research;
(xxv) UN Oceans;
(xxvi) UN Population Fund;
(xxvii) UN Register of Conventional Arms;
(xxviii) UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination;
(xxix) UN System Staff College;
(xxx) UNWater; and
(xxxi) UN University.
Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said Trump's withdrawal from the world's bedrock climate treaty marks "a new low and yet another sign that this authoritarian, anti-science administration is determined to sacrifice people’s well-being and destabilize global cooperation."
"Withdrawal from the global climate convention will only serve to further isolate the United States and diminish its standing in the world following a spate of deplorable actions that have already sent our nation’s credibility plummeting, jeopardized ties with some of our closest historical allies, and made the world far more unsafe," said Cleetus. "This administration remains cruelly indifferent to the unassailable facts on climate while pandering to fossil fuel polluters.”