

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.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture
has awarded $180,000 in federal funds to finance an
agribusiness-chemical industry plan to combat its critics -
Environmental Working Group and other health, consumer and organic
farming advocates who have campaigned against overuse of pesticides on
food crops.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture
has awarded $180,000 in federal funds to finance an
agribusiness-chemical industry plan to combat its critics -
Environmental Working Group and other health, consumer and organic
farming advocates who have campaigned against overuse of pesticides on
food crops.
The Alliance for Food and Farming
(AFF), a Watsonville, California, trade association representing more
than 50 large produce growers and marketers and pesticide and fertilizer
suppliers, is slated for a slice of California's $17.5 million share of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Specialty Crops Block Grant program, which Congress set up in 2004 to improve "efficiency, productivity and profitability" in farming of vegetables, fruits, nuts and flowers. The 2008 farm bill expanded the specialty crops program, mandating that USDA
distribute $55 million in state block grants in 2010, and the same for
2011 and 2012, to advance "buy local" campaigns and other efforts to
make produce, nuts and flower crops more competitive.
California officials announced last Friday (Sept. 17) that the Alliance for Food and Farming would receive $180,000 to "correct the misconception
that some fresh produce items contain excessive amounts of pesticide
residues." The state press release added that the grant would go to
rebut "claims by activist groups about unsafe levels of pesticides
[that] have been widely reported in the media for many years, but have
largely gone uncontested. ... The goal is to generate more balanced media
reporting and change public perception about the safety of produce when
it comes to pesticide residues."
Last July, the Alliance for Food and Farming attacked Environmental Working Group's (EWG) influential "Shopper's Guide To Pesticides In Produce," introduced more than a decade ago to advise consumers about high concentrations of pesticide residues in conventional produce.
"This grant is a slap in the face of California's rapidly-advancing
organic agriculture sector," said Ken Cook, president and founder of
Environmental Working Group. "While conventional produce has seen
demand stagnate, organics are enjoying dynamic growth. The state should
think twice about using U.S. taxpayers' money to attempt to give
chemical-dependent industrial farming a competitive edge over organics."
"The block grant program supports some initiatives that we believe
are worthwhile," Cook said. "But the grant in question shows how a good
program can be distorted. I think most taxpayers would say this is
exactly the kind of thing they don't want their money spent on. It ends
up going to serve the agribusiness agenda. If these well-heeled
corporate farming interests want to talk people out of buying organic or
low-pesticide food, they ought to spend their own money to do it."
Over the past decade, organic fruit and vegetable sales have soared
from 3 percent of the retail produce market in the U.S. in 2000 to
nearly 11 percent last year, to $9.5 billion. According to surveys by
the Organic Trade Association,
organic produce's precipitous trajectory barely slowed when the global
financial crisis took hold in late 2008. The stunning gains make a sharp
contrast to the otherwise lackluster market for conventional fruits and
vegetables in recent years.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (ERS)
reports that Americans' per capita annual consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables
has been roughly flat for the past two decades. U.S. vegetable
consumption has slumped slightly, according to USDA, to 92.2 pounds per
person per year in 2008, from an all-time peak of 101 pounds in 1999.
According to the Pesticide Action Network of North America,
an advocacy group that compiles data on pesticide use, in 2008
California growers deployed 161 million pounds of pesticides on all
crops. They used 53 million pounds of pesticides on crops whose
growers comprise the Alliance for Food and Farming: head lettuce, leaf
lettuce, celery, spinach, tomatoes, avocados, table and raisin grapes,
wine grapes, peaches and strawberries.
According to public records examined by EWG the Alliance for Food and Farming is chaired by Matt McInerney, executive vice president of Western Growers Association, an Irvine, Calif., based organization of large California and Arizona farmers.
California officials last week awarded the Western Growers Association two grants totaling $942, 278 to create a website and other communications activities to promote specialty crops.
Last July, the Alliance for Food and Farming set up a web site
and press webinar to attack EWG's Pesticide Guide, contending that
there is "no scientific evidence" that a small amount of pesticide
residue on food "represents any health risk."
According to EWG's reviews of public record, the Alliance board is comprised of:
Richard L. Peterson - Executive director, California Dried Plum Board
Matt McInerney - Executive vice president, Western Growers Association
Jim Howard - Vice president, California Table Grape Commission
Rick Tomlinson - Director of government affairs, California Strawberry Commission
Ed Beckman - President, California Tomato Farmers; former President of CA Tomato Commission
Barry Bedwell - President, California Grape & Tree Fruit League
Bruce Knobeloch - Chief operating officer, River Ranch Fresh Foods, LLC
Mark Murai - President, California Strawberry Commission
Kathleen Nave - President, California Table Grape Commission
Sheri Mierau - Vice president of sales and marketing, Fruit Patch Sales LLC
Rosanna Westmoreland - Communications manager, California Farm Bureau Federation
Claire Smith - Director, corporate communications, Sunkist Growers, Inc.
Terry Stark - Executive Director, California Association of Pest Control Advisers
Dave Kranz - Communications, California Farm Bureau Federation
Renee Pinel - President and chief executive officer, Western Plant Health Association
Bryan Silbermann - President and chief executive officer, Produce Marketing Association
Bob Whitaker - Chief science officer, Produce Marketing Association
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982The new data comes as Tesla is removing human safety monitors from its driverless taxi fleet.
Proponents of driverless cars often tout them as a safer alternative to cars with human drivers—but such claims don't appear to be holding up so far in the case of Tesla's Robotaxis.
A Monday report from Elektrek found that Tesla Robotaxis are crashing much more frequently than cars driven by humans, as the company has now reported eight crashes of its driverless taxi fleet in Austin, Texas to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since July.
Elektrek also crunched some numbers based on data released by Tesla last month and estimated that the Tesla Robotaxis are involved in a crash for every 40,000 miles they drive. For comparison, the publication reported, cars driven by humans crash about once every 500,000 miles, meaning the Robotaxis so far have crashed 12.5 times more frequently than human-driven cars.
All of the Robotaxi crashes so far have occurred with human safety monitors—who have been trained to take control of the car in the event of a software error—present in the vehicles.
This is significant because, as TechCrunch reported on Monday, Tesla is starting to send out its Robotaxi fleet without safety monitors.
TechCrunch noted that "the removal of the human safety monitors brings the company a critical step closer to its goal of launching a real commercial Robotaxi service," but also said it "will most likely ramp up the scrutiny on Tesla’s ongoing testing in Austin, doubly so when the company starts offering rides in the empty cars."
Tesla's bet on Robotaxis has grown more important given that its vehicle sales in the US and around the world have been dropping significantly so far this year, in part due to a boycott campaign inspired by outrage over CEO Elon Musk's support for far-right political parties.
According to a report from Reuters, the most recent data from car software company Cox Automotive shows that US Tesla sales dropped to a four-year low last month. The news agency also pointed out that Tesla now "is offering financing deals as low as 0% on the Standard Model Y," which is "a sign of weak demand."
"AI toys are not safe for kids," said a spokesperson for the children's advocacy group Fairplay. "They disrupt children's relationships, invade family privacy, displace key learning activities, and more."
As scrutiny of the dangers of artificial intelligence technology increases, Mattel is delaying the release of a toy collaboration it had planned with OpenAI for the holiday season, and children’s advocates hope the company will scrap the project for good.
The $6 billion company behind Barbie and Hot Wheels announced a partnership with OpenAI in June, promising, with little detail, to collaborate on "AI-powered products and experiences" to hit US shelves later in the year, an announcement that was met with fear about potential dangers to developing minds.
At the time, Robert Weissman, the president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, warned: “Endowing toys with human-seeming voices that are able to engage in human-like conversations risks inflicting real damage on children. It may undermine social development, interfere with children’s ability to form peer relationships, pull children away from playtime with peers, and possibly inflict long-term harm."
In November, dozens of child development experts and organizations signed an advisory from the group Fairplay warning parents not to buy the plushies, dolls, action figures, and robots that were coming embedded with "the very same AI systems that have produced unsafe, confusing, or harmful experiences for older kids and teens, including urging them to self harm or take their own lives."
In addition to fears about stunted emotional development, they said the toys also posed security risks: "Using audio, video, and even facial or gesture recognition, AI toys record and analyze sensitive family information even when they appear to be off... Companies can then use or sell this data to make the toys more addictive, push paid upgrades, or fuel targeted advertising directed at children."
The warnings have proved prescient in the months after Mattel's partnership was announced. As Victor Tangermann wrote for Futurism:
Toy makers have unleashed a flood of AI toys that have already been caught telling tykes how to find knives, light fires with matches, and giving crash courses in sexual fetishes.
Most recently, tests found that an AI toy from China is regaling children with Chinese Communist Party talking points, telling them that “Taiwan is an inalienable part of China” and defending the honor of the country’s president Xi Jinping.
As these horror stories rolled in, Mattel went silent for months on the future of its collaboration with Sam Altman's AI juggernaut. That is, until Monday, when it told Axios that the still-ill-defined product's rollout had been delayed.
A spokesperson for OpenAI confirmed, "We don't have anything planned for the holiday season," and added that when a product finally comes out, it will be aimed at older teenagers rather than young children.
Rachel Franz, director of Fairplay’s Young Children Thrive Offline program, praised Mattel's decision to delay the release: "Given the threat that AI poses to children’s development, not to mention their safety and privacy, such caution is more than warranted," she said.
But she added that merely putting the rollout of AI toys on pause was not enough.
"We urge Mattel to make this delay permanent. AI toys are not safe for kids. They disrupt children's relationships, invade family privacy, displace key learning activities, and more," Franz said. "Mattel has an opportunity to be a real leader here—not in the race to the bottom to hook kids on AI—but in putting children’s needs first and scrapping its plans for AI toys altogether.”
"With the average home sales price having already risen by 31%—or over $120,000—since 2020, this tariff-induced change could put homeownership further out of reach for millions of Americans," warns a new report.
After campaigning last year on reducing the cost of living and as he attempts to claim progressive Democrats' push for affordability as his own, President Donald Trump's policies have been directly linked to making life more expensive for people across the US—and along with electricity, healthcare, and groceries, housing costs are set to rise, according to a new analysis out Tuesday, which examines the impact of Trump's tariffs.
The Center for American Progress (CAP) found that the impact on home construction materials by Trump's tariffs could force builders to scale back significantly over the next five years, reducing new home construction by 450,000 homes through 2030.
According to the analysis, the average cost of building a home in the coming years will increase by $17,500 if current home building rates continue.
"With the average home sales price having already risen by 31%—or over $120,000—since 2020, this tariff-induced change could put homeownership further out of reach for millions of Americans," said CAP.
Trump's tariffs are as high as 50% for some countries, and some of the highest levies have been imposed on key building materials, including lumber, copper, aluminum, and steel products. Imports of upholstered products and kitchen cabinets are set to face tariffs that could increase by up to 50%.
The tariffs were unveiled amid a growing housing affordability crisis, with the number of available homes falling short by 2 million units or more, according to some estimates.
Following the Great Recession, home construction has not returned to pre-2008 levels and the country requires "sustained, above-average construction rates to correct" the persistent underbuilding, according to CAP.
"Yet the Trump administration’s tariff policies are pushing home building in the opposite direction by raising construction costs, which will slow new construction activity, raise costs, and worsen housing affordability," reads the report by Cory Husak, Natalie Baker, and Mimla Wardak.
The analysis found that while Trump has insisted that the tariffs will target the countries that import goods to the US, but as with groceries—which have gone up in price by up to 40% at some stores—the levies on home building materials are projected to ultimately impact American families who are already struggling to afford healthcare and other essentials.
The tariffs are expected to add $27 billion to the annual cost of constructing new homes by 2027, effectively raising the cost of building a new home by about 3.3%.
🚨Hot off the presses 🚨 New tariffs are going to kill 450,000 homes over the next 5 yearsTariffs on lumber, steel, cabinets, vanities, copper add an average $17,500 to the cost of building a new home. Yearly home losses will soon total 100k per year-www.americanprogress.org/article/trum...
[image or embed]
— Corey Husak (@chusak.bsky.social) December 16, 2025 at 1:08 PM
From 2030 onward, the number of new homes being built is expected to be down by 100,000 yearly.
"This would be equivalent to eliminating 6 percent of the homes constructed in the five years from 2020 to 2024," said CAP.
If home building falls as CAP projects, the cost of construction will rise to $18,500 per home in 2028, CAP projected.
“Families are already struggling to afford a place to live, and the administration is adding fuel to the housing costs fire,” said Husak, director of tax policy at CAP. “These tariffs are a tax on builders and aspiring homeowners, raising construction costs, slowing the pace of new building, and pushing homeownership even further out of reach for millions of Americans.”
The group urged the federal government to act to stop the tariffs from continuously "driving up construction costs, slowing homebuilding, and worsening the nation’s already severe housing shortage."
"Building new housing supply is crucial to solving the housing shortage," said CAP, "and canceling tariffs on homebuilding materials is a necessary step to bring more housing online and improve housing affordability."