

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 part of a movement to ban the use of arsenic in poultry production
in Maryland, the consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch today
partnered with community leaders throughout the state to educate the
public about the environmental and public health problems associated
with the chemical.
A known poison, arsenic is often added to chicken feed in the form of
the compound roxarsone to control the common intestinal disease
coccidiosis, to promote growth and as a cosmetic additive. Chronic
exposure to arsenic has also been shown to increase the risk of cancer,
cardiovascular disease, diabetes, neurological deficits and other health
problems.
"The FDA approved this drug in 1944 when FDR was president. Since
then, science has shown it's a dangerous, unnecessary contaminant in our
food supply," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food &
Water Watch. "Maryland has an opportunity to demonstrate true leadership
on this issue by banning the use of arsenic in its poultry facilities."
The seventh largest broiler-producing state in the U.S., according
the 2007 U.S. Census of Agriculture, Maryland sold nearly 300 million
broiler chickens that year. On the Delmarva Peninsula alone, 1,700
chicken operations raise 11 million chickens per week. Researchers
estimate that between 20 and 50 metric tons of roxarsone are applied to
crops there every year via poultry waste. Groundwater tests on both
sides of the Chesapeake Bay's Coastal Plains found arsenic in some
household wells reaching up to 13 times the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) tolerance limit. Arsenic in chicken litter can convert to
more dangerous forms of arsenic than those originally used in feed.
This is why a bill to ban arsenic in chicken feed was introduced earlier
this year in the Maryland House of Delegates.
"A week ago today, Maryland's conservation-minded voters turned out
in force to send a message that protecting the health of our air, land,
water, and residents is an important priority," said Jen
Brock-Cancellieri, deputy director of the Maryland League of
Conservation Voters. "We hope that after reading this report, Maryland's
legislators will continue to speak up for their constituents and
support legislation to ban the unnecessary use of arsenic by the poultry
industry."
These concerns are reinforced by a new report on the poultry
industry's use of arsenic also released today by Food & Water Watch.
Poison-Free Poultry: Why Arsenic Doesn't Belong in Chicken Feed
exposes the dangerous, widespread use of arsenic in the poultry
industry and calls on Congress and the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) to take action to update antiquated rules and protect consumers.
"We should be able to eat chicken without consuming harmful
additives, but Marylanders are inadvertently exposing themselves and
their loved ones to a known carcinogen hidden in a seemingly nutritious
meal," said Jenny Levin, an advocate for Maryland PIRG. "As a proud
poultry production state, Maryland should ban the use of arsenic in
chicken feed immediately, thereby protecting a valuable industry and the
health and trust of its citizens."
Dr. Keeve Nachman, director of farming for the Future Program at the
Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future notes that "approval of
roxarsone for use in poultry and swine production is based on sorely
outdated science that ignores both our present-day understanding of
arsenic's toxicity and the potential for arsenic to contaminate soils,
water and crops where animal waste is spread."
Although approved for use in the chicken industry by the FDA over six
decades ago, the average American's annual chicken consumption has
since tripled from less than 20 pounds in the 1940s to nearly 60 pounds
in 2008. Yet the FDA hasn't revised its allowed levels for arsenic
residues in poultry since 1951.
Additionally, new studies show that arsenic residues may be higher in
chicken meat than previously known. USDA data suggests that the typical
American is eating between 2.13 and 8.07 micrograms of total arsenic
per day through consumption of chicken meat.
"The science shows the use of arsenic in chicken feed is dangerous
and that viable alternatives to arsenic exist," said Hauter. "The FDA
needs to stand up to the big chicken companies and make public health
its priority."
The report outlines the shared responsibility by the FDA, USDA and
EPA for fixing a fragmented, antiquated system to regulate arsenic. It
concludes with recommendations to these agencies to mitigate the damage
already caused by arsenic in livestock feed and calls for a ban on
future use of arsenic for livestock production.
"One of the main reasons why we have found such strong demand for the
chickens grown on our pasture is that we don't use arsenic to raise
them," said Ted Wycall, owner of Greenbranch Farm, located on the
Eastern Shore. "Consumers are smart; they don't want to eat food
containing arsenic. Pasture-raised poultry is in big demand locally and
nationally. Farmers should consider this a tremendous business
opportunity; we need more of us doing this."
The full report can be downloaded here.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500"If Democrats want to win elections, they need to read the room—or I should say, they need to read literally any room anywhere in America that isn’t filled with big donors."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Monday warned the Democratic Party against reshaping its economic agenda in the hopes of winning over billionaire donors.
In a speech delivered before the National Press Club in Washington, DC, Warren (D-Mass.) argued that watering down a progressive economic agenda to appeal to big-money donors made little sense at a time when the richest in America are taking ever greater shares of wealth and US families are struggling to keep their heads above water.
Warren pointed to many US elites maintaining friendly relationships with the late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, even after he pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor, as evidence of a broken system.
"Over the past generation, the wealthy have avoided accountability time and again," she argued. "Regular Americans must play by every rule or face real consequences. You don’t need to read every news article about Jeffrey Epstein and his good buddies like [former Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers and [President] Donald Trump to understand how consistently rich and powerful insiders protect each other, regardless of politics and regardless of how obscene the situation has become."
Warren acknowledged that Democrats needed to broaden their appeal to more voters given that they lost the popular vote to Trump for the first time in 2024, but she argued that targeting wealthy donors would not accomplish that goal.
"There are two visions for what a big tent means," she said. "One vision says that we should shape our agenda and temper our rhetoric to flatter any fabulously rich person looking for a political party that will entrench their own economic interests. The other vision says we must acknowledge the economic failures of the current rigged system, aggressively challenge the status quo, and chart a clear path for big, structural change."
Warren also criticized the "abundance" agenda that has been promoted by New York Times columnist Ezra Klein over the last several months as a way to fix Democrats' electoral woes.
The senator began her critique by touting what she said were good points that Klein and Abundance co-author Derek Thompson make about government needing to work more simply and efficiently to deliver benefits.
However, Warren said that what their analysis of government failures has often missed is that there are powerful interests that are working to keep these inefficiencies from being addressed.
"For years, I've fought for a simple, free government tax filing system so no one has to pay a couple of hundred bucks just to file their taxes," she explained. "Every step of the way, the giant tax prep companies have thrown up roadblocks to stop it. And when the [Internal Revenue Service] finally built a free—and wildly popular—filing option for American taxpayers, the tax prep companies swooped in to kill it the minute Donald Trump took office."
Warren also said that many major Democratic donors, including LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, have been latching onto "abundance" in order to drive the conversation in the party away from US wealth inequality.
"We are now in a new election cycle, and according to Axios, Reid Hoffman is sending everyone he knows a copy of Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s book on Abundance and backing pro-abundance candidates," Warren explained. "On his podcast, Hoffman has used the framework to argue against regulations that slow down data center construction. That’s right—when families are already getting crushed by rising costs and a data center boom means even higher utility costs... Hoffman wants Democratic candidates to stand with the billionaires for higher costs."
The senator then said that "if Democrats want to win elections, they need to read the room—or I should say, they need to read literally any room anywhere in America that isn’t filled with big donors."
Angela Davis, Naomi Klein, Sally Rooney, Tariq Ali, and George Monbiot are among the signers of a statement of support for the proscribed anti-genocide protesters, who have refused food for over two months.
More than 50 international authors and academics signed a declaration published Monday in support of hunger-striking activists allegedly linked to the banned Palestine Action movement, who are at imminent risk of death after refusing to eat for more than two months.
The brief statement—“We oppose genocide, we support the Palestine Action prisoners”—was signed by prominent figures including historian Tariq Ali; novelist Sally Rooney; former Guantánamo Bay prisoner Moazzam Begg; journalists Owen Jones and George Monbiot; and professors Angela Davis, Judith Butler, Naomi Klein, and Ilan Pappé.
The declaration echoes the message on a placard held by Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg when she was arrested last month in London protesting the imprisonment of people accused of being part of Palestine Action after the nonviolent direct action group was officially declared a terrorist organization in July by the UK government.
Since then, more than 2,000 people have been arrested for supporting Palestine Action, often while simply holding signs. Eight accused Palestine Action activists are awaiting trial for allegedly breaking into and damaging a British military base and a facility run by Israeli arms maker Elbit Systems. The defendants are facing at least 18 months behind bars before trial.
On November 2, a small group of imprisoned activists launched a hunger strike. Three people—Heba Muraisi, Kamran Ahmed, and Lewie Chiaramello—are still striking, despite imminent danger of death.
"She’s dying. She said it: ‘I’m dying,'" Francesca Nadin said of her friend Muraisi—who is on the 71st day of her strike—during a Monday interview with the Guardian.
Nadin said that the 31-year-old's body is "shutting down."
"I know mentally she’ll remain strong right to the last moment but she is dying," she added. "The government, by putting her in prison and denying her all her rights, they’re not just letting her die, they’re actively killing her.”
Ahmed, 28, has been refusing food for 64 days. Doctors have informed him that his heart muscles are shrinking and he is at risk of sudden cardiac arrest.
"He’s skinny. I describe him a bit like a piece of paper,” Shahmina Alam, Ahmed's sister, told Al Jazeera last week. "It feels like now every time you see him, it could be the last.”
Chiaramello, 22, has Type 1 diabetes and has been fasting every other day for 44 days.
A fourth person, Umar Khalid, has reportedly resumed his strike following a 13-day pause.
Despite her dire condition, Muraisi is “intent on carrying on until the demands are met," according to friend Amareen Afzal.
The strikers are demanding immediate bail, an end to censorship of their communications, a fair trial, lifting of the ban on Palestine Action, and closure of Elbit Systems' UK facilities.
"The hunger strikers’ demands seem reasonable to me," Monbiot wrote last week. "All these things, I believe, should be happening anyway. And they are of course negotiating positions. Whether all would need to be met for the strike to end cannot be known until the government engages. Its refusal to talk could condemn the strikers to death."
Standing in stark contrast with the US military's torturous force-feeding of hunger striking Guantánamo Bay prisoners during the Obama administration, the UK follows recommendations in the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Malta, which advises doctors not to force-feed prisoners who choose to hunger strike and understand the consequences of their actions.
"Forcible feeding is never ethically acceptable," the declaration states.
In 1981, UK authorities allowed 10 imprisoned Irish Republican Army members, including former Member of Parliament Bobby Sands, to starve themselves to death in Northern Ireland. Their deaths occurred after between 46 and 73 days of refusing food.
A group of former hunger strikers from Palestine, Ireland, and Guantánamo on Sunday issued an urgent appeal to the UK government to save the Palestine Action strikers' lives, and condemning the terrorist designation.
Critics said that the government would be to blame should any of the hunger strikers die.
“The UK is now perilously close to full descent into authoritarian rule," said professor Peter Hallward, who signed the intellectuals' declaration. "Ministers won’t even meet with hunger strikers, who are now at death’s door."
Hallward added that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, and Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood "seem perfectly ready to let this country’s most committed and courageous opponents of an ongoing genocide waste away and die."
Israel's US-backed war and siege on Gaza following the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023 has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, wounded, or missing in Gaza and most of the coastal strip in ruins. Around 2 million Gazans have been forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened.
Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces since the current cease-fire took effect three months ago. Israeli authorities are still blocking or strictly limiting the entry of critical supplies into Gaza, where 2-month-old infant Mohammed Abu Harbid over the weekend became at least the fourth Palestinian baby to freeze to death since November.
More than a dozen Palestinians—including at least five children—have been killed by Israeli attacks in Gaza in recent days.
Israel is facing a genocide case filed by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial body of the United Nations, where a panel of experts found last year that Israel was committing genocide. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are also wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
On Monday, a court in Edinburgh held a hearing on a petition filed by human rights campaigner and former diplomat Craig Murray seeking to lift the ban on Palestine Action in Scotland, whose judiciary is independent from the rest of the UK.
“The impact of proscription of Palestine Action has been appalling," attorney Joanna Cherry told the court. "Scores of peaceful people of entirely good character have been arrested under the absurd pretence of terrorism.”
“We are dealing with human rights and liberties—some of the most fundamental in our society," Cherry added. "If people don’t have the right to express their views and assemble to express their views, they can’t really take part in civil society properly and adequately. It’s hard to imagine a more urgent situation.”
"Any bill that still allows members of Congress to own and trade stocks falls far short of what the American people want and deserve," said Reps. Pramila Jayapal, Seth Magaziner, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
A trio of Democrats in the US House of Representatives leading the fight for a congressional stock trading ban ripped Republican leadership's proposal as an inadequate replacement in a Monday statement released ahead of a scheduled committee markup.
Politico reported last month that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Administration Committee Chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) briefed GOP lawmakers on their plan for a bill that would ban members of Congress from buying new stocks but let them keep what they already have.
Steil introduced the Stop Insider Trading Act on Monday and announced a Wednesday markup. Backed by Johnson and other GOP leaders, the legislation would also apply to lawmakers' spouses and dependent children, and require public notice a week before any of them sell stock.
However, Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) argued in a joint statement that "any bill that still allows members of Congress to own and trade stocks falls far short of what the American people want and deserve."
"We are disappointed that the bill introduced by Republican leadership today fails to deliver the reform that is needed and instead protects the wealthiest members of Congress by allowing them to continue to hold and sell stock," said the original co-sponsors of the bipartisan Restore Trust in Congress Act.
House Republicans’ new legislation on Congressional stock trading falls far short of what the American people want and deserve. The House must move forward on our bipartisan consensus bill, the Restore Trust in Congress Act.My full statement with @magaziner.house.gov and @ocasio-cortez.house.gov:
[image or embed]
— Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (@jayapal.house.gov) January 12, 2026 at 12:23 PM
The Democrats stressed that "while this bill prohibits members from buying new stocks, it does nothing to remove the conflict of interest that arises from owning or selling existing stocks. Members can still act on legislation, investigations, and briefings that directly influence the value of their stocks for personal benefit."
"The American public deserves to know that members of Congress are making decisions in the public interest, not in the interest of their own pocketbooks. The only way to restore Americans' trust is to ban members of Congress from owning and trading stocks," the trio continued.
"We hope that Speaker Johnson will find the courage to move the Restore Trust in Congress Act, a bipartisan consensus bill that has wide support from members of both parties and will end the practice of members of Congress owning and trading stocks once and for all," they concluded.
The Restore Trust in Congress Act would ban members of Congress, plus spouses and children, from trading individual stocks. It would give them 180 days to sell anything they hold and require divestment before newly elected lawmakers are sworn in.
When that bill was introduced in September, Jamie Neikrie, legislative director at the political reform group Issue One, said that "members of Congress have a responsibility to hold themselves to the highest ethical standards, and passing the Restore Trust in Congress Act is how Congress shows it's serious about restoring trust and integrity in government."
As Politico detailed Monday:
Johnson and GOP leaders have been searching for a legislative compromise to appease Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) and other rank-and-file House Republicans, who have for months been threatening to launch a discharge petition effort to circumvent leadership and force a floor vote on a full congressional stock trading ban.
Luna, in a promising sign for Johnson, said in an interview last week she supports the current legislation pending before the House Administration Committee because it would force a "disgorgement" period.
However, even if the new bill is able to get through the Republican-controlled House, it would face a GOP Senate majority so narrow that at least some Democratic support is required to advance most legislation to a final vote.
Last July, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) voted with all Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to advance another bill that would bar federal politicians from holding or trading stocks. To win over Hawley, Democrats had to agree to a carveout for President Donald Trump. As Business Insider noted Monday, "It has yet to receive a floor vote."