

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.
Mark Kastel, 608-625-2042
Charlotte Vallaeys, 978-369-6409
The Cornucopia Institute, one of the nation's leading organic industry watchdogs, condemned the position of the United States Department of Agriculture that it will allow products containing unapproved synthetic additives to be labeled "organic" for an indefinite grace period.
The Cornucopia Institute had filed legal complaints against infant formula manufacturers and Dean Foods, manufacturer of Horizon dairy products, for adding unapproved additives: Martek Biosciences Corporation's omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids (DHA/ARA), derived chemically from fermented algae and fungus, to foods with the organic label.
The Cornucopia Institute maintains, and the USDA reiterated in a compliance letter issued March 16, that these additives are illegal in organics. But the USDA also stated it would not take enforcement action at this time. The USDA's compliance letter suggested that it would allow companies to continue adding the additives to organic foods during a phase-out period of unspecified length, despite its clear statement, in the same letter, that the additives were being used in organics due to an "incorrect" interpretation of the federal standards.
"Essentially, the USDA admitted once again in its letter that the DHA additives should never have been allowed in organics, and then goes on to state that they have chosen not to take enforcement action at this time," said Charlotte Vallaeys, Farm and Food Policy Analyst with The Cornucopia Institute.
The Wisconsin-based Institute stated that it is meeting with its legal team to determine its next course of action in its efforts to ensure that foods bearing the "USDA Organic" label are produced in accordance with the federal organic standards.
"We hope the current NOP management moves quickly to implement their position, that adding unapproved additives to infant formula constitutes a violation of the organic standards," said attorney Gary Cox who has long represented The Cornucopia Institute in its oversight of the USDA.
Cornucopia states that it is likely to file a lawsuit against the USDA for its failure to carry out its congressionally-mandated duties in protecting the purity and safety of organic food.
"Federal law clearly states that synthetic additives must be approved by the USDA, through a formal petition process, assuring their safety before they can legally be added to foods with the organic label," stated Vallaeys. "Martek's Crypthecodinium cohnii and Schizochytrium oils (sources of DHA) and Mortierella alpina oil (a source of ARA) have never been approved, and the USDA has once again caved to industry lobbyists."
The Cornucopia Institute is concerned with the USDA's failure to enforce the organic standards regarding unapproved accessory nutrients, because the synthetic additives have been linked to many serious reported gastrointestinal problems in infants and young children.
Megan Golden of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, watched her newborn son suffer from serious vomiting and gastrointestinal illness from the day he was born and given formula with DHA and ARA. At age 9 weeks, she switched to formula without these additives, and his symptoms disappeared. "By the next day, no lie, my son was a completely different infant. He was comfortable, was not as agitated, and the throwing up had stopped. His gas pains went away. His stools became normal. And he could finally relax enough to sleep. I am thankful for that," said Golden.
As of January 2009, more than a hundred similar adverse reaction reports have been filed with the Food and Drug Administration (a more recent open records request by The Cornucopia Institute is pending). Since few parents and healthcare professionals historically report the link between over-the-counter drugs or nutritional additives and adverse reactions to the FDA, scientists believe these reports constitute only the tip of the iceberg.
When USDA enforcement officials first became aware, in 2006, that infant formula manufacturers were adding unapproved additives to formula bearing the "USDA Organic" label, they recognized its illegality and sent an enforcement letter ordering them to take the unapproved additives out of organic infant formula.
Subsequently, discovered through a Freedom of Information Act request by The Cornucopia Institute, and reported in an investigative report by the Washington Post, corporate lobbyists convinced the former director of the USDA's National Organic Program, Dr. Barbara Robinson, to overrule her staff's decision, and allow companies to market products with Martek's unapproved algal-based and fungal-based additives.
The Cornucopia Institute has complained for years that this was an improper and illegal action by the agency. In 2010, the USDA, under the Obama administration, concurred with Cornucopia, stating in a public memorandum that this was an improper decision.
Unlike some essential nutrients (vitamins and minerals), unapproved additives like Martek's DHA and ARA are not required by the FDA in foods, but are popular with food manufacturers because they are useful in trying to create a competitive marketing advantage.
The Food and Drug Administration just announced that it will conduct a study to determine if marketing claims by infant formula manufacturers, such as claims that DHA and ARA "support brain and eye development," influence mothers' feeding decisions and discourage breast-feeding.
Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition at New York University and author of Food Politics, states about DHA and ARA in infant formula: "Competition for market share explains why formula companies want to put distinctive nutrients in their formulas-especially nutrients considered 'conditional.' Even if the health benefits are minimal or questionable, they can be used in advertising."
While they advertise these nutrients with questionable claims of benefits, companies do not share with consumers the process by which these nutrients are manufactured.
"Getting omega-3 fatty acids from natural sources like breast milk, or salmon, or flaxseed, and getting omega-3's from a synthetic additive in infant formula or milk are two completely different things," explains Vallaeys. "Companies like Martek don't like consumers to know that these additives are often chemically extracted, fermented in genetically engineered feedstock, treated with harsh chemicals, deodorized and bleached. There's a reason why so many consumers are turning to organic foods--to avoid these kinds of novel substances that masquerade as food," she adds.
Additives like DHA and ARA are not required by the FDA in foods, including infant formula, because scientific data fails to document benefits to human health or development. Dr. Katherine Kennedy of the University College of London's Institute of Child Health, along with several colleagues, wrote: "We contend this field of research has been driven to an extent by enthusiasm and vested interest."
The British scientific panel also stated, "Although the vast majority of infant formulas now contain long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids [manufactured by Martek], the scientific evidence base for their addition is recognized by most investigators and key opinion leaders in the field to be weak."
"After the USDA determined these materials were being illegally added to certified organic food, it's unconscionable that they would continue to drag their feet on enforcement even as more reports flow into the FDA on adverse health impacts," says Kastel.
Consumers exhibit marketplace loyalty in the organic label, because it represents a rigorous third-party certification system of strict federal standards that prohibit synthetic inputs unless they have gone through a rigorous approval process. Organic activists are concerned that if the USDA fails to rigorously enforce the standards, allowing big business to make up their own rules, that consumer confidence in the label will be eroded.
Industry observers speculate that the USDA has dragged its feet on forcing the removal of these unapproved additives in order to allow time for the powerful pharmaceutical companies manufacturing infant formula (Abbott Laboratories and PBM Nutritionals, the private-label manufacturer for Wal-Mart and Hain-Celestial's Earth's Best brand) and the nation's largest milk bottler (Dean Foods) to petition the National Organic Standards Board, the expert citizen's body created by Congress, to approve the Martek materials, after the fact.
"This is more than just a question of whether a particular additive is risky and inappropriate for inclusion in organics," Kastel lamented. "The question is whether or not organics will remain a trusted last refuge for families who don't want to experiment with the long-term health of their children."
MORE:
On March 14, the National Organic Standards Board released a controversial committee proposal that would allow any synthetic nutrient additive that comes on the market to be added freely to organic foods--without review.
Already, citizens are lining up to voice their disapproval of this industry-friendly committee decision, which will be debated and voted on by the full Board during its next meeting in Seattle, April 26-29.
"It's unfortunate that the committee, stacked during the Bush Administration with corporate representatives, has voted to open the door to just about any novel synthetic, chemically produced, additive to be added to organic foods--without the congressionally-mandated review," stated Kastel.
"While the split vote by the 7-person committee was in favor of potentially marketing gimmicky and risky synthetic additives, the organic community as a whole is going to fight like hell against this," Kastel stated. "There is no way that ethical organic companies, organic farmers, and organic consumers are going to allow a handful of pro-corporate board members to indiscriminately weaken the meaning of the organic label."
Cornucopia encourages consumers to submit written comments, to voice their opposition to the committee proposal allowing all synthetic "nutrient" additives in organic foods. An action alert with detailed information is available on Cornucopia's website, https://www.cornucopia.org/2011/03/keep-questionable-synthetic-additives-out-of-organics/
A brief summary of the overwhelming scientific literature questioning the efficacy of Martek's nutritional oils, and questioning their safety, can be found at: https://www.cornucopia.org/dha-safety-concerns/
Since the USDA is failing its mandate to ensure that all products bearing the "USDA Organic" seal are in fact complying with the federal standards that prohibit unapproved additives, the Cornucopia Institute has developed a list of products containing Martek's unapproved additives. The list is available on the Cornucopia website (viewable at https://www.cornucopia.org/DHA/MartekDHA_list.pdf), and will be updated on an ongoing basis. The products are also listed below:
For children and adults
Wegman's Organic Yogurt (Fruit on the Bottom Super Yogurt)
Horizon Organic Milk
Stremicks Heritage Foods Organic Milk
ZenSoy Soy on the Go
Baby Food (select products contain Martek's DHA)
Happy Bellies
Plum Organics
Tasty Baby Organic Infant Cereal
Infant Formula (all organic infant formula products contain Martek's DHA, with the exception of Baby's Only Organic Toddler Formula)
Bright Beginnings Organic
Earth's Best Organic
Parent's Choice Organic
Similac Organic
Vermont Organics
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.
“The Trump administration knowingly and unlawfully locked up an innocent person for four months in a concentration camp-like prison," said one attorney for the plaintiff.
A Utah law firm said Tuesday that it plans to sue the US government for its allegedly unlawful detention and deportation of a Venezuelan immigrant who was sent to a maximum security prison in El Salvador known for its torture and abuse of inmates.
“Our client is a young Venezuelan man who came into the US legally to escape threats of violence by the Venezuelan government against his family for their opposition to the Maduro regime," said Brent Ward, an attorney at Parker & McConkie, referring to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who was kidnapped by US forces during a January invasion of his country.
Ward said that the client—identified by the pseudonym "Johnny Hernandez"—is seeking $56 million in damages and "has no criminal record either in the US or in Venezuela."
A man entered the U.S. legally, had no criminal record, and was still sent to one of the world's most dangerous prisons for four months. Parker & McConkie is pursuing $56 million in justice on his behalf.www.parkerandmcconkie.com/blog/parker-...#CivilRights #JusticeForJohnny #Immigration #CECOT
[image or embed]
— Parker & McConkie | Personal Injury Law (@parkermcconkie.bsky.social) March 31, 2026 at 2:40 PM
Hernandez was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and subsequently deported to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in Tecoluca, central El Salvador, where he allegedly suffered torture and other abuse.
“The Trump administration knowingly and unlawfully locked up an innocent person for four months in a concentration camp-like prison where he suffered torture, shooting, beatings, and solitary confinement," Ward stated. "When the US government knowingly and purposefully violates the law by detaining and deporting innocent individuals on false charges and is not held responsible, the individual rights of not just legal immigrants but all Americans are placed in jeopardy."
"Our client suffered catastrophic injuries in CECOT from which he will never fully recover," the lawyer said. "Failing to demand accountability now places all Americans in jeopardy in the future.”
The impending lawsuit comes as ICE proposes to literally warehouse up to 10,000 arrested immigrants in a "megacenter" in Salt Lake City, Utah. Opponents have compared the 833,000-square foot facility to a concentration camp akin to the Topaz War Relocation Center, a harsh, desolate desert prison where Japanese Americans and Japanese people living in the Western US were forcibly interned during World War II.
The case also follows last week's filing of a lawsuit by Neiyerver Adrián León Rengel, one of the Venezuelans sent to CECOT. Like Hernandez, León Rengel—who is seeking $1.3 million in damages—was in the US legally when he was arrested by federal immigration authorities.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) recently said on the one-year anniversary of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation of Salvadorans, Venezuelans, and others that, of the 9,000 Salvadorans expelled from the US since the beginning of last year, “only 10.5% had a conviction in the United States for a violent or potentially violent crime.”
The Salvadoran investigative journalism outlet El Faro—which, along with its staff, has been the target of sweeping government persecution—last year published a report on CECOT, citing one former prisoner who said that inmates are “committing suicide out of desperation.”
At least one deported Salvadoran—longtime Maryland resident Kilmar Ábrego García—was wrongfully expelled due to what the Trump administration called an “administrative error.”
The Trump administration deported hundreds of Venezuelans to CECOT under a multimillion-dollar agreement between the Trump administration and the government of Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele.
While Trump claimed—often without evidence—that the Venezuelan deportees were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, only about 3% of them had violent criminal convictions in the United States, and Department of Homeland Security records show that the Trump administration knew it.
In July 2025, El Salvador released 252 Venezuelans imprisoned at CECOT and sent them to Venezuela in a prisoner swap that saw Maduro's government free 10 US citizens and permanent residents whom it jailed. Many of the repatriated Venezuelans said they suffered torture, sexual assault, severe beatings, and other abuse at CECOT.
Last December, Judge James Boasberg of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Trump administration broke the law by deporting the Venezuelans without due process.
"This executive order is a blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power," said Sen. Alex Padilla. "Make no mistake: Trump's attacks on our elections are a clear and present threat to our democracy."
Just days after the GOP-controlled Senate skipped town once they failed to send a voter suppression bill to President Donald Trump's desk, the Republican on Tuesday signed an executive order to create a nationwide list of US voters and crack down on voting by mail—which is how he voted in Florida's most recent election.
The order, Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections, was first reported by the Daily Caller, a right-wing outlet. It requires the secretary of Homeland Security to establish a "citizenship list" of verified eligible voters in each state, using Social Security Administration records and other federal databases.
Trump—who has repeatedly spread lies about election fraud, including his unfounded claim that Democrats stole the 2020 election from him, which led to his supporters storming the Capitol on January 6, 2021—also directed the postmaster general to craft rules for absentee ballots sent through the US Postal Service.
Legal experts expect the order will be swiftly challenged in court as unconstitutional. David Becker, a former US Department of Justice lawyer who now leads the Center for Election Innovation and Research, told Democracy Docket that "it's obvious the president didn't learn anything from his first failed executive order."
"This is unconstitutional on its face. The Constitution clearly gives the president no power over elections," he said. "I expect that this will be blocked by multiple federal courts in a very short period of time and have no legal effect whatsoever."
Becker also noted that "after the Department of Justice has been telling courts they're not creating a national voter list, this appears to confirm exactly what courts were concerned about."
Marc Elias, founder of Democracy Docket and a longtime election lawyer for Democrats, similarly said that "this is a massive and unconstitutional voter suppression effort aimed at giving Trump the power to create a list of who is allowed to vote by mail."
"We know where this will go—the targeting of Democrats for mass disenfranchisement," he added. "We will sue and we will win."
US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) shared a message for the administration on social media: "See you in court. You will lose."
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and California's former secretary of state, said in a statement that "instead of focusing on lowering the cost of energy, groceries, and healthcare, Donald Trump is desperately attempting to take over and rig our elections and avoid accountability in November."
The order was issued just over seven months away from the midterm elections that could hand control of Congress back to the Democrats—which could, in term, lead to a historic third impeachment for Trump.
"This executive order is a blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power," Padilla declared. "The president and the Department of Homeland Security have no authority to commandeer federal elections or direct the independent Postal Service to undermine mail and absentee voting that nearly 50 million Americans relied on in 2024. A decade of lies about election fraud does not change the Constitution."
"Make no mistake: Trump's attacks on our elections are a clear and present threat to our democracy. In the middle of an unauthorized war abroad and an escalating authoritarian crackdown by ICE here at home, Trump is attempting another illegal power grab," he added, referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "I will use every tool I can to stop him, and I expect immediate legal challenges in order to protect our free and fair elections."
After signing the order, Trump signaled that he, too, expects a court battle. While holding up the order, he said that "I don't know how it can be challenged," but critics will "probably challenge it" and "find a rogue judge."
There are "a lot of rogue judges. Very bad, bad people. Very bad judges," he added. "But that's the only way that can be changed, and hopefully we'll win on appeal if it is. But I don't see how anybody can challenge it."
Trump signed the order after unsuccessfully trying to convince the GOP-controlled Senate to pass the SAVE America Act—already approved by Republicans in the House of Representatives—before the current recess.
The bill would require US voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote and to show photo identification to participate in federal elections. Trump has been pushing for amendments to restrict mail-in voting as well as more attacks on transgender Americans.
While Trump and other supporters of the bill have claimed it is needed to stop noncitizens from voting, that is already illegal and, according to research, incredibly rare. Critics warn that the SAVE America Act would disenfranchise eligible voters who don't have access to citizenship documents, including people who have lost paperwork, can't afford replacements, or have changed their names.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said the new law "raises serious concerns about due process violations, is deeply discriminatory, and must be promptly repealed.”
The top United Nations human rights official was among those who on Tuesday urged Israel to repeal legislation it passed the previous day legalizing the hanging of Palestinians convicted of terrorism-related killing of Israelis—a law critics contend will not apply to Israelis who commit similar crimes.
The law passed by the Israeli Knesset states that Palestinians must be hanged within 90 days if convicted of nationalistic killings in a military court. While the legislation does not allow pardons, it gives judges discretionary power when it comes to sentencing Israeli citizens convicted of similar crimes, and observers say it's highly unlikely that any jIsraeli would ever be hanged under the law.
Experts argue the 90-day provision and lack of appellate process are violations of international humanitarian law.
“It is deeply disappointing that this bill has been approved by the Knesset,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said Tuesday. “It is patently inconsistent with Israel’s international law obligations, including in relation to the right to life. It raises serious concerns about due process violations, is deeply discriminatory, and must be promptly repealed.”
“The death penalty is profoundly difficult to reconcile with human dignity, and it raises the unacceptable risk of executing innocent people,” he added. “Its application in a discriminatory manner would constitute an additional, particularly egregious violation of international law. Its application to residents of the occupied Palestinian territory would constitute a war crime.”
While proponents of the law—some of whom, like Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, celebrated its passage—say they believe it will deter Palestinians from killing Israelis, studies in the United States, the only Western democracy that actively executes people, have repeatedly shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime.
Palestinians and their defenders have also warned that the law could open the door to mass executions, including of anyone found to have killed Israelis during the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack, for which Israel retaliated with an ongoing assault and siege that has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing.
“Trials for crimes related to October 7 are supremely important, but they must not be anchored in discrimination," said Türk. "All victims are entitled to equal protection of the law, and all perpetrators must be held accountable without discrimination.”
Other human rights defenders also condemned the new Israeli law and called for its repeal.
"The Israeli parliament's adoption of a racist law authorizing the hanging of Palestinian prisoners is the very definition of apartheid," the Washington, DC-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said in a statement Tuesday. "Even the South African apartheid government never adopted a death penalty law so explicitly racist."
Taking aim at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—CAIR continued, "The Netanyahu regime is completely out of control because our nation continues to bankroll its crimes, from the de facto annexation of the West Bank to the genocide in Gaza, to the ethnic cleansing of southern Lebanon, to the occupation of Syria, to the illegal war with Iran that it triggered, to the closure of Christian and Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem."
“Congress is not just failing to act, it is actively advancing more military support while treating that US taxpayer funding as automatic, even as these abuses escalate," the group added. "Every member of Congress—especially Democratic leaders of the House and Senate—must condemn these crimes, including the racist execution law, and announce their opposition to any further military funding for the Israeli apartheid regime."
A 2024 ruling by the International Court of Justice in The Hague—where Israel is also facing a genocide case brought by South Africa in response to the US-backed war on Gaza—affirmed that the Israeli occupation of Palestine is an illegal form of apartheid that must be ended.
More than 9,500 Palestinians are currently locked up in Israeli prisons, including 350 children and 73 women, according to advocacy groups. Palestinian and Israeli human rights defenders say detainees face torture, starvation, and medical neglect behind bars, causing many deaths.
Former prisoners as well as Israeli staff and medical personnel say they have witnessed torture at prisons including Sde Teiman, the most infamous of Israel's lockups, with victims ranging from children to the elderly.
Israeli physicians who worked at Sde Teiman described widespread serious injuries caused by 24-hour shackling of hands and feet that sometimes required amputations. Palestinians taken by Israeli forces recounted rapes and sexually assaults by male and female soldiers, electrocution, maulings by dogs, denial of food and water, sleep deprivation, and other torture.