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.

Eve Mitchell, +44 (0) 7962 437 128, emitchell@fweurope.org
Gabriella Zanzanaini, +32 488 409 662, gzanzanaini@fweurope.org
A new report and seafood-buying guide released today by Food & Water Europe shows that consumers can't always rely on labels if they want to buy sustainably. In fact, determining which seafood products are best for you and our planet can be a difficult job. A number of private fish certification programs boast reliable standards and labels to evaluate and market seafood as "environmentally friendly" or "sustainably produced", but what they don't tell you is at least as important as what they do, and that's where things get tricky for conscientious shoppers.
The new report De-Coding Seafood Eco-Labels: Why We Need Public Standards compares and contrasts existing private certifications including those of The Marine Stewardship Council, Global Aquaculture Alliance, and Friends of the Sea. It finds that a lack of meaningful official labelling standards has allowed private eco-labels to capture large portions of the market, but that these are not adequate indicators of sustainable seafood choices for consumers, restaurants or retailers, and in fact can contradict one another.
"People often think that if they buy seafood with an eco-label, it's automatically a good choice," said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Europe. "Unfortunately, these certifications don't assure that the product consumers are getting is actually eco-friendly, or that companies are improving their behaviour."
An analysis of many eco-labels found inadequacies with regard to environmental standards, social responsibility and community relations, labour regulations, international law, and transparency. Some of the findings include:
Flawed fisheries are often certified. Some programs use their eco-label as incentive for a fishery or farm to make improvements. However, consumers have no way of knowing if the fish they are eating comes from a fishery that has merely pledged improvements or one that meets all the criteria for an eco-label. Some critics have claimed that in many cases, few improvements are made after certification.
Conflicts result from labels used for marketing purposes. Eco-labels are often predominantly used as a marketing tool. Certifiers are reliant upon increasing the number of fisheries certified in order to continue building their name and market share--an inherent conflict that can result in objectionable certifications.
Carbon footprints are often not considered. Most eco-labels fail to include "food miles" in their standards. New Zealand hoki, therefore, can be eco-labelled for sale in San Francisco.
They don't meet FAO guidelines. The Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) has standards for eco-labelling and certification programs, but an analysis shows them lacking in regard to FAO's standards on transparency, damage mitigation from pollution, and contribution to rural development and food security.
"Consumers aren't told that these labels often have a 'pay to play' aspect," said Eve Mitchell of Food & Water Europe. "A well-managed fishery that can't finance certification may not have an eco-label and still be the best choice, while one that is less sustainable could be certified because someone paid for it. As a result of this, labels can actually encourage consumers to buy less sustainable products, and it can be challenging for consumers to decipher whether labels are very meaningful. To us this is getting very close to actually misleading consumers, which must be dealt with officially."
The report concludes that the European Commission should 1) expand the information required on seafood labels to close current loopholes, and 2) fulfil their intention to ensure labels adhere to FAO guidelines by developing specific and clear interpretations of those guidelines, requiring all certifiers to adhere to them and enforcing those regulations.
In the meantime, consumers can use the questions in the guide to help them assess the quality and sustainability of seafood they buy.
"While some high-profile areas get attention, reforming the Common Fisheries Policy to end discards or put new labels on tinned tuna is simply not enough to protect our oceans, which are under increasing pressure from the industrial fishing and unchecked corporate harvesting that erroneously leads to products sold as 'sustainable,'" said Mitchell. "Consumers want to do the right thing, and we think many will be hopping mad to learn the eco-labels they trusted have only told part of the story. We don't believe you have to 'work with' multinational companies because they are there already. It only lets them hide behind pretty labels, and if what they are doing is wrong, we'll say so."
Read the new report.
Food & Water Europe is a program of Food & Water Watch, Inc., a non-profit consumer NGO based in Washington, D.C., working to ensure clean water and safe food in Europe and around the world. We challenge the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and transforming the public consciousness about what we eat and drink.
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"Every day the Pentagon makes a video of cool explosions from Iran for the president of the United States to watch, so he can bounce up and down in his high chair, clap his little hands, and cry 'Yay! Make it go boom again!'"
A Wednesday report from NBC News is raising concerns that President Donald Trump may be getting a rose-colored view of the unprovoked and unconstitutional war he started with Iran.
According to NBC News, US military officials show Trump a daily two-minute video montage of operations conducted in the Iran war, featuring "the biggest, most successful strikes on Iranian targets," with one official telling NBC that the video essentially consists of "stuff blowing up."
Two sources in the administration told NBC that "the video briefing is fueling concerns among some of Trump’s allies that he may not be receiving—or absorbing—the complete picture of the war," and one official told the network that "the information Trump gets about the war tends to emphasize US successes, with comparatively little detail about Iranian actions."
The video montages are also leaving the president confused about why the media is covering negative ramifications of the war, which he believes to be an unqualified success, NBC reported.
Critics of the president were quick to slam him and his administration over the reported war highlights montage.
"Sounds like Trump is getting a Centcom propaganda video briefing of things blowing up every day," commented foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen, "but not being briefed when things go wrong."
Anthony Zurcher, North America correspondent for BBC, wrote that it appears Trump is "getting an overly rosy picture from his generals of how an unpopular war is going."
MS NOW columnist Paul Waldman contended that the president's behavior as depicted in the NBC report was positively childlike.
"Every day the Pentagon makes a video of cool explosions from Iran for the president of the United States to watch," wrote Waldman, "so he can bounce up and down in his high chair, clap his little hands, and cry 'Yay! Make it go boom again!'"
National security attorney Bradley Moss summarized the NBC report with a single five-word sentence: "The emperor has no brains."
Even Trump's mail-in ballot was not enough to keep Democrat Emily Gregory from winning the seat over Republican Jon Maples in a district swing of more than 13 points.
A Democrat in Florida running to win a state house seat in the Palm Beach district that includes US President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate was declared the winner in a special election on Tuesday night, defeating the Trump-endorsed Republican in yet another powerful rebuke to the running of the country by the president and his party.
Emily Gregory flipped Florida's House District 87, defeating Republican Jon Maples, who Trump loudly endorsed and cast his vote for personally via mail-in ballot—something he wants to bar other voters nationwide from being able to do. Trump said on Monday that Maples, a financial planner who previously held office at the municipal level, was the choice of "so many of my Palm Beach County friends.”
But with almost all votes counted late Tuesday night, the Associated Press reported Gregory led by 2.4 percentage points, or 797 votes. In 2024, the district went to Republicans by 11 points.
"Republicans are vulnerable everywhere.”
Political strategist Sawyer Hackett named the obvious implication by saying, at least through November of 2026, "Trump will be represented by a Democrat in the Florida legislature."
“I think it demonstrates where the Florida voter is,” Gregory, who runs a fitness center for postpartum mothers, told Politico in an interview following her victory. “They want someone who is focused on solutions and the issues and not focused on the noise.”
“If Mar-a-Lago is vulnerable, imagine what’s possible this November,” said Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, in response to the victory. Williams noted that Gregory's win was the 29th seat that Democrats have flipped from GOP control since Trump returned to office last year.
“Gas prices are spiking, grocery costs are up, and families can’t get by," she said. "It’s clear voters at the polls are fed up with Republicans. A Trump +11 district in his own backyard shouldn’t be in play for Democrats, but tonight proves Republicans are vulnerable everywhere.”
"These massive facilities are sucking up precious water resources, paving over farmland, driving climate change, and disrupting the fabric of communities," said one supporter of the new legislation.
Two of the leading progressives in the US Congress, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, announced legislation on Wednesday that would impose a nationwide moratorium on the construction of new artificial intelligence data centers amid mounting concerns over their insatiable consumption of power and water resources, impacts on the climate, and other harms.
Sanders' (I-Vt.) office said in a press release announcing the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act that the construction pause would remain in effect "until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment."
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are set to formally introduce their legislation at a press conference on Wednesday at 4 pm ET.
Food & Water Watch (FWW), which last year became the first national organization in the US to call for a total moratorium on the approval of new AI data centers, celebrated the first-of-its-kind bill and called on other members of Congress to "move quickly to sponsor, champion, and pass" it. FWW's groundbreaking call for a national AI data center moratorium was later echoed by hundreds of advocacy organizations at the state and national levels.
“We need a halt to the explosive growth of new AI data center construction now, because political and community leaders across the country have been caught completely off guard by this aggressive, profit-hungry industry," Mitch Jones, FWW's managing director of policy and litigation, said in a statement Wednesday. "It has yet to be determined if—not how—the industry can ever operate in a manner that sufficiently protects people and society from the profusion of inherent hazards and harms that data centers bring wherever they appear."
“Long before the recent spike in global oil prices, Americans throughout the country were dealing with skyrocketing electricity rates due to the egregious consumption and jolting grid impacts levied by Big Tech’s AI data centers," Jones added. "Meanwhile, these massive facilities are sucking up precious water resources, paving over farmland, driving climate change, and disrupting the fabric of communities. We mustn’t allow another unchecked Silicon Valley scheme to profit off our backs while sticking us with the bill."
In a detailed report released last week, titled The Urgent Case Against Data Centers, FWW pointed to some of the "documented harms caused by AI and data centers," including:
Those harms have fueled massive grassroots opposition to AI data centers, with communities organizing to prevent construction in their backyards. One report estimates that between May 2024 and March 2025, local opposition helped tank or delay $64 billion worth of data center projects across the US.
That opposition has pushed local lawmakers to act. According to a tracker maintained by Good Jobs First, "at least 63 local data-center moratorium actions have been introduced, considered, or adopted across dozens of towns and counties," and "some 54 have already passed."
At the state level, Good Jobs First counted "at least 12 in-session states with filed data center moratorium bills this cycle," and noted that some governors have taken or floated executive action to slow or pause AI data center build-outs.
But the Trump administration is trying to move in the opposite direction.
In a national policy framework document unveiled last week, the White House urged Congress to "streamline federal permitting for AI infrastructure construction and operation" and called for a prohibition on state regulation of AI.
Jim Walsh, FWW's policy director, slammed the White House framework as "more of the same nonsense we’ve been hearing for months" and warned that "more data centers mean more climate-killing fracked gas power plants poisoning our air and water, and more stress placed on local communities’ precious water resources."
"The only prudent course of action when it comes to AI," said Walsh, "is to halt the explosive growth of new data center construction now, so that states and communities have the time needed to properly consider their own futures."