

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.

EWG public affairs 202.667.6982
Environmental Working Group has released the seventh edition of its Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce with updated information on 53 fruits and vegetables and their total pesticide loads. EWG highlights the worst offenders with its "Dirty Dozen" list and the cleanest conventional produce with its "Clean 15" list.
Analysts at EWG synthesized data collected from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration from 2000 to 2009. Produce is ranked based on a composite score, equally weighing six factors that reflect how many pesticides was found in testing of on each type of the produce and at what levels. Most samples are washed and peeled prior to being tested, so the rankings reflect the amounts of the chemicalslikely present on the food when is it eaten.
Notable changes in the new guide included apples' rank as the most contaminated produce, jumping three spots from last year to replace celery at the top of the "Dirty Dozen" list. According to USDA, pesticides showed up on 98 percent of the more than 700 apple samples tested.
Making an appearance in the guide for the first time is the herb cilantro, which had never been tested by USDA until now. The data showed 33 unapproved pesticides on 44 percent of the cilantro samples tested, which is the highest percentage of unapproved pesticides recorded on any item included in the guide since EWG started tracking the data in 1995.
Also appearing in the guide for the first time are green onions, cranberries and mushrooms. Mushrooms made the "Clean 15" list, while honeydew was the only item to drop off that list this year. Cherries dropped off the "Dirty Dozen" list, but lettuce, which has made the list in previous years, were back on.
"Though buying organic is always the best choice, we know that sometimes people do not have access to that produce or cannot afford it," said EWG President Ken Cook. "Our guide helps consumers concerned about pesticides to make better choices among conventional produce, and lets them know which fruits and vegetables they may want to buy organic."
Pesticides can be extremely toxic to human health and the environment. U.S. and international government agencies alike have linked pesticides to nervous system toxicity, cancer, hormone system disruption and IQ deficits among children.
"I really worry that pesticides on food are unhealthy for the tender, developing brains and bodies of young children," said Dr. Harvey Karp, MD, FAAP, creator of the book/DVD The Happiest Baby on the Block. "Parents don't realize they're often feeding their little ones fruits and veggies with the highest pesticide residues. Studies show even small amounts of these chemicals add up and can impair a child's health when they're exposed during the early, critical stages of their development. When pesticide sprayers have to bundle up in astronaut-like suits for protection, it's clear parents want to feed their families food containing as little of these toxic chemicals as possible."
"Pesticides, while designed specifically to kill certain organisms, are also associated with a host of very serious health problems in people, including neurological deficits, ADHD, endocrine systemdisruption and cancer," said Andrew Weil, MD, Founder and Director, Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine and a renowned medical expert on natural health and wellness. "My advice to consumers is to whenever possible avoid exposure to pesticides, including pesticide residues on food."
Consumers who choose five servings of fruits and vegetables a day from EWG's Clean 15 list rather than from the Dirty Dozen can lower the volume of pesticides they consume by 92 percent, according to EWG's calculations. They will also eat fewer types of pesticides. Picking five servings of fruits and vegetables from the 12 most-contaminated products would result in consuming an average of 14 different pesticides a day. Choosing five servings from the 15 least contaminated fruits and vegetables would result in consuming fewer than two pesticides per day.
The health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure, and EWG strongly recommends that everyone follow USDA's recommendation to eat five servings of fruits and vegetables every day. EWG's Shopper's Guide makes it easy to meet that goal while reducing your exposure to pesticides.
EWG's Shoppers Guide is available for fee as a PDF download at https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/. An iPhone app will be available in the near future. For a small donation, consumers can also have a version of the guide sent to them as a bag tag that can be attached to reusable shopping bags.
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982"Harris and the Democratic Party leadership prioritized the agendas of corporate donors and gambled on a centrist path, while largely abandoning working-class, young, and progressive voters."
As the Democratic establishment slow-walks its own assessment of what went wrong in last year's elections, an outside autopsy released Thursday argues the party's failure to sufficiently appeal to and mobilize working-class voters as well as its complicity in Israel's genocide in Gaza were key factors behind the failure to prevent President Donald Trump from securing a second White House term.
The report, authored by journalist Christopher D. Cook and published by the progressive advocacy group RootsAction, argues there were five primary reasons for former Vice President Kamala Harris' loss to Trump:
Cook acknowledges that certain "external factors" impacted the 2024 contest beyond the Democratic Party or the Harris campaign's control, including "immense special-interest spending to manipulate voters’ information and perceptions on social media platforms" such as Elon Musk's X and racism and sexism, which "certainly disadvantaged" the former vice president.
But ultimately, Harris' campaign and the leadership of the Democratic Party "bear responsibility for Trump’s return to the White House," the report says.
"This was a preventable disaster, but Harris and the Democratic Party leadership prioritized the agendas of corporate donors and gambled on a centrist path, while largely abandoning working-class, young, and progressive voters," Cook said in a statement.
The report places significant emphasis on the Harris campaign's fateful decision to openly appeal to Republican voters in the hope that some would abandon Trump—a strategy that Hillary Clinton pursued during her 2016 presidential bid, to disastrous effect.
Cook points to the Harris campaign's embrace of former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) as the most galling example of this strategy.
"Harris and Cheney—a Republican who had become a pariah in her own party—campaigned for several days together," the report observes. "On the campaign trail, they repeatedly hit high-minded themes about the threat that Donald Trump posed to American democracy, while scarcely speaking to voters’ more urgent concerns about the state of the economy."
The campaign's gamble that it could appeal to potential GOP swing voters while keeping the Democratic base intact "proved to be a huge mistake," the report says, arguing the approach muddied "Democrats’ message about economic inequality" while "consuming valuable campaign resources that should have been spent on a more robust base turnout operation."
The report cites a "glaring instance" in the critical battleground state of Pennsylvania, which Trump ended up winning by fewer than two percentage points:
As the New York Times reported, Harris campaign staffers in Pennsylvania were so concerned about poor outreach to Black and Latino voters in crucial areas of Philadelphia, they met secretly at a donut shop and formed a “rogue” voter turnout operation to reach these core Democratic constituents. In this clandestine operation, hastily conceived in the waning days of the campaign, members of Harris’s team set out to knock on the doors of as many Black and Latino voters as possible in a desperate dash to shore up Harris’ numbers among what should have been core constituencies.
The Harris campaign also received guidance and support from corporate interests and prominent billionaires, which Cook names as a "likely factor for why more working-class voters walked away from the Democrats."
"Due to these corporate influences, including from billionaire Mark Cuban and others, the Harris campaign avoided any bold policy proposals confronting corporate power, instead adopting 'marginal pro-business tweaks to the status quo that both her corporate and progressive allies agreed never coalesced into a clear economic argument,'" Cook wrote, citing the Times.
On Gaza, the postmortem notes that Harris "offered no substantive changes from Biden’s unpopular policies backing Israel," fueling a sharp drop-off in support among Arab Americans and young voters.
"Extensive polling suggests that Biden, and later Harris, could have inspired and mobilized these voters by campaigning on policies such as cancelling student debt, expanding healthcare access, curbing support for Israel’s siege of Gaza, and boldly promoting economic populist policies," the report says, pointing to the success of progressive ballot measures even in red states where Harris struggled.
In coming elections, the report concludes, Democrats must learn from their recent failures and embrace highly popular "economic populist policies"—from Medicare for All to higher corporate taxes to a long-overdue federal minimum wage hike—to build a lasting working-class coalition.
"The Democratic Party must show voters that it has a spine and can stand up to corporate and big-money interests," the report says.
"Just a complete admission here that the entire ‘antifa’ threat narrative is totally manufactured by this administration," said one critic.
A top FBI official struggled on Thursday to answer basic questions about antifa, a loosely organized collective of anti-fascist activists that he labeled the top terrorist threat facing the US.
Michael Glasheen, operations director of the FBI's National Security Branch, testified before the US House Committee on Homeland Security that antifa was "the most immediate violent threat" facing Americans today when it comes to domestic terrorism.
But when Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, asked Glasheen for specifics about this purportedly dire threat, he mostly came up empty.
"So where is antifa headquarters?" Thompson asked him.
Glasheen paused for several seconds and then said, "What we're doing right now with the organization..." before Thompson interrupted him.
"Where in the United States does antifa exist?" asked Thompson.
"We are building out the infrastructure right now," Glasheen replied.
"So what does that mean?" asked a bewildered Thompson. "I'm just, we're trying to get information. You said antifa is a terrorist organization. Tell us, as a committee, how did you come to that? Whether they exist, how many members do they have in the United States as of right now?"
"Well, that's very fluid," Glasheen said. "It's ongoing for us to understand that... no different from al-Qaeda and ISIS."
Thompson again interrupted and tried to make Glasheen answer his original question.
"If you said antifa is the No. 1 domestic terrorist organization operating in the United States," he said, "I just need to know where they are, how many people. I don't want a name, I don't want anything like that. Just, how many people have you identified, with the FBI, that antifa is made of?"
"Well, the investigations are active..." Glasheen said.
Thompson then became incredulous.
"Sir, you wouldn't come to this committee and say something you can't prove," he said. "I know you wouldn't do that. But you did."
GLASHEEN: Antifa is our primary concern right now. That's the most immediate violent threat we're facing
BENNIE THOMPSON: Where is antifa headquartered?
GLASHEEN: ... ... ... we are building out the infrastructure right now
THOMPSON: What does that mean? pic.twitter.com/FBzRJ5dCBj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 11, 2025
Many observers were stunned that Glasheen appeared to know so little about what he proclaimed to be the top domestic terrorist threat facing the US.
"Total amateur hour in US law enforcement," remarked Democracy Docket news editor Matthew Kupfer, "where the No. 1 terror threat is an organization that does not formally exist and a career FBI official is dancing around before a congressional committee trying to make the Trump strategy sound legit."
Zeteo editor-in-chief Mehdi Hasan argued that Glasheen's testimony was proof that the administration was simply concocting domestic terrorism threats with zero basis in reality.
"Wow," Hasan marveled. "Just a complete admission here that the entire ‘antifa’ threat narrative is totally manufactured by this administration."
Fred Wellman, a Democratic congressional candidate in Missouri, wondered how many actual dangerous criminals are running free while the FBI focuses on taking down an organization that it apparently knows nothing about.
"This would be comical if there wasn’t real world impact from this idiocy," Wellman wrote. "We have real crimes and real threats and they are chasing a fake 'organization' for politics."
Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee also piled on Glasheen, citing his testimony as evidence that the Trump administration is completely unserious about law enforcement.
"If your 'top threat' has no headquarters, no organization, and no definition then it’s not a top threat," they posted on social media. "The Trump administration is ignoring real threats, and the American people see right through it."
Judge Paula Xinis found that the Trump administration redetained the Salvadoran father of three "without lawful authority."
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the immediate release of Kilmar Ábrego García—who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador by the Trump administration earlier this year—from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody.
"Since Ábrego García's return from wrongful detention in El Salvador, he has been redetained, again without lawful authority,” US District Judge Paula Xinis wrote in her ruling. “For this reason, the court will grant Ábrego García's petition for immediate release from ICE custody.”
In early April, Xinis—an appointee of former President Barack Obama—ordered the Trump administration to facilitate Ábrego García's return to the United States after he was deported in March to the abuse-plagued Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) maximum security prison in El Salvador. This, after the US Department of Justice (DOJ) admitted in a court filing that Ábrego García was wrongfully deported due to what it called an "administrative error."
The US Supreme Court also weighed in on the case in favor of Xinis' ruling. However, the Trump administration refused to comply with the judge's order, arguing that it had no legal obligation to return Ábrego García to the US and could not force El Salvador's government to free him.
The DOJ dubiously contended that Ábrego García—a 30-year-old Salvadoran father of three who entered the US without authorization when he was a teenager—was a member of the gang MS-13, an allegation based on a statement from an anonymous police informant. The Trump administration deported him despite a judge's 2019 ruling that he could not be removed to El Salvador because he could be tortured there.
An attorney representing Ábrego García said at the time that his client suffered beatings and "psychological torture" while imprisoned at CECOT.
Ábrego García was transferred to a lower security Salvadoran prison before being sent back to the US on June 6 to face DOJ charges for allegedly transporting undocumented immigrants, to which he pleaded not guilty. He was immediately taken into custody and sent to an immigration detention facility in Tennessee.
On July 23, federal Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Tennessee ruled that Ábrego García must be released from custody pending his trial. That same day, Xinis issued a simultaneous ruling in Ábrego García's wrongful deportation case blocking ICE from immediately seizing him once released in Tennessee and ordering the government to provide at least 72 hours' notice before attempting to deport him to any third country.
As Ábrego García was released on August 22, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) informed him that he could be deported to Uganda—one of several nations to which the administration has sought to send him. A bid by Ábrego García to reopen a previous bid for asylum in the US was denied in early October by an immigration judge.
Ábrego García is currently being held in an immigration detention center in Pennsylvania. Responding to Xinis' latest ruling, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said Thursday that "this is naked judicial activism by an Obama-appointed judge."
"This order lacks any valid legal basis and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts," she added.
Advocates for Ábrego García welcomed Thursday's ruling.
"For months, the Trump administration has sought to deny Kilmar Ábrego García his rights to due process and fair treatment by our justice system," US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)—who met with Ábrego García in El Salvador in April—said on social media.
"Today’s ruling by Judge Xinis—requiring the government to immediately release him—is a forceful stand for our Constitution and all of our rights," he added.
Lydia Walther-Rodríguez, chief of organizing and leadership at CASA, hailed what she called "a moment of joy and relief."
“Kilmar finally gets to return home to his family, where he belongs," she said. "No one should be separated from their loved ones while fighting for justice.”