

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
The Cornucopia Institute, an organic industry research and watchdog organization, announced it has formally requested the USDA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) to investigate corruption at its National Organic Program resulting in the use of illegal synthetics in organic food and then allowing powerful corporations to "game the system" for approval "after the fact."
The controversy surrounds products developed by Martek Biosciences Corporation. Martek, part of a $12 billion Dutch-based conglomerate, recently petitioned for approval of its genetically modified soil fungus and algae as nutritional supplements in organic food.
Martek's formulated oils are processed with synthetic petrochemical solvents in a blend containing a myriad of other synthetic chemicals. Supplements derived from these oils, commonly marketed as DHA and ARA, are being added to milk, infant formula and other organic foods by such companies as Dean Foods (Horizon), Abbott Laboratories (Similac) and Nurture, Inc. (Happy Baby).
"This is a long-standing controversy that the USDA seems to think is just going to go away," said Mark A. Kastel, Codirector of the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute.
After a formal legal complaint by Cornucopia, and an investigative story by the Washington Post, the USDA announced in April 2010 that it had "inappropriately" allowed Martek oils to be included in organic foods.
The scandal contributed to the removal of the previous director of the National Organic Program (NOP), who overruled her staff's decision finding Martek supplements were illegal in organics--after she met with a prominent Washington lobbyist, William J. Friedman.
The former NOP director's decision was reversed in April 2010. But instead of immediately ordering the removal of these unapproved synthetics from organic food, the Obama/Vilsack administration at the USDA delayed enforcement by 18 months in an apparent effort to permit corporate lobbyists to properly petition for review and possibly legal inclusion in organic food.
"It's unacceptable that these materials are still in organic food and that corporations think they can manipulate the system and get away with it," said Kastel. "It's even worse because, according to our research and reports at the FDA, some babies have become ill after consuming Martek supplements in infant formula."
In December, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the expert panel set up by Congress to advise the USDA Secretary on organic matters, narrowly approved the Martek petitions for their patented versions of DHA and ARA. "All hell broke loose at the meeting in Savannah as the controversy grew extremely heated," Kastel noted.
In their complaint to the OIG, Cornucopia alleges that Martek misrepresented their novel, synthetic product and manipulated the vote by the NOSB.
"Martek oils, marketed under the Life'sDHA(tm) brand and included in organic infant formula, milk and baby food, are processed with petrochemical solvents like hexane or isopropyl alcohol, both of which are explicitly banned in organic production," stated Charlotte Vallaeys, Director of Farm and Food Policy at Cornucopia.
Although Martek told the board that they would discontinue the use of the controversial neurotoxic solvent n-hexane for DHA/ARA processing, they did not disclose what other synthetic solvents would be substituted. Federal organic standards prohibit the use of all synthetic/petrochemical solvents, including isopropyl alcohol, which is currently used to extract DHA algal oil for use in products such as Horizon milk.
Martek again brought in William "Jay" Friedman, with the powerful Washington law firm of Covington and Burling, to lead their approval process. Friedman appeared to deliberately mislead NOSB members into believing that the powdered form of Martek's DHA oil was not covered in the petition. This particular product formulation uses microencapsulation (banned in organics) and includes a number of additional synthetic materials that have never been reviewed or approved for use in organics.
When asked by NOSB Board chairperson, Tracy Miedema, "Are we approving dried powder or just oil?" Friedman stated on the record, "I can answer that. That's not the petitioned material."
Friedman's statement was inconsistent with Martek's formal petition to the NOSB, which states that "the petitioned material is unchanged from that which was authorized previously," referring to the USDA's earlier corrupted authorization of all Martek's products, including the powdered form.
"Mr. Friedman's statement thus appears patently false in an apparent attempt to intentionally mislead the NOSB. This apparent subterfuge led, in turn, to the NOSB's failure to review other aspects of these materials which would have disqualified them, under law, for inclusion in organic food," Cornucopia's Kastel said.
In addition to the letter to the OIG, Cornucopia has requested the D.C. Bar conduct a formal ethics investigation of Mr. Friedman's conduct.
"The dog and pony show put on by Martek and their largest customer, Dean Foods, was without precedent in the organic industry," said Alexis Baden-Mayer, Political Director of the Organic Consumers Association, who was present in Savannah.
The only scientists who testified at the meeting on the DHA issue were all on Martek's payroll, and focused on research showing benefits of consuming naturally occurring omega-3 fatty acids (such as those found in fish and breast milk), while ignoring the preponderance of published peer-reviewed research that shows that these health benefits are not gained from consuming Martek's novel, manufactured DHA additive.
The written statements of leading scientists in this field, who did not attend the meeting but whose findings were presented to the Board members, including assertions that this field of research is "driven to a large extent by enthusiasm and vested interest," were overpowered by the handful of corporate-sponsored scientists with a blatant financial interest in the outcome of the vote.
Dean Foods, Martek's largest customer, brought in a well-known web-pediatrician, Dr. Alan Greene, who has acted as a public relations agent endorsing Horizon brand organic milk with the added Martek DHA oils.
Although Dr. Greene represented himself as a "consultant," simply answering questions for Dean Foods, and stated he had previously worked for two other organic companies, but failed to disclose his multiple conflicts of interest in commenting on the benefits of Martek's manufactured DHA supplements.
Greene has also accepted compensation from Mead Johnson, the largest conventional infant formula manufacturer, to promote Martek's DHA oil in their products, and even has his own product line of nutritional supplements that include Martek DHA, marketed by Twinlabs with his name and photograph on the product package.
"It is unconscionable that a physician, who accepted money from a big drug company to promote synthetic DHA--which many believes promotes the use of baby formula at the expense of the nutrients in breast feeding--failed to disclose such a gross conflict of interest when he testified before the governmental body on certified 'organic' standards," said Lisa Graves, Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy/PRWatch, which helps expose corporate PR tactics.
Greene's role on behalf of Dean Foods and Martek was to directly dispute the preponderance of scientific literature, including two meta-analyses, that discredits Martek's claims that their supplements promote cognitive development in infants and children.
Cornucopia's complaint to the OIG also included evidence documenting that three corporate-backed members of the NOSB, who voted in favor of this petition, had undeclared conflicts of interest.
Two of the board members work for Earthbound Farms, a giant produce distributor that also compensated Dr. Greene during 2011. A third member of the NOSB board works for General Mills which partnered with Martek, starting in 2009, on the technology to microencapsulate their DHA and ARA oils.
Cornucopia said that these board members should have considered recusing themselves from voting on this issue because of the apparent conflicts of interest. One of the members was the prime champion of the Martek petition during board deliberations.
Adding fuel to the controversy, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) just announced the end of its investigation into Dean Foods' advertising campaign for Horizon DHA supplemented milk, forcing the dairy giant to alter claims in its advertising concerning "brain development or function, cognitive development or function, intelligence, learning abilities in children over the age of two." This action resulted from a complaint filed by The Cornucopia Institute based on its research of the fraudulent and misleading health claims.
"While they did not fine Dean, or its WhiteWave division, for its misrepresentations in Horizon marketing, we are pleased that the FTC has taken this action to protect children and prevent the defrauding of their parents," said Vallaeys.
Although the FDA has dismissed complaints about the safety of Martek products in infant formula, reports persist from parents and healthcare providers of infants who experience serious gastrointestinal symptoms from consuming Martek's DHA and ARA oils in infant formula, raising serious public health questions about the marketing of these products.
The Cornucopia Institute has sent a formal briefing paper on these matters to all members of the National Organic Standards Board.
Cornucopia contends that the board did not fulfill its legal responsibilities of due diligence, and instead solely accepted unsubstantiated statements by Martek that their products were not genetically engineered and were not "synthetic."
"We are asking the NOSB to reopen their deliberations and consider rescinding their approval of Martek nutritional oils," Kastel added. "If the board fails to act now, protecting the integrity of organics, it risks changing the working definition of the organic seal and degrading its value in the eyes of consumers."
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.
"Any attempt to evade the subpoena must be met with measures to hold Ms. Bondi in contempt of Congress," said Rep. Robert Garcia.
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee on Friday demanded their Republican colleagues force former US Attorney General Pam Bondi to meet her obligations to testify under oath.
Bondi had been subpoenaed to testify on April 14 about her handling of criminal case files related to late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
However, the Department of Justice said in a letter sent to the committee last week that she didn’t have to comply with its congressional subpoena because she is no longer attorney general, having been fired by President Donald Trump earlier this month.
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), ranking member of the panel, sent a letter to Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) in which he expressed concern that "Oversight Republicans are unwilling to take the actions needed to secure Ms. Bondi's required testimony."
Garcia pointed out that the committee voted on a bipartisan basis to subpoena Bondi last month to testify about the "possible mismanagement of the government's investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell," and other topics.
Garcia said that while Republicans on the committee have made noises about compelling Bondi to testify, "there has been zero indication that there, in fact, has been any concrete progress toward a rescheduled date."
The California Democrat concluded by warning Comer that letting Bondi skate on testifying before the committee was not optional.
"Any attempt to evade the subpoena must be met with measures to hold Ms. Bondi in contempt of Congress," he wrote. "In the absence of any communication with the committee, and with no indication that she even plans on appearing for her compulsory deposition, this step may soon be appropriate."
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) promoted Garcia's letter in a social media post and declared: "Pam Bondi must testify under oath in front of the American people. No exceptions."
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) earlier in the week also said there needed to be consequences for Bondi after she failed to show up for her scheduled testimony.
"Since she didn’t show up, Oversight Democrats will move to hold her in contempt of Congress," said Crockett. "The [Epstein] survivors deserve justice—and we will get answers. Enough is enough."
Democrats aren't the only ones on the committee who are demanding Bondi testify, as Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) wrote last week that the former attorney general "cannot escape accountability simply because she no longer holds the office of attorney general," emphasizing that "the American people deserve answers, and we expect her to appear as soon as a new date is set."
"This fragile truce must not be undermined," said the secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council.
Less than an hour after US President Donald Trump announced that Israel was "PROHIBITED" from attacking Lebanon under a 10-day ceasefire reached Friday, an Israeli drone strike reportedly killed at least one person in southern Lebanon.
Citing Lebanese media, The Times of Israel reported that an Israeli drone targeted a motorcycle between the southern towns of Khounine and Beit Yahoun. The Israel Defense Forces have not commented on the attack.
It was the latest in what the Lebanese Army said on Friday morning were "a number of violations” of the ceasefire within hours of it going into effect at midnight local time on Friday, as well as "intermittent shelling targeting a number of villages."
Lebanon's National News Agency reported that hours after the ceasefire went into effect, Israel struck an ambulance in the town of Khounine, near the Israeli border, which resulted in multiple casualties among the medical workers.
Israeli attacks on Lebanon since early March have killed nearly 2,300 people, according to Lebanese health officials and forced evacuation orders from Israel have resulted in the displacement of more than 1.2 million.
Trump said in a Friday social media post that under the framework reached Friday, "Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!!"
The US president has insisted that any agreement between Israel and Lebanon is separate from his ongoing two-week truce with Iran. Although Iran also announced on Friday that, following the Lebanon agreement, it stopped blocking travel through the Strait of Hormuz.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi has specified that "the passage for all commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz is declared completely open for the remaining period of the ceasefire" between Israel and Lebanon.
Trump has claimed that the Iranian government “agreed to never close the Strait of Hormuz again,” and that the US will maintain its naval blockade of Iran.
Israel's continued attacks on Lebanon have already put the peace deal between the US and Iran in jeopardy. After Iran briefly reopened the strait in response to the two-week ceasefire earlier this month, it began blocking travel again after Israel launched its most devastating attacks on Lebanon of the entire war, which killed hundreds of civilians.
Israel launched the attacks despite Lebanon having initially been announced as a party to the ceasefire, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then Trump quickly rejected.
After another agreement with Israel was reached on Friday, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun urged that the opportunity "must not be squandered because it may not come again."
According to the US State Department, the agreement reached Friday still grants Israel the "right to take all necessary measures in self-defense, at any time, against planned, imminent, or ongoing attacks." However, it is not clear at this time what imminent attack Friday's strikes were intended to prevent.
Israel routinely violated its previous ceasefire with Lebanon that began in November 2024, with more than 10,000 air and land attacks over the first year, which the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) said demonstrated a “total disregard of the ceasefire agreement.” It has done the same in Gaza, where hundreds of Palestinians have been killed since a ceasefire began in October 2025.
Netanyahu said on Friday that despite the ceasefire, Israel will continue its occupation of Southern Lebanon, where satellite images show the military has totally razed several towns and villages in what Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has described as a continuation of the "Gaza model," which left most buildings in the strip totally destroyed.
Israel's military spokesperson Avichay Adraee issued an "urgent message" to displaced Lebanese civilians following the ceasefire, urging them not to return to their homes south of the Litani River "until further notice."
According to The Associated Press, thousands have begun heading home regardless to find their villages reduced to rubble.
"Across the country, roads are already congested with hopeful families trying to return to their homes. That alone shows how deeply people want this war to end," said Jan Egeland, the Norwegian Refugee Council’s secretary general.
"This fragile truce must not be undermined. We cannot afford a repeat of the ineffective 2024 ceasefire, which saw countless violations. Worryingly, there are already reports of violations by the Israeli army, which also issued a warning against civilians returning to their homes south of the Litani river, home to hundreds of thousands of people," Egeland said. "For this ceasefire to be meaningful for civilians, it must lead to a real and durable halt in hostilities."
Allies of fossil fuel companies are celebrating the development as a step toward "stopping the endless wave" of lawsuits against the climate-wrecking industry.
US fossil fuel giants have long sought to shift litigation over industry harms from state to friendly federal courts, and the country's top court unanimously handed polluters a big win on Friday, allowing such a move in a case centered on environmental damage in coastal Louisiana.
Cases can be removed from state court when they are against federal officers or persons "acting under" them, "for or relating to any act under color of such office." Although the US Supreme Court has previously rejected multiple removals requested by Big Oil, the justices sided with the industry in Chevron USA v. Plaquemines Parish.
The company argued that its challenged production was sufficiently related to its contractual duties to refine crude oil into aviation gasoline, or avgas, for the US military during World War II. A federal district judge and the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected Chevron's argument, but the high court bought it.
"Chevron has plausibly alleged a close relationship between its challenged conduct and the performance of its federal duties—not a tenuous, remote, or peripheral one," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned a concurring opinion.
Justice Samuel Alito recused himself shortly before arguments. As with some other cases involving Big Oil, he bowed out due to his stock in ConocoPhillips, whose subsidiary Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company is involved in the case at the district court level.
This fight before the high court stemmed from dozens of cases filed over a decade ago. As NOLA.com detailed Friday:
In 2013, a group of local parishes and the state filed 42 lawsuits against energy companies whose predecessors sought and produced crude during World War II. They argued that the oil and gas companies damaged wetlands and failed to get or comply with the proper permits.
After a three-week trial, a Plaquemines Parish jury sided with the state in one of those cases and awarded a $745 million verdict against Chevron and two other companies.
But the companies challenged the verdict, saying the lawsuit should have been heard in federal court, not state court.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, the Plaquemines Parish case may now be retried in a US district court. Company spokesperson Bill Turenne said in a statement that "Chevron looks forward to litigating these cases in federal court, where they belong."
There are also potential implications for other legal battles involving the industry that is fueling the global climate emergency—as American Energy Institute CEO Jason Isaac, a former Republican state representative in Texas, celebrated in a Friday statement. He described the decision as "a critical step toward restoring sanity to our legal system and stopping the endless wave of politically motivated lawsuits designed to punish the very industry that powers our economy and national security."
The Supreme Court's decision notably came as the justices prepare to hear ExxonMobil and Suncor's request to move a 2018 lawsuit filed by the city of Boulder, Colorado—seeking financial damages for the companies' role in creating the climate crisis—from state to federal court. Alito has not yet recused himself from that case.
Fossil fuel companies largely have support from the Republican Party, which controls the White House and both chambers of Congress. President Donald Trump returned to power last year with help from the industry's campaign cash, and his administration has supported the companies being challenged in Louisiana.
As The New York Times noted Friday, the local communities' lawsuits "have gained support from Louisiana Republican leaders, including those who have otherwise endorsed President Trump's 'energy dominance' agenda. Gov. Jeff Landry and Attorney General Liz Murrill, both Republicans, have supported the legal challenges."
However, ahead of the November midterm elections, Republicans in Congress are working on shielding oil and gas companies from what they call "abusive state climate lawsuits." There are similar efforts at the state level. As the Times reported earlier this month, Utah recently "became the first state to enact a law that shields companies from climate-related claims. Republican lawmakers in at least four other states, including Oklahoma, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Iowa, are working on similar bills."
Cassidy DiPaola, communications director for the Make Polluters Pay campaign, warned earlier this year that "a federal liability shield for fossil fuel companies would not lower energy prices or ease the cost of living. It would simply shift more of the financial burden onto working families and local governments while insulating one of the most profitable industries in history from accountability."
"Congress should not close the courthouse doors to communities seeking redress," said DiPaola. "Big Oil is not entitled to special immunity from the consequences of its conduct."