

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: Alex Formuzis (202) 667.6982 or alex@ewg.org
Californians deserve the right to know whether their food contains genetically engineered ingredients, just as consumers do in 40 other countries around the world, including China. But the only way they'll win that right is by voting yes on Proposition 37 on November 6, and today Environmental Working Group, a national research and advocacy organization, announced that it will join the fight to pass the measure.
Proposition 37, a relatively straightforward proposal would require a simple label on any food product that contains ingredients that have been genetically modified, commonly called GMOs. More than 1 million Californians have signed petitions to get the measure on the November ballot.
Until now, GMO foods - primarily soy, corn or beet sugar - have mostly been used in processed food and animal feed, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture is considering approving the sale of genetically modified versions of widely eaten foods such as apples and salmon. Currently, 90 percent of sugar beets and 94 percent of soybeans grown in the U.S., and 88 percent of corn grown for animal feed, are genetically modified.
"Surveys show that more than 90 percent of Californians believe it's their right to know if genetically engineered ingredients are in the food they eat and feed their kids, and for years now they've had no way to find out," said EWG President Ken Cook. "Who will honor that right? Certainly not the global pesticide companies that produce the genetically engineered ingredients that ends up in our food, and definitely not big multinational food companies. In this instance, they're saying the customer is not always right. In fact, Big Food has already announced that defeating California's Proposition 37 is their top priority," Cook said.
"I'm very sorry to say that President Obama has not acted to respect this basic right either, despite promising to do so on the campaign trail in 2008. A President Romney? Forget it. The current majority in Congress certainly won't recognize this right, and as for Sacramento...we have our doubts," added Cook, a California resident. "The only way Californians will win the right to know about genetically modified ingredients in our food is to claim it in the voting booth, and that's why EWG is in this fight."
EWG has joined with a large and diverse coalition - including environmental, public health, food safety and agricultural organizations along with food producers, labor federations and Tea Party-affiliated groups - that believe consumers have a right to know what is in their food.
Cook and other EWG staff will be traveling throughout the state speaking out in favor of Proposition 37 in the run-up to election day and will be calling on the 150,000 EWG supporters in the state to join the fight and bring some friends.
"It is absolutely unacceptable to keep consumers in the dark," said EWG Senior Analyst Kari Hamerschlag in EWG's Oakland office. "Passage of Proposition 37 is essential for not only the people in California but for all eaters across the country who'd like to know what's in the food they and their families eat."
"The fact that in just a few months nearly a million people in California signed a petition asking to put their right to know on the ballot is a sign of the overwhelming public support for this issue in the state," Hamerschlag added.
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982Prices for staples like turkey, cranberry sauce, and mac and cheese have gone through the roof as Trump's tariffs contribute to a spike in grocery prices.
As President Donald Trump attempts to claim the mantle of “affordability" and boasts that grocery prices are “way down,” a new report tracking the price of several Thanksgiving staples showed they have increased by 10% over the last year, more than three times the rate of inflation.
On social media, the president recently trumpeted that “2025 Thanksgiving dinner under Trump is 25% lower than 2024 Thanksgiving dinner under [President Joe] Biden, according to Walmart.” Claiming that grocery prices are down this year, he added: “AFFORDABILITY is a Republican Stronghold. Hopefully, Republicans will use this irrefutable fact!”
Trump was technically correct that Walmart had reduced the cost of its Thanksgiving dinner by about 25%. What he neglected to mention, however, was that it had also considerably reduced the meal's size, down from 29 individual items to 22.
The most recent Consumer Price Index (CPI) data published in September by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, meanwhile, shows that at-home grocery prices have actually risen by 2.7%. That, not the spin coming from the White House, is what voters appear to be absorbing as Thanksgiving approaches.
In a poll conducted last week by Data for Progress, 53% said they felt it would be harder to afford a typical Thanksgiving meal than last year, while just 13% said it would be easier. Meanwhile, over a third said they were compensating for rising costs by buying fewer items.
That survey was done in collaboration with the Groundwork Collaborative, the Century Foundation, and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), which published a report on Friday showing the skyrocketing cost of several holiday staples over the past year, in large part due to Trump’s aggressive tariff regime.

While the cost of a 15-lb. frozen turkey has remained roughly steady, the report notes that this is a bit of a mirage.
"Typically, retailers use frozen turkeys as a loss leader, discounting them to get customers in the door to purchase the rest of their Thanksgiving meal, so it’s no surprise that frozen turkey prices are steady," it explains. “However, wholesale prices for frozen turkeys have soared 75% over the past year, according to research from Purdue University, and fresh turkey prices are up 36% and likely to continue rising.”
The report attributes these sharp increases to a perfect storm of Trump policies. Tariffs have driven up the cost of feed and avian flu," which has worsened as a result of mass firings at the US Department of Agriculture, "has further thinned an already shrinking flock, now at its lowest level in four decades, squeezing American farmers and consumers alike."
Those who prefer pork or beef to turkey will not be so lucky: The price of an 8-lb. smoked bone-in spiral ham has jumped from $7.69 last year up to $11.48, a nearly 50% increase, while beef roasts are up 20%.
But many agree that the sides are what truly make a Thanksgiving meal great, and that’s where Americans’ pocketbooks will take the most significant hits.
The cost of sweet onions, an essential ingredient in stuffing, has spiked by 56% since last year. Ocean Spray jellied cranberry sauce and Seneca Foods' creamed corn have each jumped by over 20%. And elbow macaroni from De Cecco and the Sargento cheese to put on top have each increased by double digits.
Pie fillings like pecans, apples, and the refrigerated crusts they're served in have also all lept several times the rate of inflation. And even storing leftovers will be more costly, with heavy-duty aluminum foil from Reynolds up 40%.
The report chalks this up to Trump's 50% tariffs on imported steel, which affect around 4 in 5 canned goods. Canned fruits and vegetables have increased by 5% over the past year, faster than the overall rate of inflation. These price hikes, meanwhile, have given companies cover to raise the prices of goods made with domestic steel, too.
Making Thanksgiving dinner with fresh fruit and vegetables may skirt some of the hikes, but tariffs on fertilizer and herbicides have also driven prices up by about 2.5%.
Tariffs on aluminum, meanwhile, have caused Reynolds' CEO to increase the prices not just of foil, but also of other products to help absorb the cost.
The report by Groundwork, the Century Foundation, and AFT is not the only one to examine the cost of Thanksgiving foods, which are often used as a shorthand for the state of inflation.
While estimates vary based on methodology—for instance, the American Farm Bureau notes that the loss leader pricing of turkey is enough to reduce the price of a Thanksgiving meal on the whole from last year—reports across the board have found that the prices for most Thanksgiving staples are rising in tandem with food prices more broadly.
“This Thanksgiving, the main course is inflation as Trump’s policies force families to carve up their shrinking budgets," said Lindsay Owens, Groundwork's executive director.
Rising food prices are just the tip of the iceberg for a mounting affordability crisis: Data shows similar hikes to housing and energy costs. Meanwhile, the cost of health insurance premiums is expected to more than double next year for over 20 million Americans and increase across the board after Republicans voted not to renew a tax credit for the Affordable Care Act.
“This administration’s policies made the cost of living higher than the year before,” said AFT president Randi Weingarten. “We must do everything we can to make it easier, not harder, for working Americans to afford groceries, housing, and healthcare.”
"We condemn in the strongest terms the military escalation against Venezuela," said progressive leaders from countries including the United Kingdom, Spain, and Greece.
With thousands of US troops patrolling the Caribbean, at least eight warships deployed in the region, and the BBC reporting that it tracked four US military planes that flew near Venezuela Thursday night, lawmakers and other leaders from across Europe on Friday issued a unified demand for the Trump administration to deescalate the tensions it has ratcheted up in recent weeks.
The administration's "show of force has already proved lethal," said the leaders, with more than 80 people—including fishermen and an out-of-work bus driver—having been killed in the US military's strikes on more than 20 boats, which the administration has insisted were trafficking drugs to the US. The White House has publicized no evidence of the claims.
President Donald Trump has not taken further military action against Venezuela since he was presented with "options" for potential strikes last week by officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, nor has he followed through with threats he's made against Mexico and Colombia.
But the European leaders—including British Members of Parliament Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn, former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, and Spanish Member of European Parliament Irene Montero Gil—noted that Trump "severed diplomatic channels with Caracas and approved covert [Central Intelligence Agency] operations in Venezuela" as the military buildup continues in the region.
The Trump administration has insisted it is engaged in a legal "armed conflict" with drug cartels in Venezuela, which it has accused of trafficking fentanyl to the US—though experts say drug boats originating in Venezuela are "are mainly moving cocaine from South America to Europe," and analysis by both the United Nations and US intelligence agencies have shown the South American country plays virtually no role in the production or transit of fentanyl.
The US Congress has not authorized any military action against drug cartels or Venezuela's government, and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have attempted to pass war powers resolutions blocking the US from striking more boats or targets on land in Venezuela, only to have the resolutions voted down.
In his second term, Trump has sought to tie Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to drug cartels—despite a declassified US intelligence memo showing officials rejected the claim—and designated Cartel de los Soles a foreign terrorist organization last week, giving the White House what Hegseth called "new options" to go after the group.
But the escalation that Trump claims is the latest battle in the "War on Drugs" comes two years after he explicitly announced his desire to take control of Venezuela's oil, and following years of condemnation of Maduro's socialist government from Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The European leaders said the administration's narrative about the threat Venezuela poses to the US and the escalation is simply the "latest attempt to threaten and undermine the sovereignty of Latin America and the Caribbean nations."
"Declassified documents have confirmed the CIA’s hand in overthrowing democratically elected governments in Latin America, such as Salvador Allende’s Chile in 1973, João Goulart’s Brazil in 1964, and Jacobo Árbenz’s Guatemala in 1954. The human cost of these regime change operations was catastrophic, and their political legacy endures," reads the letter, which was organized by Progressive International.
A military intervention by the US in Venezuela "would mark the first interstate war by the United States in South America," the leaders said, yet "the pretext for intervention is as tired as it is familiar."
"Under the banner of combating the 'narco-terrorists,' Trump celebrates lethal strikes against peaceful fishermen arbitrarily labeled as carrying drugs," the leaders said.
As in the past, they added, moving the War on Drugs to Venezuela would deliver "not security but a torrent of bloodshed, dispossession, and destabilization."
"Therefore, we condemn in the strongest terms the military escalation against Venezuela," they said. "Our demand is clear and our resolve is firm: No war on Venezuela."
As Peoples Dispatch reported Thursday, many European leaders have "subordinated" themselves to Trump and have avoided speaking out against the US escalation with Venezuela, but left-wing political parties have led the way in denouncing the US deployment of soldiers and warships to the region.
The Workers' Party of Belgium said recently that the world is "witnessing an unprecedented military escalation in 20 years, a multifaceted aggression that threatens not only Venezuela, but any project of sovereignty and social justice in Latin America."
"We can’t have a deal that fails to deliver what science and the law require on finance, fossil fuels, or forests and call that progress."
Climate advocates voiced alarm and outrage Friday after every mention of fossil fuels was dropped from the latest draft text to emerge from the COP30 summit, high-stakes talks that have been swarmed by a record number of oil and gas lobbyists seeking to derail any progress toward a clean energy transition.
Dozens of nations—including Spain, Vanuatu, the Marshall Islands, Chile, and Germany—are demanding that any final agreement include "a roadmap for implementing a just, orderly, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels" to fulfill world leaders' previous commitment at COP28.
But a draft document released by COP30 host Brazil on Friday, formally the last day of talks, omits any such roadmap and does not even contain the term "fossil fuels."
Monique Barbut, France's environment minister, said Friday that "at this point, even if we don't have the roadmap, but at least a mention of the fossil fuels, I think we would accept it."
"But as it stands now, we have nothing left," Barbut added.
While draft texts are not necessarily a definitive measure of the state of negotiations, the omission was seen as further evidence that United Nations climate talks have been captured by petrostates such as Saudi Arabia and fossil fuel industry influence-peddlers. At COP30, fossil fuel lobbyists outnumber the delegations of every country except Brazil.
The Donald Trump-led United States, the world's largest oil producer, did not send an official delegation to the summit.
"This is outrageous," Bronwen Tucker, public finance lead at Oil Change International, said in response to the new draft text. "The presidency has presented a shamefully weak text that fails to mention fossil fuels, fails to deliver accountability towards rich countries’ finance obligations, and only makes vague promises on adaptation."
"A large group of countries have been vocal in their support for a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, but rich parties are still refusing to deliver the debt-free public finance on fair terms that is key to make it happen," Tucker added. "Until they stop blocking efforts to address the systemic barriers developing countries face to phasing out fossil fuels, any roadmap will be a dead-end."
"We’re walking a fine line here between survival and climate catastrophe."
The updated text was released as negotiators raced to strike a consensus deal in the final hours of the summit, which appears likely to head into overtime. Talks were delayed for hours on Thursday after a fire broke out at the summit, an incident that activists viewed as a "potent metaphor" for world leaders' failure to combat the climate crisis as it wreaks havoc across the globe.
"We’re walking a fine line here between survival and climate catastrophe, and in these final hours I am hoping we can take something back to our communities that indicates that the world considers our homes worth fighting for,” said Fenton Lutunatabua, Pacific team lead at the climate group 350.
Nikki Reisch, director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Center for International Environmental Law, said Friday that the toothless draft text lays bare the need to overhaul the COP process and mitigate the influence of the fossil fuel industry—the primary driver of the climate emergency.
"The world is being sold a bill of lies here at this 'COP of truth,'" said Reisch. "We can’t have a deal that fails to deliver what science and the law require on finance, fossil fuels, or forests and call that progress. The weakness of the text underscores why the climate talks are sorely in need of reform to allow a majority vote when a handful of countries block consensus."