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) 667-6982"White supremacist and antidemocratic movements have always used the claim that so-called Black savages are coming to destroy, especially when political power is up for grabs," said one critic. "This is no different."
U.S. vice presidential candidate JD Vance and other Republicans including congressional lawmakers and Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of the X social media platform, were excoriated Monday for spreading unsubstantiated rumors that Haitian immigrants are killing and eating pets and park wildlife in an Ohio town.
Vance, who is also the junior U.S. senator from Ohio,
wrote Monday on X—formerly known as Twitter—that "months ago, I raised the issue of Haitian illegal immigrants draining social services and generally causing chaos all over Springfield, Ohio."
"Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn't be in this country," he added. "Where is our border czar?"
Haitians were also accused of killing and eating ducks and geese in the city's Snyder Park. However, a photo
purportedly showing a Haitian immigrant walking down a Springfield street carrying a dead bird was actually of an American and was taken in Columbus, Ohio—nearly 50 miles away.
The cat rumor originated nearly 100 miles away in Canton, Ohio, where a mentally ill woman—also an American—was
arrested last month for allegedly killing and eating a cat.
During a July Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing, Vance read a letter from Springfield City Manager Bryan Heck, a Republican, highlighting some of the challenges faced by municipal officials struggling to accommodate thousands of Haitian immigrants.
Nowhere in the letter are pet-eating Haitians mentioned. Both Heck and Springfield police officials have
refuted the rumor.
"We wish to clarify that there have been no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured, or abused by individuals within the immigrant community," Heck
toldThe Hill. "Additionally, there have been no verified instances of immigrants engaging in illegal activities such as squatting or littering in front of residents' homes."
By the time mainstream media outlets began debunking the rumor, it had already gone viral. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
posted a meme showing two scared kittens with the caption, "Pease vote for Trump so Haitian immigrants don't eat us."
Musk, meanwhile,
reposted an AI-generated meme published by House Judiciary Committee Republicans showing Trump hugging animals with the caption, "Protect our ducks and kittens in Ohio!"
Many observers reacted with disgust to the rumor-spreading Republicans.
"In MAGA world, the alleged pet-eating is already a matter of fact, and Republican elected officials, including Vance, are hurrying to join the clout rush, the scramble to get attention and likes and followers by treating it as a serious issue," wroteWashington Post columnist Philip Bump.
"This is a central reason that Vance and others on the right are susceptible to being described as 'weird,'" Bump added. "There's an online world in which things get taken to the nth-degree because its economy rewards that sort of hyperbole. But then these obsessions and claims are taken out of that bubble and presented to everyone else and they don't hold up. What else can you do but marvel at how strange it all is?"
Erik Crew, staff attorney at the Haitian Bridge Alliance, an advocacy group,
toldThe Hill that "this is the same old anti-Black playbook that we've seen for hundreds of years in Ohio being rolled out to divide and create hate, especially around election times."
Crew continued:
White supremacist and antidemocratic movements have always used the claim that so-called Black savages are coming to destroy, especially when political power is up for grabs. This is no different. This time they are saying it is Haitians, and this time it is being used to try to score political points around immigration as well.
The fact is Haitian immigrants have been coming to Springfield seeking to come and contribute to U.S. democracy and the economy, and Springfield and Ohio will benefit from that like U.S. communities have benefited in the past from Black immigrants' contributions.
"The fact is the rumors about Haitians in Springfield and pets have already been debunked, but we won't stop hearing them because certain people will want to keep spreading them as the election nears," he added.
Dave Zirin, sports editor at
The Nation, was more blunt in his reaction.
"You are a racist piece of shit," he
wrote to Vance on X. "You lie like Trump without an inkling of his twisted charisma."
The lawsuit was filed "to vindicate the fundamental democratic and constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly, and due process against overreach by university authorities," the text said.
Students and staff at the University of California, Santa Cruz launched a lawsuit against the school on Monday for barring them from campus without due process after they were arrested at a pro-Palestinian protest in the spring.
The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation of Northern California, the Center for Protest Law & Litigation, and civil rights attorney Thomas Seabaugh, is demanding that the University "cease summarily banishing" people who exerciser their First Amendment rights as the new academic year beings.
"The bans were incredibly punitive and profoundly unfair," Rachel Lederman, senior counsel with the Center for Protest Law & Litigation, said in a statement. "They went into effect on the spot, instantly cutting students and faculty off from classes, jobs, and other school resources, such as meal plans and healthcare. On-campus residents were rendered homeless. Academic performance suffered."
"It's time to hold UCSC accountable for its illegal use of Section 626.4 campus bans against students and faculty as a tool of censorship."
One impacted student was Elio Ellutzi, a plaintiff and undergraduate who was not only made homeless and cut off from their campus job, they were forced to the miss a pre-scheduled doctor's appointment and delay treatment until the fall.
"It was terrible to miss that appointment and be cut off from my home, the library, and my notes," Ellutzi said. "This all happened during final exams and, even though I had been on the honor roll for the last two quarters, I struggled to complete my coursework and my grades really suffered."
Fellow plaintiff and UCSC undergraduate Laaila Irshad also suffered academically.
"I was a resident assistant living and working in campus housing, so the ban was devastating," Laaila said. "I failed my school courses as I could not access my computer, attend classes, or complete assignments."
The bans were issued to more than 100 students and faculty members who were arrested on the night of May 30, when the university called in more than 100 police officers to clear the school's Palestine solidarity encampment.
Everyone arrested that night was banned from campus under section 626.4 of California's Penal Code, which allows a university to withdraw its consent for an individual's presence on campus for up to two weeks. However, in order for a university to make use of the code, it must first either hold a hearing or decide that an individual poses "a substantial and material threat." Neither criteria were met in the case of those arrested in May, in violation of both state and federal law.
Chessie Thacher, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said the bans were "unconstitutional and overbroad, depriving students and faculty of their due process rights."
The lawsuit explained further:
The campus police, acting under defendants' direction, handed out identical one-page Section 626.4 notices to arrestees. The officers handed out so many of these form notices en masse that they eventually ran out of paper and resorted to verbally informing students and faculty of the ban. Some people were also purportedly banned without getting either written or verbal notice. No hearing or opportunity to be heard was provided before any of these bans went into effect. No individualized findings were made about how, post-arrest, "the continued presence" on campus of each summarily banned person presented "a substantial and material threat of significant injury to persons or property."
The notices were also handed out after an arrest experience that was harrowing in and of itself, according to first-hand testimony from plaintiffs.
Christine Hong, a professor of critical race and ethnic studies, said she had gone to the encampment on May 30 to support her students:
When I arrived, I saw a line of officers advancing in militarized formation, moving forward, then stopping, and waiting before continuing their slow march down to the base of campus until they were just two to three feet in front of the line of students. From that point forward, they repeatedly attacked us in waves of violence. The police used their batons to force us so tightly into each other that some protesters were dry heaving from the batons being thrust violently into their organs. When students tried to move the batons away from their stomachs, they were ordered to stay still and bear the pain. The person next to me was later hospitalized for their injuries. In what appeared to be their efforts to pluck off protesters for arrest, officers in full riot gear were unrestrained in their violence, including grabbing people by the neck. One person sustained injuries so severe that they suffered neurological damage and now walks using a cane.
Once arrested, both Hong and Irshad described spending time in police vans with their hands tightly zip-tied and no chance to access facilities.
Irshad recalled:
I was arrested at 6:00 am, while other protesters remained on-site into the morning, still without basic necessities. We were then handcuffed tightly with zip ties and loaded into vans, where static radio blared at deafening volumes. When we pleaded for relief, the volume was increased, and when I asked to use the restroom, I was met with scorn and laughter. It was a shock to be treated so cruelly simply for exercising my right to protest.
The lawsuit stated that it was filed "to vindicate the fundamental democratic and constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly, and due process against overreach by university authorities."
"It's time to hold UCSC accountable for its illegal use of Section 626.4 campus bans against students and faculty as a tool of censorship," Seabaugh said in a statement. "Our clients did not engage in conduct that posed a threat of significant injury to anyone or anything. Banning them on the spot was not just heavy-handed, it was unconstitutional and a violation of basic democratic rights and academic freedoms. We're suing to ensure that in the coming school year, UCSC officials comply with the law and respect the constitutional limits on their power to ban students and faculty from campus."
"No one is really OK with a corporation lying to consumers. What jumps out here is the overwhelming agreement among voters that it's deceptive and wrong for companies to label a product as recyclable when it's not."
Most U.S. voters would support officials in their state taking legal action against the plastics and fossil fuel industries for creating plastic pollution, based on evidence that they misled the public about the viability of recycling their products, according to a poll released Monday.
The poll, conducted by Data for Progress and the Center for Climate Integrity, follows a report CCI released in February that showed decades of industry deception about the recyclability of plastics and a yearslong, ongoing investigation by the California attorney general, which could lead to a lawsuit.
The poll indicates that 70% of voters support such a lawsuit and even 54% of Republicans do so.
"Regardless of your politics, no one is really OK with a corporation lying to consumers," Davis Allen, a CCI researcher, said in a statement. "What jumps out here is the overwhelming agreement among voters that it's deceptive and wrong for companies to label a product as recyclable when it's not."
Allen's colleague Alyssa Johl, a CCI vice president, argued that the poll bolsters the case that attorneys general should pursue lawsuits against industry for its role in creating plastic waste and deceiving the public about recycling.
"As we're watching to see what comes from California's investigation, it's clear that the public is very concerned about the plastic waste crisis and would support holding Big Oil and the plastics industry accountable for the fraud of plastic recycling," she said. "Any attorney general or public official who is considering action on this issue should know that both the law and public opinion are on their side."
📣 New poll from us & @DataProgress:
The vast majority of U.S. voters — including 54% of Republicans — support legal action against Big Oil & the plastics industry for lying about the viability of plastic recycling and causing the plastic waste crisis. https://t.co/YFjmxzeOYT pic.twitter.com/0oHAMHPtem
— Center for Climate Integrity (@climatecosts) September 9, 2024
The survey, conducted on 1,231 web panel respondents, also included a number of other plastics-related questions. More than two-thirds of respondents, after being prompted with information during the course of the survey, said the plastics industry should have "a great deal of responsibility" to address the plastic crisis, while 59% said the same about the fossil fuel industry. The industries are in fact connected; almost all plastics are made out of fossil fuels.
More than 60% of respondents strongly agreed—and 85% agreed at least "somewhat"—that it was deceptive to put the "chasing arrows" symbol on products that were not in fact recyclable. California restricted the practice with a 2021 law, and the Federal Trade Commission is revising its guidelines following recommendations issued last year by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which said the use of the symbol can be "deceptive or misleading."
The poll showed that Americans tend to overestimate the amount of plastic being recycled. The average respondent guessed that about 45% of plastic gets recycled, when in fact a 2021 Greenpeace report indicated that the real figure is about 6%.
Despite the negative impacts of plastic waste, plastic production continues to increase worldwide. About 220 million tons of plastic waste are expected to be generated this year alone. Last week, a study in Nature, a leading journal, estimated global plastic waste emissions at about 52 million metric tons per year.
Recycling plastic is logistically challenging because many products are made of composites of different types of plastic and because the quality of the material goes down with each generation of use.
The poll comes out during the final stages of negotiations on a global plastics treaty, which has been in the works for several years. Ahead of United Nations General Assembly meetings this week, a group of celebrities including Bette Midler called for strong action on plastics in an open letter published by Greenpeace.
The final global plastics treaty negotiations will be held in Busan, South Korea starting November 25. The previous major round of negotiations, in April, was dominated by corporate lobbyists, advocates said. Activists and Indigenous leaders were also left out of a smaller meeting in Thailand last month, drawing criticism.
The call for accountability for plastics producers comes as the fossil fuel industry already faces legal action for its role in perpetuating the climate crisis. Dozens of cities and states have filed suits. None has yet reached the trial stage. The one that is closest to doing so, City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco et al., has been the subject of political and legal wrangling, with the industry trying to have the suit dismissed.