

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.

Center for Food Safety today released a scientific literature review which reveals that neonicotinoid insecticide seed treatments offer little benefit, do not increase crop yields, and cause widespread environmental and economic damage. In particular, neonicotinoids have been implicated in bee population declines and colony collapse. While some fear that crop yields will suffer without the use of neonicotinoids, the study released today demonstrates that their benefits do not outweigh the costs.
The authors examined 19 peer-reviewed studies of the relationship between neonicotinoid treatments and actual yields of major U.S. crops. Eight studies found that neonicotinoid treatments did not provide any significant yield benefit, while 11 studies showed inconsistent benefits. The studies corroborate evidence from European countries that were able to maintain crop yields even after neonicotinoid bans. The review cites the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failure to conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis and calls on EPA to suspend seed treatment product registrations.
"The environmental and economic costs of pesticide seed treatments are well-known. What we learned in our thorough analysis of the peer-reviewed science is that their claimed crop yield benefit is largely illusory, making their costs all the more tragic," said Peter Jenkins, co-author of the report and consulting attorney for Center for Food Safety.
Read the report HERE.
Seeds of commercial crops in the U.S., particularly corn and soybeans, are widely treated with neonicotinoid pesticides, ostensibly to protect emerging seedlings from pests and thus improve yields. Almost all of the corn seed and approximately half of the soybeans in the U.S. are treated with neonicotinoids.
Neonicotinoids are a class of pesticides known to have acute and chronic effects on honey bees and other pollinator species and are considered a major factor in colony collapse. Neonicotinoid pesticides are also slow to break down, so they can build up in areas where they are applied. They contaminate surface water, ground water, and soil, endangering not only pollinators, but also other beneficial species that inhabit these ecosystems.
Pesticide seed treatments are regulated by EPA under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which directs the agency to evaluate whether the use of any pesticide proposed for registration presents "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits."
"Their impact on honey bees, other pollinators and on the nation's beekeepers is especially troubling. Because the available scientific studies show little if any benefit, EPA should suspend all neonicotinoid seed treatment product registrations as required under FIFRA until the costs and benefits are adequately reviewed," said Jenkins.
"Although there is no doubt that neonicotinoids are highly toxic to insects, this does not mean they are routinely effective in pest management. In many contexts they provide no benefit, and in others they are not a cost-effective option. The bottom line is these toxic insecticides are being unnecessarily applied to seeds in most cases, while harming pollinators and the environment," said Sarah Stevens, researcher and co-author of the report.
"The economic costs of neonicotinoid seed treatments are real. In addition to paying for unnecessary treatments, the overuse of these pesticides has led to significant costs to society at large," added Stevens.
According to USDA, 10 million bee hives have been lost since 2006, representing a two billion dollar cost to beekeepers. Honey bees are responsible for much of the pollination required for agricultural production. USDA estimates pollinator services to be worth $20-30 billion annually. Further, honey and bee products have also suffered with 2013 the lowest U.S. honey production ever recorded. That was a $38 million drop since 2012. The most significantly decline in honeybee production has occurred in the Corn Belt where neonicotinoid use is highest.
Dr. Christian Krupke of Purdue University, a top bee scientist and reviewer of the report, will be speaking at a briefing on Capitol Hill on Wednesday to discuss his own research on this topic. He will be joined by UK expert Dr. David Goulson of the University of Sussex, whose background research is relied on in the report. Dr. Goulson is an outspoken bee expert who made major contributions to the EU decision to suspend many neonicotinoid uses for a minimum of two years. Interviews with them about the topics in the CFS report and their statements to Congress and regulators can be arranged through Center for Food Safety.
Center for Food Safety's mission is to empower people, support farmers, and protect the earth from the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture. Through groundbreaking legal, scientific, and grassroots action, we protect and promote your right to safe food and the environment. CFS's successful legal cases collectively represent a landmark body of case law on food and agricultural issues.
(202) 547-9359Data released by the University of Michigan and Gallup this week showed US consumer sentiment cratering even as stock markets hit record highs.
Multiple polls and surveys released in recent days have shown US consumer sentiment cratering—and all the while, the US stock market keeps hitting record highs.
The Kobeissi Letter, a financial newsletter, posted a graphic Saturday that matched consumer sentiment as measured by the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers with the performance of the S&P 500 stock index over a 30-year span.
The graphic shows that, up until around 2020, consumer sentiment matched stock market performance closely, although there was a large divergence between the two leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, where stocks briefly outperformed consumer sentiment before crashing downward as the housing bubble burst.
But throughout the last six years, the graphic shows, the S&P 500 has produced an almost continuous upward surge even as consumer sentiment spirals downward.
Absolutely incredible:
Over the last 6 years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952.
We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history. https://t.co/XGMR6DfuNc pic.twitter.com/2w7cRvn7ok
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) May 23, 2026
"Absolutely incredible," commented Kobeissi Letter. "Over the last six years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952. We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history."
Kobeissi Letter produced the graphic one day after the University of Michigan's latest survey found consumer sentiment hitting the lowest level on record.
Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, observed that "the cost of living continues to be a first-order concern, with 57% of consumers spontaneously mentioning that high prices were eroding their personal finances, up from 50% last month."
On the same day, Gallup published new data showing that Americans' economic confidence has fallen to its lowest level since October 2022, with just 16% of Americans rating the economy as excellent or good, and nearly half describing it as poor.
Axios reported on Saturday that even Republicans have been growing sour on the US economy, citing a recent poll from The Associated Press showing GOP approval of President Donald Trump on the economy to be at around 60%, down from 80% just three months ago.
"The growing GOP gloom could hardly come at a worse time for Trump and the party," Axios noted, "less than six months out from a midterm election that's likely to turn on the economy."
The gap between overall consumer sentiment and stock market performance also lines up with recent consumer spending trends. Data published by The Financial Times earlier this year showed that the top 10% of earners in the US now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, while the bottom 80% of earners now account for less than 40% of all consumer spending.
A February report from TD Economics economist Ksenia Bushmeneva noted that “the economic divide between America’s households at the top of the income spectrum and everyone else continued to widen last year,” as “upper-income households benefited from the still-robust wage growth, strong gains in equity markets, and better access to consumer credit.”
"Private equity is destroying our favorite baseball team, stripping them for parts," Democratic US Senate candidate Platner said in an ad that aired on the New England Sports Network.
Maine Democratic US Senate candidate Graham Platner on Saturday said that a campaign ad that aired during a Boston Red Sox game was "taken down" after it took aim at the team's ownership.
The ad in question features Platner discussing the role that private equity firms play in the US economy, including sports teams.
"Private equity is destroying our favorite baseball team, stripping them for parts," Platner says at the start of the ad. "Private equity is buying up our homes, our sports, and our lives. I will reverse the private equity curse."
Private equity is taking our homes. It's taking our hospitals. It's taking beloved local businesses and stripping them for parts.
And now private equity is running the Red Sox into the ground.
Our new ad ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/w7LapElpdA
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) May 22, 2026
Platner concludes the ad by saying that he approves this message "because I miss Mookie Betts," the star player whom the Red Sox traded to the Los Angeles Dodgers in 2020 in a deal that was widely decried by local fans as a salary dump.
According to Platner, his campaign began airing the ad Friday on the New England Sports Network (NESN), the cable TV station owned partially by Fenway Sports Group, the conglomerate that owns the Red Sox.
However, he said that "midway through the game the ad was taken down" by NESN, after which the Red Sox proceeded to blow a 4-0 lead, losing to the Minnesota Twins by a final score of 8-6.
Platner, an oyster farmer and upstart candidate who has never before held political office, became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for the 2026 US Senate race in Maine last month after his top rival, Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills, dropped out of the race.
In recent weeks, Platner has pivoted to challenging incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has held the seat since 1996 and is now running for her sixth term in office.
The policy change means "we could have families separated for months or years," said one expert.
Critics are slamming the Trump administration for implementing a new rule that foreigners who apply for green cards must do so from abroad.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Friday announced that foreigners currently in the US who want to establish permanent legal residency must first return to their countries of origin to apply for a green card.
This announcement broke with decades of US immigration policy, which made it possible for immigrants in the US to obtain green cards without having to leave the country.
Doug Rand, a former senior advisor at USCIS under President Joe Biden, said in an interview with The Associated Press that "the goal of this policy is very explicit," which is to block a path to citizenship "for as many people as possible."
Sarah Pierce, a former USCIS policy analyst, told The New York Times that the rule change could have particularly dire consequences to foreigners who are married to US citizens and will now have to apply for permanent residency from overseas.
"Our consular processing system through which they would have to apply is already overburdened," Pierce explained. "So that means we could have families separated for months or years."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, similarly noted that the new policy "could force people to leave their jobs, homes, and families for weeks or months, all at their own expense" just to stay in a country where they have already established roots.
Reichlin-Melnick said that the full scope of the policy isn't yet clear because there are several unknown details about how broadly it will be applied, but added that "in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of immigrants now have to worry about upending their lives to get a legal status that they are entitled to under our laws."
Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim argued that the new policy rips the mask off Trump administration claims that they aren't opposed to all immigration, they simply want to reduce undocumented immigration.
"The talking point that we do want legal immigration, we just want people to get in line and follow the rules, is BS," Grim commented. "This is an attempt to blow up the line, blow up the rules, and make it insanely difficult to immigrate legally."
Rep. Chuy García (D-Ill.) echoed Grim's comments by pointing out that the new policy shows the Trump administration's disdain for immigration overall.
"This new policy will force thousands of LEGAL immigrants, including spouses of US citizens, to leave their homes, families, and jobs for weeks or even months to get their green card outside the US," said García. "This is an absurd and cruel policy."
Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, condemned the new policy for targeting "students, scientists, entrepreneurs, spouses of US citizens, and other individuals following legal immigration processes."
"Aspiring lawful permanent residents are valued members of our communities, workforce, and economy," Espaillat emphasized. "I will continue fighting to protect the rights of aspiring green card holders and immigrant families."