

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.

A new report and scorecard released today by several consumer, health, and environmental groups grades America's 25 largest fast food and fast casual chains on their meat and poultry antibiotics policies, with all but five of them earning "F"s for allowing routine antibiotic use by their meat suppliers. The five chains earning passing grades include Panera Bread (PNRA), Chipotle Mexican Grill (CMG), Chick-fil-A, McDonald's (MCD) and Dunkin' Donuts (DNKN).
Today's report, Chain Reaction: How Top Restaurants Rate on Reducing Use of Antibiotics in Their Meat Supply, comes amid mounting pressure on restaurant chains, with a letter sent today from 109 organizations to the CEOs of the top 25 restaurant chains urging companies to eliminate the routine use of antibiotics in their meat supply. In addition there are several high profile campaigns urging Subway, the world's largest restaurant chain, to adopt a clear policy restricting the routine use of antibiotics in its supply chain.
"Overusing antibiotics in meat production helps to create drug-resistant superbugs--our nation's largest chain restaurants can be part of the problem, or part of the solution." said David Wallinga, MD, Senior Health Officer with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). "Restaurants billing themselves as a 'healthier' option, like Subway, have a particular responsibility to live up to that image by reducing antibiotics. Consumer demand for meat raised without routine antibiotics is transforming the marketplace; the companies continuing with business-as-usual will be left behind.
"From bacon cheeseburgers to chicken nuggets, most meat served by America's chain restaurants comes from animals raised in industrial-scale facilities, where they are routinely fed antibiotics to prevent disease that is easily spread in crowded, unsanitary, stressful conditions," said Kari Hamerschlag, senior program manager at Friends of the Earth. "It's time for the U.S. restaurant industry to take leadership and address the growing crisis of antibiotic resistance by working with their meat and poultry suppliers to eliminate the routine use of antibiotics and improve overall conditions in U.S. meat production."
"U.S. restaurant chains must take responsibility for how the meat they sell is contributing to the rise of antibiotic resistance." said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union, the policy arm of Consumer Reports." The majority of meat served at Panera and Chipotle is produced without routine use of antibiotics, and Chick-fil-A and McDonald's have committed to limiting antibiotics use in their chicken. We are urging other major chains, such as Subway and Burger King, to take immediate action in their meat supply chain to address the urgent problem of antibiotic resistance."
"The meat industry's misuse and overuse of antibiotics reflects larger problems of poor animal welfare and farm management practices in U.S. meat production." said Steven Roach, food safety program director at Food Animal Concerns Trust and analyst for Keep Antibiotics Working. "Companies need to insist that producers reduce density and improve animal diets, sanitation and other management practices within their producers' facilities, to reduce the likelihood of disease and the need for routine drug use. By doing so, these companies can play an important role in ensuring better animal welfare and addressing one of our nation's more serious public health threats"
Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director at Center for Food Safety commented, "The restaurant industry needs to take action, but the market alone cannot solve the problem of antibiotic misuse in animal agriculture. The FDA and Congress must move quickly to adopt mandatory policies that prohibit use of medically important antibiotics for both growth promotion and disease prevention."
Research for the Chain Reaction report including the survey of the top 25 chains, was compiled by a broad array of groups, including Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Consumers Union, Food Animal Concerns Trust, Keep Antibiotics Working, and Center for Food Safety.
The report builds on rising concern that overuse of antibiotics in meat production contributes to the rise in antibiotic-resistant infections that claim at least 23,000 lives each year.
With Americans spending nearly half of their food budget on meals outside the home, this research provides consumers with important information to help them make better dining out choices. Sales of meat raised without antibiotics grew 25 percent from 2009 - 2012.
The following chains received an "F" on today's scorecard, either for having no disclosed policy on antibiotic use in their meat and poultry supply chains, or for having policies that fail to phase out continued, routine use of medically important antibiotics in the production of the meats they purchase and serve: Applebee's, Arby's, Burger King, Chili's, Dairy Queen, Denny's, Domino's, IHOP, Jack in the Box, KFC, Little Caesars, Olive Garden, Outback Steakhouse Grill and Bar, Papa John's Pizza, Pizza Hut, Sonic, Starbucks, Subway, Taco Bell, and Wendy's.
In addition to these findings on antibiotic policies, the report found that only two of the surveyed companies, Panera and Chipotle, report policies that restrict the use of other growth-promoting drugs, including hormones and beta agonists.
In response to a number of public campaigns, Subway, in late August updated its website to indicate that it "support(s) the elimination of sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics," and media outlets reported that Subway plans to "transition to chicken raised without antibiotics important to human medicine in 2016" and "eliminate the use of antibiotics in products across the menu." Subway, however, has yet to back those statements up by making a firm commitment to take this action, or present a clear plan or timeline for doing so. For this reason, Subway only earned partial credit in the scorecard for good policy--and ultimately received an F. Efforts to clarify Subway's policy have been unsuccessful despite repeated attempts by the report's authors to reach out via email and telephone.
For more information on the scorecard, visit here https://nrdc.org/food/restaurants-antibiotic-use.
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700"Trump needs to stop weaponizing hunger. They have the authority to fully fund SNAP," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib. "It shouldn't take a court order to get the president to stop starving families and release the funds."
On the verge of the longest government shutdown in US history and in the wake of two losses in district courts, President Donald Trump's administration announced Monday that it would only partially fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for 42 million Americans this month.
In response to lawsuits filed by state attorneys general, municipalities, nonprofits, and labor groups, federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island on Friday ruled against the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) refusal to use a contingency fund for at least some of November's $8 billion in SNAP benefits, often called food stamps.
Judge John McConnell, appointed to the District of Rhode Island by former President Barack Obama, gave the USDA two options: Fully cover the November SNAP benefits with the emergency funding and money pulled from other sources by the end of Monday, or make a partial payment of the total amount of the contingency fund by the end of Wednesday.
In a pair of Monday filings, the Trump administration chose the latter, explaining that there is "a total of $4.65 billion in the contingency fund for November SNAP benefits that will all be obligated to cover 50% of eligible households' current allotments."
While the development means millions of low-income families will at least get some benefits this month, a hunger crisis still looms. As one of the filings notes, "This means that no funds will remain for new SNAP applicants certified in November disaster assistance, or as a cushion against the potential catastrophic consequences of shutting down SNAP entirely."
In a Monday statement, Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing the municipalities, nonprofits, and labor groups that sued in Rhode Island, welcomed that McConnell's order "means SNAP beneficiaries—including children and seniors—whose money ran out at the end of last month should be receiving funds for essential nutrition." However, she also called out the Trump administration for "still trying to deprive people of their full benefits," which "will not only prevent people from getting the full sustenance they need but also delay payments going out altogether."
"We are reviewing the administration's submission to the court and considering all legal options to secure payment of full funds," she pledged. "It shouldn't take a court order to force our president to provide essential nutrition that Congress has made clear needs to be provided. But since that is what it takes, we will continue to use the courts to protect the rights of people. For now, we are pleased to have forced the administration to release money it had been withholding from 42 million people in America who rely on their benefits. Rest assured, we will continue to fight so that people have the full benefits they are entitled to under SNAP."
Democratic Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell—who co-led the case in her state with over two dozen other AGs—noted Monday that "never in the history of the SNAP program—including during government shutdowns—has SNAP funding ever been suspended or only partially funded."
"While some funding is better than no funding, the federal government has made it clear that they are only willing to do the bare minimum to help our residents, and only after they were required to do so by our lawsuit and the courts," she said. "The Trump administration has the means to fund this program in full, and their decision not to will leave millions of Americans hungry and waiting even longer for relief as government takes the additional steps needed to partially fund this program."
Democrats in Congress—who have refused to vote for the GOP majorities' funding legislation to end the shutdown unless they reverse devastating cuts to Medicaid and extend expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits—also criticized the USDA's plan.
"USDA has the authority to fully fund SNAP and needs to do so immediately. Anything else is unacceptable," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on social media. "Trump's 'decision' to follow the court order and only send partial SNAP benefits to 42 million hungry Americans as Thanksgiving approaches is cruel and callous. Trump should focus less on his ballroom and his bathroom and more on the American people."
Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) similarly said: "The letter of the law is as plain as day. Trump should have paid SNAP benefits all along. Just now paying the bare minimum to partially fund SNAP is not enough, and it is not acceptable. Trump should immediately work to fully fund benefits under the law."
Both Senate Democrats from Massachusetts, Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, also took aim at the president on Monday. Markey said: "Two federal courts confirm what we already knew: Trump must use contingency funds to fund SNAP this month. But millions will still see their benefits delayed because Trump tried to hold SNAP hostage. No more games. Use all available resources to ensure no one goes hungry."
While it's the Senate where Republicans need some Democratic votes to send a government spending bill to Trump's desk, House Democrats also blasted the administration's decision to only partially fund SNAP benefits in November.
"This is a very temporary Band-Aid," stressed Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), adding that "42 million hardworking Americans are trying to figure out how they will keep food on the table. Partial is not good enough. End this Republican shutdown now so we can fully fund SNAP."
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) declared: "Trump needs to stop weaponizing hunger. They have the authority to fully fund SNAP for 42 million Americans—including 1.4 million Michiganders. Anything less is unacceptable. It shouldn't take a court order to get the president to stop starving families and release the funds."
"These are not random donations," said Public Citizen. "It's a clear-as-day effort to kiss up to the Trump administration."
As President Donald Trump has embarked on the $300 million demolition of the East Wing of the White House—a project he insists has been "longed for" for more than a century—he has openly said that he and "some of [his] friends" are paying for the ballroom he is building.
But an analysis on Monday detailed just how "massive, inescapable, and irremediable" the donors' conflicts of interest are, as more than a dozen of the presidents' "friends" have major government contracts and are facing federal enforcement actions.
The White House has denied that corporate donors to Trump's ballroom construction project have any conflicts of interest, but Public Citizen found that 16 out of 24 publicly disclosed contributors—including three identified by CBS News but not by the White House—have government contracts.
The companies, including Amazon, Google, Lockheed Martin, and Palantir Technologies, have received $279 billion in government contracts over the last five years and nearly $43 billion in the last year. Lockheed is by far the biggest recipient, having received $191 billion in defense contracts over the last five years. The amount the companies have each donated to the ballroom construction has not been disclosed, but Lockheed spent more than $76 million in political donations from 2021-25.
The money the corporations have spent to build Trump's ballroom, said Public Citizen, "are not random donations. It's a clear-as-day effort to kiss up to the Trump administration."
Lockheed is among at least 14 ballroom contributors that are facing federal enforcement actions, including labor rights cases, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement, and antitrust actions.
The National Labor Relations Board has before it cases alleging unfair labor practices by Lockheed as well as Google and Amazon.
The big tech firm Nvidia, another donor, has previously been accused of entering into a "quid pro quo" arrangement with the White House when it said it would give 15% of its revenue from exports to China directly to the Trump administration. The company has spent more than $6 million on political donations since 2021 and more than $4 million on lobbying, and faces a Department of Justice antitrust investigation into whether it abused its market dominance in artificial intelligence computer chips.
While Trump has sought to portray the ballroom fundraising drive as one in which his wealthy "friends" have simply joined the effort to beautify a cherished public building, Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman said the companies are not acting "out of a sense of civic pride."
"They have massive interests before the federal government and they undoubtedly hope to curry favor with, and receive favorable treatment from, the Trump administration," said Weissman. "Millions to fund Trump’s architectural whims are nothing compared to the billions at stake in procurement, regulatory, and enforcement decisions."
In total, the 24 companies identified as ballroom donors spent more than $960 million in lobbying and political contributions in the last election cycle and $1.6 billion over the last five years.
Weissman said the companies' contributions to the president's pet project amount to corporate America "paying tribute" to the White House in order to stave off unfavorable labor rights and antitrust rulings, energy and financial regulations, and SEC actions and oversight, like an investigation into the cryptocurrency firm Gemini over alleged sales of unregistered securities.
"This is more than everyday corporate influence seeking. Paying tribute is a mark of authoritarianism and in making these payments, these corporations are aiding Trump’s authoritarian project," said Weissman. "They should withdraw their contributions.”
"We’re not just in a low hire, low fire environment anymore," said one economist. "We’re firing."
Several major US corporations in the last month have announced plans to cut thousands of workers as layoffs in the American economy have reached their highest level since 2020, when much of the global economy was shut down due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
As reported by Bloomberg on Monday, major firms including Target, Amazon, Paramount, and Molson Coors in October announced plans to lay off a combined total of more than 17,000 workers for a wide variety of reasons ranging from the impact of artificial intelligence to declining sales.
Taken together, these layoffs point to a significantly weakened labor market, which had already ground to a halt over the summer when the last jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showed the economy created just 22,000 jobs in the month of August.
And while the BLS has stopped releasing monthly employment reports during the ongoing shutdown of the federal government, Bloomberg pointed to data collected by outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas showing that there have been "almost 950,000 US job cuts this year through September, the highest year-to-date total since 2020—and that was before the heavy October run of announcements."
Dan North, senior economist at Allianz Trade Americas, told Bloomberg that he has detected a definite shift in the jobs market in recent weeks.
"We’re not just in a low hire, low fire environment anymore," he explained. "We’re firing."
Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM US, said in an interview with Reuters that he also expected the labor market to get worse in the coming months due to "adverse policy shocks emanating from Washington," as well as "the change in behavior among corporates who hoarded labor for the past four to five years," and were thus reluctant to carry out layoffs.
"That was never an indefinite behavior," he said. "We're going to see migration up in the unemployment rate."
John Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, told CBS News last week that he didn't think that the layoffs announced over the last month were just a blip.
"These are major layoffs, the kind of which we only see in periods of real change in the economy," he emphasized.
One challenge for economists in assessing the current state of the economy is the vast gulf between the experiences of America's highest-earning households and households at the bottom of the economic ladder.
According to a Monday report from CNBC, recent corporate earnings reports have shown signs of a so-called "K-shaped" economy in which well off consumers are maintaining or increasing their spending while low-income consumers are being forced to cut back.
"Last week, Chipotle reported it’s seeing consumers who make less than $100,000 a year, which represents roughly 40% of the company’s customer base, spending less frequently due to concerns about the economy and inflation," CNBC noted. "Coca-Cola said in its third-quarter earnings that pricier products like Topo Chico sparkling water and Fairlife protein shakes are driving its growth. Procter & Gamble reported similar results, saying wealthier customers are buying more from club retailers, which sell bigger pack sizes, while lower-income shoppers are significantly pulling back."
A Monday report from Fortune similarly picked up on evidence that the US is in the midst of a K-shaped economy, as it found that the percentage of Americans taking on subprime loans in the third quarter of 2025 reached its highest level since 2019.
This is significant, Fortune noted, because an increased reliance on subprime loans "adds to signs that many are facing increased financial pressure" to make ends meet. What's more, Fortune pointed to a recent analysis from Moody's showing that the top 20% of households in the US are now responsible for economic growth, while the bottom 80% have essentially been stagnant.
Lucia Dunn, an economist at Ohio State University, told Fortune that this economic disparity could increase instability if not addressed.
"We are losing the middle class," Dunn said. "And when you get to a society where there are a lot of people at the bottom and then a small group at the top, that's a prescription for real trouble."
The reports of the layoffs in corporate American come as a new analysis released Monday by Oxfam offered the latest look at extreme wealth inequality in the US, with the the 10 wealthiest Americans gaining nearly $700 billion so far this year—and as millions of people have lost crucial federal food assistance due to the government shutdown and the Trump administration's refusal to release full benefits.