

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) 727-2700The president's decision means the US "will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil," said one observer.
President Donald Trump said Sunday that his administration would let a Russia-owned tanker carrying an estimated 730,000 barrels of oil to reach Cuba, loosening the illegal fuel blockade that has intensified the island's already-grave humanitarian crisis.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said that "if a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem," backing off his previous threat to tariff any nation that supplied the besieged island with fuel. Cuba has not received any oil imports since January 9, sparking nationwide blackouts and food shortages and leaving hospitals without critical supplies—with deadly consequences for patients.
Trump insisted that the oil on the Russian tanker—which experts say is enough to buy Cuba at least several weeks of energy—is "not going to have an impact," declaring, "Cuba is finished."
"They have a bad regime, and they have very bad and corrupt leadership," added Trump, who presides over what analysts have deemed the most corrupt administration in US history. "Whether or not they get a boat of oil is not going to matter."
Reporter: There's a report that the US is going to let a Russian oil tanker go to Cuba?
Trump: If a country wants to send some oil into Cuba, I have no problem with that.
Reporter: Do you worry that that helps Putin?
Trump: It doesn’t help him. He loses one boatload of oil.… pic.twitter.com/8Vh6gHwaxs
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 30, 2026
Trump's comments came after The New York Times reported that, "barring orders instructing it otherwise," the US Coast Guard would not intercept the Russian tanker as it approached Cuba.
The Russian vessel, known as the Anatoly Kolodkin, is expected to reach the island by Monday night, providing some reprieve to a nation whose economy has been strangled by unlawful US economic warfare for decades. In recent days, an international convoy of activists has delivered tons of food, medicine, and other aid to the island, but the shipments are a Band-Aid on a gaping wound.
Michael Gallant, a member of the Progressive International Secretariat, welcomed news that the US is allowing the Russian tanker to reach Cuba as "very good news"—but said Trump's decision is hardly deserving of praise.
Very good news. “The US will allow,” of course, means “will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil” https://t.co/YF2RRIXC2S
— Michael Galant (@michael_galant) March 29, 2026
Trump imposed the fuel blockade in January, absurdly characterizing Cuba as an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to US national security.
Earlier this month, Trump threatened to "take" Cuba by force, calling it a "very weakened nation." Trump's remarks prompted Cuba's president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, to vow "impregnable resistance" to any US attempt to seize the island. The Trump administration is reportedly seeking Díaz-Canel's removal as a necessary condition in talks with the Cuban government.
Trump's threats led Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) to introduce legislation last week that would prohibit the administration from using federal funds for any attack on Cuba without congressional authorization.
"Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba," Jayapal said in a statement. "These military attacks put our troops in danger, endanger innocent civilians, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and are not what the American people want."
"Trump promised to end forever wars—he lied," Jayapal added. "Congress alone has the power to declare war, something Trump clearly does not respect. He has no plan to improve conditions for the Cuban people or promote democracy, and we must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."