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.
Darcey Rakestraw, (202) 683-2467, drakestraw@fwwatch.org
Katherine Paul, (207) 653-3090, katherine@organicconsumers.org
Sarah Pickering, (424) 305-0165 sarahp@animalequality.org
WASHINGTON - Food & Water Watch and Organic Consumers Association (OCA) have sued Pilgrim's Pride Corp. for deceptive marketing and advertising of Pilgrim's Pride chicken products. The suit was brought in D.C. Superior Court, under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act.
Nonprofits Food & Water Watch and OCA, represented by Richman Law Group and Animal Equality, allege that Pilgrim's falsely claims that the birds used in its products are fed "only natural ingredients," "treated humanely" and produced in an environmentally responsible way, when in fact Pilgrim's systematically raises, transports and slaughters chickens in inhumane factory-farm conditions that include the routine use of antibiotics, synthetic chemical disinfectants, genetically modified crops growth-promoting drugs, and other unnatural substances.
"Pilgrim's Pride is using slick marketing tactics to deceive consumers," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "There is nothing natural, humane or environmentally responsible about its operations. Pilgrim's Pride looks after its profits--not the planet."
Ronnie Cummins, OCA international director, said: "When consumers read that Pilgrim's chickens are fed 'only natural ingredients' they don't expect those ingredients to include antibiotics, genetically modified grains or growth-promoting drugs. Consumers also don't expect a 'humanely raised' bird to have lived its life crammed into a disease-ridden warehouse with no access to the outdoors. It's time for Pilgrim's to clean up its act, or come clean on its marketing claims."
The groups also accuse Pilgrim's of the abuse of chickens by Pilgrim's Pride contractors and employees, the use of toxic chemicals and the emission of large amounts of pollutants, and the use of artificially selected fast-growing, breast-heavy chicken breeds that have chronic and debilitating health conditions.
Complaint available on request.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump," wrote one critic.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday morning tried to put his best spin on a Friday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that yielded neither a cease-fire agreement nor a comprehensive peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.
Writing on his Truth Social page, the president took a victory lap over the summit despite coming home completely empty-handed when he flew back from Alaska on Friday night.
"A great and very successful day in Alaska!" Trump began. "The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he was fine with not obtaining a cease-fire agreement, even though he said just days before that he'd impose "severe consequences" on Russia if it did not agree to one.
"It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Cease-fire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said. "President Zelenskyy will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved."
While Trump did his best to put a happy face on the summit, many critics contended it was nothing short of a debacle for the US president.
Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser argued that the entire summit with Putin was a "self-own of embarrassing proportions," given that he literally rolled out the red carpet for his Russian counterpart and did not achieve any success in bringing the war to a close.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump, and still more time on the clock to prosecute his war against the 'brotherly' Ukrainian people, as he had the chutzpah to call them during his remarks in Alaska," she wrote. "The most enduring images from Anchorage, it seems, will be its grotesque displays of bonhomie between the dictator and his longtime American admirer."
She also noted that Trump appeared to shift the entire burden of ending the war onto Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and he even said after the Putin summit that "it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done."
This led Glasser to comment that "if there's one unwavering Law of Trump, this is it: Whatever happens, it is never, ever, his fault."
Glasser wasn't the only critic to offer a scathing assessment of the summit. The Economist blasted Trump in an editorial about the meeting, which it labeled a "gift" to Putin. The magazine also contrasted the way that Trump treated Putin during his visit to American soil with the way that he treated Zelenskyy during an Oval Office meeting earlier this year.
"The honors for Mr. Putin were in sharp contrast to the public humiliation that Mr. Trump and his advisers inflicted on Mr. Zelenskyy during his first visit to the White House earlier this year," they wrote. "Since then relations with Ukraine have improved, but Mr. Trump has often been quick to blame it for being invaded; and he has proved strangely indulgent with Mr. Putin."
Michael McFaul, an American ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, was struck by just how much effort went into holding a summit that accomplished nothing.
"Summits usually have deliverables," he told The Atlantic. "This meeting had none... I hope that they made some progress towards next steps in the peace process. But there is no evidence of that yet."
Mamdani won the House minority leader's district by double digits in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, prompting one critic to ask, "Do those voters not matter?"
Zohran Mamdani is the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, but Democratic U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—whose district Mamdani won by double digits—is still refusing to endorse him, "blue-no-matter-who" mantra be damned.
Criticism of Jeffries (D-N.Y.) mounted Friday after he sidestepped questions about whether he agreed with the democratic socialist Mamdani's proposed policies—including a rent freeze, universal public transportation, and free supermarkets—during an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box" earlier this week.
"He's going to have to demonstrate to a broader electorate—including in many of the neighborhoods that I represent in Brooklyn—that his ideas can actually be put into reality," Jeffries said in comments that drew praise from scandal-ridden incumbent Democratic Mayor Eric Adams, who opted to run independently. Another Democrat, disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, is also running on his own.
"Shit like this does more to undermine faith in the institution of the Democratic Party than anything Mamdani might ever say or do," Amanda Litman, co-founder and executive director of Run For Something—a political action group that recruits young, diverse progressives to run for down-ballot offices—said on social media in response to Jeffries' refusal to endorse Mamdani.
"He won the primary! Handily!!" Litman added. "Does that electorate not count? Do those voters not matter?"
Writer and professor Roxane Gay noted on Bluesky that "Jeffries is an establishment Democrat. He will always work for the establishment. He is not a disruptor or innovator or individual thinker. Within that framework, his gutless behavior toward Mamdani or any progressive candidate makes a lot of sense."
City College of New York professor Angus Johnston said on the social network Bluesky that "even if Jeffries does eventually endorse Mamdani, the only response available to Mamdani next year if someone asks him whether he's endorsing Jeffries is three seconds of incredulous laughter."
Jeffries has repeatedly refused to endorse Mamdani, a staunch supporter of Palestinian liberation and vocal opponent of Israel's genocidal annihilation of Gaza. The minority leader—whose all-time top campaign donor is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, according to AIPAC Tracker—has especially criticized Mamdani's use of the phrase "globalize the intifada," a call for universal justice and liberation.
Mamdani's stance doesn't seem to have harmed his support among New York's Jewish voters, who according to recent polling prefer him over any other mayoral candidate by a double-digit margin.
UEFA also allowed the on-pitch display of a banner reading "STOP KILLING CHILDREN" before a Super Cup match amid controversy over its response to Israel's killing of a beloved Palestinian footballer.
The head of European football's governing body on Thursday addressed what critics say is its hypocritical policy of banning Russia but not Israel, remarks that came amid backlash over the organization's response to Israel's slaying of a prominent Palestinian footballer and over a banner unfurled at a recent match.
Union of European Football Associations president Aleksander Čeferin was asked during an interview with the Slovenian news channel Odmevi why Russia is banned from UEFA events but Israel is not.
"This is a legitimate question," Čeferin replied, adding that "in principle, I do not support banning athletes from participating in competitions."
"In the case of Russia, the athletes have not been participating for three-and-a-half years and the war has only worsened," Čeferin continued. "I know that many of the athletes oppose the regime, but they still cannot play. I am against being denied the right to participate in our competitions."
"Israel is allowed to play in our facilities. This is our decision as of now," he said. "It's hard for me to say what will happen in the future, but I really think that all athletes should be given the opportunity to compete. The rest of the things should be resolved in other ways."
While Russia's ongoing invasion and occupation of Ukraine is believed to have killed or wounded nearly 50,000 civilians, Israel's US-backed assault and siege on Gaza has left more than three times that number of civilians dead or injured, based on estimates from United Nations agencies and Israel Defense Forces that between two-thirds and three-quarters of slain Palestinians were noncombatants.
Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are fugitives from the International Criminal Court. In 2023 the ICC issued a warrant for the arrest of Putin and Commissioner for Children's Rights Maria Lvova-Belova for the alleged war crime of abducting Ukrainian children to Russia.
The following year, the Hague-based tribunal ordered the arrest of Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes including murder and forced starvation. Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice.
Čeferin's remarks came a day after UEFA invited refugee children including Gazans to unfurl a banner reading "STOP KILLING CHILDREN" and "STOP KILLING CIVILIANS" on the pitch before Wednesday's Super Cup match between Paris Saint-Germain and Tottenham Hotspur in Udine, Italy.
The move drew criticism from defenders of both Israel and Palestine, the latter of whom took issue with the conspicuous omission of who is doing the killing. According to Israel's Channel 12, the Israeli government attempted to block the banner's display but settled for a compromise in which the country would not be named.
Wait up, someone’s killing children and other civilians?Who? Who is doing this UEFA? Do you know?
[image or embed]
— Polly Pallister-Wilkins (@pollypw.bsky.social) August 13, 2025 at 2:38 PM
The banner display came amid backlash over UEFA's response to Israel's recent killing of Suleiman al-Obeid—known as the "Pelé of Palestinian football"—while he was trying to obtain food aid amid a growing forced famine in Gaza. As with the banner, UEFA declined to say where al-Obeid was killed, or by whom.
"Can you tell us how he died, where, and why?" Liverpool FC star and Egyptian national team captain Mohamed Salah asked last week.
Israeli forces have killed hundreds of Palestinian footballers in Gaza since October 2023, prompting calls for the country to be banned not only from UEFA matches but also from the 2026 International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) World Cup in Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
"There are 760 Palestinian athletes martyred by Israel, including 420 footballers, while 140 football facilities have been destroyed," former Egyptian national team star Mohamed Aboutrika said earlier this week.
"FIFA and UEFA stopped Russia over its war on Ukraine," he added. "When will the Israeli occupation be stopped? We don't want just words, we want real action."