

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.

Legislation introduced today would ban or restrict scores of the most toxic pesticides, introduce health-protective restrictions on pesticide use and registration, and create new safety protections for farmworkers - the most sweeping overhaul of the nation's pesticide law in nearly 25 years.
The bill by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) would significantly strengthen the Environmental Protection Agency's authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, to regulate the distribution, sale and use of pesticides. The Protect America's Children from Toxic Pesticide Act of 2020 would ban some of the most toxic pesticides used in the U.S., including all organophosphates, neonicotinoids and paraquat.
Among the pesticides that would be banned are chlorpyrifos, which can damage children's brains and was slated for phaseout by the Obama administration, a proposal reversed under President Trump's EPA. The bill would also ban malathion, which has been linked to increased risk of prostate cancer, and imidacloprid, which, like other neonicotinoids, poisons bees and other pollinator insects.
Children are especially susceptible to health risks from pesticide exposure. The American Academy of Pediatrics, which urges stricter pesticide regulations, says evidence links early-life pesticide exposure to pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function and behavioral problems.
"Numerous studies show that existing EPA regulations for pesticides fail to protect children's health," said Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., EWG vice president for science investigations. "The federal pesticide policy is in urgent need of reform."
Under the proposed legislation, the EPA would be required to immediately suspend and review the use of any pesticide that is banned in the European Union or Canada. The list of such pesticides includes the notorious herbicide atrazine, which disrupts hormones, harms the developing fetus and contaminates the drinking water of millions of Americans.
"We applaud Sen. Udall and Rep. Neguse for this bold and much-needed proposal to overhaul the nation's pesticide law that puts the health and safety of children, farmworkers and all Americans first," said EWG senior vice president for government affairs Scott Faber.
"The pesticide industry and chemical agriculture have for far too long been able to abuse legal loopholes allowing for the use of toxic pesticides that have not been adequately tested to make sure they are safe for people and the environment," Faber said. "As a result, millions of Americans are exposed to dangerous pesticides in their air, water and food. The Udall-Neguse plan will rein in this largely unchecked explosion of pesticide use by agriculture and give the EPA much stronger authority to protect the public."
The legislation would also set new restrictions on the "conditional registration" loophole within the FIFRA law that allows pesticide manufacturers to get new chemicals approved and into the marketplace before the EPA has reviewed all the available science to determine if it is safe.
The legislation also calls for measures to protect farmworkers. It would require pesticide labels to be printed in English and Spanish, require employers to report injuries to farmworkers from pesticide exposure, and require the suspension of a pesticide when it causes a death of a farmworker.
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982“Just a question to the BBC,” said the documentary's executive producer. “Given you dropped our film, will you drop us from the BAFTAs screening later tonight?”
The makers of a documentary about Israeli attacks on healthcare workers and infrastructure in Gaza won a prestigious BAFTA award on Sunday—and they used their acceptance speech to lash out at BBC for refusing to air their work.
The film, "Gaza: Doctors Under Attack," was originally scheduled to be aired by the BBC in early 2025 before the network announced in June that it would not be releasing the documentary because it had "come to the conclusion that broadcasting this material risked creating a perception of partiality."
Shortly after, the documentary was picked up by the UK-based Channel 4 and aired in July.
UK journalist Ramita Navai, the main reporter of the documentary, criticized the BBC for declining to show the film, which she denounced as a political decision.
“Israel has killed over 47,000 children and women in Gaza so far," Navai said. "Israel has... targeted every single one of Gaza’s hospitals. It’s killed over 1,700 Palestinian doctors and healthcare workers. It has imprisoned over 400 in what the UN now calls a ‘medicide.’ These are the findings of our investigation that the BBC paid for but refuses to show. But we refuse to be silenced and censored."
🇵🇸🇬🇧 A Gaza documentary the BBC paid for and refused to air just won a Bafta.
The filmmakers used their acceptance speech to call out the BBC directly.
Presenter Ramita Navai:
"We refuse to be silenced and censored."
The BBC then edited portions of her remarks from its own… https://t.co/xLRLfdLV6W pic.twitter.com/K8pYhOzJTd
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) May 11, 2026
Ben de Pear, the film's executive producer, also pointed the finger at the BBC as he accepted the BAFTA award for best current affairs television program.
"Just a question to the BBC,” said de Pear, according to The Hollywood Reporter. “Given you dropped our film, will you drop us from the BAFTAs screening later tonight?"
As reported by Al Jazeera, de Pear after accepting the award also praised Palestinian journalists Jaber Badwan and Osana Al Ashi, who contributed on-the-ground footage for the documentary at the risk of their own lives.
"[We] woke up every day wondering if the two journalists on the ground were still alive," de Pear told reporters backstage.
The Trump administration has conducted more than two dozen surveillance and reconnaissance flights off Cuba's coast since early February, according to CNN.
US surveillance and reconnaissance flights off the coast of Cuba have surged in recent months as President Donald Trump has issued increasingly belligerent threats to seize the island nation by force.
CNN reported Sunday that the US Navy and Air Force have conducted more than two dozen surveillance flights—mostly of them near Havana and Santiago de Cuba, the country's largest cities—since early February, after the Trump administration invaded Venezuela and kidnapped its president. The outlet noted that "similar patterns, in which ramped-up rhetoric by the Trump administration coincided with an uptick in publicly visible surveillance flights, occurred in the lead-up to US military operations in both Venezuela and Iran."
"The flights are notable not only for their proximity to the coast, which puts them well within range of gathering intelligence, but for the suddenness of their appearance—prior to February, such publicly visible flights were exceedingly rare in this area—and for their timing," CNN reported.
CNN published its story days after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced new sanctions targeting a conglomerate operated by Cuba's military and a natural resources firm, intensifying the United States' decades-long economic war against the island nation.
"Our people already know the cruelty behind the actions of the US government and the viciousness with which it is capable of attacking us," Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel said in response to the sanctions. "They understand, just as the rest of the world does, that this is a unilateral aggression against a nation and a population whose sole ambition is to live in peace, masters of their own destiny and free from the pernicious interference of US imperialism."
In a New York Times op-ed on Monday, US Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.) wrote that the Trump administration's "blockade of fuel to Cuba, on top of the longest embargo in modern US history, defies the norms of international law that provide for state sovereignty, nonintervention in domestic affairs and the right of nations to trade freely."
"It amounts to an economic assault on the basic infrastructure of Cuba, designed to inflict collective punishment on the civilian population by manufacturing a humanitarian crisis in which healthcare, running water, agriculture and transportation are no longer available," wrote Jayapal and Jackson, who visited Cuba in April and witnessed firsthand the devastating impact of US economic warfare.
"During our visit, we spoke with a wide range of Cuban citizens—political dissidents, religious leaders, entrepreneurs, and members of civil society organizations and humanitarian aid groups," the Democratic lawmakers wrote. "We also met with the families of Cuba’s political prisoners. Everywhere, there was agreement: America’s blockade must end, and a US invasion must not take place."
Trump has repeatedly threatened a military assault on Cuba in the months since his administration illegally attacked Venezuela and abducted its president.
"Cuba is next, by the way," Trump declared at a Saudi-backed investment summit in Miami in late March. "Pretend I didn't say that, please."
Citing unnamed US officials, The Associated Press reported last week that the Trump administration "is not looking at imminent military action against Havana" as the two sides continued to negotiate a diplomatic agreement.
AP added that the administration officials cautioned "that Trump could change his mind at any time and that military options are still on the table."
"The only thing we have demanded is Iran's legitimate rights," said Esmail Baghaei, the spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry.
A top Iranian official on Monday said the peace proposal rejected by President Donald Trump was a "reasonable and generous" path toward ending the war that the US and Israel launched in late February, plunging the Middle East and global energy markets into chaos.
Esmail Baghaei, the spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry, said during a press conference that "the only thing we have demanded is Iran's legitimate rights," accusing the US side of insisting on "unreasonable demands."
Baghaei's remarks came after Trump dismissed the Iranian proposal—a counter to the latest US offer—as "totally unacceptable" in a social media post.
"I don't like it," Trump wrote, without specifying what he found objectionable. The president's reply sent oil prices surging.
"Is our proposal for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz unreasonable?" Baghaei asked in response to the US president. "Is establishing peace and security across the entire region irresponsible?"
The details of the US offer and Iran's counter have not been fully made public, though some of both sides' demands have been divulged in media reports and vaguely outlined by government officials. Trump, who has repeatedly issued genocidal threats against Iran and called the country's leaders "lunatics," told Axios that he spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about Iran's response.
"It was a very nice call," said Trump. "We have a good relationship."
Baghaei, for his part, rejected the notion that Iran is the party behaving irrationally. "It is enough to look at Iran's record," he said. "Were we the ones who deployed troops? Are we the ones bullying countries in the Western Hemisphere? Were we the ones who committed assassinations twice during negotiations?"
Citing an "informed source," Iran's semi-official Tasnim News Agency reported Monday that "Iran's text emphasizes the necessity of an immediate end to the war and guarantees against renewed aggression toward Iran, along with several other issues within the framework of a political understanding."
"Iran’s text also stresses the necessity of lifting US sanctions and ending the war on all fronts, as well as Iranian management of the Strait of Hormuz should certain commitments be fulfilled by the United States," Tasnim added. "The necessity of ending the naval blockade against Iran immediately after the signing of the initial understanding is also among Iran’s emphasized demands, the source said."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote late Sunday that it appears Iran is offering to compromise significantly on its uranium stockpile and future enrichment.
"The US demands that the entire Iranian stockpile be shipped out of the country. In the past, Tehran rejected shipping any of it out; it only agreed to downblending it. In its latest proposal, however, it offers to have some of it diluted and the rest shipped to a third country," Parsi wrote. "As I understand it... Iran is also offering to accept an arrangement in which it will not need to enrich uranium at all for 12 years. This is not the 15-20 years Trump originally wanted, but longer than the 3-5 years Terhan originally offered."
"That Iran is willing to pause enrichment at all is a significant concession that I am not sure is fully appreciated by the American side," he continued. "It remains unclear to me why this and the stockpile have become so central in Trump’s perspective. His earlier red line was simply no nuclear weapons... The insistence on shipping the entire stockpile out appears to be another example of Trump allowing America’s red lines to be replaced by Israel’s. It would be a shame if the entire negotiation collapses over this issue."