

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.

George Kimbrell, gkimbrell@centerforfoodsafety.org,
Steve Mashuda, smashuda@earthjustice.org
Today, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) violated core environmental laws in approving the genetically engineered salmon. The Court ruled that FDA ignored the serious environmental consequences of approving genetically engineered salmon and the full extent of plans to grow and commercialize the salmon in the U.S. and around the world, violating the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Court also ruled that FDA's unilateral decision that genetically engineered salmon could have no possible effect on highly-endangered, wild Atlantic salmon was wrong, in violation of the Endangered Species Act. The Court ordered FDA to go back to the drawing board and FDA must now thoroughly analyze the environmental consequences of an escape of genetically engineered salmon into the wild.
"Today's decision is a vital victory for endangered salmon and our oceans," said George Kimbrell, CFS legal director and counsel in the case. "Genetically engineered animals create novel risks and regulators must rigorously analyze them using sound science, not stick their head in the sand as officials did here. In reality, this engineered fish offers nothing but unstudied risks. The absolute last thing our planet needs right now is another human-created crisis like escaped genetically engineered fish running amok."
In 2016, Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Earthjustice--representing a broad client coalition of environmental, consumer, commercial and recreational fishing organizations and the Quinault Indian Nation--sued the FDA for approving the first-ever commercial genetically engineered animal, an Atlantic salmon engineered to grow twice as fast as its wild counterpart. The genetically engineered salmon was produced by AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. with DNA from Atlantic salmon, Pacific king salmon, and Arctic ocean eelpout. This marks the first time any government in the world has approved a commercially genetically engineered animal as food.
The Court ruled that FDA failed to consider and study the environmental risks of this novel GE fish. When GE salmon escape or are accidentally released into the environment, the new species could threaten wild populations by mating with endangered salmon species, outcompeting them for scarce resources and habitat, and/or introducing new diseases. The world's preeminent experts on GE fish and risk assessment, as well as biologists at U.S. wildlife agencies charged with protecting fish and wildlife, heavily criticized FDA's approval for failing to evaluate the impacts of GE salmon on native salmon populations. Yet FDA ignored their concerns in the final approval.
"This decision underscores what scientists have been telling FDA for years--that creating genetically engineered salmon poses an unacceptable risk if the fish escape and interact with our wild salmon and that FDA must understand that risk to prevent harm," said Earthjustice managing attorney Steve Mashuda. "Our efforts should be focused on saving the wild salmon populations we already have--not manufacturing new species that pose yet another threat to their survival."
Studies have shown that there is a high risk for genetically engineered organisms to escape into the natural environment, and that genetically engineered salmon can crossbreed with native fish. So-called "transgenic contamination"--where genetically engineered crops cross-pollinate or establish themselves in nearby fields or the wild--has become common. These contamination episodes have cost U.S. farmers billions of dollars over the past decade. In wild organisms like fish, it would be even more damaging.
The Court also rejected FDA's argument that it lacked authority to consider the adverse environmental impacts of GE animals, including the GE salmon. To find otherwise, the Court said, would lead to "absurd possibilities," like approval of GE animals that could cause serious harm to other life. The Court held FDA had to consider environmental risks in its decision.
The lawsuit also highlights FDA's failure to protect the environment and consult wildlife agencies in its review process, as required by federal law. U.S. Atlantic salmon, and many populations of Pacific salmon, are protected by the Endangered Species Act and in danger of extinction. Salmon are keystone species and unique salmon runs have sustained people and wildlife for thousands of years. Diverse salmon runs today remain essential to indigenous food sovereignty, sustaining thousands of American fishing families, and are highly valued in domestic markets as a healthy, domestic, "green" food.
"Salmon are at the center of our cultural and spiritual identity, diet, and way of life. It's unconscionable and arrogant to think man can improve upon our Creator's perfection as a justification for corporate ambition and greed," said Fawn Sharp, Quinault Indian Nation President. "Our responsibility as stewards of our sacred salmon demands we aggressively protect their natural habitat and genetics. We applaud today's court decision; our prayers were answered and justice prevailed."
"It's a terrible idea to design genetically engineered 'Frankenfish' which, when they escape into the wild (as they inevitably will), could destroy our irreplaceable salmon runs," said Mike Conroy, Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA), one of the Plaintiff groups in the suit. "Once engineered genes are introduced into the wild salmon gene pool, it cannot be undone. This decision is a major victory for wild salmon, salmon fishing families and dependent communities, and salmon conservation efforts everywhere."
"Genetically engineered salmon place wild salmon at risk and set a dangerous precedent for other genetically engineered animals, like cows and chickens designed to fit into factory farms, to enter the food system. We applaud the court for this carefully-reasoned decision," said Dana Perls, Food and Technology program manager at Friends of the Earth U.S. "All products made with genetic engineering, especially live animals like genetically engineered salmon, should undergo thorough and precautionary assessment for impacts to our health and environment, be properly regulated and clearly labeled before entering the market."
"Salmon fishermen and women don't want to see these lab-made salmon in our waters nor in any market or restaurant where salmon is sold," said John McManus, president of Golden State Salmon Association. "The federal Food and Drug Administration clearly let America down when it chose to overlook the environmental risk these fish pose."
Represented by Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice, plaintiffs in the case include Institute for Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Cascadia Wildlands, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Ecology Action Centre, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Friends of Merrymeeting Bay, Golden Gate Salmon Association, and the Quinault Indian Nation.
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) 547-9359A Maine woman accused the Democratic US Senate candidate of drunkenly assaulting her at her home in 2021, which he denied.
US Senate candidate Graham Platner on Monday denied allegations of sexual assault, but the Maine Democrat also said his campaign is considering the "best path forward" in the wake of Politico's reporting.
Jenny Racicot told The New York Times in an article published last month that Platner's behavior was "reckless" and "unsettling" during their on-and-off relationship in 2019-21, and she cut off contact after he arrived at her Maine home drunk, despite her telling him not to come over. Politico reported Monday that the 41-year-old had told the newspaper off the record that he assaulted her.
Racicot told Politico that Platner came into her home uninvited that night and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said that she was conflicted about publicly accusing him in part because she agrees with the candidate politically, but decided to speak out after much of the reaction to the Times focused on another ex with ties to the Republican Party. The outlet reviewed documents, including emails with her therapist, and spoke with sources Racicot had previously told about her experience.
In a two-minute video shared on social media Monday, Platner called Racicot's allegations "troubling, serious, and false," and said that "any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false." He also said that, "mindful of the political reality" that the reporting will inflict, "we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward."
Platner decisively won his primary last month, after his opponent, Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, suspended her campaign in late April. The oyster farmer and combat veteran is a political newcomer who has championed progressive policies and called out the ultrarich, as well as the politicians who serve them—including longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins, whom he's running to unseat in November.
While Platner has traveled Maine, speaking and rallying with working-class voters, he's also faced a series of controversies, including concerns over his offensive posts on Reddit, and the skull and crossbones tattoo he got with fellow Marines in Croatia, which he claimed he did not know closely resembled a Nazi symbol and got covered up during the campaign.
There was also the allegation from the GOP-affiliated ex interviewed by the Times, Lyndsey Fifield, that Platner was physically aggressive during their relationship, which he denied, and reporting that Platner's wife, Amy Gertner, told a senior campaign staffer that he had exchanged sexual messages with other women during their marriage, which Gertner responded to with a video.
In a statement to Politico on Monday, Platner's campaign pointed to previous controversies, saying:
These allegations are very serious and Graham vigorously denies them. They are also coached and coordinated by out-of-state establishment operatives. For a year, opponents of this campaign have thrown everything they can at Graham—calling him a Nazi, a war criminal, and a communist. None of it has been true, and this is no different. It is not a coincidence that this story comes a week before the ballot deadline, just as the previous false allegations came a week before the primary. Graham began this campaign to fight for a Maine where everyone is treated with dignity and where Mainers are put first, and no amount of desperate smears will stop this movement from seeing that vision through.
Following Politico's reporting, Platner has lost some key support. At least two members of Congress who backed him—Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.)—withdrew their endorsements, and the Maine Democratic Party's chair, vice chair, and executive director issued a joint statement urging him to withdraw as the party nominee.
The US National Domestic Violence Hotline can be reached at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), by texting "START" to 88788, or through chat at thehotline.org. It offers 24/7, free, and confidential support. DomesticShelters.org has a list of global and national resources.
"Children are not incidental victims; they are directly affected, facing forced recruitment, sexual violence, unlawful detention, torture, and a lack of medical care," Amnesty International USA stressed.
Demands for a ceasefire in Sudan's three-year civil war mounted this week amid reports that more than 300 children have been killed or injured in the northeastern African nation this year alone, mostly by drone strikes.
The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) said Modaysu that "children across Sudan continue to bear the brunt of a war that is becoming increasingly deadly, with at least 330 children reported killed or injured during the first six months of 2026. Darfur and Kordofan states continued to record the highest levels of child casualties."
"The situation in and around al-Obeid, and more broadly across North Kordofan, is particularly alarming," UNICEF continued. "Since May 2026, drone strikes and other attacks have reportedly resulted in more than 35 child casualties in the state, including at least 18 children killed and more than 17 injured. The affected children ranged in age from just 2 months to 17 years. According to reports, drone attacks accounted for 60% of these casualties, highlighting the growing impact of this method of warfare on children and families."
"Repeated drone strikes and shelling have also damaged civilian infrastructure, including homes, schools, health facilities, water systems, and markets; disrupted supply routes; and placed essential services under increasing strain," the agency added. "With an estimated 500,000 civilians at risk in and around al-Obeid and across North Kordofan, any further deterioration could expose even more children to death, injury, displacement, and other grave protection risks."
Amnesty International USA said Monday that both the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Rapid Support Forces (RSF) rebels "have committed numerous human rights violations, including deliberate attacks on civilians."
"Ethnic targeting has resulted in assaults on non-Arab communities, with women and girls subjected to sexual violence and exploitation," Amnesty added. "Children are not incidental victims; they are directly affected, facing forced recruitment, sexual violence, unlawful detention, torture, and a lack of medical care."
On Monday, the United Nations Human Rights Council approved a measure proposed by five European countries—Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom—condemning escalating RSF-led violence in and around al-Obeid.
While both the SAF adnd RSF have committed documented human rights crimes, an independent United Nations panel released a report earlier this year detailing allegedly genocidal crimes committed by RSF rebels during last October's offensive in Darfur, where thousands of people were killed and others tortured, raped, and starved during the capture of el-Fasher.
The UN experts found that “genocidal intent is the only reasonable inference that can be drawn” from RSF's actions.
The ceasefire demands from UNICEF and Amnesty follow similar calls from governments, including France and the United Arab Emirates, as well as other UN agencies.
On Friday, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk warned that "another human rights catastrophe is unfolding" in al-Obeid.
"The signs from #ElObeid are clear & unmistakable: another human rights catastrophe is unfolding in #Sudan," @volker_turk told the @UN Human Rights Council.
"This is not a drill. It is a red alert that needs to land on the desks of Heads of State & Government around the world." pic.twitter.com/zH3bVIpX34
— UN Human Rights Council (@UN_HRC) July 3, 2026
“Civilians have been subjected to siege-like conditions for 18 months, battered by relentless drone attacks as the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces battle for control over areas surrounding the city," Türk noted.
“Some people are selling their belongings to finance their escape from the city," he continued. "For many, the exorbitant cost of transport and constant attacks on vehicles along exit routes, make leaving impossible."
"We have documented patterns of summary executions, abductions, torture and ill-treatment, sexual violence, and looting along the routes taken by displaced people across the Kordofan region," Türk added. "This is not a drill. It is a red alert that needs to land on the desks of heads of state and government around the world."
Since April 2023, Sudan's conflict has killed at least 59,000 people, displaced around 13 million others, and fueled famine in different parts of the country of approximately 52 million inhabitants. More than 30 million Sudanese are also in need of humanitarian assistance.
"We need robust enforcement of antitrust and fair trade practice laws to finally protect producers from meatpackers’ fundamentally unfair and illegal practices," said one campaigner.
A leading government accountability watchdog group on Monday ripped the Trump administration's move to rescind Biden-era rules enacted to protect ranchers and farmers from abuse by meatpacking corporations and boost competition in the key industry.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced the reversal of three Biden administration rules under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. One of the rules prohibits meatpackers, swine contractors, and poultry companies from retaliating against producers for actions like joining associations, speaking with regulators, or seeking other buyers.
Another rule mandated improved transparency in poultry grower contracts. The third rule‚ which was set to take effect this month, would have limited how poultry companies use the tournament payment system.
USDA said it plans to start the revocation process with proposed rulemakings scheduled for later this month and October.
Farm groups and antitrust advocates argue the move removes protections against monopolistic, deceptive, and retaliatory practices by dominant meatpacking and poultry companies.
“For years, meat corporations have abused hardworking farmers and ranchers. Now, the Trump administration is proposing to undo long-overdue progress made to level the playing field," Emily Miller, staff attorney at Food & Water Watch, said Monday in a statement. "This move is a slap in the face to all those who have long fought for fair treatment in livestock and poultry markets."
The USDA's move comes amid increased meat sector consolidation, which studies by Food & Water Watch, More Perfect Union, and others have found results in higher consumer prices and lower farmer profits.
Over the course of his two terms in office, Trump has boosted the meatpacking industry at the expense of worker rights, competition, and public health. His administration refused to issue binding rules requiring businesses to institute safety measures amid the Covid-19 pandemic, and he invoked the Defense Production Act to classify meatpacking plants as critical infrastructure and force them to stay open even as the coronavirus ravaged industry workers.
Trump has also supported corporate monopolization in meatpacking, and his administration has shut down a Department of Justice antitrust probe of alleged industry collusion. Just four meatpackers control approximately 80% of the market. Meanwhile, cattle producers who in 1980 received 63 cents for every dollar paid by consumers for beef were receiving just 37 cents four decades later.
"We need robust enforcement of antitrust and fair trade practice laws to finally protect producers from meatpackers’ fundamentally unfair and illegal practices," Miller said on Monday. "These rollbacks will do the opposite. We won’t rest until USDA does its job by putting producers above corporations.”