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.
Emily Summerlin, esummerlin@panna.org
Reminding the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of its obligations to uphold human rights, today 430 civil society and Indigenous Peoples organizations from 69 countries across the globe called on the FAO Council to rescind the agency's partnership with CropLife International. The industry association represents the world's largest pesticide manufacturers, with members including BASF, Bayer, Corteva, FMC and Syngtenta.
WASHINGTON - Reminding the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of its obligations to uphold human rights, today 430 civil society and Indigenous Peoples organizations from 69 countries across the globe called on the FAO Council to rescind the agency's partnership with CropLife International. The industry association represents the world's largest pesticide manufacturers, with members including BASF, Bayer, Corteva, FMC and Syngtenta.
Ahead of the FAO Council's 170th session that begins on June 13, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) submitted to members of the Council a letter co-sponsored by 10 other global networks, and on behalf of the 430 organizations, urging it to take immediate action in the Council session. This demand builds on the ongoing concerns expressed by civil society and Indigenous People's organizations, and on recommendations made by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food during the Human Rights Council's 49th session, namely: "to review the agreement with CropLife International with an eye to human rights concerns" and "to consider directing the Director-General of FAO to rescind the agreement."
PANNA's Organizing Co-Director and co-coordinator of the campaign Simone Adler said:
"These pesticide and GM seed manufacturers exert enormous pressure on governments that enact policies to protect against pesticide harms, and they particularly target the export of their products to countries in the Global South." We cannot allow the UN agency mandated to support farmers and agricultural systems aligning with the industry that aims to influence national policy and causes such egregious pesticide poisoning and environmental devastation."
The letter pointed out that FAO's own due diligence process in its new Private Sector Engagement Strategy indicates that companies involved in human rights abuses can be excluded from potential partners. The organizations assert that the "use of hazardous pesticides is inconsistent with the rights protected by the United Nations to: Health; Clean, healthy and sustainable environment; Safe working conditions; Adequate food; Safe and clean water and sanitation; A dignified life; and Rights of Indigenous Peoples, women, children, workers, and peasants and other people working in rural areas."
A briefing report detailing the necessity to end what civil society and Indigenous peoples call the "Toxic Alliance" between the FAO and the pesticide industry was also submitted to the FAO Council by 11 global organizations spearheading the campaign.
The FAO's Letter of Intent with CropLife, which has been in effect for over a year and half, outlines cooperation on a broad range of areas. "FAO deepening its collaboration with CropLife International directly counters any efforts toward progressively banning Highly Hazardous Pesticides, as recommended for consideration by the FAO Council as early as 2006," the letter states. The briefing report further details the ways that this partnership undermines FAO's own Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, and its commitments to reducing reliance on pesticides.
The organizations urge FAO to promote agroecology, reminding Member States of their support for this "approach that offers viable and sustainable proposals for generating ecologically-based food and farming systems without the use of toxic pesticides."
PANNA (Pesticide Action Network North America) works to replace pesticide use with ecologically sound and socially just alternatives. As one of five autonomous PAN Regional Centers worldwide, we link local and international consumer, labor, health, environment and agriculture groups into an international citizens' action network. This network challenges the global proliferation of pesticides, defends basic rights to health and environmental quality, and works to ensure the transition to a just and viable society.
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."
"None of us can stand idly by while Russ Vought and Donald Trump destroy the agency that protects working Americans from financial predators," said the union president.
The head of a union representing employees of the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was among those who blasted a Friday ruling from a federal appellate court that lets President Donald Trump continue with an effort to gut the CFPB.
"Today's ruling is a disgrace. It empowers Donald Trump to unilaterally eliminate vital public services established by Congress," said CFPB Union president Cat Farman in a statement. "Without a functioning CFPB, there is less oversight of the biggest banks, which means more fraud and less help for veterans and the elderly who are major targets for financial scams."
The union president took aim at the acting leader of the CFPB, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, and Trump, who has a broader mission to tear apart the federal bureaucracy with his Department of Government Efficiency, previously led by billionaire Elon Musk.
"None of us can stand idly by while Russ Vought and Donald Trump destroy the agency that protects working Americans from financial predators," Farman declared. "CFPB workers aren't giving up our fight to defend the rule of law from executive overreach and protect the hard-earned paychecks of working people from Wall Street greed."
In Friday's 2-1 decision, a panel from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that a district judge exceeded her authority by blocking the Trump administration's sweeping attack on the federal agency earlier this year. Judge Greg Katsas wrote the new opinion, joined by Judge Neomi Rao; they were both appointed by Trump during his first term.
Judge Nina Pillard—an appointee of former President Barack Obama, who signed the bill that established the CFPB—dissented. She wrote, "The notion that courts are powerless to prevent the president from abolishing the agencies of the federal government that he was elected to lead cannot be reconciled with either the constitutional separation of powers or our nation's commitment to a government of laws."
US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a former Harvard University professor who spearheaded the creation of the CFBP, stressed on social media Friday that "the fight continues."
This divided decision willfully ignores the Administration’s lawless attempt to destroy an agency created by Congress that has helped millions.But the Administration cannot yet resume its illegal attempt to shut down the CFPB. The fight continues.
[image or embed]
— Elizabeth Warren (@warren.senate.gov) August 15, 2025 at 3:25 PM
The Trump appointees' decision will not take effect immediately, giving critics time to seek further appeals. Adina Rosenbaum, an attorney with Public Citizen Litigation Group, which represented plaintiffs who sued over attacks on the CFPB, signaled that her organization may take further action.
"The Trump administration does not have the authority to abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created by Congress and which plays an important role in protecting consumers across the country," Rosenbaum said in a statement.
"The district court found that the defendants were trying to eliminate the agency, and it entered an injunction to prohibit them from doing so while the case is ongoing. The court of appeals should have upheld that injunction to ensure that the administration does not illegally close the agency and deprive consumers of the protections to which they are entitled," she added. "We are strongly considering filing a petition for rehearing en banc."