

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.

Pressure from Center for Food Safety and Courts Prompts New EPA Review of Impacts
Following legal pressure from Center for Food Safety (CFS) and courts, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has withdrawn its interim approval of difenoconazole, a potent and toxic fungicide sprayed on a wide range of fruits and vegetables, such as potatoes, tomatoes, grapes, and soybeans.
Numerous endangered species are at risk from difenoconazole, including the California condor, whooping crane, Atlantic sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, and many others. Center for Food Safety legally challenged EPA’s interim approval of this pesticide in June 2022, asking the court to reverse EPA's interim decision because the agency failed to consider or protect endangered species from difenoconazole's risks and failed to obtain or consider studies on the risks difenoconazole poses to human health.
"We are pleased that EPA withdrew their erroneous approval,” said Meredith Stevenson, staff attorney at Center for Food Safety and counsel in the case. “Despite knowing of difenoconazole’s potential impacts on human health for nearly two decades, EPA made its original decision before obtaining the studies it requested to keep the public safe."
Stevenson added: "That failure was both unlawful and irresponsible. We hope that following withdrawal, EPA will promptly obtain the necessary information and ensure ongoing use of difenoconazole meets the legal standard before issuing a new approval.”
Following CFS’s lawsuit, the EPA admitted that it ignored its duty to assess the impacts to species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and, most importantly, to consult with the expert wildlife agencies — the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service — about those risks.
EPA also admitted it failed to obtain studies that it had requested nearly twenty years ago to further assess how the fungicide’s breakdown products may cause cancer and impair infants’ brains and other vital organs. As a result of CFS’s challenge, EPA withdrew the decision, agreed to consider whether the studies are still necessary, and agreed to complete its duties under the ESA.
EPA’s own initial analysis found that difenoconazole exposure exceeds the level of concern for birds, aquatic invertebrates, and freshwater fish. As far back as 2006, EPA expressed concern about the toxicity of difenoconazole and other triazole fungicides—in particular, concern over certain chemicals formed when these fungicides break down—and imposed a moratorium on further approvals until triazole manufacturers submitted a host of animal impact studies.
EPA will now consider whether these studies are still required and will comply with the ESA before issuing a final registration review decision for difenoconazole.
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) 547-9359One expert warned that removing works on activism and social movements erodes the ability of marginalized communities "to take action amid rising authoritarian tactics by our government and attacks on free speech."
As President Donald Trump returned to the White House in the middle of the 2024-25 academic year and swiftly pursued increasingly authoritarian policies, there was "an embrace of anti-intellectualism" within the book-banning movement targeting US public schools and classrooms.
That embrace is detailed in "Facts & Fiction: Stories Stripped Away By Book Bans," an annual report released Thursday by PEN America, a nonprofit that promotes the protection of free expression through the advancement of human rights and literature.
The group found that from July 2024 to last June, 3,743 unique titles were removed from school libraries and classrooms nationwide—and 1,102 of them were "educational or informational books for young people—textbooks or reference texts on a wide range of subjects, history books, biographies, and autobiographies."
Although the majority of banned titles were still fiction, such as Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury and The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, the share of "fiction titles dropped from 85% to 69% of all banned titles, while nonfiction rose from 14% to a startling 29% of all banned titles," according to the analysis.
"This marked impact on books anchored in scientific and historic facts, real events, and real people represents something new and distinctive about the trajectory of book bans in public schools," the report states. "As nonfiction titles are not always the targets of efforts to remove books, that books on ancient Egypt, the digestive system, and self-help for teens, to name a few examples, are impacted by censorship signals an alarming spread of book bans that ignore the educational value of texts and books."
Targeted "nonfiction titles are wide-ranging," the report notes, "from memoirs such as Night by Elie Wiesel to biographies such as RuPaul by Maria Isabel Sánchez Vegara, alongside historical and educational or informational books such as Aztec, Inca & Maya by Elizabeth Baquedano and Challenges for LGBTQ Teens by Martha Lundin."
Flagging this "embrace of anti-intellectualism" in a statement about the new report, Kasey Meehan, director of PEN America's Freedom to Read program, said that "it is another example of how censorship sweeps broadly, leading to removals of all kinds of books, in its efforts to sow fear and distrust in our public education system."
Like the previous academic year, "realistic/contemporary and dystopia/sci-fi/fantasy remain the dominant genres banned," the publication highlights. "But of note, educational/informational titles grew from 5% of all titles in 2023-24 to 13% of total titles banned in 2024-25, or nearly 500 unique titles."
Among the nonfiction titles banned, "52% contained themes of activism and social movements, the most commonly banned topic within nonfiction titles," the report says. "Whether #WomensMarch: Insisting on Equality by Rebecca Felix or IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All by Chelsea Johnson, LaToya Council, and Carolyn Choi, and illustrated by Ashley Seil Smith, this literature is crucial in the education of young people. These books can encourage readers to challenge the status quo and resist injustice."
Freedom to Read program assistant and report co-author Yuliana Tamayo Latorre said that removing books on these topics "silences the voices of marginalized communities and erode[s] their ability to take action amid rising authoritarian tactics by our government and attacks on free speech."
The most common theme across all banned books was nonsexual violence. This was a theme in 57% of the targeted titles, and they addressed topics including "war, gun violence, natural disasters, domestic violence, human trafficking, slavery and genocide, physical fighting, and more."
Other key themes included death and grief (48%), empowerment and self-esteem (39%), LGBTQ+ topics and metaphors (36%), consensual sexual experiences (34%), mental health disorders (29%), verbal or emotional abuse (28%), and substance use and/or abuse (27%).
There was an increase in banned titles with themes of empowerment and self-esteem, up from 31% in 2023-24.
"Fictional titles with themes of empowerment include Flor Fights Back: A Stonewall Riots Survival Story by Joy Michael Ellison and illustrated by Francesca Ficorilli, and The Moon Within by Aida Salazar," the report says. "To remove these books from classroom and library shelves means revoking access to books that students may rely on for personal and emotional development."
There is an entire section of the report about "erasing people" that examines trends in the identities of characters in banned books. Of all the targeted titles, 44% featured people of color, 39% had LGBTQ+ characters, 19% included transgender or genderqueer individuals, and 10% involved those who are neurodivergent or disabled.
Trump and other leading Republicans have embraced and advanced campaigns against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). PEN America acknowledged that such efforts "have contributed to restrictions and removals on books with people of color and mirror efforts to suppress curriculum on Indigenous history, Black history, Asian American and Pacific Islander stories, and Latine and Hispanic contributions."
Another section of the report addresses a major "discrepancy between the titles impacted by book bans and the justifications made to ban books. Book banners have long cited 'pornography' and 'sexually explicit' material in literature to justify book challenges. Claims that these books contain 'explicit' or 'obscene' content grossly misrepresent the materials."
That section points out that 19% of last year's banned titles contained sexual violence—and "according to RAINN, 1 in 9 girls and 1 in 20 boys under 18 experience sexual abuse or assault. With so many of these titles banned since 2021, it is possible that some young people who have experienced sexual violence no longer have access to books that could help them."
"Books containing experiences of sexual violence include The Nickel Boys by Colson Whitehead, winner of the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, set in a 1960s Southern juvenile reform school, and Laurie Halse Anderson's memoir Shout, a call to action for sexual abuse and trauma survivors in the wake of the #MeToo movement," according to PEN America.
The group's report came just a few weeks after a similar annual publication from the American Library Association, which details challenges to at least 4,235 unique titles in 2025, resulting in bans on at least 5,668 books and restrictions on another 920 works.
"In 2025, book bans were not sparked by concerned parents, and they were not the result of local grassroots efforts," noted Sarah Lamdan, executive director of the association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. “They were part of a well-funded, politically driven campaign to suppress the stories and lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC individuals and communities."
"Instead of swindling taxpayers to pay for his gilded ballroom and finding new ways to give CEO billionaires tax breaks, Trump should focus on ending his war on Iran," said Sen. Ed Markey.
An updated analysis released Thursday finds that President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran will cost Americans significant money at the gas pump this year.
The report, released by the office of Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), projects that if gas prices remain at their current level of over $4.50 per gallon, it will cost a US drivers an extra $73.06 per month—or $876 per year—to fill up their cars compared to what they were paying before Trump attacked Iran in late February.
For a family with two cars, this would mean forking over an extra $1,753 for gas this year.
The analysis also notes this projection is "likely an underestimate" since "many analysts predict gasoline prices will rise higher without a permanent end to the war."
The report highlights how Trump's Iran war is likely to bolster Big Oil's profits, which had been steadily declining since 2022, when they exploded in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Climate and renewable energy organizations have repeatedly called on the US Congress to pass a windfall tax on Big Oil profits for the duration of the war, which they said could be used to provide relief to consumers and invest in clean energy infrastructure.
In a statement accompanying the report, Markey blasted Trump for both the Iran war and his broader economic mismanagement.
“American small businesses and families cannot afford Trump’s crushing bump at the pump—all thanks to the President’s illegal war on Iran," said Markey, the top Democrat on the Senate Small Business Committee. "Americans have to figure out how to make ends meet while Trump slashes affordable healthcare, dismantles clean energy networks, and doubles down on his tariff taxes."
"Instead of swindling taxpayers to pay for his gilded ballroom and finding new ways to give CEO billionaires tax breaks," Markey added, "Trump should focus on ending his war on Iran and ending the pain on Main Street."
"Every six months, we might get a food parcel once. It's barely enough," said one mother. "We are forced to eat whatever is in front of us."
A ceasefire was declared between Israel and Hamas seven months ago, but just as the deal has not stopped the killing of hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza, it has failed to alleviate the acute malnutrition crisis that was created when Israel began blocking almost all humanitarian aid in October 2023.
The international aid group Doctors Without Borders, also known by its French name, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), on Wednesday accused Israel of imposing a "manufactured malnutrition crisis" that is proving particularly devastating for pregnant and breastfeeding women, newborns, and infants.
At four clinics operated by MSF in Gaza between late 2024 and early 2026, medical teams found higher levels of miscarriage among mothers who experienced malnutrition.
The group also analyzed data on 201 mothers of newborns who required treatment in neonatal intensive care units at Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis and Al-Helou Hospital in Gaza City between June 2025 and this past January. More than half of the mothers had been affected by malnutrition at some point in their pregnancy.
Ninety percent of the babies had been born prematurely and 84% had low birth weight.
"Neonatal mortality was twice as high among infants born to mothers affected by malnutrition compared to those born to mothers without malnutrition," said MSF.
Samar Abu Mustafa, a displaced mother from Abasan al-Kabira, said she was diagnosed with malnutrition while pregnant with her 3-month-old baby.
"I don't know how I will provide diapers and milk, nor how I will provide food for my other daughters. There is no income and no support," said Abu Mustafa. "There is nothing apart from food parcels from the World Food Program and community kitchens. Every six months, we might get a food parcel once. It's barely enough. It is all rice and lentils. We are forced to eat whatever is in front of us."
"For a long time, we haven't eaten anything nutritious and the baby does not get enough milk from me, so I am forced to provide formula, but I don’t have money for it," she said. "I have just one remaining can of milk."
Mercè Rocaspana, MSF's medical referent for emergencies, emphasized that malnutrition in the exclave was "almost nonexistent" before Israel began bombarding Gaza and blocking humanitarian aid—an action Israeli and US officials persistently claimed Israel was not taking before the ceasefire was reached, even as the number of deaths from starvation climbed to nearly 500.
“The malnutrition crisis is entirely manufactured,” said Rocaspana. "For two and a half years, the systematic blockade of humanitarian aid and commercial goods, on top of insecurity, have severely restricted access to food and clean water. Healthcare facilities have been forced out of service and living conditions have profoundly deteriorated. As a result, vulnerable groups of people are at heightened risk of malnutrition.”
Before the war, there were no dedicated therapeutic medical feeding units in Gaza's hospitals, but MSF teams admitted more than 500 infants under six months of age to outpatient feeding programs between October 2024-December 2025—programs that the bombardment has made impossible for many families to complete.
"Of those admitted, 91% were at risk of poor growth and development. By December, 200 infants were no longer in the program—only 48% of them were cured, while 7% died, another 7% were referred to a program for older children, and a staggering 32% defaulted due in part to insecurity and displacement."
The 20-point ceasefire agreement stipulated that at least 600 aid trucks must enter Gaza daily and that border crossings must be reopened, but as Common Dreams reported in April, five leading aid groups gave "humanitarian aid access" a failing grade in a scorecard rating conditions in Gaza six months after the deal was reached.
Israel was still restricting deliveries, and food items sold in Gaza were anywhere from 3% to 233% more expensive than they were before the war started.
Al Jazeera's Hind Khoury reported Thursday that only 150 aid trucks are being allowed in daily.
Last week, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said that while there's been a 72% increase in the amount of humanitarian aid reaching Palestinians in Gaza since the ceasefire was brokered, 11% of coordinated humanitarian missions are still being denied.
"Many lives have been saved in Gaza because of scaled up humanitarian effort since the ceasefire. But much more to do: We need to sustain access, protection of civilians, neutrality, and partnership," said Tom Fletcher, UN under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs.
Gaza: Six months into the ceasefire, hunger continues to shape daily life and malnutrition levels remain high.@WFP is on the ground supporting those most in need, but aid alone is not enough for full recovery. pic.twitter.com/gABZySEjFI
— United Nations (@UN) May 6, 2026
Sahar Nafez Salem, who lives with her children in a tent in Khan Younis, told MSF that her family has been relying on a charity kitchen to eat.
"We eat lunch from it and save some for dinner," she said. "We try to manage getting lunch for our poor children every Friday, so we can bring them joy, but all week long, almost everything is from charity kitchens... The last time I received aid was during Ramadan... There is rice and lentils... Other things, like vegetables, are expensive. We can't get them all the time. So sometimes we go without vegetables for months."