SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Rainforest Action Network Responds to PepsiCo's Release of Palm Oil Action Plan Progress Report
Calls it “masterful window dressing” while workers continue to suffer and forests continue to fall
SAN FRANCISCO
Rainforest Action Network (RAN) responds to PepsiCo's release of a "Palm Oil Action Plan Progress Report" today, in which the food and beverage giant outlines the actions it is supposedly taking to address its use of Conflict Palm Oil in PepsiCo products.
A report released by Rainforest Action Network (RAN) in April 2017, titled "Profits over People and the Planet, Not 'Performance with Purpose'; Exposing PepsiCo's Real Agenda," revealed PepsiCo's connections to Conflict Palm Oil suppliers, which are driving deforestation, climate emissions, and human and labor rights abuses across Indonesia, Malaysia, and Latin America. Today's release by PepsiCo lacks a meaningful response to the issues raised in RAN's report.
Robin Averbeck, Senior Campaigner of Rainforest Action Network (RAN), responded by issuing the following statement,
"Pepsico's latest "Palm Oil Action Plan Progress Report" is a masterful attempt to window dress its lack of progress in addressing the systemic environmental and human rights violations in its palm oil supply chain and in the operations of its joint venture partner Indofood. In the real world, forests continue to fall and workers continue to be exploited for the production of palm oil used in PepsiCo's products.
"While PepsiCo openly acknowledges in its report that deforestation and labor rights violations are rampant in the palm oil industry, the company has once again failed to set a deadline to end these abuses in its own supply chains. Instead, PepsiCo hides behind false claims of sustainability made by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)--the same certification system that has continued to certify its controversial partner Indofood, despite its ongoing exploitation of workers exposed by RAN, Indonesian labor rights organization OPPUK, and International Labor Rights Forum in June 2016.
"PepsiCo needs to stop the corporate greenwash and start enforcing an end to rainforest destruction and the violation of workers and communities' rights in its supply chain and the plantations controlled by its partner Indofood. Until it does so, PepsiCo and its financial backers will be exposed to campaigns that demand real outcomes on the ground."
RAN continues to call on PepsiCo to substantially invest its profits into ending the use of Conflict Palm Oil used in PepsiCo products sold worldwide; require its joint venture partner Indofood to put the rights of workers first by aligning its policies and practices with the Free and Fair Labor Principles, or cancel deals with Indofood; advance respect for human rights by requiring all suppliers to uphold the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights immediately, and provide remedy for stolen lands and livelihoods starting with REPSA and Indofood; enforce an immediate moratorium on the destruction of forests and peatlands for palm oil; and play a positive role in securing land rights, improving livelihoods, and protecting forests and peatlands, including the critical Leuser Ecosystem.
Rainforest Action Network (RAN) is headquartered in San Francisco, California with offices staff in Tokyo, Japan, and Edmonton, Canada, plus thousands of volunteer scientists, teachers, parents, students and other concerned citizens around the world. We believe that a sustainable world can be created in our lifetime and that aggressive action must be taken immediately to leave a safe and secure world for our children.
LATEST NEWS
Van Hollen Backs Sanders Resolutions to Block US Arms Sales to Israel
"President Biden has failed to hold Netanyahu accountable—ignoring U.S. law and undercutting his own stated policies as well as America's interests and values," said the Democratic senator from Maryland.
Nov 18, 2024
Support for U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders' resolutions that would block U.S. weapons sales to Israel continued to grow on Monday, with Sen. Chris Van Hollen releasing a letter to colleagues urging them to join him in trying to pass the measures later this week.
Sanders (I-Vt.)—backed by Sens. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)—introduced the joint resolutions of disapproval (JRDs) in September and announced last week that he would bring them to the floor for a vote.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) endorsed the JRDs last week, citing the failure of U.S. President Joe Biden's administration "to follow U.S. law and to suspend arms shipments" after warning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government last month that it could be cut off from American weapons absent serious action to improve humanitarian conditions in the Gaza Strip.
Van Hollen (D-Md.) followed suit Monday, unveiling his letter and saying in a statement that "U.S. taxpayer-funded assistance should not come in the form of a blank check—even to our closest partners. We need assurances that U.S. interests, values, and priorities will be respected by foreign governments that receive American support. That principle should apply universally, including to the Netanyahu government."
"We've seen Prime Minister Netanyahu repeatedly violate the terms of American security assistance, disregard U.S. priorities, and ignore our requests, only to be rewarded by President Biden."
"But even as the United States has provided billions of dollars of American taxpayer-financed bombs and other offensive weapons systems, we've seen Prime Minister Netanyahu repeatedly violate the terms of American security assistance, disregard U.S. priorities, and ignore our requests, only to be rewarded by President Biden," he continued. "That pattern undermines the credibility of the United States and should not persist."
Van Hollen highlighted that he has "repeatedly supported Israel's right to defend itself and end Hamas' control of Gaza" since the Palestinian group's October 7, 2023 attack—which includes his vote for an April aid package—but also argued that "a just war must be waged justly."
"That's why recipients of U.S. weapons must comply with American laws and policies. Recipients of security assistance must facilitate and not arbitrarily restrict the delivery of humanitarian assistance into war zones where U.S. weapons are being used, and American-supplied weapons must be used in accordance with international humanitarian law. The Netanyahu government is violating both of these requirements in Gaza," he explained. "It is also rejecting a host of other priorities advanced by the United States, yet President Biden has failed to hold Netanyahu accountable—ignoring U.S. law and undercutting his own stated policies as well as America's interests and values."
"Doing so undermines American global leadership and is a disservice to the American people, the people of Israel, and people throughout the Middle East," the senator warned. "That is why I have repeatedly stated that the United States should pause the delivery of offensive weapons to the Netanyahu government until it complies with U.S. law and policy and until we can advance the security interests, priorities, and values of the American people."
While stressing his support for "the transfer of defensive systems, like the Iron Dome," and his opposition to an arms embargo, which many rights groups have called for, Van Hollen concluded that he will vote for the JRDs this week because "a partnership must be a two-way street, not a one-way blank check."
The JRDs would have to pass both the Democrat-controlled Senate and the Republican-held House of Representatives to reach Biden's desk. They would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override presidential vetoes. The push to pass the resolutions comes as lawmakers prepare for the GOP to control Congress and the White House next year following the elections earlier this month.
"The United States government must stop blatantly violating the law with regard to arms sales to Israel," Sanders wrote in The Washington Post on Monday. "The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act are very clear: The United States cannot provide weapons to any country that violates internationally recognized human rights. Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act is also explicit: No U.S. assistance may be provided to any country that 'prohibits or otherwise restricts, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance.'"
The resolutions are also backed by over 100 organizations, including the Center for Civilians in Conflict and Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), which led a letter to senators last month.
Hassan El-Tayyab, legislative director for Middle East policy, described the upcoming vote as "historic," tellingAl Jazeera on Monday, "Just the fact that this is happening is already sending that political signal that it's not business as usual."
"There is no military solution to the conflict in Gaza—only a diplomatic one that addresses root causes of violence," El-Tayyab said as the death toll in the Palestinian enclave neared 44,000.
"Instead of sending more weapons, Congress and the administration should leverage military aid with Bibi [Netanyahu] and the Knesset to finally get them to accept a cease-fire deal in Gaza and Lebanon," he added. "And that, I think, is a far better strategy to secure Israel's defense and protect Palestinian human rights."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Taps Project 2025 Co-Author Who Cozied Up to Musk to Lead FCC
"For more than a year now Carr has been auditioning for this job," said one critic. "His groveling is now being rewarded with a promotion, and it's the American public who will pay a heavy price."
Nov 18, 2024
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump claimed on Sunday that his nomination of Brendan Carr to chair the Federal Communications Commission would elevate "a warrior for free speech," but one veteran journalist warned the selection of Carr is a "key step in Trump's assault on the free press," while others expressed concerns about the future of net neutrality and censorship on social media platforms.
A portion of Project 2025—the far-right policy document that Trump repeatedly said he had nothing to do with—was authored by Carr, who has been an FCC commissioner since 2017.
Carr wrote in Project 2025 about "reining in Big Tech" and called for Section 230 of the Communication Act to be limited in order to stop what conservatives have called discrimination against right-wing views by Facebook, Google, and other Silicon Valley giants. Carr was the only current government official to co-author Project 2025.
Section 230 affirms that online platforms are not the "publishers" of users' content and are permitted to use content moderation "in good faith" as they see fit, to limit content that is violent, bigoted, or otherwise objectionable.
The U.S. Supreme Court this year affirmed in Netchoice v. Paxton that content moderation is protected by the First Amendment, but both Carr and Trump have decried Section 230 as censoring conservative views.
"When people tell you what they plan to do, you should believe them. Brendan Carr has clearly stated that he plans to attack Section 230 and force online platforms to carry sludge," said Adam Kovacevich, founder and CEO of progressive tech coaltion Chamber of Progress. "That's why Democrats need to defend Section 230, which protects content moderation and keeps the Internet from becoming a cesspool."
Last week, Carr wrote to tech companies including Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Apple, accusing them of silencing conservatives by partnering with NewsGuard, which rates the credibility of news websites, and calling the companies a "censorship cartel."
As an FCC commissioner, said City University of New York journalism professor Jeff Jarvis, Carr "is already trying to force platforms to carry right-wing propaganda."
Meanwhile this is terrible news for the internet and freedom of expression. Carr is already trying to force platforms to carry right-wing propaganda. Compelled speech is not free speech. Trump picks Brendan Carr as FCC chairman www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2...
[image or embed]
— Jeff (Gutenberg Parenthesis) Jarvis (@jeffjarvis.bsky.social) November 18, 2024 at 7:20 AM
Carr also called for social media platform TikTok to be banned in the U.S. if it does not cut ties with its China-based parent company, ByteDance.
TikTok sued the U.S. government earlier this year over the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversaries Act, which threatens the company with a ban unless ByteDance sells the platform.
Supporters of net neutrality rules, the Obama-era regulations that stop internet service providers from blocking or throttling content and creating "fast lanes" for web companies that pay a fee, condemned Carr's nomination, saying the commissioner will "kill" the regulations that the Biden FCC has worked to revive.
"He's committed to ending net neutrality and undermining the FCC's ability to hold accountable companies like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon for abusing internet users," said Craig Aaron, co-CEO of public advocacy group Free Press.
Carr's nomination was announced two weeks after the commissioner claimed on social media that Vice President Kamala Harris' appearance on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" was "a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC's Equal Time rule."
The FCC's equal time guidelines do not require networks to "provide opposing candidates with programs identical to the initiating candidate." A spokesperson for the commission said in a statement after Carr's complaint that "the FCC has not made any determination regarding political programming rules."
The FCC is barred from punishing TV networks for their editorial decisions in most cases, but with Trump having called on the commission to strip companies like NBC and CBS of their licenses because of what he views as unfair coverage of him, advocates expressed concern that Carr could use his position to pressure and threaten networks.
"Be wary of any reporting that regurgitates Trump's claim that Brendan Carr is a 'warrior for Free Speech,'" said Tim Karr, senior director of strategy and communications for Free Press. "He's actually the opposite, willing to use the FCC to go after TV broadcasters that are 'unfair' to Trump, or to punish fact-checkers, like NewsGuard, that vet Trump's many false claims."
Carr has aligned himself with billionaire Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who spent nearly $120 million to support Trump's presidential campaign. The commissioner dissented in 2022 when the FCC revoked an $885 million grant that had been given to Starlink, Musk's satellite internet provider; the Democratic-led FCC said Starlink didn't meet the requirements for the commission's Digital Rural Opportunity Fund.
"Carr wants to use his perch to funnel money to companies run by Trump cronies like Elon Musk, while punishing opponents by increasing their fees or ending subsidies and contracts," said Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future. "In short, Carr plans to use the full weight of the FCC to help billionaires and authoritarians while abandoning the agency's actual mission of protecting the public interest."
Carr, said Aaron, "has been campaigning for this job with promises to do the bidding of Donald Trump and Elon Musk," and "got this job because he will carry out Trump and Musk's personal vendettas."
"While styling himself as a free-speech champion, Carr refused to stand up when Trump threatened to take away the broadcast licenses of TV stations for daring to fact check him during the campaign," said Aaron. "This alone should be disqualifying. The public needs a watchdog looking out for them at this independent agency, not an attack dog for Trump and Musk."
"His close relationships with far-right zealots and his craven cozying up to the CEOs he's supposed to be regulating tell you everything about the kind of FCC chairman he will be," he added. "For more than a year now Carr has been auditioning for this job, desperate to gain Trump's attention and show how he's willing to bend the rules and twist the law to serve this administration. His groveling is now being rewarded with a promotion, and it's the American public who will pay a heavy price."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pentagon Fails Seventh Straight Audit as Annual US Military Budget Nears $1 Trillion
Sen. Bernie Sanders has introduced legislation that would require the Pentagon to return a portion of its budget as a penalty for failing audits, but lawmakers from both parties have declined to consider the bill.
Nov 18, 2024
The Pentagon announced late last week that it failed its seventh consecutive audit as the sprawling, profiteering-ridden department wasn't able to fully account for its trillions of dollars in assets.
As with its past failures to achieve a clean audit, the U.S. Defense Department attempted to cast the 2024 results in a positive light, with the Pentagon's chief financial officer declaring in a statement that "momentum is on our side."
The Pentagon is the largest U.S. federal agency and is responsible for roughly half of the government's annual discretionary spending, with its yearly budget approaching $1 trillion despite long-standing concerns about the department's inability to account for vast sums of money approved by lawmakers and presidents from both major parties.
The latest financial assessment published Friday by the Defense Department's inspector general office estimates that the Pentagon has $4.1 trillion in assets. It is the only major federal agency that has never passed a clean audit, as required by law.
"Of the 28 reporting entities undergoing stand-alone financial statement audits, nine received an unmodified audit opinion, one received a qualified opinion, 15 received disclaimers, and three opinions remain pending," the Pentagon
said Friday.
Since the department's first failed audit in 2018, Congress has authorized trillions of dollars in additional military spending. According to the Costs of War Project, more than half of the department's annual budget "is now spent on military contractors" that are notorious for overbilling the government.
"The Pentagon's latest failed audit is a great signal to the incoming administration for where they can start their attempts at slashing government spending," Lindsay Koshgarian, director of the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, told Common Dreams. "Instead of gutting veterans' benefits or the Department of Education as planned, they should start with the one major government agency that has never passed an audit, the Pentagon."
Progressive watchdogs and lawmakers have long cited the Pentagon's failure to pass a clean audit as evidence of the department's pervasive waste and fraud. The Pentagon buried a 2015 report identifying $125 billion in administrative waste out of concern that the findings would be used as a justification "to slash the defense budget," as The Washington Postreported at the time.
Last year, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced an amendment to the annual National Defense Authorization Act that would have required the Pentagon to return a portion of its budget to the Treasury Department's general fund as a penalty for failing audits.
"Year after year the establishment on both sides of the aisle have prevented these amendments from receiving a single roll call vote," Warren Gunnels, Sanders' staff director, wrote on social media over the weekend.
This story has been updated to include comment from Lindsay Koshgarian of the National Priorities Project.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular