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
consumer protection
Consumer Groups Warn Trump Picks for Product Safety Agency Could Enable His Corruption
The president's attempt to control the commission "is particularly troublesome" given the financial stakes that he, his family, and his supporters have in products the agency regulates, said dozens of groups.
Jul 21, 2026
Nearly a month after the US Supreme Court overturned almost a century of precedent to give President Donald Trump king-like power to purge independent agencies, consumer groups on Tuesday sounded the alarm over his nominees to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Before the high court's recent ruling, Trump last year fired the three Democratic commissioners appointed by his predecessor—hamstringing the CPSC, which needs at least three members to conduct official business, but currently only has acting Chair Peter Feldman.
Trump nominated Karen Sessions as a commissioner in February and Brien Lorenze, the agency's executive director, in early June. Later last month, the GOP-controlled Senate began considering the nominees, but has not yet confirmed them.
In a Tuesday letter to Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)—respectively, the chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation—dozens of consumer groups detailed their concerns.
Led by the Consumer Federation of America and National Consumers League, the coalition urged the senators "to protect the independence and nonpartisanship" of "the nation's chief household product safety regulator," stressing that "hazards have no partisan leanings, and neither should the commission tasked with addressing them."
The letter highlights that the agency, created by Congress over five decades ago, cannot have more than three commissioners affiliated with the same political party, and the law bars all of them "from owning stock or bonds of substantial value in a company that sells or manufactures consumer products, or from being in 'any other manner pecuniarily interested in such a person.'"
"Historically, the agency's independence has buffered the commissioners from political pressure from the White House and large donors. This has ensured that the agency has acted with transparency and a diversity of views, which has benefited the American people," the groups wrote. "Further, the presence of minority commissioners provided a layer of oversight and accountability on CPSC actions."
"With this independent and nonpartisan structure, the CPSC has had a lifesaving effect," the coalition emphasized, pointing to drops in residential fires, child poisonings, bicycle and pool injuries, and deaths from cribs, garage door incidents, and refrigerator entrapments.
The organizations stressed their concern that Trump ousted "the three Democratic, Senate-confirmed CPSC commissioners" without cause, and then "nominated two individuals of his own political party, threatening to further undermine the independence and nonpartisanship of the CPSC."
"Silencing the voices of subject matter experts with whom the president politically disagrees or who may not serve his financial interests can have a chilling effect on the CPSC's functions," they argued. "The president's assertion of control over CPSC commissioners has eliminated the transparency provided by minority commissioners and the independence of those who remain."
"This is particularly troublesome given the conflict of interest created by the president's financial stake and those of his family and supporters in consumer products the CPSC is entrusted to regulate," the groups noted.
Specifically, as the letter lays out:
President Trump financially benefits from the distribution of a vast array of consumer products, including Trump Watches, Trump Sneakers, and "45" Guitars. The president also has substantial financial interests in major manufacturers, retailers, and online marketplaces, including Whirlpool Corp., Newell Rubbermaid, Macy’s Retail Holdings, and Amazon.com Inc. The Trump Organization, helmed by Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, sells a wide variety of consumer products, including toys and children’s products; apparel, footwear, and accessories; sporting goods; pet products; and household goods such as drinkware, kitchenware, linens, candles, and home décor. First Lady Melania Trump, through MelaniaTrump.com, is associated with the sales of jewelry and Christmas ornaments. Lara Trump and Kai Trump sell apparel through their respective online stores. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon maintains a significant financial stake in TKO Group Holdings, which has lucrative licensing deals for World Wrestling Entertainment toys, apparel, and accessories. Mike Lindell, a prominent supporter of the president, is the founder of MyPillow, which sells bedding and apparel. Former special government employee Elon Musk profits from sales of Tesla’s Powerwall systems and the Tesla Cyberquad for children. Political ally and Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) CEO Dana White profits from UFC’s sale of apparel, combat-sport equipment, and collectibles.
"These extensive financial and familial interests heighten concerns that the president could use his authority to influence CPSC enforcement decisions in ways that protect his and his associates' interests, as the administration has done in matters before other federal agencies," the letter warns, citing various actions involving the US Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission.
In addition to those actions—from the attempt to create an "Anti-Weaponization Fund" to pay off Trump allies, to dropping investigations into his backers—the president has blatantly cashed in on his return to the White House, pocketing at least $2.2 billion, according to recently released annual financial disclosures.
"We are concerned that without balanced representation at the CPSC, this small agency with a big mission will be unable to independently carry out its congressionally mandated duties and provide the public with the transparency it deserves," the coalition told Cruz and Cantwell. "The CPSC is no place for political favoritism. We therefore urge you to oppose reporting favorably the nominations of Brien Lorenze and Karen Sessions to serve as CPSC commissioners."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Maryland Becomes First US State to Ban Surveillance Pricing for Groceries
A new law will ban retailers from using shoppers' personal data to hike grocery prices—but consumer advocates warn it contains loopholes that companies could exploit.
Apr 27, 2026
Maryland will become the first US state to outlaw "surveillance pricing" for groceries after Democratic Gov. Wes Moore signed a bill on Monday barring retailers and food delivery services from using customers' personal data to alter prices.
The practice has already become rampant in online commerce, with companies like Amazon, Uber, and Delta Air Lines accused of using everything from browsing history and location to demographic information to squeeze every possible cent from consumers.
The Protection from Predatory Pricing Act, which takes effect in Maryland beginning on October 1, targets the growing use of such tactics by grocery chains and delivery apps, which Moore has accused of using "new technologies to drive up the bill for working families."
These include electronic shelf labels, which advocates have warned could allow companies to instantly change grocery prices based on the time of day, weather, and other factors that influence consumer demand.
“Digital price tags are replacing paper ones. It’s happening because we are having cameras that are watching aisles, it’s happening because we have apps that are moving from search-based to predictive,” Moore said.
Moore has cited an investigation published in December by Consumer Reports and the Groundwork Collaborative, which found that Instacart was running a “pricing experiment” that charged some customers as much as 23% more for the same items than others based on shoppers' personal data.
Another investigation by Consumer Reports last May found that Kroger was collecting lengthy profiles of individual customers, including estimates of their household size, education level, income, and even perceived "loyalty" to the company, along with sometimes dozens of other pages of personal data.
"Surveillance pricing can drive up the price of food," said Grace Gedye, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports. "Retailers have a lot of data about individual shoppers: how often we search for or hover over particular items, whether we live near competitor stores, inferences about our likes and dislikes, our dietary needs, our income, our family size, and more."
"Surveillance pricing," she said, "allows companies to take advantage of that information asymmetry and charge you as much as they think you’re individually willing to pay.”
To combat this, Maryland's new law requires that shelf prices remain steady for one full business day. It also bars retailers from using surveillance data, such as inferred income, ethnicity, family size, neighborhood, or purchasing history, to raise prices for individuals.
Companies that violate the law will receive civil penalties of up to $10,000 for first offenses and $25,000 for repeat offenses. They will also be given 45 days to correct violations before these fines apply.
Gedye said, "While it’s encouraging to see the Maryland Legislature take up this issue, this law has loopholes that will limit its real-world impact."
The law faced fierce opposition from industry groups, including the Maryland Retailers Alliance. The group ultimately withdrew its opposition, but only after several new provisions were introduced that Consumer Reports said "undercut" the law's effectiveness.
While the law bans the use of personal data to set higher prices, the group said there is no way to determine what constitutes a "baseline or standard price," meaning price fluctuations could easily be marketed as discounts. It also said companies could use loyalty and subscription programs—which are exempt from the law—to raise prices.
The group also warned that the law is too hard to enforce, since only the Maryland attorney general, not customers themselves, can bring suits, which it said is a "departure from Maryland’s primary consumer protection law."
Many other states—including California, New York, and Illinois—are considering similar bans, and legislation has been proposed at the federal level to outlaw surveillance and surge-pricing practices nationwide.
Gedye said, "We urge other state legislatures considering personalized pricing legislation to build in stronger consumer protections and avoid loopholes that weakened this bill.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
10 Ways Der Führer Donald Has Already Shut Down the Federal Government
As an official government shutdown looms, here is a brief tour through the wreckage wrought by Trump so far.
Sep 28, 2025
The media is reporting on the approaching government shutdown on September 30, due to an impasse between the two congressional parties. US President Donald Trump is threatening more mass firings of federal workers should this occur.
Der Führer Donald has already shut down vital government programs since he ascended to his elected dictatorship on January 20. The shutdowns of critical agencies, lifesaving programs, and law enforcement are uniformly illegal and constitute impeachable offenses. Under the Constitution, only Congress can terminate or limit many of the programs axed by the rampaging Monarch.
Here is a brief tour through the wreckage wrought by Trump, Elon Musk, and Trump’s lawless maniac, the clenched-jawed Russell Vought, director of Trump’s Office of Management and Budget.
- Trump has illegally and impeachably closed the Agency for International Development, fast winding down critical humanitarian aid—medicine, food, clean water, etc.—to millions of impoverished families in poor countries abroad. Tens of thousands have already perished, according to aid officials.
- He has illegally and impeachably paralyzed the protector of consumers—the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—that returned many billions of dollars to consumers from corporate rip-off schemes, mostly from the finance companies. Throwing corporate law and order out the window, Trump is setting records for being soft on corporate crime—ending dozens of underway prosecutions of companies by the Justice Department.
- He has illegally and impeachably closed the cabinet-level Department of Education, throwing student aid programs and the status of existing loans into dark holes of chaos.
- Across other federal agencies, Trump has closed down crucial scientific programs designed to understand and alert the people to mega storms and wildfires, infectious diseases, looming pandemics abroad, and expand basic research in medical science for the public’s health.
- With his toady Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Lee Zeldin, Trump is chopping our protection against deadly toxic air, water, and soil pollution into pieces. He is closing down the EPA’s celebrated scientific research section; firing people everywhere; and declaring that the EPA has no authority to deal with the oil, gas, and coal fossil fuel emissions causing global warming. Crazily, he has blocked lower-priced solar energy and wind power projects, calling windmills “ugly.” This is just deranged.
- Federal Emergency Management Agency employees have signed a desperate petition to Trump to stop strip-mining the agency, stop slowing its emergency response time, and restore the staff pushed out during the Department of Government Efficiency lawlessness. For their courage, Trump fired or suspended many of these hurricane, flood, and wildfire rescuers, as he does for civil servants who sign other letters and petitions because they report they are unable to perform their work because of his actions. He has weakened an already weak Occupational Safety and Health Administration and further jeopardized the health and safety of Americans in their workplace.
- Trump has reduced successful programs such as Meals on Wheels America, Head Start, and aims to get rid of the Job Corps and AmeriCorps. Again, illegally defying congressional mandates.
- Trump, who eats well, is cutting food stamps for millions of poor Americans. This is hurting desperate families and supplying farmers.
- Earlier, Trump got through Congress a law that will cause over 10 million people to lose their Medicaid; nearly 5 million could lose healthcare coverage soon when the elimination of subsidies causes prices to skyrocket under Obamacare scheduled by the end of this year. These serious deprivations, sure to cost lives, are what the congressional Democrats are insisting be reversed before they go along with the omnibus government funding bill. GOP leaders, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), are resisting. Of course, they have good health insurance paid for by taxpayers.
- Trump has shut down diplomacy abroad, replacing it with threats, violence, fantasies, and boastful rhetoric. The skills of the Foreign Service in the State Department are frozen under the arrogant Secretary of State, Netanyahu toady, Marco Rubio.
Many of the above-noted cuts in programs are to pay for more tax cuts to the under-taxed super rich and profit-glutted corporations. Note that Trump is NOT cutting hundreds of billions of dollars annually in corporate welfare—subsidies, handouts, giveaways, and bailouts. Nor is he going after huge fraud on the government in programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and military procurement. Trump is willing to overlook avaricious, entrenched corporate vendors and contractors bilking Uncle Sam.
Cracking down on corporate fraud and abuse would risk his own enormous self-enrichment schemes, would end his misuse of the office of the presidency and limit his use of the White House as business headquarters. Trump, regardless of his deeply phony “populism,” has always been a hardcore corporatist!
Trump, who is egomaniacal, ignorant, and often deranged with his daily blatant lies against reality, is a world-class, cunning personality. He secures the abject loyalty of his major appointees by nominating either totally inexperienced, incompetent people to run agencies and departments or turncoats who, once defiant, become obeisant.
The former are relishing their sudden unmerited upward mobility and are not about to make waves. The latter, like Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F.Kennedy Jr., feel they are under suspicion and double down on goosestepping with their boss. Neither recruitment category is likely to produce any whistleblowers. That’s how cunning Trump is with his widely criticized nominations.
Stay tuned. Let’s see how effective the Democratic Party’s polemics are to counter Trump, already blaming the Democrats for the Republican Party’s government shutdown. The Democrats can start by driving the point home to the American people about the terrible impacts Trump’s present government closures will quickly have on their health, safety, and livelihoods.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Trump Promotes Grotesque Corporate Lawlessness
Dropping corporate cases en masse, as the Trump administration is doing, portends a return to recklessness and greed that fueled corporate catastrophes like Wall Street’s 2008 financial crisis.
May 08, 2025
“Corporations First.” That’s the slogan that would truthfully describe the Trump administration’s approach to law enforcement, not “America First.”
A new investigation by my organization shows that the Trump administration is dropping investigations and enforcement actions against corporations that showered money on Trump’s inauguration earlier this year.
Seventy-one big businesses, which were facing at least 102 ongoing federal enforcement actions at the time of Trump’s inauguration, collectively gave a whopping $57 million to the Trump-Vance inaugural fund, we found. And many may now be collecting special favors.
Time will tell whether the payments by other big corporate inauguration donors—like Amazon, Apple, Boeing, FedEx, Goldman Sachs, Google, Johnson & Johnson, Nvidia, and Pilgrim’s Pride—will see enforcement go away, too.
Trump’s inaugural haul from corporations facing investigations and lawsuits alone is comparable to the total amount raised for the inaugurations of former Presidents Barack Obama in 2009 ($53 million) and Joe Biden in 2021 ($62 million). And it’s just a third of the record-breaking $239 million Trump collected overall, $153 million of which came from corporate donors.
Regardless of president or party, private funding for the presidential inauguration poses a serious threat of corrupt influence buying by corporations and the wealthy. Unlike the vast majority of Americans, they can ingratiate themselves to an incoming administration with six- and seven-figure checks.
Donations by for-profit corporations are particularly suspect—corporations’ purpose, after all, is to amass wealth for private investors, an agenda that frequently pits them against laws and regulations that protect consumers, workers, and the broader public interest.
We may not know exactly what favors corporations might seek. But it’s reasonable to assume that getting rid of penalties or investigations for ripping off consumers, exploiting workers, polluting our environment, and engaging in illegal and unfair business practices would be high on the list.
Public Citizen has compiled a list of more than 500 enforcement actions against corporations that the Trump administration inherited from the Biden administration. During President Trump’s first 100 days alone, federal agencies halted or dropped at least 126 of these enforcement actions.
These include actions against 15 corporate inauguration donors whose cases were dismissed or withdrawn, plus six whose cases were halted. These 21 corporations collectively donated $18 million to the inaugural fund.
These include companies accused of violating consumer financial protections, such Bank of America, Capital One, JPMorgan, and Walmart; some crypto businesses accused of violating securities laws, such as Coinbase, Crypto.com, Kraken, and Ripple; private prison corporations that allegedly mistreated inmates, like CoreCivic and GEO Group; and businesses accused of engaging in illegal bribery schemes in foreign countries, including Cognizant, Pfizer, and Toyota.
Time will tell whether the payments by other big corporate inauguration donors—like Amazon, Apple, Boeing, FedEx, Goldman Sachs, Google, Johnson & Johnson, Nvidia, and Pilgrim’s Pride—will see enforcement go away, too.
To be fair, some cases against corporate inauguration donors do appear to be proceeding unhindered. The antitrust cases against Google and Meta are proceeding, the FTC’s case against Uber for deceptive billing practices has been filed, and Gilead Pharmaceuticals is being required to pay $202 million to settle allegations of paying illegal kickbacks to doctors.
These signs of ongoing enforcement are a good thing. But among the more than 100 cases being dropped and halted, they’re exceptional. Because of the mass firings of federal workers at enforcement agencies, they likely represent the conclusion of past enforcement efforts, not the continuation of an ongoing trend.
Dropping corporate cases en masse, as the Trump administration is doing, is a greenlight for corporate lawlessness. It portends a return to recklessness and greed that fueled corporate catastrophes like Wall Street’s 2008 financial crisis, the Oxycontin-fueled opioid crisis, BP’s oil spill disaster, and Boeing’s deadly 737 Max crashes.
It is the definition of “corporations first.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lina Khan’s FTC Legacy Is A Lesson In Successful Progressive Leadership
Khan’s FTC has scored historic victories for consumers and workers—even as she’s faced powerful industry opposition and obstruction from right-wing judges.
Jan 09, 2025
In June 2021, just months into the Biden era, Zephyr Teachout argued that Lina Khan’s appointment to the Federal Trade Commission “may be the best thing Joe Biden has done” in office. With a firm reputation as a leader in the anti-monopoly movement, her nomination to the FTC was a clear victory for progressives in an administration otherwise primarily staffed by moderates.
Three years on, it’s clear that this optimistic outlook about a Khan-run FTC has been vindicated. In her position, Khan’s FTC has scored historic victories for consumers and workers—even as she’s faced powerful industry opposition and obstruction from right-wing judges.
Understanding the significance of Khan’s tenure means understanding how antitrust enforcement has been sabotaged in recent decades by right-wing ideologues. The federal government adopted antitrust laws beginning in 1890, which would become a crucial tool for reining in corporate abuses for decades to come. But beginning in the 1970s, federal courts would embrace a right-wing reimagining of antitrust law under the guise of promoting “consumer welfare.” Unsurprisingly, this hands-off approach helped create an economy defined by extreme corporate concentration, leading to fewer and worse choices for American consumers.
While the leadership of both agencies are set to change under President-elect Donald Trump, the new merger guidelines mean that Khan’s pro-competition vision will help shape FTC decision-making well past her tenure.
While still in law school, Khan rose to prominence in 2017 for her critique of laissez-faire antitrust enforcement. Given her reputation, observers were quick to speculate on how she’d be able to put her principles to action at the FTC. For one, the commission in recent decades has built a track record of being deferential to the very monopolies it’s tasked to regulate. Additionally, the commission has long suffered from inadequate funding, which has hindered its capacity to police monopolies. But despite these institutional constraints, Khan’s FTC has secured major wins for American consumers, all while facing down hostile corporate actors and their allies in the judiciary.
Monopolistic behavior in the food industry over the past few decades has robbed consumers of choice while increasing grocery costs. Two years ago, grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons announced a massive merger deal that quickly raised alarms among consumer advocates. While such a merger may have gone through unscathed a decade or so prior, the Khan-led FTC filed suit to block the deal. Last month, the FTC won one of its biggest victories in recent years by blocking the merger in court. This victory, along with the FTC’s successful effort to block Tapestry’s acquisition of Capri, shows that Khan’s view of antitrust is increasingly finding support in court.
Sharing jurisdiction on antitrust matters with the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division, the two agencies successfully modernized merger guidelines to help identify illegal mergers in their tracks. Observers have credited both the FTC and DOJ Antitrust Division’s aggressive enforcement efforts with a recent decline in merger efforts. And while the leadership of both agencies are set to change under President-elect Donald Trump, the new merger guidelines mean that Khan’s pro-competition vision will help shape FTC decision-making well past her tenure.
These developments, of course, only scrape the surface of the FTC’s accomplishments under Khan. The commission notably blocked an effort by Nvidia to acquire Arm, which was set to be the biggest merger deal in semiconductor industry history. The ultimate failure of Amazon to acquire iRobot, which caused concern among various international antitrust regulators, has been at least partially credited to the FTC’s scrutiny. Among the most meaningful impact of renewed FTC antitrust scrutiny may be felt on private equity firms, a welcome development given said firms’ harms to competition and American society at large.
The Khan-led FTC’s ability to build bipartisan support for efforts such as recent rulemaking on junk fees, as well as on merger guidelines, should be seen as a model for Democratic governance. Moreover, the Khan-led FTC should be applauded for using long-neglected tools at the commission’s disposal, such as its ability to police price discrimination as interlocking directorates.
With Khan set to be succeeded by Andrew Ferguson, Trump’s pick to lead the FTC, it's likely that the FTC will soon shift its approach on antitrust and consumer protection. Nevertheless, it’s clear that Khan will leave behind a legacy that will influence antitrust enforcement for decades to come. And in doing so, Khan will also leave behind a track record that shows what successful progressive governance looks like.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Carter’s Legacy Will Live on to Inspire Future Generations
He nourished the norms of personal and civic decency, dialogue, truth-telling, and working for a just society, expressing his Christian faith in action.
Jan 01, 2025
Jimmy Carter was the last president to actively open the government for engagement by citizen groups. Right after his November 1976 election, he agreed to address a huge hotel ballroom in D.C. full of local and national citizen advocates. It was a great success never again repeated by succeeding president-elects.
Mr. Carter then chose civic leaders and other solid progressives to head regulatory agencies such as National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Federal Trade Commission, and for other high positions in government. He chose the formidable longtime consumer-labor advocate Esther Peterson to be his consumer protection special assistant in the White House. He also supported an independent consumer protection agency which Congress, after a fierce struggle between corporate lobbies and consumer groups, narrowly defeated in 1978. Starting in 1981, Ronald Reagan undermined many Carter Administration health and safety initiatives.
Compare Jimmy Carter’s life with the rancid, corrupt, cowardly politicians spoiling today’s Washington landscapes.
Mr. Carter was also the last president to authentically recognize Palestinian rights and charge the Israeli government with imposing a system of apartheid (“worse than in South Africa,” he said) over Palestine. However, he failed to get Israel to agree to a comprehensive peace settlement, including the creation of a Palestinian state, and had to settle for a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.
Citizen Carter was easily our greatest former president. For over 40 years his indefatigable work ethic was applied to advancing peace efforts, initiating health programs in developing countries, supervising fair elections overseas and, with Rosalynn, joining Habitat for Humanity as a manual laborer (he was an expert woodworker, among his many skills) to build houses around the country for needy families.
The range of interests expressed through his 32 books and conferences revealed a practical, results-oriented, humble Renaissance man. His compassion and honesty infuse the Carter Center to this day.
He nourished the norms of personal and civic decency, dialogue, truth-telling, and working for a just society, expressing his Christian faith in action.
Compare Jimmy Carter’s life with the rancid, corrupt, cowardly politicians spoiling today’s Washington landscapes.
There are legitimate criticisms of Carter’s foreign and domestic policies that others will examine. But overall, his legacy will live on to inspire future generations of Americans to elevate their expectations and strive toward them with civic dedication and commitment.
I was always in awe of how efficiently he used his time every day—and truly amazed by his relentless productivity. This alone would have been a worthy book by Mr. Carter were it not for his genuine humility.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Beware the Toxic Chemicals at Dollar Stores
The nation’s largest dollar stores continually fail to meaningfully strengthen their chemical policies and intervene in their supply chains to keep their shoppers safe.
Dec 03, 2024
When shopping for the holidays, most people reasonably assume that products sold in major American retail stores are free of toxic chemicals. After all, harmful substances like lead and mercury have no place in the shopping cart, and regulations must prevent this kind of dangerous exposure, right?
Unfortunately, this is not the case. A recent study revealed that over half of the items tested on dollar stores’ shelves contained toxic chemicals. This includes lead found in tablecloths, jewelry, and baby toys with known links to brain development harm; phthalates in school supplies, silly straws, and bath toys with links to early puberty in girls, birth defects in the male reproductive system, obesity, and diabetes; BPA in receipts, cookware, and can linings that can affect the brain and prostate gland of fetuses, infants, and children; and PFAS—long-lasting synthetic chemicals—found in popcorn bags that can affect the immune system and liver function.
Just last month Toxic Free Future released their latest Retailer Report Card, which graded Dollar General with a D+ and Dollar Tree/Family Dollar with a D for safety, based on hazardous chemicals in their products, company commitment to transparency, a willingness to change, and how easily customers can tell what substances are on store items.
With the incoming presidential administration promising to slash health and safety rules, customers and communities will have even fewer protections.
But for many families, shopping elsewhere isn’t an option. Dollar stores are often the only retailers selling essential household goods, including food, in many rural towns and urban neighborhoods, leaving customers with nowhere else to go. Dollar stores are frequently located in communities that already face multiple health and environmental risk factors, such as industrial pollution from factories or deteriorated drinking water. This means a family’s exposure to chemicals via items purchased at dollar stores is part of accumulated exposures.
Dollar stores’ leadership has been aware for over a decade that their products contain lead, BPA, phthalates, and PFAS, jeopardizing customer health. During this time, environmental justice and public health groups nationwide have advocated for safer products. Investors in these companies have raised concerns directly with management and through shareholder resolutions. Yet, the problem persists. Even this year Dollar Tree knowingly kept lead-contaminated apple sauce on its shelves, putting children in harm’s way. The stores have taken only minimal actions to address a handful of chemicals in some product categories.
To say federal agencies tasked with regulating these products fall short would be an understatement. Many take a “graveyard approach,” acting only after someone has suffered a physical toll. The federal Toxic Substances Control Act is so weak that only a handful of chemicals have ever been restricted, while tens of thousands have been exempted or fast-tracked for approval. With the incoming presidential administration promising to slash health and safety rules, customers and communities will have even fewer protections.
With this lack of protective action on the part of state and federal regulators, we urge dollar stores to do the right thing. In 2023, Dollar General's net sales were over $38 billion, and Dollar Tree’s revenues were over $30 billion. They can afford to stop buying products from suppliers that use toxic chemicals and switch to readily available safer alternatives. Mike Creedon, interim chief executive officer for Dollar Tree, claims, “Safety First, Safety Always is the guiding mantra for our store.” But these are only words when there is no action.
Instead, the nation’s largest dollar stores continually fail to meaningfully strengthen their chemical policies and intervene in their supply chains to keep their shoppers safe. Dollar General failed to expand its list of 19 restricted substances. The list does not include PFAS, most phthalates, and many other chemicals known to cause harm. It also applies only to private-label products. Similarly, Dollar Tree has not publicly documented progress on reducing chemicals or plastics of high concern in the last four years and has made no indication of support for the development or sale of safer products.
Competitors, including Walmart, have already made this change. In 2022, the company disclosed that it removed 37 million pounds of phthalates from products in response to consumer demand, with publicly available corporate policies. Similarly, Apple recently received praise for removing harmful chemicals and plastics from its products and even committed to a Full Material Disclosure program which promises manufacturers full transparency on products’ material compositions. These transitions are increasingly mainstream, and dollar stores are falling further and further behind.
Every family has the right to feel safe while shopping, and with the holidays around the corner, this issue is even more important. Dollar stores should transparently report on their progress and work with their suppliers to prevent all known dangerous chemicals from being used to make products sold in stores. Until this happens, dollar stores are putting already vulnerable communities at risk. Safe alternatives exist, and the transition to non-toxic products is both feasible and cost-effective in the long run. Dollar stores must stop prioritizing profit over families. We refuse to be sacrificed for the bottom line.
Keep ReadingShow Less
To Protect Consumers, Biden Cracks Down on 'Corporate Tricks' Like Hard-To-Cancel Services
"The administration is cracking down on all the ways that companies—through paperwork, hold times and general aggravation—waste people's money, waste people's time," a White House official said.
Aug 12, 2024
The Biden administration on Monday launched a wide-ranging consumer protection campaign called "Time Is Money" aimed at cracking down on hard-to-cancel services, deliberately poor customer service, and other "corporate tricks" that involve overly complicated or burdensome processes, such as in the filling out of insurance claims.
The effort involves a number of agencies and initiatives, some already underway, like a proposed Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rule, first announced in March 2023 and currently under public review, that would require companies to make it as easy to cancel a subscription or service as it is to sign up. At least one regulation the administration included as part of "Time Is Money" is already final: a Department of Transportation rule on automatic refunds for airline tickets that are canceled or significantly changed.
Other changes are forthcoming, the White House says. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) will introduce a rule that would require companies under its jurisdiction to allow callers to escape customer service "doom loops" and speak to a human being by pressing a single button; the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering a similar initiative for cable and other communications companies, as well as a proposal like the FTC's proposed easy-to-cancel rule.
"The administration is cracking down on all the ways that companies—through paperwork, hold times, and general aggravation—waste people's money, waste people's time," said Neera Tanden, a domestic policy adviser to President Joe Biden, a Democrat, according to HuffPost.
"For example, you want to cancel your gym membership or subscription service to a newspaper," Tanden said. "It took one or two clicks to sign up, but now to end your subscription or cancel the membership, you have to go in person or wait on hold for 20 minutes."
"These seemingly small inconveniences don't really happen by accident," she added. "They have huge financial consequences."
BREAKING: Banks, credit card companies, and more will be required to let customers talk to a human by pressing a single button under a new Biden administration proposed rule.
The @CFPB rule is part of a campaign to crack down on customer service “doom loops.”
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) August 12, 2024
Tanden, a former Hillary Clinton aid who has often been at odds with progressives, was careful to clarify that regulations were not aimed at "shaming corporations writ large."
The White House said the new campaign fits with its long-standing effort to improve customer experience with government services. In 2021, Biden signed an executive order calling for federal agencies to streamline and simplify the services they offer. The U.S. State Department has since launched a trial effort to renew passports online, and the Internal Revenue Service has launched a "Direct File" program that's free to use, following a successful pilot.
The "Time Is Money" campaign is also in keeping with the administration's consumer protection agenda. Both the FTC—led by Chair Lina Khan, a favorite of progressives—and the U.S. Department of Justice have stepped up antitrust enforcement. And in October the FTC announced a crackdown on junk and hidden fees.
All of these initiatives have come from the executive branch, making them vulnerable to reversal if Republicans take control of the White House or U.S. Congress next year. Democrats may be hoping the presumed popularity of efforts such as "Time Is Money" help prevent that from happening.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressive Dems Call for Codifying Chevron After 'Dangerous' Supreme Court Ruling
"I plan to introduce legislation to protect the government's policymaking ability that existed under Chevron that has worked for the last 40 years," Sen. Ed Markey said.
Jun 29, 2024
Following the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday overturning the so-called Chevron doctrine—which instructed courts to defer to federal agencies' reasonable interpretations of laws passed by Congress as they regulate everything from food safety to labor rights to climate pollution—progressive lawmakers vowed to take action to protect the power of these agencies to shield the public from toxic chemicals and unscrupulous employers.
Legislators expressed concerns about the impacts of the court's 6-3 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, which ended a 40-year precedent established by Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984.
"Now, with this ill-advised decision, judges must no longer defer to the decisions about Americans' health, safety, and welfare made by agencies with technical and scientific expertise in their fields," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement. "MAGA extremist Republicans and their big business cronies are rejoicing as they look forward to creating a regulatory black hole that destroys fundamental protections for every American in this country."
"This unhinged Supreme Court needs to stop legislating from the bench, and we must pass sweeping reform to hold them accountable."
"I plan to introduce legislation to protect the government's policymaking ability that existed under Chevron that has worked for the last 40 years," Markey said.
Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called the ruling "dangerous" and urged Congress to "immediately pass" the Stop Corporate Capture Act, which she introduced in March 2023.
In a statement Friday, Jayapal said the act was "the only bill that codifies Chevron deference, strengthens the federal-agency rulemaking process, and ensures that rulemaking is guided by the public interest—not what's good for wealthy corporations."
The act would codify Chevron by providing "statutory authority for the judicial principle that requires courts to defer to an agency's reasonable or permissible interpretation of a federal law when the law is silent or ambiguous."
In addition, it would:
- Require anyone submitting a study as part of a comment period on a regulation to disclose who funded it;
- Only allow federal agencies to take part in the negotiated rulemaking process;
- Create an Office of the Public Advocate to increase public participation in the process of crafting regulations;
- Make public companies that knowingly lie in the comment period on a proposed regulation liable for a fine of at least $250,000 for a first offense and at least $1 million for a second; and
- Empower agencies to reissue rules that were rescinded under the Congressional Review Act.
The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, a group of more than 160 organizations mobilizing for stronger public protections, also called on Congress to pass the Stop Corporate Capture Act.
"The bill is a comprehensive blueprint for modernizing, improving, and strengthening the regulatory system to better protect the public," the coalition wrote in response to Friday's ruling. "It would ensure greater public input into regulatory decisions, promote scientific integrity, and restore our government's ability to deliver results for workers, consumers, public health, and our environment."
Jayapal also called on Congress to "enact sweeping oversight measures to rein in corruption and billionaire influence at the Supreme Court, whose far-right extremist majority routinely flouts basic ethics, throws out precedent, and legislates from the bench to benefit the wealthiest and most powerful."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) similarly recommended congressional action to address court corruption. In a statement, she called the decision "a power grab for the corrupt Supreme Court who continues to do the bidding of greedy corporations."
"The MAGA Court just overruled 40 years of precedent that empowered federal agencies to hold powerful corporations accountable, protect our workplaces and public health, and ensure that we have clean water and air," Tlaib continued. "This unhinged Supreme Court needs to stop legislating from the bench, and we must pass sweeping reform to hold them accountable."
In the meantime, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards said that the ruling did not strip regulatory bodies of their authority to pass new rules to protect the public and the environment.
"This decision is a gift to big corporations, making it easier for them to challenge rules to ensure clean air and water, safe workplace and products, and fair commercial and financial practices," said Public Citizen president and coalition co-chair Robert Weissman. "But the decision is no excuse for regulators to stop doing their jobs. They must continue to follow the law and uphold their missions to protect consumers, workers, and our environment."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Dirty Dozen' Guide Shows 95% of These Fruits and Veggies Tested Positive for Pesticides
This year, EWG scientists found that four out of five of the most frequently detected pesticides on the produce were fungicides that could have serious health impacts.
Mar 20, 2024
The latest edition of an annual consumer's guide published Wednesday reveals that almost three-fourths of non-organic fruits and vegetables sampled contained traces of toxic pesticides while the "dirty dozen"—including strawberries and spinach—tested at levels closer to 95%.
Scientists with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) document in their new report, "2024 Shopper's Guide to Pesticides In Produce," that four out of five of the most frequently detected pesticides found on the twelve most-contaminated produce items were fungicides that could have serious health impacts.
"There's data to suggest that these fungicides can disrupt the hormone function in our body," EWG senior scientist Alexa Friedman told Common Dreams, adding that the chemicals had "been linked to things like worse health outcomes" and "impacts on the male reproductive system."
"We recommend using the Shopper's Guide as a way to prioritize which fruits and vegetables to buy organic to reduce your pesticide exposure."
The four fungicides detected on the Dirty Dozen produce were fludioxonil, pyraclostrobin, boscalid, and pyrimethanil. Two of these—fludioxonil and pyrimethanil—were also found in the highest concentrations of any pesticide detected.
The annual Dirty Dozen and Clean Fifteen lists are based on a review of Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration data. This year, EWG looked at results from 47,510 samples of 46 fruits and vegetables.
2024's Dirty Dozen list is similar to previous years, with strawberries, spinach, and a trio of hearty greens—kale, collard greens, and mustard greens—once again taking the top three spots. The full list is as follows:
- Strawberries
- Spinach
- Kale, collard, and mustard greens
- Grapes
- Peaches
- Pears
- Nectarines
- Apples
- Bell and hot peppers
- Cherries
- Blueberries
- Green beans
The four fungicides were found on the fruits and vegetables for which new data was available this year—blueberries, green beans, peaches, and pears—for some of them at high levels.
"One reason we might see fungicides in high concentrations compared to other types of pesticides are that fungicides are often sprayed on the produce later in the process," Friedman said.
Farmers frequently apply fungicides after harvest to protect crops from mildew or mold on the way to the grocery store.
Beyond fungicides, testing also turned up the neonicotinoids acetamiprid and imidacloprid, which harm bees and other pollinators and have been associated with damage to the development of children's nervous systems.
Testing also revealed the pyrethroid insecticides cypermethrin and bifenthrin. While there are fewer studies on these pesticides, existing research suggests they may also harm children's brains. More than 1 in 10 pear samples tested positive for diphenylamine, which is currently banned in the European Union over cancer concerns.
Most of the pesticides detected on the Dirty Dozen are legal, but one exception is acephate, an organophosphate insecticide that is essentially prohibited for use on green beans but is still found on them. One sample tested positive for levels 500 times the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) legal limit.
In total, EWG found that nearly 75% of non-organic fruits and vegetables tested were contaminated with pesticides. However, nearly 65% of the conventional items on the Clean Fifteen list were pesticide free. This year's Clean Fifteen are:
- Sweet corn
- Avocados
- Pineapple
- Onions
- Papaya
- Sweet peas
- Asparagus
- Honeydew melon
- Kiwi
- Cabbage
- Watermelon
- Mushrooms
- Mango
- Sweet potatoes
- Carrots
The Shopper's Guide is primarily geared toward helping consumers make informed choices as they choose between conventional and organic items, which may be more expensive or harder to find.
"We always recommend that people consume as many fruits and veggies as possible, whether they're organic or conventional," Friedman said.
But for people concerned about consuming pesticides, she added, EWG recommends "using the Shopper's Guide as a way to prioritize which fruits and vegetables to buy organic to reduce your pesticide exposure."
EWG recommends prioritizing organic versions of Dirty Dozen items.
As a whole, the EWG advocates for policymakers and regulators to do more to understand the real risks posed by pesticides and protect people from them.
"We still feel that there needs to be more studies that really focus on the health effects of these pesticides, specifically the pesticides that we found in high detection this year, so that we can better understand how these might impact health for susceptible populations, particularly for children," Friedman said.
She added that while many of the pesticides detected in tests were at or below legal limits set by the EPA, "legal doesn't always mean that they're safe for everyone."
In a 2020 study, for example, EWG researchers found that for nearly 90% of common pesticides the EPA had failed to apply an extra margin of safety for children when setting limits, even though it is required to do so under the Food Quality Protection Act.
Currently, the EPA has a chance to improve regulations as it rewrites a ban on chlorpyrifos on food, which was overturned by a court on a technicality. It is also reviewing whether or not the pesticide dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA) can be used safely after it acknowledged the "significant risks" it posed to human health.
EWG is also raising the alarm about a slate of new rules that some lawmakers may try to attach to the 2023 Farm Bill or other important legislation. These proposed laws, such as the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act and the EATS Act, would prevent states or localities from setting additional regulations on pesticides. In September 2023, EWG joined with 184 other environmental groups in sending a letter to the House and Senate opposing such measures, which the groups argue take "decision-making out of the hands of those most impacted by pesticide use."
"States and localities are often in a much better position than the EPA to quickly assess risks, consider emerging evidence, and to make decisions to protect their unique local environments and communities including schools and childcare facilities, from toxic pesticides," the letter states. "Undermining that authority would hamstring critical local efforts to address cancer and other human health risks, threats to water resources, and harms to pollinators and other wildlife."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy