

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.
“If Trump had any shred of humanity in him, he would do whatever was necessary to prevent hunger and suffering in the country he claims to love," said one critic.
In apparent open defiance of two federal court rulings, President Donald Trump said Tuesday that his administration will not fund a key federal nutritional aid program until after the Republican government shutdown ends, leaving millions of families even more vulnerable to hunger at a time of crisis-level food insecurity.
In a post on his TruthSocial network, Trump took aim at both the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the administration of former President Joe Biden.
"SNAP BENEFITS, which increased by Billions and Billions of Dollars (MANY FOLD!) during Crooked Joe Biden’s disastrous term in office (Due to the fact that they were haphazardly 'handed' to anyone for the asking, as opposed to just those in need, which is the purpose of SNAP!), will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!" the president wrote. "Thank you for your attention to this matter."
"Trump's message to 42 million Americans: Eat dirt."
Responding to the president's post, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media, "After a judge ordered Donald Trump to make SNAP payments, the wannabe king declared he will defy a court order and won't help people afford groceries."
"Trump's message to 42 million Americans: Eat dirt," she added.
Trump is now saying he will only pay SNAP benefits once the Republican shutdown is over, despite a federal court order.As a result, 42 million kids, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities could go hungry. This is illegal, immoral, and absolutely cruel.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Ted Lieu (@reptedlieu.bsky.social) November 4, 2025 at 8:49 AM
Seemingly contradicting Trump's claim, the White House said later Tuesday that the administration is complying with one of the court orders.
Data from the nonpartisan US Government Accountability Office have shown that approximately 70% or more of working-age, non-disabled adults receiving Medicaid and SNAP benefits work full-time—defined as 35 hours or more per week.
On Friday, federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ruled against the US Department of Agriculture’s refusal to pay at least part of the $8 billion in SNAP benefits—also known as food stamps—to rightful beneficiaries in November via a contingency fund established by Congress.
The administration responded to the rulings by saying it would only fund around 50% of the total monthly benefits, while warning of likely payment delays.
Plaintiffs in the Rhode Island case—represented by Democracy Forward and the Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island—subsequently filed an emergency request seeking a court order compelling Trump and his administration to comply with Friday's order.
“The Trump-Vance administration continues to play politics with people’s lives through failing to ensure SNAP payments are expeditiously available," Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement Tuesday. "This is immoral and unlawful."
"The political posturing should stop now," Perryman added. "The administration needs to fully fund SNAP benefits so people can eat, today. We should not need to go to court to force the administration to provide food all people are entitled to in this country, but here we are—back in court to demand that the administration acts consistent with the judge’s order."
Alejandra Gomez, executive director of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), said ahead of a planned Tuesday press conference: “It took two court orders and mounting public pressure for the Trump administration to fund SNAP assistance partially, which is not good enough. Arizona families in need deserve better."
“December SNAP benefits are not guaranteed, and every day that Congress fails to act, children will go hungry, food banks run dry, and working families will pay the price," she added. "It is time to end the shutdown, fund healthcare and SNAP.”
Now in its 35th day, the ongoing federal government shutdown is tied for the longest in US history. Vulnerable people—already reeling from record cuts to social programs to pay for tax breaks for billionaires and corporations under the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by Trump in July—are feeling even more pain, at a time when more than 47 million Americans, including 1 in 5 children, are living in food insecure households.
"I did not receive any benefits at all... And they said there is no promise of even getting any type of benefits for November," Danielle Rodriguez, a single mother in Pennsylvania who lost $400 in monthly SNAP aid, told MSNBC's Ana Cabrera Monday.
"'Mommy, do you want my piggybank money to help with groceries?'"
"Unfortunately, I've had to reach out to my utility companies and stuff like that to go on payments to use some of my bill money to buy groceries for me and my kids," she continued.
"It's very stressful being a single mom of two kids. I have a 9-year-old, and she is offering her piggybank money," Rodriguez added. "And she's like, 'Mommy, do you want my piggybank money to help with groceries?' And it's sad to hear my child say that to me because I'm mom—I'm supposed to do everything. I'm supposed to be their protector."
Mitch Jones, managing director of policy and litigation at Food & Water Watch, said in a statement: “At a time when rampant corporate consolidation has driven grocery prices sky-high, Trump continues to choose cruelty over the rule of law. He must abide by recent court orders and immediately release SNAP aid to the millions of low-income American families suddenly hanging on the precipice of an unconscionable hunger crisis."
“If Trump had any shred of humanity in him, he would do whatever was necessary to prevent hunger and suffering in the country he claims to love," Jones added.
Update: This piece has been updated with the White House's statement of compliance with one of the court orders.
The Trump administration is gutting USDA funding that helps small farms preserve local heritage breeds that boost the biodiversity and resilience of U.S. livestock.
As part of the Trump administration’s overhaul of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, funding for several programs, including conservation contracts and local food purchasing for schools, was cut or frozen.
The lack of funding of these and uncertainty for other programs is already having a chilling effect on farmers and our food systems, and the impacts have been immediate and wide-ranging. These programs support critical conservation initiatives in agriculture—from assisting local farms and sustainable agriculture research to farmer technical aid. These local programs also support smaller-scale farmers to maintain local or heritage breeds such as Galloway cattle or Tamworth pigs that are not suitable for large-scale, industrial agriculture.
As a result, farms and livelihoods throughout the country are threatened. These programs provide vital support for U.S. agricultural infrastructure and long-term sustainability including the diversity of food available to the public. The link between biodiversity and food security is well known—vibrant biotic life supports soil fertility, pest control, pollination, water quality, and sustainable agriculture. Genetic biodiversity in our foods is also important—domesticated plants and animals that are genetically diverse are less likely to succumb to the same diseases or pests, and many have adapted to a range of environmental and climatic conditions. The more genetically diverse our food system is, the less vulnerable it is to collapse.
Local breeds are living genetic repositories. They are the result of long-term histories and cannot be simply made in a laboratory. They are the future of our food security.
For this reason, conservation efforts must include protecting domestic animal breeds to establish living genetic banks for future food security during times of abrupt climate change. Unlike plants that can be propagated from seeds stored in vast seed banks, the most efficient way to maintain biodiversity in domesticated livestock is by keeping herds of local or heritage breeds, since sperm cryopreservation is expensive; susceptible to damage or loss; and limited to rich, industrialized nations and communities. Breed conservation can occur on a local level and doesn’t need to be expensive—it’s been successfully done in the past.
Almost 100 years ago, Texas longhorns—the iconic emblem of the state of Texas—almost went extinct. At the time, American tastes in meat favored fattier cattle breeds and the lean, grass-fed longhorns were unpopular, difficult to transport in railroad cars due to their big horns, and not economically viable for ranchers. This breed already had a long history in the area and was particularly well adapted to the hot, arid climate of southern Texas. In the 1920s when the breed was on the brink of extinction, U.S. Forest Service employees established a protected herd at the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma, and a small group of ranchers established other small herds in Oklahoma and Texas, including in Texas state parks. It was through the efforts of this small group of people that the breed was kept alive. As American tastes in meat changed, Texas longhorns became economically popular once again.
Today, they are highly valued for their lean meat and their specific climatic adaptation. They are also living genetic repositories—their specific genetic adaptations are now used to help create new breeds of cattle for dealing with future climate change such as those predicted for several parts of the southern United States and elsewhere.
According to data collected by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, Texas longhorns are one of over 8,700 breeds of domesticated animals used for food production on the planet today. Most are part of the “big five”: cattle, sheep, chickens, goats, and pigs. Over 8,000 of these breeds are local—recorded in only one country and most of them are specific to particular areas or regions like Texas longhorns, Gulf Coast sheep in Florida and Louisiana, and Mulefoot pigs in Missouri.
Many of these breeds, however, are also vulnerable to extinction—they are not as profitable and farmers focus on a few breeds to maximize products for national and global markets. There are estimates that over 100 livestock breeds have gone extinct in the last 15 years, and 29.54% of existing livestock breeds worldwide are at risk of extinction, while for the majority of breeds we lack data on their status, size of population, or likelihood for survival for the future.
Why are local breeds important? They are the result of centuries and even millennia of adaptation to their environments through human management and natural selection pressures. They are living gene banks of biodiversity and have special traits in comparison with industrial livestock—some are resistant to parasites or diseases; feed on different forage; or are highly fertile or long-lived. Others thrive in hot or humid environments such as Gulf Coast sheep that don’t have wool on their bellies, legs, or heads.
Despite many years of research, current information on these breeds is sorely lacking. There is very limited genetic data on most of the economically important animal breeds on the planet, and the pressures of industrialized agriculture are pushing farmers to focus on the few breeds with the current highest economic rewards. But this comes at a cost—today’s industrial farming strategies are not sustainable for an unknown future. Local breeds are living genetic repositories. They are the result of long-term histories and cannot be simply made in a laboratory. They are the future of our food security.
Many species are on the brink of extinction and need conservation help, and many are perhaps more photogenic or emblematic than cows or sheep. However, livestock breeds need this help too if we want to secure genetic diversity in our foods. This conservation doesn’t need to be expensive—dedicated farmers and conservation groups should be financially supported in maintaining local breeds. If the federal government is turning its back on these initiatives, state and local governments need to help fill the gap. Small investments today will pay dividends in the future to keep our food systems resilient.
A new Food & Water Watch report details how "corporations use the worsening bird flu crisis to jack up egg prices, even as their own factory farms fuel the spread of disease."
The nation's largest egg producers would have American consumers believe that avian flu and inflation are behind soaring prices, but a report published Tuesday shows corporate price gouging is the real culprit driving the record cost of the dietary staple.
The fourth installment of Food & Water Watch's (FWW) Economic Cost of Food Monopolies series—titled The Rotten Egg Oligarchy—reports that the average price of a dozen eggs in the United States hit an all-time high of $4.95 in January 2025. That's more than two-and-a-half times the average price from three years ago.
"While egg prices spiral out of reach, making eggs a luxury item, Big Ag is profiting hand over fist," FWW research director Amanda Starbuck said in a statement. "But make no mistake—today's high prices are built on a foundation of corporate price gouging. Our research shows how corporations use the worsening bird flu crisis to jack up egg prices, even as their own factory farms fuel the spread of disease."
FWW found that "egg prices were already rising before the current [avian flu] outbreak hit U.S. commercial poultry flocks in February 2022, and have never returned to pre-outbreak levels."
Furthermore, "egg price spikes hit regions that were bird flu-free until recently," the report states. "The U.S. Southeast remained free of bird flu in its table egg flocks until January 2025, and actually increased egg production in 2022 and 2023 over 2021 levels. Nevertheless, retail egg prices in the Southeast rose alongside January 2023's national price spikes."
"The corporate food system is to blame for exacerbating the scale of the outbreak as well as the high cost of eggs," the publication continues. "Factory farms are virus incubators, with the movement of animals, machines, and workers between operations helping to spread the virus."
"Meanwhile, just a handful of companies produce the majority of our eggs, giving them outsized control over the prices paid by retailers, who often pass on rising costs to consumers," the paper adds. "This highly consolidated food system also enables companies to leverage a temporary shortage in one region to raise prices across the entire country."
Cal-Maine, the nation's top egg producer, enjoyed a more than 600% increase in gross profits between fiscal years 2021-23, according to FWW. The Mississippi-based company did not suffer any avian flu outbreaks in fiscal year 2023, during which it sold more eggs than during the previous two years. Yet it still sold conventional eggs at nearly three times the price as in 2021, amounting to over $1 billion in windfall profits. Meanwhile Cal-Maine paid shareholders dividends totaling $250 million in 2023, 40 times more during the previous fiscal year.
The report highlights how factory farming creates ideal conditions for the spread of avian flu, a single case of which requires the extermination of the entire flock at the affected facility, under federal regulations.
"These impacts cannot be understated," FWW stressed. "Today's average factory egg farm confines over 800,000 birds, with some operations confining several million. This magnifies the scale of animal suffering and death, as well as the enormous environmental and safety burden of disposing of a million or more infected bird carcasses."
Citing U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) figures, The Guardian reported Tuesday that more than 54 million birds have been affected in the past three months alone.
Egg producers know precisely how the supply-and-demand implications of these outbreaks and subsequent culls can boost their bottom lines. Meanwhile, they play a dangerous game as epidemiologists widely view a potential avian flu mutation that can be transmitted from birds to humans as the next major pandemic threat—one that's exacerbated by the Trump administration's withdrawal from the World Health Organization and cuts to federal agencies focused on averting the next pandemic.
"We cannot afford to place our food system in the hands of a few corporations that put corporate profit above all else."
So far, 70 avian flu cases—one of them fatal—have been reported in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, under Trump, the CDC has stopped publishing regular reports on its avian flu response plans and activities. The USDA, meanwhile, said it "accidentally" terminated staffers working on avian flu response during the firing flurry under Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. The agency is scrambling to reverse the move.
"We cannot afford to place our food system in the hands of a few corporations that put corporate profit above all else," the FWW report argues. "Nor can we allow the factory farm system to continue polluting our environment and serving as the breeding ground for the next human pandemic."
"We need to enforce our nation's antitrust laws to go after corporate price fixing and collusion," the publication adds. "We also need a national ban on new and expanding factory farms, while transitioning to smaller, regional food systems that are more resilient to disruptions."
That is highly unlikely under Trump, whose policies—from taxation to regulation and beyond—have overwhelmingly favored the ultrawealthy and corporations over working Americans. Meanwhile, one of the president's signature campaign promises, to lower food prices "on day one," has evaporated amid ever-rising consumer costs.
According to the USDA's latest Food Price Outlook, overall food prices are projected to rise 3.4% in 2025. Eggs, however, are forecast to soar a staggering 41.1% this year—and possibly by as much as 74.9%.
"If President Trump has any interest in fulfilling his campaign pledge to lower food prices," Starbuck stressed, "he must begin by taking on the food monopolies exploiting pandemic threat for profit."
Corporate agribusinesses are playing fast and loose with the rules by choosing friendly compliant certifiers—and when they are caught in the act, the USDA often fails to take action.
Some of the oldest and largest U.S. Department of Agriculture-accredited certifiers have partnered with corporate agribusiness to change the working definition of organics, allowing large livestock factories; certified, uninspected imports; and soilless hydroponic produce grown in giant industrial greenhouses to be certified organic.
Organic certifiers are mixing lobbying, marketing, and activism with their certification responsibilities, and taking payola from the clients they certify. They are also certifying “producer groups” in Eastern Europe, Central America, and Asia without inspecting and certifying each individual farm.
This is against the law and an egregious conflict of interest—and it’s crushing U.S. farmers in the marketplace while raking in billions of dollars in profit for these large certifiers.
The corrupt practices employed by these certifiers have left authentic organic farmers, who focus on sound soil stewardship and humane animal husbandry based on pasture, highly disadvantaged in the marketplace.
In 1990, Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), tasking the USDA with oversight of dozens of certifiers to ensure their independence and harmonization of standards.
Fast forward to today and the USDA is now allowing a handful of the largest certifiers to collude with corporate agribusiness to industrialize or import the organic food supply at the expense of high standards and the livelihoods of U.S. farmers who adhere to them.
As executive director of OrganicEye, an organic industry watchdog, I’ve witnessed family-scale organic farmers who abide by the USDA’s organic standards get crushed in the marketplace by dubious organic imports allowed into the U.S. without the certification or inspection that federal law requires.
In September, OrganicEye requested that the USDA Office of Inspector General investigate the National Organic Program for failing to prevent corporate influence—including financial payments made to certifiers over and above inspection fees—and failing to enforce other USDA regulations that prevent conflicts of interest, thus lowering the quality of certified organic food.
OrganicEye recently filed a third formal legal complaint against a certifier, Florida Organic Growers (FOG), and their certification arm, Quality Certification Services (QCS), for accepting contributions, conference sponsorships, and other payments over and above certification fees from operations they oversee.
FOG has joined two of the other largest “independent” certifiers in the country, California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) and Oregon Tilth, in selling out hard-working produce and livestock farmers by certifying giant industrial operations, many allegedly flagrantly breaking the law. Legal complaints against all three are currently pending.
When money changes hands between agribusiness clients and the profiting organizations that certify them, we call that “payola,” classically defined as corruption. These certifiers are acting as agents of the USDA. And the regulators in Washington responsible for auditing them are looking the other way.
Large organic certifiers should not be partnering with corporate agribusiness and cashing in on the growth of organics, especially while other certifiers are upholding the traditionally high standards.
In its first action to reign in certification abuses, OrganicEye filed an administrative law complaint against CCOF, the nation’s largest certifier, in November 2023 to address this out-of-control certification system.
We’ve seen organizations like CCOF, Oregon Tilth, and FOG morph from being among the founding farmer-led groups facilitating the growth of organic farming in the U.S. to multimillion-dollar business enterprises certifying multibillion-dollar corporate agribusinesses.
Recent IRS filings show these certification giants have reaped tens of millions of dollars a year in revenue while “masquerading” as tax-exempt public charities, with the vast preponderance of income derived from service fees paid by their business clients.
In addition to the controversies surrounding certification of livestock factories, a number of prominent certifiers, along with the industry’s primary lobby group, the Organic Trade Association, executed a stealthy campaign in 2017 that resulted in regulators allowing mammoth hydroponic greenhouses (soilless production) to be certified as organic, despite statutory and regulatory language requiring careful soil stewardship before a farm can be certified as organic under the USDA program.
That rich, organically-curated soil microbiome is the foundation of organic farming practices, resulting in superior nutrition density and flavor. That’s lacking in hydroponics, which uses liquid fertilizers derived from materials like conventional soybean meal.
The corrupt practices employed by these certifiers have left authentic organic farmers, who focus on sound soil stewardship and humane animal husbandry based on pasture, highly disadvantaged in the marketplace. With many small organic farms struggling economically—and hundreds more being forced out altogether—the devastating impacts are clear.
It doesn’t have to be this way. And not all certifiers are behaving badly.
For example, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association is universally viewed as one of the most ethical certifiers. They do not approve hydroponic greenhouses or factory farms as organic.
Since OrganicEye began publishing its research concerning alleged improprieties at the nation’s largest certifiers, we have received numerous inquiries from farmers indicating interest in switching certifiers.
We hope that our research inspires ethical farmers and certified organic business operations to consider switching their allegiance and economic patronage to certifiers who share their values and interpretations of federal law.
In the meantime, consumers and eaters can use the same guide that we have prepared for farmers to help identify some of the most creditable organic food in the marketplace. Federal law requires every package with the word “organic” on the front label to include the name of the certifier supervising the production process. This is commonly found on the back or side panel near the ingredient list.
With the USDA delegating so much authority to certifiers, there are now effectively two organic labels: corporate brands affiliated with OTA lobbyists and certified by their members, motivated by profit and industry growth, and other ethical brands that have not lost touch with the foundational precepts of the organic movement.
OrganicEye is offering free consulting and other resources to farmers around the country who are switching their patronage to certifiers who share their values rather than undercutting their livelihoods.
"The Forest Service should listen to the public and finalize policies that truly safeguard our oldest forests," a coalition of environmental organizations advised.
Green groups on Friday pointed to the more than 1 million public comments urging the U.S. Forest Service to protect old-growth forests from logging in urging the Biden administration to increase what critics say are inadequate protections for mature trees in a proposed federal amendment.
The Forest Service (USFS)—a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture—received massive input during four rounds of public comment on the National Old-Growth Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The USFS' proposed national old-growth amendment follows a 2022 executive order by President Joe Biden that directed the agency to draft policies to protect mature trees in national forests, which are imperiled by but also play a critical role in fighting fossil fuel-driven climate change.
"The national old-growth amendment should be a transformative policy that positions the United States as an international leader in harnessing nature to confront the climate emergency and the biodiversity crisis."
Climate campaigners panned Biden's order as "grossly inadequate." Since the executive order, the Biden administration has allocated $50 million for old-growth forest conservation under the Inflation Reduction Act, which the president signed in August 2022.
In June, USFS announced a draft environmental impact statement for a proposed amendment to Biden's directive. Environmentalists called the draft a "step forward" while urging the administration to do more to protect mature forests.
"Since 2022, hundreds of thousands of people have called for an end to logging old-growth and urged that our mature forests also be protected. The Forest Service should listen to the public and finalize policies that truly safeguard our oldest forests," a coalition of green groups including the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Earthjustice, Environment America Research and Policy Center, National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and WildEarth Guardians said in a joint statement.
"As the Forest Service reads the comments it has received over the last 90 days, it will find a common theme. The old-growth policy proposed in June fails to meet the central mission of the executive order—it does not protect old-growth trees from logging and allows projects that would log old-growth forests out of existence through numerous loopholes. The policy also does nothing to protect mature forests, which are needed to increase the abundance and distribution of old-growth trees and forests."
As CBD explained:
Mature and old-growth forests are carbon storage powerhouses. With thicker protective bark and higher canopies than younger trees, mature and old-growth trees are more resilient to wildfire. They also provide critical wildlife habitat, filter clean drinking water for communities, provide countless outdoor recreation opportunities, and capture the imaginations of Americans young and old.
Federal forest management prioritizes timber production and routinely sidesteps science to turn big, old trees into lumber and wood chips. Logging releases a significant amount of stored carbon, which can take centuries to be recaptured. It also eliminates older trees' ability to sequester additional carbon and damages the other ecosystem services and biodiversity values these forests provide. Many older stands and trees have no enduring protection, and hundreds of thousands of acres in national forests are at risk of being logged.
"The national old-growth amendment should be a transformative policy that positions the United States as an international leader in harnessing nature to confront the climate emergency and the biodiversity crisis," the groups' statement asserted. "We hope to see the nationwide old-growth amendment strengthened so it can become a centerpiece of our nation's climate and conservation legacies."
In a separate statement, Environment America public lands campaign director Ellen Montgomery said that "the Forest Service should listen to the more than a million people who have commented over the last two years, urging it to end logging of old-growth trees."
"The response from the public to our on-the-ground efforts to build support for a strong national old-growth amendment has shown that people want to see older trees protected," she continued. "These trees and forests are home to wildlife that we love from birds to bears. They are our allies to fight back against climate change, and all we have to do is make sure they stay upright."
"We hope the Forest Service recognizes the truth that the public knows: old-growth trees are worth more standing," Montgomery added.
A union statement said the closure was "especially unfortunate" because workers shouldn't be punished for the deadly outbreak, but a deal protecting employees' livelihoods was reached.
About 500 workers lost their current jobs when Boar's Head on Friday announced the closure of the Virginia meatpacking plant behind a deadly listeria outbreak.
A chapter of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union, which represents the workers, said in a statement that the closure was "especially unfortunate" given that the workforce was not to blame for the outbreak, which killed at least nine people nationwide.
The UFCW announced that it had reached a deal with the company to allow the workers to transfer to another Boar's Head facility or receive a severance package "above and beyond" what's required by law.
"Thankfully these workers have a union they can count on to always have their backs," the union statement said.We received some unfortunate news – the Boar's Head plant located in Jarratt, Va. is closing indefinitely, impacting hundreds of workers at the facility. Read our statement: https://t.co/h551b80cF0
— UFCW Local 400 (@UFCW400) September 13, 2024
The outbreak caused nine deaths and 57 hospitalizations, and led to the recall of millions of pounds of Boar's Head deli meat. The company has already been targeted in a number of wrongful death and other lawsuits.
Listeria, a bacterial illness, originated from the Boar's Head plant in the small town of Jarratt, Virginia, as genome sequencing tests confirmed in late July. The company said this week that the contamination had come from liverwurst processing and announced it would discontinue the product.
A 2022 inspection of the plant found that it posed an "imminent threat" to public health, according to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) records released this week. At the time, the plant already had "rust, mold, garbage, and insects on the plant floors and walls," The New York Times reported.
Sarah Sorscher, a food safety expert at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told the Times that "they shouldn't have allowed this company to keep producing ready-to-eat products, lunch meat that's going to go on people’s tables, when they're seeing this level of violation. Consumers had to die before this plant got shut down, really is the bottom line."
More recent USDA records, which were released in late August, also showed wretched conditions at the plant.
"It shouldn't take people dying for the plant to take food safety issues seriously; USDA is supposed to be there to ensure that that happens," an expert said.
In the year leading up to a deadly listeria outbreak, the Boar's Head plant where it started had insects on meat, "dirty" machinery, water leaking from pipes and pooling, mold, rancid smells, "heavy meat buildup" on walls, and puddles of blood on the floor, according to United States Department of Agriculture documents released to CBS News.
The deli meat plant in Jarratt, Virginia, which has been temporarily shut down, has been cited for at least 69 instances of noncompliance with federal food safety regulations since August 2023. The listeria outbreak, which is the largest in the U.S. since 2011, has killed nine and caused 57 hospitalizations across many states, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Millions of pounds of Boar's Head's products were recalled this summer.
The revelations about conditions at the plant led experts to question the adequacy of the USDA's inspection system.
"We have food safety regulators because we want them to take action before consumers die," Sarah Sorscher, the director of regulatory affairs at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told The Washington Post. "It shouldn't take people dying for the plant to take food safety issues seriously; USDA is supposed to be there to ensure that that happens."
Jerold Mande, a former food safety official at both the USDA and Food and Drug Administration, indicated that the inspection protocol needs updating.
"Most of what they're doing is relying on their sight, smell and other things to detect problems," Mande told the Post. "They could be armed with tools to detect bacteria in real time, but they're not."
U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors turned up dozens of violations at a Boar's Head plant in Virginia now linked to a nationwide recall of deli meats, including mold, mildew and insects repeatedly found throughout the site. https://t.co/N8yTUwF8kL
— CBS News (@CBSNews) August 29, 2024
All nine people who have died have been over the age of 70. Listeria is a bacterial illness most dangerous to people who are older, pregnant, or immunocompromised. It kills about 255 people in the U.S. every year—third among food-borne illnesses.
Gunter Morgenstein, an 88-year-old hair stylist in Newport News, Virginia, contracted the disease after eating a Boar's Head liverwurst purchased at Harris Teeter on June 30. The food reminded him of his home country of Germany, which he was forced to flee as a child to escape Nazi rule. He died on July 18 after 10 days in the hospital, The New York Times reported. The bacteria had reached his brain.
Genome sequencing tests determined in late July that the strain of listeria found at the Boar's Head plant matched the one found in the multi-state outbreak.
Barbara Kowalcyk, a public health and food safety expert based at George Washington University, questioned why the Virginia plant was allowed to continue operating after all of the noncompliance findings.
"The first thing I thought when I read the report is 'Where is the leadership of this establishment and where are the regulators?'" Kowalcyk said. "When you see repeated violations within days and chronically over that length of time, it suggests that their food safety system is not working as intended. Whatever corrective action is being taken is obviously not being integrated into their system."
It's not yet clear what penalties or legal action Boar's Head could face for its role in the outbreak.
CBS News reporter Alexander Tin broke the story about the unsanitary conditions at the Boar's Head plant after receiving the USDA documents following a Freedom of Information Act request. The 69 instances of noncompliance dated from August 1, 2023 until August 2, 2024.
"When the school year ends, millions of low-income children lose access to the school meals they depend on," an expert said.
An advocacy group on Tuesday published a report showing that only a fraction of children who receive free or reduced-price lunches during the school year get such benefits through United States Department of Agriculture programs in the summer, leaving many families with school-age children food insecure.
Only 15.3% of the number of children who receive subsidized school lunches received a summer meal in 2023, the last year for which data was available, the Food Research & Action Center (FRAC) report, Hunger Doesn't Take a Vacation, says. The findings highlight the difficulty of reaching children outside of school.
"When the school year ends, millions of low-income children lose access to the school meals they depend on," Kelsey Boone, a FRAC policy analyst and report co-author, told Common Dreams.
The report assesses the 2023 impact of two long-standing USDA programs that were rebranded this year under the name SUN Meals. The USDA also added two new summer meals programs this year, SUN Meals To-Go and SUN Bucks, the latter of which has been the subject of political controversy.
The SUN Bucks program provides a modest $120 per child for the summer to low-income families in electronic benefit transfers (EBTs), similar to the way food stamp money is distributed. The program is administered by states, territories, and tribes and is expected to bring $2.5 billion in grocery benefits to 21 million children this summer.
But it could reach even more children: 13 Republican-controlled states have opted out. They cite reasons including philosophical opposition to "welfare," other summer lunch programs already on offer in their states, and high administrative costs. All of the EBT money comes directly from the federal government, but states are required to pay 50% of the costs of running the program.
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom's press office responded to news of the Republican opt-outs by writing on social media earlier this month that "California has fed over 3.2 million kids through summer meal programs while Republican states refuse free federal dollars."
Connecticut State Sen. Bob Duff, a Democrat, responded by writing, "Is being cruel part of the [Republican] party platform?"
In Florida, where the Republican administration opted out of SUN Bucks, families who could have benefited expressed disbelief.
Crystal Ripolio, a woman in Tallahassee who said she struggles to feed her 8-year-old daughter, told The Associated Press that her state should offer the same summer meal money that other states do.
"If other states are able to do it, why can't we?" she said, standing outside a food bank that happened to be near Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' official residence in Tallahassee. "That doesn't make sense."
Some Republican-controlled states, such as Louisiana and Nebraska, initially declined to opt in but ultimately decided to do so. States that opted out of SUN Bucks in 2024 may enroll next year.
The USDA's other programs, including those addressed in the new report, face challenges that are not as explicitly political. Though the summer programs did reach 2.8 million children per day in 2023, logistical challenges abound.
"We believe that the low ratio of summer lunch to school year lunch is due to many factors including barriers to participation such as lack of transportation and lack of meal sites in a child's area and high area eligibility thresholds, meaning an open site (a site that serves all children that come to it regardless of income status) must be in an area where 50% or more of the population of children are eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch," Boone said.
"It is much easier to access meals when children are already at school," she added.
The FRAC report calls on Congress to allow more communities to offer summer meals and to let more sites operate year-round and provide three meals a day.
"Despite facing regional threats like deforestation and wildfires, the world's forests continue to be a powerful weapon in the fight against climate change."
In what one researcher's group on Thursday hailed as a "groundbreaking" study, scientists from 11 countries highlighted "the critical role of forests in mitigating climate change" and how various threats are imperiling Earth's vital climate sink.
"Despite facing regional threats like deforestation and wildfires, the world's forests continue to be a powerful weapon in the fight against climate change," the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)—which co-led the study published in Nature—said Wednesday in a statement announcing the paper. "These vital ecosystems have consistently absorbed carbon dioxide for the past three decades, even as disruptions chip away at their capacity."
The study shows how the world's forests have consistently absorbed carbon dioxide over the past three decades, "even as disruptions chip away at their capacity."
Researchers examined long-term ground measurements combined with remote sensing data and found that "forests take up an average of 3.5 ± 0.4 billion metric tons of carbon per year, which is nearly half of the carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels between 1990 and 2019."
According to USFS, other key findings from the study include:
"Our research team analyzed data from millions of forest plots around the globe," USFS researcher Yude Pan said in a statement. "What sets this study apart is its foundation in extensive ground measurements—essentially, a tree-by-tree assessment of size, species, and biomass. While the study also incorporates remote sensing data, a common tool in national forest inventories and land surveys, our unique strength lies in the detailed on-the-ground data collection."
The study's other lead author, Richard Birdsey of the Woodwell Climate Research Center in Falmouth, Massachusetts, said that "the persistence of the global forest carbon sink was a surprise given global increases in wildfire, drought, logging, and other stressors."
"But it turns out that increasing emissions in some regions were balanced by increasing accumulation in other regions, mainly re-growing tropical forests and reforestation of temperate forests," Birdsey added. "These findings support the potential for improving protection and management of forests as effective natural climate solutions."
The study's recommendations include reducing deforestation, promoting reforestation, and "improving timber harvesting practices to minimize emissions from logging and related activities."
The world lost around 3.7 million hectares of primary tropical forests last year—a rate of approximately 10 soccer fields per minute, according to data from the University of Maryland's Global Land Analysis and Discover Lab. While this marked a 9% reduction in deforestation compared with 2022, the overall deforestation rate is roughly the same as in 2019 and 2021. Felling trees released 2.4 metric gigatons of climate pollution into the atmosphere in 2023, or almost half of all annual U.S. emissions from burning fossil fuels.
In the United States, green groups cautiously welcomed the USFS introduction last month of a draft environmental impact statement for the proposed national old-growth forest plan amendment, which followed President Joe Biden's 2022 directive to protect old-growth forests.
Advocates also argue that the administration "must go further to protect and restore resilient old-growth forests in a way that meets the challenges of the changing climate."
Environmental groups on Thursday welcomed the U.S. government's latest progress on President Joe Biden's directive to protect old-growth forests, which are threatened by but also play a key role in combating fossil fuel-driven climate change.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Forest Service announced a draft environmental impact statement for the proposed national old-growth forest plan amendment, which is set to appear in the Federal Register Friday, launching a 90-day public comment period.
"President Biden made a commitment to protect mature and old-growth forests in the United States, and today's announcement gets us one step closer to achieving that," said Sierra Club forest campaign manager Alex Craven. "Conserving what remains of our oldest forests is undoubtedly a positive step towards climate action."
"We look forward to engaging in this process to ensure the amendment not only retains, but increases, the amount of old-growth forests across the country," Craven continued. "Shifting our approach to national forests from resources meant for extraction to natural wonders worth preserving is long overdue."
"The Forest Service must fully meet President Biden's historic directive to protect old growth, as well as our much vaster mature forests, which still remain exposed to commercial logging."
On Earth Day in 2022, Biden issued an executive order—and a few months, he later signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which directed $50 million toward old-growth conservation. Since then, the Forest Service and Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have been working on efforts to conserve ancient U.S. trees.
"With our nation's forests absorbing more than 10% of our annual greenhouse gas emissions, protecting and expanding old growth is critical to delivering on the Biden-Harris administration's and conservation priorities," White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Brenda Mallory said in a statement Thursday.
BLM and the Forest Service have completed a historic inventory, which showed that they collectively manage approximately 32 million acres of old growth and 80 million acres of mature forests nationwide. The service also recently finalized a related threat analysis.
"The Forest Service continues to move this process forward," Earthjustice senior legislative representative Blaine Miller-McFeeley said Thursday. "However, the Forest Service must fully meet President Biden's historic directive to protect old growth, as well as our much vaster mature forests, which still remain exposed to commercial logging under the proposal."
According to The Associated Press, which obtained an early copy, the new analysis "shows that officials intend to reject a blanket prohibition on old-growth logging that's long been sought by some environmentalists" after concluding the policy "would make it harder to thin forests to better protect communities against wildfires that have grown more severe as the planet has warmed."
However, "the exceptions under which logging would be allowed are unlikely to placate the timber industry and Republicans in Congress, who have pushed back against any new restrictions," the AP reported.
As the Wilderness Society highlighted, the administration's proposal:
"We need the U.S. Forest Service to create a clear path for old-growth conservation paired with climate-informed wildfire management, if our oldest forests are to remain for generations to come," said the group's president, Jamie Williams. "The proposed national old-growth amendment is a step in the right direction, but it must go further to protect and restore resilient old-growth forests in a way that meets the challenges of the changing climate."
The new draft analysis comes as deadly wildfires rage in the U.S. West while extreme heat hits the Midwest and Northeast. Scientists stress that both fires and heatwaves are more likely because of the climate crisis.