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.
"I fear that for apple lovers like me who prefer their apples un-manipulated, the approval of genetically engineered apples may taint the iconic fruits' image." (Photo: msr/flickr/cc)
What is it about an apple that makes it such a beloved and culturally important fruit? For some it might be its bright red color, its sweet, juicy crunch, its association with the brisk beginnings of fall or perhaps its fabled ability to ward off visits to doctors' offices.
What is it about an apple that makes it such a beloved and culturally important fruit? For some it might be its bright red color, its sweet, juicy crunch, its association with the brisk beginnings of fall or perhaps its fabled ability to ward off visits to doctors' offices.
When I was growing up, my mom packed a home-sliced apple for me every single day for lunch. Though slicing the apples took more time, my mom got into the habit when braces made biting into the skin of an apple an arduous feat. The apple slices were sometimes a bit browned by lunchtime, but it never deterred me from devouring this healthy snack. Furthermore, I never stopped before biting into the apple slices to think to myself, "Gee, if only these slices could be modified somehow to prevent browning."
The first time that I helped my grandma, Connie, make the Reed family Thanksgiving apple pie, I distinctly remember her teaching me that a little squirt of lemon juice would keep the apples looking and tasting freshly cut. Having grown up during the great depression, my grandma knew just about every trick in the book to keep foods fresh as long as possible. Instead of allowing Americans to continue using the good old-fashioned lemon-squirt-trick to quash browning, the USDA approved genetically engineered apples last week designed to serve the same purpose. I can picture the reaction my grandma would have hearing about these GMO apples today. It would involve some sort of an eye roll or a shrug followed by a suggestion that while USDA is at it, they should genetically engineer her to look younger as well.
I fear that for apple lovers like me who prefer their apples un-manipulated, the approval of genetically engineered apples may taint the iconic fruits' image. Some apple growers agree with this sentiment. The Northwest Horticultural Council, which represents the northwest tree fruit industry, is opposed to GMO apples because of their potential to ruin the apple's "wholesome image" and negatively impact apple exports. The largest eastern U.S. apple packer, Rice Fruit Company, told the New York Times, "In the marketplace we participate in, there doesn't seem to room for genetically modified apples now." Large food companies, McDonald's and Gerber, have also stated they have no plans to use GMO apples.
Even if the market for these apples is limited, the truth is that without mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, once these apples become commercially available in 2017, it could be impossible for consumers to know which Granny Smith or Golden Delicious apples are GMOs, unless they buy organic.
Just last week, U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer and Richard Blumenthal and U.S. Congressman Peter DeFazio introduced bills S.511 and H.R.913 that would require the FDA to clearly label GMO foods. If you are like me and would like to avoid buying GMO apples, tell your representatives to support these bills here.
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
What is it about an apple that makes it such a beloved and culturally important fruit? For some it might be its bright red color, its sweet, juicy crunch, its association with the brisk beginnings of fall or perhaps its fabled ability to ward off visits to doctors' offices.
When I was growing up, my mom packed a home-sliced apple for me every single day for lunch. Though slicing the apples took more time, my mom got into the habit when braces made biting into the skin of an apple an arduous feat. The apple slices were sometimes a bit browned by lunchtime, but it never deterred me from devouring this healthy snack. Furthermore, I never stopped before biting into the apple slices to think to myself, "Gee, if only these slices could be modified somehow to prevent browning."
The first time that I helped my grandma, Connie, make the Reed family Thanksgiving apple pie, I distinctly remember her teaching me that a little squirt of lemon juice would keep the apples looking and tasting freshly cut. Having grown up during the great depression, my grandma knew just about every trick in the book to keep foods fresh as long as possible. Instead of allowing Americans to continue using the good old-fashioned lemon-squirt-trick to quash browning, the USDA approved genetically engineered apples last week designed to serve the same purpose. I can picture the reaction my grandma would have hearing about these GMO apples today. It would involve some sort of an eye roll or a shrug followed by a suggestion that while USDA is at it, they should genetically engineer her to look younger as well.
I fear that for apple lovers like me who prefer their apples un-manipulated, the approval of genetically engineered apples may taint the iconic fruits' image. Some apple growers agree with this sentiment. The Northwest Horticultural Council, which represents the northwest tree fruit industry, is opposed to GMO apples because of their potential to ruin the apple's "wholesome image" and negatively impact apple exports. The largest eastern U.S. apple packer, Rice Fruit Company, told the New York Times, "In the marketplace we participate in, there doesn't seem to room for genetically modified apples now." Large food companies, McDonald's and Gerber, have also stated they have no plans to use GMO apples.
Even if the market for these apples is limited, the truth is that without mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, once these apples become commercially available in 2017, it could be impossible for consumers to know which Granny Smith or Golden Delicious apples are GMOs, unless they buy organic.
Just last week, U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer and Richard Blumenthal and U.S. Congressman Peter DeFazio introduced bills S.511 and H.R.913 that would require the FDA to clearly label GMO foods. If you are like me and would like to avoid buying GMO apples, tell your representatives to support these bills here.
What is it about an apple that makes it such a beloved and culturally important fruit? For some it might be its bright red color, its sweet, juicy crunch, its association with the brisk beginnings of fall or perhaps its fabled ability to ward off visits to doctors' offices.
When I was growing up, my mom packed a home-sliced apple for me every single day for lunch. Though slicing the apples took more time, my mom got into the habit when braces made biting into the skin of an apple an arduous feat. The apple slices were sometimes a bit browned by lunchtime, but it never deterred me from devouring this healthy snack. Furthermore, I never stopped before biting into the apple slices to think to myself, "Gee, if only these slices could be modified somehow to prevent browning."
The first time that I helped my grandma, Connie, make the Reed family Thanksgiving apple pie, I distinctly remember her teaching me that a little squirt of lemon juice would keep the apples looking and tasting freshly cut. Having grown up during the great depression, my grandma knew just about every trick in the book to keep foods fresh as long as possible. Instead of allowing Americans to continue using the good old-fashioned lemon-squirt-trick to quash browning, the USDA approved genetically engineered apples last week designed to serve the same purpose. I can picture the reaction my grandma would have hearing about these GMO apples today. It would involve some sort of an eye roll or a shrug followed by a suggestion that while USDA is at it, they should genetically engineer her to look younger as well.
I fear that for apple lovers like me who prefer their apples un-manipulated, the approval of genetically engineered apples may taint the iconic fruits' image. Some apple growers agree with this sentiment. The Northwest Horticultural Council, which represents the northwest tree fruit industry, is opposed to GMO apples because of their potential to ruin the apple's "wholesome image" and negatively impact apple exports. The largest eastern U.S. apple packer, Rice Fruit Company, told the New York Times, "In the marketplace we participate in, there doesn't seem to room for genetically modified apples now." Large food companies, McDonald's and Gerber, have also stated they have no plans to use GMO apples.
Even if the market for these apples is limited, the truth is that without mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, once these apples become commercially available in 2017, it could be impossible for consumers to know which Granny Smith or Golden Delicious apples are GMOs, unless they buy organic.
Just last week, U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer and Richard Blumenthal and U.S. Congressman Peter DeFazio introduced bills S.511 and H.R.913 that would require the FDA to clearly label GMO foods. If you are like me and would like to avoid buying GMO apples, tell your representatives to support these bills here.
"While working people keep waiting for a single specific policy from the president to deal with exploding costs, his administration instead hatched an official crypto policy scheme that could conveniently enrich many top Trump officials," said one watchdog.
Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order creating both a "Strategic Bitcoin Reserve" and a "Digital Asset Stockpile" —his latest move to elevate and industry that he has a personal stake in. But the president is not the only person in the Trump administration who has ties to crypto, and a new analysis from the watchdog group Accountable.US details how some in Trump's orbit may have benefited or could benefit from this new crypto rollout.
"While working people keep waiting for a single specific policy from the president to deal with exploding costs, his administration instead hatched an official crypto policy scheme that could conveniently enrich many top Trump officials," wrote Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk in a statement published Thursday.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who has been involved in Trump's crypto efforts, has links to the firm Strategy, the biggest corporate holder of Bitcoin, through the financial firm he led for four decades, according to Accountable.US
After being confirmed as Secretary of Commerce, Lutnick handed over the reins of his firm, Cantor Fitzgerald, to his two sons, but Bloomberg reporting from November cast Lutnick as an "executive whose grip on his various businesses is bolted tight."
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings retrieved by Accountable.US show that Cantor Fitzgerald recently invested $1.58 billion in Strategy (formerly known as MicroStrategy). It's not clear whether Lutnick personally holds crypto assets, according to CNN, and Lutnick has agreed to divest his business interests.
Market analysts say that because of its Bitcoin holdings, Strategy is poised to be a major beneficiary of Trump's crypto reserve plan.
Also, Cantor Fitzgerald will be expanding its "Bitcoin financing services in the wake of Trump administration changes," according to Bitcoin Magazine.
Lutnick's involvement with Trump's crypto policy and ties to Cantor Fitzgerald might raise eyebrows, but so may other crypto holdings by cabinet secretaries detailed by Accountable.US's analysis.
Treasury Secretary Sean Duffy, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Trump's nominee to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services—Mehmet Oz—have collectively disclosed up to $7.7 million in holdings in Bitcoin, Ether, and Solana, according to Accountable.US.
Ether and Solana, in addition to Bitcoin, are coins that Trump has said would be in his "digital asset stockpile."
These four officials did not say they would divest these assets in ethics agreements they filed with the federal government, per Accountable.US, and may have benefited from the bump that crypto received following Trump's crypto reserve announcement.
The rise in value those currencies experienced after Trump posted about his crypto reserve on Truth Social on March 2 possibly helped their investments grow from a maximum of $7.7 million to over $8.5 million, according to Accountable.US.
Additionally, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Deputy Attorney General nominee Todd Blanche—who have said they will divest up to $1 million in crypto investments, but have yet to file certifications proving those divestments, according to the watchdog—could have seen their investments in "related cryptocurrencies" swell by a maximum of roughly $125,000 after Trump's post on Truth Social.
"Instead of standing with young and everyday people, Schumer is compromising on our lives and futures," said an 18-year-old who was arrested at the protest.
Protesters were arrested at U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's Washington, D.C. office Friday morning while opposing the New York Democrat's plan to help congressional Republicans prevent a government shutdown with a stopgap funding measure that critics warn will further empower President Donald Trump and his billionaire allies, including Elon Musk.
The Sunrise Movement, a youth-led campaign to fight the climate emergency and create green jobs, said 11 protesters were arrested while urging the Schumer not to help the GOP advance the House-approved continuing resolution (CR). Although Republicans have a Senate majority, it is too slim to force final votes on most legislation without Democratic support.
"If Schumer prioritizes deal-making with Trump and Musk over standing up for the people, he is unfit to lead."
"Schumer must stand with working people and young people, not billionaires. This budget is a corrupt giveaway that sells out everyday Americans and our planet to Trump and Musk's greed. If Schumer prioritizes deal-making with Trump and Musk over standing up for the people, he is unfit to lead," Sunrise executive director Aru Shiney-Ajay said in a statement.
"We demand courage, not cowardice," she added. "This is bigger than politics. It's about protecting our communities, our democracy, and our planet from corruption and corporate greed. Schumer must fight back—now."
The protesters carried banners and signs with messages that included, "Schumer: Step Up or Step Aside," "Schumer: Don't Be a Coward," and "Our Future Is on Fire, Act Like It Is." The protesters echoed those messages.
"Instead of standing with young and everyday people, Schumer is compromising on our lives and futures," said 18-year-old Carly Bryant, who was arrested outside his office. "This bill guts services that working people like me need, just to make the rich richer. If Schumer won't step up and fight for us, he needs to step aside."
D.C. resident Ayesha Nagaria also accused Schumer of siding with Trump and "his billionaire agenda instead of communities across the country and in this city." The 22-year-old stressed that "the people of D.C. cannot afford to have our education and healthcare systems shut down, and Schumer is turning his back on us. If he won't have a backbone and stand up for us, we need to stand up for ourselves."
The GOP push to pass the CR before a shutdown begins at midnight comes as Trump and his billionaires—from Cabinet leaders to Musk, head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—are gutting the federal government. Although they are running into some roadblocks in court, the administration is also showing its willingness to ignore judges' orders. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are aiming to give the rich tax cuts by slashing programs for the working class.
Protesters who gathered at Schumer's home in New York City Friday morning shared similar messages, holding signs that said, "People Over Billionaires," "Schumer, Vote No or Go," and "Schumer: Do Not Comply in Advance, Say No to Cloture."
"I Wish AOC Was My Senator," read one sign, a reference to growing calls for Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to launch a primary challenge against Schumer. She has been a leading critic of his plan to vote for cloture, or to end debate.
While Ocasio-Cortez is a leading progressive, intense criticism of Schumer's position—that preventing a shutdown with this CR is the best of various bad options—is coming from across the "big tent" of the Democratic Party, including its House leaders.
The demonstration at Schumer's Brooklyn residence was organized by a local arm of the progressive group Indivisible.
The protest was "a testament to how many people are upset," Indivisible Brooklyn organizer Lisa Raymond-Tolan told Salon, noting that hundreds of people "came out at 8 o'clock in the morning on a weekday to let the senator know that he is off course and capitulating to fascism—and we won't stand for it."
"He is not the leader for this moment," Raymond-Tolan told the crowd, according to Salon. "We need him to fight back or get the fuck out."
So far, in the Senate Democratic Caucus, only Schumer and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) had publicly made clear that they intend to vote "yes" on cloture, though Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is also widely expected to, after she was overheard "speaking quite loudly" against a shutdown during a Thursday lunch with colleagues.
Whatever happens with the CR and looming shutdown, there is now a movement to oust Schumer from Democratic Party leadership—and as of Friday it includes the "Pass the Torch" campaign that pressured former President Joe Biden to drop out of the 2024 contest.
"Chuck Schumer is unwilling and unable to meet the moment. His sole job is to fight MAGA's fascist takeover of our democracy—instead, he's directly enabling it," said Pass the Torch. "Americans desperately need a real opposition party to stand up to Trump. It's clear that will not happen as long as Schumer remains in charge of Senate Democrats. It's time to 'chuck' Schumer out. Chuck Schumer must resign as minority leader and make way for leaders who will actually fight for the American people."
"Schumer should step down from Democratic leadership—or be forced out—and let someone actually willing to fight Trump and Musk take his place."
The Democratic Party erupted in anger late Thursday after its longtime Senate leader, Chuck Schumer, capitulated to Republicans on a government funding package that would slash critical programs and bolster the Trump administration's lawless assault on federal agencies.
The fury wasn't limited to the party's progressive wing, which was predictably incensed by Schumer's (D-N.Y.) announcement that he and a sufficient number of other Democrats would vote in favor of advancing the GOP bill to avert a government shutdown.
According to Axios, even centrist Democrats were among those "voicing support for a primary challenge" against Schumer, with members floating Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) as possible 2028 candidates against the minority leader.
"One lawmaker even vowed at the House Democratic retreat to 'write a check tonight' supporting Ocasio-Cortez," the outlet noted, citing an unnamed senior House Democrat.
CNN similarly reported that House Democrats—who, with the exception of Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, unified against the Republican funding package—"are so infuriated with Schumer's decision that some have begun encouraging [Ocasio-Cortez] to run against Schumer."
"Multiple Democrats in the Congressional Progressive Caucus and others directly encouraged Ocasio-Cortez to run on Thursday night after Schumer's announcement," said one unnamed lawmaker, who told CNN that party members were "so mad" at the Senate leader that even centrists were "ready to write checks for AOC for Senate."
Ocasio-Cortez, who called Schumer's reversal on the Republican funding bill "a huge slap in the face," said amid the mounting primary calls that she's focused on mobilizing against the GOP measure in a last-ditch attempt to sink it.
"We still have an opportunity to correct course here, and that is my number one priority," the New York progressive told CNN. "I think there is a wide sense of betrayal if things proceed as currently planned."
A vote on the Republican bill is expected later Friday ahead of a looming government shutdown.
With Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) expected to break ranks, the Senate GOP needs at least eight Democratic supporters to advance the legislation to a final vote.
Opponents of the GOP measure, including the largest union of federal workers in the country, argued that President Donald Trump and unelected billionaire Elon Musk are already effectively shutting the government down by eviscerating entire departments.
"Instead of forcing Republicans to own their extremism, Schumer gave away one of the only pieces of leverage Democrats had before 2026," wrote Democratic strategist Waleed Shahid. "This wasn't about whether a shutdown was risk-free—no fight ever is. It was about whether Democrats were willing to impose a cost on their opponents for governing through blackmail. Instead, Schumer made the kind of move that tells Republicans they can keep pushing."
Justice Democrats, a progressive group that helped Ocasio-Cortez upset a top House Democrat in a 2018 primary, said Thursday that the "corporate Democratic leadership is all talk and no fight."
"Gutless, spineless, and utterly unqualified to lead," the group added. "Schumer should step down from Democratic leadership—or be forced out—and let someone actually willing to fight Trump and Musk take his place."