G1. Progressive Green

We reject the US-Israel War on Iran. We stand in solidarity with all those fighting back against the US’ escalating aggression – unnecessary, avoidable, and already unleashing profound destruction in global energy and food systems.

As fertilizer and energy prices surge, smallholder food producers bear the brunt of skyrocketing production costs, while large industrial agriculture corporations are positioned to capture windfall profits. This crisis has once again demonstrated that industrial agriculture is unable to reliably feed the world, echoing the disruptions seen in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Industrial agriculture – marked by fossil fuel-based synthetic fertilizers, import-dependence, export-orientation, deforestation driven global commodity chains – is fundamentally ill-equipped to cope with the recurrent shocks that now define our global reality. 

At the same time, the environmental costs of this system are becoming impossible to ignore. The widespread use of synthetic fertilizers drives ecosystem degradation, contaminates waterways, fuels harmful algal blooms, harms wildlife, creates dead zones in aquatic ecosystems, and contributes to soil degradation and biodiversity loss. Fertilizers are also responsible for some of the most dangerous agricultural emissions, releasing potent greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide and methane. 

Far from enhancing resilience, fertilizer-dependent industrial agriculture is actively undermining the ecological foundations on which food security depends. Fertilizers don’t feed people; they sustain an extractivist approach to food production where nearly half of the world’s grain, instead of feeding millions of hungry mouths in the Global South, is diverted to animal feed, propping up global industrial livestock production. 

The current crisis is a long-overdue indictment of the very foundations on which food economies are built, and a critical opportunity for transformation. What we are facing is no longer simply a matter of urgency. It is a question of survival. The continued reliance on fertilizer-intensive industrial agriculture is neither sustainable nor resilient. 

We must urgently phase out this model and transition toward equitable, humane and agroecological food systems, an approach based on food, land, and water recognised as fundamental rights–not mere commodities- that puts people, animals and our environment at the center. It can restore ecosystem health, reduce dependence on fossil-based inputs, and build resilient and locally adapted food systems. Only by making this shift can we secure true food security through food sovereignty and ensure that nutritious, affordable food remains accessible to all.

The post Statement: US-Israel War on Iran is Having Devastating Impact on Agriculture in Global South appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

On Monday, we partnered with Wells Fargo workers to deliver union gift bags to 200+ bank branches across the country. The gift bags included coffee, candy – and an invitation for workers to learn about the union by talking with unionized bank workers.

The goal? Support more bank workers getting involved in the fight to unionize Wells Fargo.

But, maybe you’re wondering why we, a climate coalition, are spending our time supporting worker power. So I thought I’d use this month’s newsletter to explain our strategy.

Over 150 years of labor organizing has demonstrated that organizing workers can be an incredibly effective strategy, one capable of moving corporations in huge and meaningful ways. We’ve even glimpsed this within the climate movement. 

In 2019, Amazon Employees for Climate Justice organized more than 8,000 Amazon employees around climate demands, and nearly 2,000 employees walked out of work to join a climate strike. In response, the company committed to achieve net-zero emissions by 2040, announced the $10 billion Bezos Earth Fund, and ordered 100,000 electric delivery vehicles.  

Yes, there’s still a heck of a lot of work to be done to make Amazon a responsible social actor, but those were remarkable victories – and they wouldn’t have happened without a critical mass of organized workers.

So, that’s part of the reason we’re supporting workers’ fight for a union. By building with bank workers, we can build the power to win real concessions from Wells Fargo. But it’s about much more than that, too.

We’re living in an age of truly grotesque wealth inequality. America’s richest twelve billionaires are now worth $2.7 trillion, their combined wealth quadrupling since 2020. And while your average school teacher (or bank worker) pays around 25% of their income in taxes, Jeff Bezos pays a true tax rate of 1%.

This level of inequality is poisoning our politics. In 2024, just 300 billionaires and their families were responsible for $3 billion in political spending, making up nearly 20% of all political spending in federal elections. 

This is what oligarchy looks like: a small number of billionaires buying politicians and reaping the rewards. It’s why we got Musk’s DOGE, which literally killed hundreds of thousands of people and stole the data of every living American. It’s why Trump’s budget bill cut taxes for billionaires while spiking healthcare premiums for everyday Americans. 

And it’s, in part, why tackling the climate crisis is so damn hard. Many of MAGAs largest donors are billionaires from the oil and gas industry. In 2024 alone, the fossil fuel industry contributed $445 million to support Trump and his climate denier buddies.

Which brings me back to why a climate group is supporting a labor union struggle like the Wells Fargo Workers United campaign: we can’t tackle the climate crisis without taking on the billionaire class and the wealth inequality poisoning our political system. 

And you know what the single greatest antidote to extreme wealth inequality is? It’s labor unions.

So, yes, we’re supporting the union fight at Wells Fargo because we think it’s a good strategy to win on climate in the long run. 

But more broadly, building a fighting labor movement is perhaps the greatest antidote to the power of the billionaire class that’s undermining our democracy and our ability to tackle the climate crisis. 

So, if you know anyone who works at Wells Fargo, pass it on: they can get in touch with a union organizer here. 

In Solidarity
– Alec Connon, Stop the Money Pipeline coalition director

 

News & Updates from the Coalition

–  Stop the Money Pipeline celebration and online gala: you’re invited!

On Thursday, May 21st, we’re hosting Brighter Futures: An online celebration and fundraising gala for Stop the Money Pipeline! It’s gonna be great!

RSVP here and join us Brighter Futures. Together, we’ll celebrate our progress, build community, and help fund a fighting climate movement.  

– Holding Elon Accountable

On April 14th we launched the Investigate DOGE campaign with our partners at Communications Workers of America and Tesla Takedown. 

DOGE destroyed vital government agencies, left 300,000 dedicated public servants jobless, exposed the personal data of nearly every American, and resulted in hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. But accountability is coming. Sign the petition to call on Congress to investigate Elon Musk and the DOGE Bros, and receive all the updates about the campaign. 

–  Big update from the Insure our Communities New York campaign

Very big update in the Insure our Communities New York campaign: Senate Insurance Committee Chair, Jamal Bailey, has signed on as the new lead sponsor of the Insure our Communities Act.

This is a huge deal. Not only is Senator Bailey the Chair of the Insurance Committee and therefore a critical vote, but he is also widely considered a frontrunner for the Senate Majority Leader position. We’re very excited to build on this progress and work with Senator Bailey’s office to advance this landmark bill. 

– And progress in Connecticut, too!

For 3+ years now, our partner, Connecticut Citizens Action Group (CCAG) has been campaigning for a bill called Insuring Connecticut’s Resiliency. The bill would place a surcharge on  insurance premiums paid by fossil fuel companies, and use the money to pay for climate programs.  On March 13, when the bill was introduced into the Environmental Committee, we joined many others in voicing support of the bill. 

Despite the short legislative session, CCAG and allies secured a huge win: the bill passed out of the Environmental Committee and the Appropriations Committee with an overwhelming majority vote. Next year will hopefully be the year the bill gets pushed over the finish line.

– Now that’s a lotta emails

The Spanish bank, Santander, is the world’s largest funder of fossil fuel expansion in Latin America. So, after Santander ignored European and Latin American campaigners’ requests for a meeting, we organized a coalition of groups to flood their top executives’ email inboxes with messages. So far, 33,000 people have sent more than 530,000 emails. I reached out to their Global Head of Sustainability, Lara de Mesa, to request a meeting yesterday – I’ll let you know what we hear back. 

– No immunity for Big Oil

Big Oil companies have knowingly fueled catastrophic climate damages for decades — but they lied about the danger to protect their profits. Now, as communities are taking action to make polluters pay, Congress has introduced a bill that would give the fossil fuel industry blanket immunity from any laws or lawsuits that could hold them accountable.

Call your Member of Congress here to demand No Immunity for Big Oil.

– How your pension votes matters

In the world of campaigning against the financial industry, spring is what we call shareholder season. That’s because this is the time of year major companies hold annual meetings to vote on critical issues, including hundreds of climate-related proposals that shape their sustainability practices. One of the best ways we can push them to act is through public pension funds, which invest trillions of our tax dollars and have a significant voice in these shareholder meetings.

Our partners at the Sierra Club have done great work flagging critical climate votes for pension funds – and you can sign their petition to pension managers here. 

– Seattle’s First Peoples’ Climate Fund

In Seattle, STMP Steering Committee member and Mazaksa Talks co-founder Matt Remle, played a key role in winning the First Peoples’ Climate Fund, a new funding source to fund Indigenous-led climate adaptation and mitigation efforts in the region.  

– And to finish: a goofy photo…

Finally, to close out this month’s newsletter, here’s a goofy photo of me and my buddy, Tushar, outside a Wells Fargo branch. Remember, if you know anyone who works at Wells Fargo, let them know: they can get in touch with a union organizer here.

The post May Newsletter: Unions, inequality, and the climate crisis. appeared first on Stop the Money Pipeline.

The UAE’s ruling royal family is benefiting from tens of millions in EU subsidies to grow crops destined for the Gulf, it can be revealed.

A new cross-border investigation, shared with The Guardian, found that subsidiaries controlled by the Al Nahyans collected over €71 million (£61 million) in just six years for farmland it controls in Romania, Italy and Spain.

The Al Nahyan family is the second richest in the world, with an estimated wealth of more than $320 billion (£235 billion), mostly derived from the emirates’ vast oil reserves. 

Subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) make up a third of the EU’s entire budget, paying out around €54 billion (£46.6 billion) each year to farmers and rural areas across the bloc. But an unknown proportion of this ends up in the hands of foreign investors — including those controlled by autocratic states.

This story was published in partnership with The Guardian, eldiario, and G4media.

DeSmog, in partnership with El Diario and G4Media, reviewed data for thousands of CAP beneficiaries between 2019 and 2024, tracing 110 European subsidy payments to a network of companies and subsidiaries controlled by the UAE’s Al Nahyan family and one of its sovereign wealth funds, ADQ.

The largest of these payments came through the Romanian agricultural company Agricost, which owns the EU’s single largest farm, measuring 57,000 hectares, five times the size of Paris.

EU farm subsidies disproportionately benefit large landowners. In 2024 alone, Agricost received €10.5 (£9 million) in direct payments — more than 1,600 times the amount collected by the average EU farm.

Campaigners have expressed alarm that the UAE, which has been widely condemned for jailing activists, criminalising homosexuality and multiple allegations of torture – repeatedly denied by the UAE – benefits from regular EU farm payouts.

The Al Nahyans and companies named in this article did not respond to multiple requests for comment. ADQ declined to respond. 

The findings come as policymakers debate the future of the subsidy scheme. In July, the European Commission published a proposal for the next round of CAP payments for 2028 to 2034 — which could cap land-based payments to €100,000 per farmer each year. The proposal has been met with fierce opposition from European ministers, some MEPs, and industry lobby groups.

A spokesperson for the European Commission told DeSmog via email that it believed income support through CAP payments “should be better targeted including by reducing and capping payments for the bigger farms”, and is calling on the European Parliament and Council to support its proposed changes to the subsidy system.

“The CAP is not helping EU farmers; it continues to enrich the wealthiest landowners,” said Faustine Bas-Defossez, director for nature, health and environment at the Brussels-based advocacy group the European Environment Bureau. “And now, even worse, it is fuelling autocratic regimes.”

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

Agricultural Acquisitions

The Al Nahyans are the most powerful monarchy in the United Arab Emirates, which is made up of seven federated states, each with its own royal family. At the helm is Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, leader of Abu Dhabi and president of the UAE.

In just over 15 years, the Emirati dynasty has established itself as a major global agricultural player, acquiring swathes of land and agribusiness companies across Africa, South America and Europe. The UAE now controls around 960,000 hectares of farmland worldwide.

This expansion forms part of the Emirates’ wider food security strategy, aimed at securing supplies for a country where high temperatures, water scarcity, and sandy soil make growing crops a major challenge. The UAE currently imports up to 90 percent of its food.

The investigation found that in the EU, the expansion has been channelled through three main companies — in Spain, Italy and Romania. 

Agricost, Romania’s vast farm, was bought by the Al Nahyans in 2018 for an estimated €230 million (£198 million) through Al Dahra, the UAE agribusiness group. Al Dahra was founded by the president’s brother Sheikh Hamdan bin Zayed Al Nahyan, before Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund, ADQ, purchased 50 percent of the firm in 2020.

No information on Al Dahra’s current ownership structure is publicly available, but DeSmog understands that it remains linked to individuals on the board, which is chaired by Sheikh Hamdan Bin Zayed, and his son, Sheikh Zayed Bin Hamdan Al Nahyan, who is married to the UAE president’s daughter.

Since 2012, Al Dahra has also acquired multiple farm companies in Spain, responsible for over 8,000 hectares of land. Together, these received more than €5 million (£4.3 million) in CAP subsidies between 2015 and 2024, DeSmog found.

The UAE’s Spanish and Romanian farms both cultivate alfalfa and other crops for animal feed, with the majority of produce designed for export, including to the Gulf. Al Dahra holds a long-term contract with the UAE government to supply animal feed for the country, partly used for its rapidly growing dairy sector.

In 2022, sovereign wealth fund ADQ also purchased Unifrutti, a fruit producer with an estimated worth of $830 million (£610 million). According to DeSmog’s analysis, Unifrutti’s Italian farms received at least €186,000 in CAP subsidies in the three years following the sale. 

The size of payouts to the UAE reflects major issues with the way CAP subsidies are calculated, which are largely based on the area of land farmed. The European Commission’s proposal to cap direct payments would impact only a fraction (0.5 percent) of the EU’s top landowners, who currently capture 16 percent of the entire CAP budget. The UAE’s receipt of EU subsidies is “a scandal hiding in plain sight”, says Thomas Waitz, an Austrian Green Party MEP and party coordinator for the agriculture committee.

“Ninety-nine percent of real European farmers receive less than €100,000 in subsidies. That money was never meant for fossil fuel dynasties, it’s meant to strengthen real European farmers.”

Credit: eldiario.es Al Nahyan Control

The subsidised farms make up just one strand of Al Dahra and ADQ’s agricultural push in Europe — an expansion which includes grain mills in Greece and Bulgaria, as well as massive dairy farms in Serbia.

Despite technically being state-owned, ADQ is closely controlled by the UAE’s ruling royal family, experts say. 

“There is no clear boundary between the state and family coffers,” Marc Valeri, associate professor in political economy of the Middle East at the University of Exeter, told DeSmog. “This is a very authoritarian and centralised regime, and the difference between state budgets and family budgets is completely blurred.”

The UAE has some of the largest sovereign assets in the world — as of 2025 its seven wealth funds hold almost $2.5 trillion (£1.84 trillion). 

These assets are largely managed by close relatives of the president. Between 2023 and January 2026, ADQ was chaired by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the president’s brother and the country’s national security advisor. Tahnoon is known as the “spy sheikh” over accusations that he has orchestrated cyberwarfare against dissidents, and individuals and institutions overseas, including in the UK. Tahnoon has never publicly addressed these claims.

Since January, ADQ has become part of Abu Dhabi’s newest sovereign wealth fund L’imad Holding, which is chaired by the Crown Prince Sheikh Khaled bin Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan — the president’s eldest son and likely successor. 

‘Monopoly’

The subsidies traced by DeSmog may provide just a snapshot of the total EU payments benefiting Gulf royals, due to patchy official data and a lack of transparency by UAE corporations. 

All EU countries are required to publish information on the farms and farm owners receiving CAP subsidies. However, the entries only name the direct recipient — making it difficult or sometimes impossible to identify the ultimate owners and investors benefiting from the funds. Unifrutti, for example, owns farms in Sicily and the Almeria region of Spain, but no information about the subsidies received by these companies could be found. 

Experts say that these kinds of large-scale foreign investments have contributed to major shifts in the EU’s farming landscape. 

Official figures show that the EU lost 5.6 million farms between 2005 and 2023, the vast majority of which were small-scale, with many bought out by larger producers. Romania saw the greatest decline of all member states.

In Spain, farmers selling alfalfa to be processed by Al Dahra said that the company’s control over the region poses major risks for their income. 

“Here in the village they have a lot of power; we all end up having to go through Al Dahra. They set the price, and that’s that,” Josep Ripoll, a farmer in Fondarella, Catalonia, home to Al Dahra Europe’s headquarters, told El Diario. 

“It’s a monopoly — [we have to] take it or leave it. I was much better off before they arrived.”

Christian Henderson, lecturer in modern Middle East studies at the University of Leiden, says that these kinds of large-scale foreign investments in land can also pose major challenges for countries like Romania, which has been hit by a major cost of living crisis in recent years, with soaring food prices.

“What does it mean for a society when [agricultural] resources are turned over to foreign investors? Most of the commodities are immediately exported.”

Morgan Ody, general coordinator of the smallholder union La Via Campesina and a vegetable farmer in Brittany, France, describes the flow of subsidies to the UAE as “a waste of public money”.

“This is not how European citizens want their money to be spent — these farms aren’t even producing food for them,” she told DeSmog.

“This kind of scandalous spending of EU money shows the failure of the current CAP system, where payments are based on the farm area. We need to refocus CAP on land workers, on those who work the land and produce food.”

This investigation was published in partnership with The Guardian, eldiario.es and G4Media.

Fact-checking and additional reporting by Brigitte Wear
Editing by Phoebe Cooke

The post Gulf Royal Family Banks Over €70 Million in EU Farming Funds appeared first on DeSmog.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has banked more than £2 million in earnings and gifts since becoming an MP, DeSmog can reveal.

Farage has come under fire in recent days for failing to declare a £5 million gift from major Reform donor Christopher Harborne prior to the 2024 general election, potentially in violation of parliamentary rules.

Despite this tax-free handout, Farage has used his time in Parliament to earn millions from second jobs, speaking events, and trips abroad.

DeSmog’s analysis shows that Farage has registered more than £2 million in financial interests since July 2024, when he was elected as the MP for Clacton.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

His principal employer has been the right-wing broadcaster GB News, which has now paid Farage £700,000 since July 2024. The Reform leader – who presents a show on GB News – registered another £40,662 from the outlet last week.

This income has been received on top of Farage’s £94,000-a-year public salary.

He also listed a new gift from South African businessman Avi Lasarow, who gave the Reform leader three tickets to a boxing match on 4 April worth £1,749.

“Nigel Farage is a multi-millionaire who is out for himself and working for the interests of his super-rich friends,” a Green Party spokesperson said. “His whole career has been focused on personal gain and public division. He is failing his constituents and has no positive plan to help ordinary people with the cost of living crisis, housing or improving public services.”

Since becoming an MP, Farage has accepted £272,000 in gifts, including several private jet flights to the United States, and F1 tickets provided by the Abu Dhabi government.

“That Farage has amassed £2 million from personal earnings and gifts while a sitting member of Parliament should concern anyone who thinks an MP’s job is to represent their constituents,” said Kamila Kingstone, a senior campaign lead at Spotlight on Corruption.

“It’s a systemic issue and highlights a wider failure of the rules that are supposed to ensure integrity in public life. It risks blurring the lines between public service and private interests, creating the perception – and in some cases a reality – that some politicians are in it for themselves.”

DeSmog revealed in April that over 70 percent of Farage’s patrons are based abroad – including Harborne, the Thailand-based crypto investor who has gifted flights and accommodation to Farage worth £85,453 since July 2024.

Harborne, who owns a jet fuel supplier, has donated £22 million to Reform on top of the £5 million that he gifted to Farage before the 2024 general election.

His contributions to the party are now in jeopardy after Labour introduced new rules that cap political donations from overseas residents to £100,000 a year. In response, Harborne has committed to finding a loophole through which he can donate even larger sums to Reform.

“Where there’s a will, there’s a way,” he told The Telegraph – adding: “I don’t believe the government has a right to stop me, and they won’t.”

Reform UK is the UK’s leading anti-climate party, with several of its senior figures – including Farage – having denied basic climate science. The Reform leader has claimed it’s “absolutely nuts” for CO2 to be considered a pollutant, while his deputy Richard Tice has called it “plant food”.

“The government urgently needs to impose tougher limits on MPs’ second jobs,” Kingstone added, “so that the public can be confident that their representatives are working in the public interest rather than to line their own pockets.”

Reform and Farage were approached for comment.

A version of this article was published by The Guardian.

The post Nigel Farage Has Accepted £2 Million Since Becoming an MP appeared first on DeSmog.

Russia’s Arctic energy ambitions depend on a delicate balance: stable production, predictable shipping routes, and a logistics network that can withstand both harsh conditions and geopolitical pressure. Developments in March suggest that balance is becoming harder to maintain.

Two events highlighted in Bellona’s latest Arctic Digest—the disabling of the LNG tanker Arctic Metagas and a series of tanker detentions in European waters—underscore growing vulnerabilities in how Russia moves its Arctic oil and gas to market.

Explosion on the Arctic Metagas shadow tanker

On March 3, the LNG carrier Arctic Metagas was disabled by an explosion in the Mediterranean Sea, leaving it adrift with liquefied natural gas and heavy fuel on board. While the immediate impact was logistical, the incident also exposed a serious risk: the environmental fragility of Russia’s Arctic energy model.

A drifting LNG tanker is not just a shipping problem—it is a potential environmental emergency. Although no major spill was reported, the presence of fuel oil and LNG aboard a disabled vessel highlights what could happen if a similar incident occurred closer to Arctic waters. In such conditions, containment and cleanup operations would be far more difficult, if not impossible.

Bellona analysts have repeatedly warned that Russia lacks the capacity to respond effectively to oil spills in harsh, ice-covered environments. The Arctic Metagas incident serves as a reminder that accidents involving Arctic energy shipments are not hypothetical—they are already happening.

At the same time, the disruption triggered a chain reaction across the Northern Sea Route. Tankers rerouted away from the Mediterranean, cargo accumulated in Arctic storage, and vessels idled at sea waiting to unload.

For Bellona, this combination of logistical fragility and environmental risk is telling.

“This highlights the vulnerability of logistics for sanctioned Russian gas,” our analysts note. “Any incident involving a shadow LNG tanker can significantly slow down or halt shipments.”

But beyond logistics, the implication is broader: the expansion of Arctic LNG exports is happening in a context where both infrastructure and emergency response systems remain inadequate. In a region already under pressure from climate change, even a single accident could have outsized and long-lasting consequences.

Tanker Detentions: Pressure at Sea

At the same time, Russia’s oil exports are facing growing friction in international waters. In March, France detained the tanker Deyna, which was carrying Arctic oil from Murmansk under what authorities suspect was a falsified flag. The vessel is now under investigation, marking the second such case in recent months.

The UK has gone further, authorizing its military to inspect and detain Russian shadow fleet vessels passing through its waters, effectively raising the risks for any tanker attempting to transit key maritime chokepoints.

Bellona analysts see this as a turning point.

“There were signs of real progress toward countering the Russian shadow fleet,” we note. “If this practice becomes established and scaled up, it could significantly hinder the illegal transportation of Russian oil.”

The mechanism is simple but effective. Many of these tankers operate with questionable documentation—unclear ownership, false flags, or manipulated tracking data. Inspections and detentions introduce delays, and delays undermine the economics of Russian oil.

“Any delay disrupts deliveries, making the supplier significantly less attractive to buyers,” we point out, even when prices are low.

There is also an environmental dimension. Rather than targeting oil infrastructure directly—risking spills in fragile Arctic ecosystems—detaining vessels at sea offers a lower-risk way to constrain exports.

A System Under Strain

Taken together, the disruption of Arctic Metagas and the tightening net around shadow tankers point to a common theme: Russia’s Arctic energy model is increasingly exposed at the level of logistics.

Production continues. Icebreakers still escort vessels. Cargo still moves. But the system is becoming less predictable, less efficient, and more vulnerable to disruption—whether from a single strike in the Mediterranean or a document check in European waters.

The post Arctic gas disrupted and tankers detained: new risks for Russia’s northern energy strategy—the new Arctic Digest is out appeared first on Bellona.org.

For years, Canadian officials and oil industry backers have pitched carbon capture and storage (CCS) as the solution that would allow Alberta’s oil sands — and the nation’s proposed west coast pipeline — to proceed with a lower climate impact. Now, in a speech at this year’s Canada Strong and Free Network (CSFN) conference in Vancouver, keynote speaker and former British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell warned the costly, troubled technology has failed to deliver, undercutting a central justification for billions in public subsidies and new oil infrastructure.

This reporter was there in person at the April 24 CSFN gathering. Formerly the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, the CSFN self-describes as supporting “conservative and libertarian activists and ideas in Canada”. Imagine a MAGA-adjacent gabfest featuring speakers mostly cheerleading extractive industries or fear-mongering about First Nations rights. My already low expectations were not exceeded. 

However, there was an unexpected utterance of truth from Campbell, who was the first elected leader in North America to bring in a carbon tax. And what does he think about the technology being touted to clean up ballooning emissions from the Alberta oil sands and justifying a new pipeline to the BC coast? 

“It’s time to take off the blinders. Carbon capture and storage is something we’ve talked about in Canada for more than a generation, more than 25 years,” he told the conference. “We’ve invested billions of dollars trying to convince ourselves that carbon capture and storage will work. It doesn’t work. It costs money. And that money is money that we take out of other potential productive resources that we could have for Canadians.”

Campbell was certainly not suggesting that fossil fuel extraction be scaled back. His comments instead pointed out that pretending to solve emissions problems with expensive and ineffective carbon capture and storage is an unwise waste of scarce public resources. This unusual truth-bomb from a public figure stands in stark contrast to the theater playing out in Alberta and Ottawa, where CCS is being heavily promoted and backed by billions in public money as a panacea for oil sands climate costs. 

Even a Pathways Alliance co-founder is now publicly coming out against the CCS project in a recent Globe and Mail op-ed, equating long-delayed efforts by the oil patch to limit its massive carbon emissions with a cash-strapped household wasting money on a vacation or meal deliveries. Is Big Oil now pivoting away from a marquee carbon capture project it never intended to build?

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

Meanwhile the government of Prime Minister Mark Carney claims that the $20 billion CCS project  being promoted by the Pathways Alliance will make “Alberta oil among the lowest carbon intensity-produced barrels of oil in the world.” This multi-billion-dollar boondoggle has been offered as a “grand bargain” between Ottawa and Alberta to facilitate a new bitumen pipeline outlined in their now-overdue memorandum of understanding.

This confident public posturing was made despite internal briefing notes accessed by DeSmog showing Pathways had “…few front end engineering (FEED) studies done and initial cost estimates based on very limited project information”.

DeSmog previously reviewed 12 large scale CCS projects around the world and found “a litany of cost-overruns and missed targets, with a net increase in emissions.” Only 50MT of CO2 are sequestered each year by CCS, representing a mere 0.1 percent of global greenhouse gases. 

A recent study published in the prestigious journal Nature showed that a shortage of suitable geological formations worldwide limit CCS to mitigating only a puny portion of dangerous emissions. And even if injecting all production emissions underground was somehow perfectly effective, it would do nothing to alleviate the other 80-90 percent of downstream tailpipe greenhouse gases.

Such shaky fundamentals have apparently had little impact on government enthusiasm for throwing billions in public money towards dubious CSS schemes. The federal government has committed to covering half of the $20 billion estimated cost of the Pathways CCS project in tax credits, and the Alberta government is pledging to shovel billions more towards the highly profitable members of the Pathways Alliance. 

Pathways Alliance companies — recently renamed as the Oil Sands Alliance —  include Canada Natural Resources Ltd, Cenovus, ConocoPhillips, Imperial Oil, MEG Energy, and Suncor, representing 95 percent of Alberta’s bitumen production. These giants enjoyed $37 billion in combined profit in 2023 and will reap billions more in windfall profits with oil above $100 per barrel due to Trump’s war on Iran. 

A ‘Generous Transfer Provision’

A good yardstick of whether the Pathways project is credible is revealed in action, not words. Despite years of public spin and lobbying by Pathways members, the largest bitumen producers still stubbornly refuse to pony up any of their own money towards beginning construction even as Canadians struggle with historically high prices at the gas pump. 

If carbon capture is so safe, why has the oil patch lobbied to wash its hands of long-term CCS liabilities? In a system unique to Alberta, the province assumes the long-term risks associated with CO2 storage once a closure certificate has been issued, a concession to the oil industry described as one of the most “generous transfer provisions” of any CCS scheme in the world. 

Documents obtained by the Narwhal also revealed that Pathways Alliance president Kendall Dilling asked Ottawa for “assurance that the Pathways pipeline, hub and capture projects would not require a federal review under the Impact Assessment Act.” 

In Alberta, regulators allowed the largest CCS project in the world to be broken into over 120 separate proposals to avoid triggering a provincial environmental assessment. Does this kind of maneuvering inspire confidence? 

Not for local residents facing risks of a potentially deadly CO2 leak from a pipeline rupture, as occurred in Sataria, Mississippi where 49 people were hospitalized in 2020. Rural Albertans living close to the proposed 600 kilometre CO2 pipeline from the oil sands to Cold Lake have recently come together in an unlikely alliance of farmers and Indigenous leaders opposed to the Pathways project called “No CO2 Pipelines.” 

“Thousands of Albertans like me live directly in this project’s ‘hazard zone’”, said Penny Fox, No CO2 Pipelines co-founder, in a press release.  “In an explosion, people in our communities are facing anything from breathing issues to brain damage to instant death. So I have one question for the Prime Minister: if you wouldn’t live next to this pipeline, why should we?” 

“We’re talking about hundreds of kilometers of pipeline that pass directly through areas where we live, hunt, fish and exercise our treaty rights”, Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation has said. “This project endangers our people, our land, our water and wildlife. And yet there has been no consultation, no information sharing, and no formal environmental assessment.”

Gordon Campbell makes a good point. The Pathways project will cost the taxpayers billions and do nothing to contain the vast majority of ultimate oil sands emissions. Other Canadian industries have managed to cut greenhouse gases by one quarter since 2005, while bitumen producers have seen their emissions explode by 143 percent over the same period. 

Why should highly profitable oil industry laggards still expect public handouts before cleaning up their own mess? 

The post Former BC Premier Gordon Campbell: Carbon Capture ‘Doesn’t Work’ appeared first on DeSmog.

FDA finds toxic ‘forever chemicals’ in baby formula but won’t set enforceable limits Monica Amarelo May 5, 2026

WASHINGTON – The toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS were found in baby formula sold across the U.S., according to test data recently released by the Food and Drug Administration. 

The findings underscore an urgent and long-overdue need for legal limits on PFAS in food. One year ago, the Environmental Working Group urged the FDA to develop action levels for PFAS in food. 

Monitoring without action does not protect children. A PFAS action level would let the FDA take legal action to remove products from the market if they exceed that limit.

The FDA tested 312 infant formula samples from 16 brands for 30 PFAS compounds as part of its Operation Stork Speed initiative. Five PFAS compounds were detected. 

PFOS was most commonly detected, found in half of all samples at concentrations ranging from 0.51 to 6.0 parts per trillion. PFOS is one of the most toxic and well-studied PFAS and the Environmental Protection Agency says it’s likely to be carcinogenic to humans.

The FDA characterizes these levels as low and concludes the infant formula supply is safe.

“No safe level of PFAS exposure has been established, and that is especially true for infants,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., EWG chief science officer. 

“PFOS bioaccumulates in the body and it damages the immune system, including reducing the effectiveness of vaccines in babies and children. Detecting it in half of all formula samples and characterizing these findings as a proof of safety is not a conclusion the science supports,” said Andrews.

“Formula is the sole nutrition source for millions of American infants and toddlers. The FDA’s safety claim is not acceptable, given these detections of a known cancer-causing chemical. The agency must set enforceable PFAS action levels for food, as other nations already have done."

“Congress gave the FDA the authority to set limits on contaminants in infant formula. The agency has chosen not to use it,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at EWG. 

“Every day the FDA delays setting enforceable PFAS limits is another day American infants are exposed to toxic PFAS with zero legal protection. That is a policy choice, and it is the wrong one,” he said.

Not just trace contamination

PFOS was phased out of U.S. manufacturing under pressure from the EPA after evidence emerged of significant health hazards. It was used in 3M’s Scotchgard and widely deployed in firefighting foam at military bases and airports, contaminating groundwater systems across the country. 

EWG’s PFAS contamination map documents PFOS in the drinking water supply of nearly half the nation’s water systems. 

The EPA regulates PFOS in drinking water at a maximum contaminant level of just 4 parts per trillion, set because of PFOS’s classification as a carcinogen. 

The FDA has established no equivalent limit for infant formula, so infants and toddlers may continue to be exposed to PFOS in food, as well as in tap water.

“Most of the formula samples the FDA tested were powdered, and most parents mix powdered formula with tap water,” said Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D., senior scientist at EWG. “Depending on where you live, your tap water may be contaminated with PFAS.

“That means babies could be getting a double dose – PFAS already present in the formula powder, and additional PFAS from the water used to prepare it. That compounding exposure is exactly why we need enforceable limits, not just monitoring,” she added.

The FDA findings closely mirror Consumer Reports’ 2025 investigation, which found PFAS in almost all of the 41 popular baby formula brands it tested, including Enfamil, Similac and Bobbie. 

Consumer Reports also identified PFOS as the most concerning compound detected. 

Two independent investigations, the same alarming result – and still no enforceable federal standard for PFAS in food.

Food may be the primary route of PFAS exposure

For millions of Americans, food – not drinking water – is the main route of PFAS exposure. These chemicals enter the food supply through multiple pathways federal regulators have failed to close.

“PFAS are clearly infiltrating our entire food system as a direct result of regulatory failure,” said Andrews. 

“PFAS-containing pesticides are being applied to crops. Biosolids contaminated with PFAS are being spread on farm fields. Contaminated water is being sprayed on food crops. Every one of these pathways is preventable, and every one of them remains legal,” said Andrews.

“We need to ban all nonessential uses of PFAS, starting with these agricultural applications, before the contamination gets any worse,” he added.

Stakes are highest for the most vulnerable

PFAS exposure, with its health stakes, begins before birth. 

PFAS are toxic at extremely low levels. They are known as forever chemicals because once released into the environment, they do not break down and can build up in the body. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has detected PFAS in the blood of 99% of Americans, including newborn babies. 

PFAS readily cross the placenta and have been detected in umbilical cord blood, confirming that the developing fetus faces direct prenatal exposure. 

When PFAS are detected in the infant formula that millions of American babies depend on as their sole source of nutrition, the exposure does not begin at the first feeding. For many infants, it has already been accumulating for months.

A recent study also links prenatal PFAS exposure to premature birth, low birth weight and infant mortality. The full range of documented harms extends further still: thyroid disruption, harm to the male reproductive system, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, reduced fertility and shorter duration of breastfeeding. 

Very low doses of PFAS have been linked to suppression of the immune system. Studies show exposure to PFAS can also increase the risk of cancer, harm fetal development and reduce vaccine effectiveness. 

The impact on infants and toddlers is especially pronounced. “Babies are not small adults when it comes to chemical exposure – they are categorically more vulnerable,” said Stoiber. 

“Babies’ bodies are smaller, their organs are still developing, and their immune systems are not yet fully formed. When PFAS accumulate in an infant’s body, the proportional impact is far greater than it would be in an adult exposed to the same amount.

“Parents are often limited in the type of formula that is available to them and the FDA’s testing did not disclose the brand names tested. The FDA must act to protect all children,” she added.

“The administration says it wants to make America healthy again,” said Faber. “Here is a straightforward way to start: Set enforceable limits on PFAS in baby formula today. 

“The science is clear, the authority exists and the harm has been documented. American families cannot wait any longer for the federal government to do its job,” he added.

What parents can do right now

No parent should have to navigate this alone. Until the FDA establishes enforceable PFAS standards in infant formula, here are practical steps to reduce your baby’s exposure:

• Use filtered water when preparing powdered formula. A reverse osmosis system provides the most effective PFAS filtration. Countertop pitcher filters have also shown meaningful effectiveness in EWG testing. 
• Check EWG’s PFAS contamination map to see whether your local water supply has documented PFOS or other PFAS contamination.
• Make your voice heard. Contact the FDA and your elected representatives and demand enforceable PFAS limits in infant formula. The FDA’s Operation Stork Speed is an ongoing testing program. Sustained public pressure from parents is one of the most effective ways to accelerate the regulatory action.

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Children’s Health PFAS Chemicals Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 May 5, 2026

Hosted by Covering Climate Now

Thursday, May 7 12:00 p.m. EDT

REGISTER

In April, a climate denial conference hosted in Washington, D.C., and boasting US Environmental Protection Agency head Lee Zeldin as a keynote speaker signaled a new era in US politics: from a slow but growing embrace of climate science in federal policy to outright rejection of the scientific consensus.

Join Covering Climate Now for a special webinar, with DeSmog reporter Rei Takver alongside Manon Jacob, Climate Digital Investigation Reporter for Agence France-Presse, and Maxine Joselow, Climate Policy Reporter for The New York Times, as they explore how the Trump administration’s overt embrace of climate denialism in Washington is creating a permission structure for more denial at the highest levels of government in the US and beyond.

Rei will discuss her story, co-published with The Guardian, “Climate Deniers Expected More Resistance to Trump’s Fossil Fuel Blitz,” which covers Donald Trump’s assaults on the legal foundation for U.S. regulations on global warming emissions, and how climate deniers have been celebrating what they claim is the “silent” acquiescence of billionaires, Democrats, climate activists and even reporters to the president’s aggressive pro-fossil fuel agenda.
 
“In my 26 years of being focused on climate, I’ve never seen anything like this. Trump is gutting everything they ever stood for,” Marc Morano, a long-time climate denier, said in January at the “World Prosperity Forum,” a five-day event in Zurich, Switzerland, Rei reports.

The World Prosperity Forum’s sponsor was The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank that has been at the forefront of spreading climate disinformation for decades, and was also a contributor to Project 2025, the policy blueprint for President Trump’s second administration.

“Billionaires are silent. Democrats in Congress have been silent. Climate activists. There has been no push-back on this,” Morano said — and he may have a point, according to some experts who research the climate denial movement.

Join in on Thursday, May 7, at 12:00 p.m. EDT for this virtual conversation about the Trump administration’s embrace of climate denialism, what that could mean for the future of US climate policy, and how to cover it

You won’t want to miss it.

Register and submit your questions here.

The post Event | How Climate Denialism Is Evolving With Trump in Office appeared first on DeSmog.

A prominent ultra-conservative think tank with a long history of climate denial and close ties to the Trump administration is questioning whether all Americans should be allowed to cast ballots in elections. 

“Look, I’m going to say something very controversial: Not every adult over the age of 18 should have the right to vote,” Jim Lakely, communications director of the Heartland Institute, said during an early April episode of the group’s In the Tank podcast. 

Heartland was a contributor to Project 2025, the policy blueprint for Trump’s second term.
 
 “We did not have universal suffrage when the framers of the Constitution founded this country. It varied a little bit state-to-state, but basically you had to be a white man. You had to be an owner of property, and a certain amount of property, and that pretty much was only white men,” Lakely said. “We’re never going back to that, of course, and I wouldn’t actually argue for that. But there’s something to be said for the way they set that up on purpose, and it was because they wanted only people who have a stake in the country — mainly the people paying taxes to support the government — should have the franchise and be able to select the direction of the government.”

Lakely’s comments, which DeSmog has quoted in full at his request, came just days before Heartland hosted a two-day conference in Washington, D.C. keynoted by Lee Zeldin, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Zeldin has been floated to replace Pam Bondi as Trump’s attorney general. 

Zeldin praised the Heartland Institute, which has long been at the forefront of spreading climate disinformation and strongly backed the EPA’s recent repeal of the “endangerment finding,” the Obama-era determination that under-girded the federal government’s authority to limit climate-heating air pollution.

It was time to “celebrate vindication” of the group’s decades of anti-climate campaigning, Zeldin said.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

All Americans should be worried that a top Trump cabinet official openly lauded a group that questions universal suffrage, said climate scientist Michael Mann, the director of the Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania. 

“Heartland’s authoritarian, anti-democratic agenda is now exposed for all to see,” Mann told DeSmog in email. “The assault on climate action and the assault on democracy are one and the same, an effort to advance the authoritarian agenda of fossil fuel interests and the politicians in their pay.”
 
 When approached for comment, the EPA told DeSmog: “Administrator Zeldin is doing something genuinely different at EPA, refocusing the agency on its core mission of protecting human health and the environment and exercising its statutory authority as written, not as expansively reimagined in prior years. Administrator Zeldin will continue advancing President Trump’s agenda on behalf of the Americans who elected him to do exactly that.”

‘Reduce the Franchise’

During the podcast, Heartland senior fellow S.T. Karnick backed up Lakely’s comments about voting. “The original plan in America was that votes would go one vote to each property-holding family,” Karnick said. “That has been hacked away at throughout the decades and for a two and a half centuries now.”

“Now, can you go back?” he added. “Well, anything’s possible, but it wouldn’t be the same country we’re living in in any way to start to reduce the franchise.” Karnick said that an alternative solution would be to “repeal the doggone 17th Amendment,” the 1913 addition to the Constitution that established the direct election of U.S. senators, and return to having senators elected by state legislatures. “It would be a way of pulling away from the popular votes,” he said.  

Heartland Research Fellow Linnea Lucken and Editorial Director Chris Talgo also appeared on the podcast.

During the Heartland podcast, Lakely made the false claim that the use of mail-in ballots during the COVID-19 pandemic created “quite a bit” of “easy natural election fraud,” saying that “if you could go to the grocery store, if you could go to a BLM [Black Lives Matter] march, you can get in line at your local polling place and vote and participate in the election.” When DeSmog approached Lakely for comment about this last claim, Lakely responded: “I stand by that.”
 
 Zeldin, a longtime Trump supporter, has previously endorsed similar claims. Following Trump’s loss of the 2020 election to Joe Biden, Zeldin — then a House member representing New York’s 1st Congressional District — “sided with Republicans who were amplifying doubts about its legitimacy,” according to The New York Times, and shared ideas with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on how to discredit Biden’s win. On January 6, 2021, Zeldin voted against certifying the election results.

The following year, while running as the Republican candidate for governor of New York, Zeldin was disqualified from getting his ticket an additional ballot line for the Independence Party, because nearly 13,000 of the petition signatures his campaign submitted to the state elections board were photocopied duplicates.
 
 Soon after taking over the EPA in 2025, Zeldin promised that the agency would begin “driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.” Since then he has revoked billions in climate funding, slashed thousands of EPA staff, and rolled back dozens of clean air and water protections.
 
 In his Heartland keynote address, Zeldin argued that these rollbacks were “what the American public voted for” when they re-elected Trump. 

The EPA chief praised the Heartland audience for being “right there on the front lines” of opposition to the endangerment finding. “I appreciate all of you for having the thoughtfulness years and decades ahead of your time.”

Attorney General Zeldin?

If Zeldin replaced Bondi, he would oversee the Justice Department’s defense of his EPA actions in court, including lawsuits by states and environmental groups over the endangerment finding repeal.

“The Supreme Court, in my opinion quite correctly, would say that the EPA should not be putting forth trillions of dollars in regulations without there being a vote in Congress,” Zeldin said in his speech, adding that members of Congress are “the ones who, as recently as this upcoming November [mid-term elections], put their name on the ballot, go before the people, and the American public will decide who in this republic will represent them.”

Zeldin’s record of election denial would fit right in at the top of the current Justice Department.

Since Trump took office, the department has shifted from enforcing voting rights laws — including scrutinizing whether states are conducting fair elections and prosecuting threats against election officials — to investigating alleged voter fraud. Most of the lawyers working in the Voting Section of the agency’s Civil Rights Division have left, according to reporting by Wired, and many of their replacements have ties to election denial groups.

Right now, Trump’s cratering approval ratings with voters paint a grim picture for Republicans in the November elections  — but as part of his efforts to manipulate the mid-terms, the Trump Justice Department has been openly coming to their aid. 

Under former AG Bondi, the department began collecting voter data from cooperative states — and suing dozens of states to get more — apparently hoping to direct purges of the rolls. The FBI in January raided an election office and seized 2020 voting records in Fulton County, Georgia, which Trump lost, although It’s well-established that voter fraud is very rare in the United States, and didn’t happen in 2020.

A number of red states have already answered Trump’s call to create more House seats for Republicans by redrawing their election districts. Now more are on the way because in late April the Supreme Court’s conservative majority gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, handing down a ruling that effectively lets states redraw their election districts in ways that weaken the voting power of Blacks and other minorities.

Within hours of the decision, several southern states began taking steps to create election maps that will increase the number of Republican House seats.

Badge of Dishonor

The Heartland Institute, which has denied that humans are driving climate change, calling it a “delusion,” has boasted of its “strong” ties to “big individuals” in the Trump administration.

During Trump’s first term, as DeSmog reported at the time, Heartland advised the EPA on staffing and policy decisions. “They recognized us as the pre-eminent organization opposing the radical climate alarmism agenda and instead promoting sound science and policy,” said Tim Huelskamp — a former Republican congressman who was then leading Heartland — in 2018.
 
 Heartland also advised a member of the administration’s National Security Council, longtime climate denier William Happer, on how to discredit the fact that burning fossil fuels was driving dangerous levels of global heating.

When Trump announced in 2017 that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, he invited Heartland’s then-CEO Joseph Bast to attend the announcement at the White House.

The Heartland Institute received at least $676,000 between 1998 and 2007 from U.S. oil giant ExxonMobil. It has received donations from Republican donors in the Mercer family, as well as foundations linked to the owners of Koch Industries – a fossil fuel giant and a leading sponsor of climate science denial.

“What a badge of dishonor it is to be a keynote speaker at this plutocrat-funded propaganda event masquerading as a ‘conference,” Mann said to DeSmog, referencing Zeldin’s ties to the group. “Polluting interests can only advance their agenda of a fossil fuel-dependent America by keeping Republicans in power.”

The post Heartland Institute Podcast Questions Whether All Americans ‘Should Have the Right to Vote’ appeared first on DeSmog.

Peer-reviewed EWG study finds produce washing options can reduce pesticide residue Anthony Lacey May 4, 2026

• All methods of washing fruits and vegetables reduced pesticide residues, but effectiveness varied widely and depends on the pesticide, produce and method.
• Soaking produce in a solution of baking soda or vinegar solution was more effective than soaking or rinsing in water, on average.
• EWG scientists recommend improvements to how pesticides are monitored in food and in people to further reduce exposure.

WASHINGTON – Affordable, simple household practices can reduce pesticide levels on fruits and vegetables and help consumers lower their daily dietary exposure to potentially harmful farm chemicals, a new peer-reviewed study by Environmental Working Group scientists finds.

The study builds on EWG’s pesticide consumer guidance in the annual Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™ and its comprehensive research on pesticides exposures. 

“Fruits and vegetables are essential to a healthy diet, but they can also increase exposure to pesticides,” said Dayna de Montagnac, M.P.H., associate scientist at EWG and lead author of the study. 

“Our findings reinforce the effectiveness of safe and accessible ways to reduce pesticide exposure while highlighting necessary improvements in research and monitoring to further reduce it,” she said.

Pesticide residues on produce

The review, published recently in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Health, analyzed data from 47 peer-reviewed studies of 23 produce items and 79 pesticides. The findings point to safe and effective methods consumers can use at home to reduce pesticide residues and provide a starting point for more research and monitoring in this area of study. 

Last year, EWG published peer-reviewed research showing how the consumption of fruits and vegetables with higher pesticide residues is linked to measurable levels of pesticides in urine. Other recent publications have investigated the growing problem of PFAS pesticides, chlormequat and glyphosate. 

Studies of the general population show exposure to pesticides is linked to cancer, reproductive harm, hormone disruption and neurotoxicity in children. 

Residues of these chemicals are often detected on produce and frequently appear in mixtures on every type of produce, except potatoes, with an average of four or more pesticides detected on individual samples, according to EWG’s recent analysis of Department of Agriculture pesticide testing data. 

Key findings

EWG scientists reviewed data that recorded pesticide concentrations of fruits and vegetables before and after rinsing or soaking them with water, baking soda or vinegar. Experiments where scientists rinsed their produce for more than two minutes were excluded to better reflect how people likely wash their produce at home.

Among the key findings:

• All washing methods reduced pesticide residues, but effectiveness varied widely.
• Rinsing with water showed modest reductions, with a median of 30.2%, although reductions ranged from 0% to 94%.
• Soaking in plain water performed slightly better than rinsing, with reductions from 0.6% to over 99% and a median of 33.7%.
• Baking soda soaking substantially improved removal, achieving reductions from 0.2% to over 99%, with a median of 50.9%.
• Vinegar, or acetic acid, soaking was the most effective method overall, with reductions ranging from 8.6% to over 99% and a median of 54.2%.
• Baking soda and vinegar treatments outperformed plain water by more than 15 percentage points in median pesticide reduction across studies, likely because of how certain pesticides break down in alkaline or acidic environments. 
• Real-world effectiveness may be lower than what EWG’s study showed, since many studies used higher concentrations of baking soda or vinegar than a typical household would.
• Key factors influencing pesticide removal included the chemical properties of the pesticide, the washing method used, and the type and surface characteristics of the produce.

These findings confirm the role washing produce can provide in moderately lowering pesticide levels.

Where more work is needed

The study’s authors recommend that government agencies make it a priority to monitor stubborn pesticides, those that remain on produce even after household washing. 

They also suggest expanding biomonitoring of fruits and vegetables to include pesticides frequently detected in the U.S. food supply. 

Future research should explore what proportion of pesticide residues remain within specific produce items and to what extent these residues increase exposure. 

The authors also suggest study designs that are more realistic, such as testing for the effect of rinsing for just a few seconds as a baseline. Further experiments could then show how adding baking soda or vinegar, with incremental increases in concentrations and washing times, can compare to the baseline method.

What consumers can do

EWG recommends regularly washing and eating plenty of fruit and vegetables.

Washing produce in any way will always be better than no washing in reducing exposure to pesticide residues. The USDA’s Pesticide Residue Program rinses produce samples with cold water for 15 to 20 seconds before testing produce, reflecting the assumption that consumers do basic washing at home.

A quick rinse or soak works in a pinch. When feasible, the addition of baking soda or vinegar to soaking solutions can further reduce residues. Refer to EWG’s guide on washing produce for more guidance.

When possible, EWG recommends prioritizing organic produce for the most pesticide-heavy produce listed in its Shopper’s Guide. The guide features the Dirty Dozen™ list of the produce with the highest pesticide residues detected and the Clean Fifteen™ list of items with the lowest residues.

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Food Family Health Pesticides Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 5, 2026

The post Elected Leaders: Hold Musk’s DOGE Accountable! appeared first on Stop the Money Pipeline.

.entry-header{display:none;}

The post Tell Wells Fargo: Stop Union Busting and Corporate Greed appeared first on Stop the Money Pipeline.

Vermont Senate advances landmark ban on Parkinson’s pesticide Anthony Lacey May 3, 2026

Vermont’s Senate today gave its initial approval to landmark legislation that would ban the use and sale of the highly toxic herbicide paraquat, bringing the state to the cusp of becoming the first in the nation to enact such a prohibition.

The legislation, H. 739, would end Vermonters’ exposure to paraquat, an extremely dangerous weedkiller linked to serious health harms, including Parkinson’s disease. Despite these risks, the U.S. still allows its use, even though more than 70 countries have banned it.

Vermont’s House passed a nearly identical measure in March and must now vote to concur with the Senate’s version, before sending the bill to Gov. Phil Scott (R).

“With today’s vote, Vermont is on the verge of making history by becoming the first state to ban paraquat,” said Geoff Horsfield, legislative director at the Environmental Working Group. “Lawmakers in both chambers have recognized the urgent need to protect public health. The House should act swiftly to send this bill to the governor’s desk.”

Horsfield thanked Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike for their work on the bill, led by Rep. Esme Cole (Windsor-6) and Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden-Central District). “They have made clear that safeguarding farmers, rural communities and children must take precedence over continued use of one of the most hazardous pesticides still on the market,” he added.

Paraquat has been extensively studied for its links to Parkinson’s disease and other serious illnesses, and even small amounts of exposure can pose significant health risks, including death. The chemical can travel through the air for more than two miles and persist in the environment, raising concerns for rural communities and agricultural workers alike.

If enacted, the legislation would position Vermont as a national leader at a moment of growing momentum to phase out paraquat.  At least 12 other states have introduced similar bans, and California is considering new regulatory restrictions. These efforts are clear signs of escalating concern over the chemical’s well-documented health risks.

“If signed into law, this bill will prevent needless exposure to a chemical tied to a devastating disease and set a powerful precedent for states across the country to follow,” Horsfield said.

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Paraquat Vote puts state on brink of being first-in-nation to prohibit toxic herbicide paraquat Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 6, 2026

In mid-April, Indigenous leaders from British Columbia traveled to Ottawa to protest against the federal government’s aggressive support for fossil fuel expansion.

Mark Carney’s Liberal government is fast-tracking multiple LNG projects in British Columbia, including the recent approval of Enbridge’s $4 billion natural gas pipeline expansion.

Securing Indigenous support for fossil fuel projects has been a cornerstone strategy of Canada’s oil and gas sector in recent years, with companies promising considerable benefits on the one hand while highlighting Indigenous involvement as an aspect of corporate responsibility on the other.

Not everyone is on board however, and Indigenous communities have been some of the most vocal opponents of major Canadian energy projects, including Union of BC Indian Chiefs representative Kitisha Paul, who argued at the Ottawa protest that fossil fuel expansion is causing the “deterioration of our land, our water.” 

Kai Nagata, an energy campaigner with the B.C.-based environmental non-profit Dogwood, has spent years working with Indigenous communities on the front-lines of opposition to new oil and gas infrastructure, a role that’s included deep research into the benefit agreements offered by industry as well as the foreign investors set to cash-in from new gas pipelines and export terminals. In an extensive Q&A with DeSmog, Nagata illuminates some of the tensions around promises of Indigenous participation in new fossil fuel projects, and the ways in which these supposedly “nation building” projects are tied to the U.S. and the MAGA movement.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

To what extent are Indigenous communities participating in the development of new fossil fuel infrastructure in British Columbia?

Coastal GasLink, a gas pipeline built across Northern BC, has zero percent Indigenous equity ownership. Sixty-five percent of the pipeline is owned by KKR, which is a New York private equity firm, and 35 percent remains with TC Energy Corporation.  

The LNG Canada terminal in Kitimat has zero percent Indigenous ownership, as it’s owned by Royal Dutch Shell and a consortium of Asian oil companies, some of which are state-owned.

The financing for these projects came from U.S., Canadian, Japanese and some Chinese banks. So the investors, the shareholders, the owners, and indeed many of the senior project staff and people involved in engineering and building the thing are not even Canadian, let alone Indigenous. 

The only LNG project that has Indigenous ownership right now in BC is Cedar LNG. So the Haisla Nation has a 50 percent stake in the terminal, but they’re buying the gas from Coastal GasLink, which is owned by KKR. And KKR also has a midstream infrastructure partnership with Pembina Pipelines, which is the Haisla’s partner on Cedar LNG. So they’re not outside the orbit of KKR by any means.

With Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline (PRGT) or the Ksi Lisims project, which are being advanced by this Texas company [Western LNG] with Wall Street investors, they’ve really been at pains to make it seem like this is an Indigenous-owned project. That’s how it’s been pitched by the provincial government. And that’s just not true.
 
 (Author’s note: filings with the BC Environmental assessment office show Western LNG is the primary owner and operator of the Ksi Lisims project).

Companies are riding this wave of concern over the poor treatment of Indigenous people historically in Canada and the need to make that up to them.They’re calling this ‘economic reconciliation’: here’s an opportunity for a small number of your governing elite to cash in, with hopefully some long-term benefits for the broader population on your reserve or in your nation.

Can you speak more to the kinds of agreements companies have signed with Indigenous communities?

Every deal is different, and they’re all secret. So that’s the first sign they might not stand up to scrutiny.

During the initial negotiations around the PRGT, which was back in 2014, you had band councils and hereditary chiefs signing impact benefit agreements. That was the same era as Coastal GasLink. Prior to that era of projects, the older model involved people from industry coming into Indigenous communities and saying “you people need to get out of the way now, the bulldozers are coming.”

Recognizing that that approach carried material risk for projects, the energy companies started crafting impact benefit agreements. They follow a similar template, basically an Indigenous community gets some limited financial benefits upfront. They get a promise of ongoing financial benefits, often very modest, but in return, they have clauses that are pretty draconian, like you have to prevent any of the members of your Indigenous group from speaking out against this industry or this project, and that can include on social media.

How do you get people to agree to that?

If your chief and council signs a closed-door deal with a pipeline company, it may contain clauses like your band members can’t shit talk this project on Facebook. That came out of a leaked benefit agreement that was signed with Coastal GasLink.

The chief and council weren’t sure if it was a good idea. So they put it out to a plebiscite and the community voted against it. Then they said there were ‘problems with the process’, so they took it to an in-camera vote. The council was split down the middle, so the chief himself passed the tie-breaking vote.

It actually came down to one guy—the band chief—after a democratic majority of band members rejected the deal. And the deal contained disparagement clauses. If community members disparaged the industry, the community could be held financially liable. I would characterize that as coercive. That’s not a deal anyone should sign. But when you have no leverage and when you’ve been dealing with the effects of poverty for 150 years, there’s a lot of immediate needs that these projects promise to fulfill.

Like what?

Kitselas First Nation recently signed an impact benefit agreement with Western LNG, the company developing the PRGT pipeline. They’re going to find some spaces for child care on the reserve, so that more people can go to work.

But childcare is a provincial responsibility. Except for First Nations. So you have a situation where they’re being deprived of services the non-Indigenous population receive from the provincial government, and are then forced to sign very one-sided deals with industrial projects to fund those basic social services.
 
 You create a situation where it feels like a pretty good deal if the pipeline goes through and you get a little revenue and maybe some childcare too. Obviously you’re gonna take the deal where you get something instead of nothing.

What are the risks of pursuing these projects for Indigenous partners?

There’s some really big risks around LNG right now, like what’s happening in global markets in Asia and Europe. Who carries those risks? Which investors are first in line to be paid? Which creditors are first to line if things go wrong? You might be the last in line to recoup your investment depending on the structure of the deal.

The trend is that the lawyers and the industry consultants—the people who jump from project to project around the world and arrange these big financing deals—they get paid right away. They don’t stick around to build the project. And I’m concerned by the fact that this current crop of LNG projects are all backed by Wall Street, because Wall Street doesn’t know anything about building pipelines or operating energy infrastructure.

But they do know how to ride a bubble.

They know to make money into other money, and they know how ruthlessly exploit a dying industry. Don’t forget, what we call ‘private equity’ today used to be called ‘leveraged buyouts’. And that may sound high-minded and complicated financial stuff, but really it’s just the same core business it was 40 years ago: either you turn around a troubled asset, or you fire all the workers and sell off the parts.

Vulture capitalism is a key component of private equity.

What happens when Indigenous communities resist projects, like in the case of Wet’suwet’en Hereditary chiefs and land defenders opposing the Coastal GasLink project

Pipelines in particular come with a whole playbook and a set of actors which are very practiced in operating in conflict zones and sites of recent political or environmental upheaval.

The companies that are building PRGT include Bechtel, which is a major U.S. military contractor, and one of the biggest privately-owned companies in the world. They manufacture weapons, build defense installations, and they do oil and gas work in shall we say the ‘imperial borderlands’, contested spaces. They’re deeply integrated with the U.S. security state and with U.S. foreign policy. And they have a playbook for dealing with the ‘restive local tribes’ or any other local community that might give the Americans a hard time over their globe-spanning infrastructure.

We saw an example of this with the Wetʼsuwetʼen when they contested Coastal GasLink. The company that bought the pipeline, KKR, has its own internal intelligence division, which is run by David Petraeus, who’s the former CIA director and was prior to that a top-ranking general who literally wrote the U.S. Armed Forces manual on counterinsurgency warfare.

And if you read his book, you see there’s a lot of familiar tactics that we saw adapted to Northern BC. We saw veterans of the War on Terror step in and take control of a physical space in a way that was new to people covering Canadian resource extraction projects.

You had American, British, Belgian, South African mercenaries essentially working as private security for the pipeline who were really directing the actions and collecting intelligence and evidence for the police who just got called in to do the hands-on stuff and make the arrests.

I would characterize what we witnessed there as a corporate counter-insurgency.

Do you view Indigenous participation in new fossil fuel projects part of the marketing scheme or a guarantee against another Wetʼsuwetʼen crisis?

Both the federal and provincial levels of government are doing all they can to de-risk these projects and entice these very small communities with limited fiscal capacity to invest in these multi-billion dollar projects which include loan guarantees and other kind of bespoke deals around transmission line access and that kind of thing. 

They’re bending over backwards to make these projects work because they know that [between the] combination of Indigenous ownership and the green branding around electrified LNG terminals, most people in Vancouver who see one news article will think “oh, a First Nation has decided to build a gas terminal in a place I’ve never visited. Sounds like they’re trying to protect the environment and it’s good to see native people get a stake in these projects after being on the sidelines for so long, good for them.”

In the case of the Haisla nation that has ownership over Cedar LNG, It’s up to them to determine whether these projects benefit their community, but we do need to consider how much information—and the quality of the information—the public, Indigenous or otherwise, has when making these decisions. In the small towns of Northern BC, there’s really no media scrutiny to speak of. The energy companies send their press releases to the local newspaper, the focus of which is how many jobs will be created, but there’s really no scrutiny of what the impact will be. And many of these decisions are happening behind closed doors anyways. We only find out the terms if they leak.

What was the calculus for investors in wanting to develop these projects?

Apollo Global Management invested in Western LNG and the development of the Ksi Lisims terminal back in 2018. They got in on the ground floor at a time when there were low LNG prices worldwide. There was a down cycle starting in about 2015, 2016, where we saw a huge wave of these projects get canceled because the markets weren’t there yet. The prices didn’t take off until Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, and that’s what kicked off the current gold rush.

Some of these people had the idea of using an emerging technology—modular floating LNG terminals—as a way to both lower the risk and lower the cost. The floating terminals are basically converted LNG bulk carriers, which can be moved around the world and hooked up wherever they’re needed. Instead of building a massive onshore terminal, the floating terminals are built in Korea and they can be hooked up in series to expand capacity.

Apollo saw the potential in that, not just the export terminals, but there are equivalent facilities that are built on ships for the import of LNG, which Apollo also invested in, in the same year. They really saw the opportunity for vertical integration in emerging markets where people need access to reliable electricity. And this is the cheap modular way to do it.

Leon Black is the former CEO who made that call and who got Apollo Global Management to be the first major Wall Street backer of the Ksi Lisims project, and it’s the only project that Western LNG has ever developed. The company was incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Texas, but it’s only ever existed to develop this project in BC.

You have talked about how the backers of the Ksi Lisims project are tied to the MAGA movement, can you tell me more about this? 

Steve Schwartzman, who runs Blackstone, (the other major investor in this project) is a top-10 donor to Trump. He’s bankrolling the MAGA movement. He’s a major advisor and donor to Trump, who is steering and financing what I would characterize as like an authoritarian political movement that is taking over institutions in the U.S. and openly wants to annex Canada for its resources.

It puts the question of Indigenous ownership in perspective, given the players. I really don’t think that they have the best interests of local people in their minds as they’re structuring these deals. They’re not here on a charitable project. The reason why they would empower the companies that they’re invested in to strike these deals with local First Nations is to give them the kind of political cover they need to get permits and authorizations and the loans.

The post How Canada’s LNG Push is Benefiting Trump and Shortchanging Indigenous People appeared first on DeSmog.

Going full glam with EWG Verified® JR Culpepper April 30, 2026

.has--background.block-content--type-curated-block-list { padding-top: 3rem; padding-bottom: 3rem; }

Crafting the perfect look for any occasion takes laser-like focus, patience and the right products. The last thing on your mind should be whether a product is safe to use.

When you're getting ready for an important occasion, whether a wedding, prom or graduation, you don't want any stress over what’s in your cosmetics.

This spring, EWG is making sure those worries won’t interrupt your makeup flow state. We’ve put together a list of products to help reach your full glam look. This list includes lipsticks, mascaras, eyeliners, eyeshadows and foundations. 

The best part? Every product below is EWG Verified®. That means it has been reviewed by our scientists and meets our strictest standards for safety and ingredient transparency.

If you’re looking for other ideas or products, check out our Skin Deep database.

Lips CRUNCHI Everluxe® Lip Crayon View details Counter Lined and Primed Lip Defining Pencil View details Maia’s Mineral Galaxy Liquid Lipstick View details Mascara Well People Expressionist Curling Mascara View details Counter Think Big Mascara View details Rejuva Minerals Pur Lash Volumizing Mascara View details Eyeliner Well People Fresh Lines Eye Pencil View details Maia's Mineral Galaxy Mineral Eye Liner View details CRUNCHI Highliner® Pencil View details Eyeshadow CRUNCHI Shadow Bar® Enchanted Neutrals View details Rejuva Minerals Eyeshadow Multi Purpose Powder View details ATTITUDE Oceanly Eyeshadow View details Brows DIME Boost Duo View details Well People Expressionist Brow Pencil View details Foundation Well People Supernatural Complexion Stick Foundation + Concealer, Light Medium Warm View details ATTITUDE Oceanly Foundation, Cream View details Counter Skin Twin Featherweight Foundation View details Highlighter/bronzer ATTITUDE Oceanly Highlighter View details Well People Supernatural Stick Highlighter View details Counter Velvet Cream Bronzer View details Authors EWG Communications Team April 30, 2026

FDA abandons stricter tanning bed standards, leaving teens at risk Anthony Lacey April 30, 2026

Tanning beds can increase the risk of skin cancer, and the Food and Drug Administration has long warned that children and teens should never use them. Yet the agency has quietly killed a rule that would have banned anyone under 18 from using these devices.

The FDA first proposed the rule over a decade ago, along with other restrictions on the use of tanning beds and requiring that they carry warning labels. If finalized, the rule would have brought the federal government in line with dozens of states that have already restricted teens’ access to the beds.

Instead, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s FDA recently issued a notice scrapping the proposal. The agency justified the move by claiming industry groups and others raised “scientific and technical concerns” about the plan. It also asserted that withdrawing the proposal doesn’t prevent it from crafting new tanning bed rules in the future.

That leaves minors without any federal protection from an industry that has long targeted teenage girls. It’s hardly going to “Make America Healthy Again.”

At least 23 states, along with most of Canada, the European Union and Australia have already banned minors from tanning beds due to their serious health risks. The FDA’s decision is a clear case of burying its head in the sand while leaving teens in harm’s way.

What the science says

The science on tanning bed risks isn’t emerging or uncertain.

A large scientific body of evidence links tanning bed use to serious health harms, with cancer often occurring decades after first exposure. The FDA’s withdrawn rule was based on these findings, proposing a plan to protect minors across the country from these harms.  

In 1999, the National Toxicology Program classified tanning beds as known carcinogens. It cited the link between the ultraviolet, or UV, radiation the beds produce and the risk of developing both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers.

Nearly a decade later, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, placed tanning beds in its highest risk category: a known human carcinogen. This classification is the same given to tobacco and asbestos, based on a 75% increased risk of melanoma for women who start using tanning beds before the age of 30.  

A large body of epidemiological evidence also links use of sunbeds to higher melanoma risk, especially when first use occurs before age 30. 

The IARC review also found that tanning bed usage  increased the risk for other skin cancers including, squamous cell carcinoma, as well as caused serious, lasting eye damage.

Agency avoids action

Despite the evidence, the FDA spent decades avoiding any real action. 

When initially faced with evidence showing rising melanoma rates in young women, the agency proposed in 2013 a warning label. That label advised that tanning beds should not be used by people under the age of 18. But there was no way to enforce it to guarantee the labels were used, and no restriction on minors using the beds.

It was a gesture, not a safeguard.

The ultraviolet A, or UVA, radiation inside a tanning bed is very different from the natural sunlight your body encounters outdoors. 

Tanning beds are deliberately engineered to maximize  UVA radiation, the wavelength responsible for tanning the skin, while minimizing ultraviolet B, or UVB, rays responsible for sunburn. It’s a design choice to keep customers coming back by removing the most immediate, visible consequences of overexposure.

But suppressing the burn doesn’t suppress the damage. UVA radiation penetrates deeper into the skin than UVB and is linked to skin aging, skin immune harm and plays an important role in the development of skin cancer. 

Some proponents of tanning beds point to modest, short-lived increases in the body’s vitamin D levels as a justification for use. But researchers are clear. No brief vitamin D boost is worth the added cancer risk, especially when there are safer alternatives, such as dietary changes. 

Ineffective sunscreen carries its own risks

The tanning bed problem doesn’t stop at the salon door. 

Consumers might think wearing sunscreen while sunbathing protects them from harmful UVA exposure. But many sunscreens primarily block the rays that cause sunburn, UVB, while providing far weaker protection against  UVA. The result is UV exposure that closely resembles a tanning bed.

Researchers calculated that a two-week vacation spent using a sunscreen with poor UVA protection, even with frequent reapplication and no visible sunburn, delivers the same solar exposure as 10 trips to a tanning salon. 

That’s why EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens® places heavy weight on strong UVA protection in the product rankings. And it’s why we’ve worked for decades to urge the FDA to require stronger UVA standards and set a limit on sun protection factor, or SPF,  values for U.S. sunscreen.

The gap between what sunscreens promise with their often high SPF labels and what they actually deliver on UVA is well documented. 

When EWG tested sunscreens in 2021, we found that, on average, UVA protection was just one-quarter of the SPF level advertised on the label. 

FDA researchers reached the same conclusion in their own sunscreen testing, finding that many U.S. sunscreens lack adequate UVA protection. The agency flagged a particular concern that high SPF numbers often mask weak UVA coverage.

EWG Verified® sunscreens go one step further. These products must undergo additional testing to confirm that their UVA protection exceeds the requirements in both the U.S. and in Europe – not just meet them. They’re also free from EWG’s chemicals of concern, so you know you’re buying a safer and more effective sunscreen for you and your family.

The sun is both a major cause of skin cancer and the body’s primary source of vitamin D, an essential nutrient that forms when skin is exposed to intense sunlight. 

But generating vitamin D needs only a few minutes of sun exposure per week during summer for people with less melanated skin. Major medical associations advise against deliberate, prolonged sun exposure as a strategy for boosting vitamin D levels. The health risks outweigh the returns. 

What you can do

The science on tanning beds, sunscreens and UV risks is clear, even if federal policy is not. 

EWG provides actionable consumer advice to minimize the potential for long-term harm:

• Avoid tanning beds entirely. There is no safe level of use, especially for minors. The risk increases the younger that someone starts using them. 
• Use sunscreen. High SPF numbers don’t always guarantee UVA protection. It’s important to find a sunscreen that works for you.
• Check out EWG’s tools. Search EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens™ and EWG's Healthy Living App to find top-rated products that provide balanced UVA/UVB protection without ingredients of concern.
• Cover up. Wear protective clothing, hats and UV-blocking sunglasses.
• Seek shade. Find or create your shade with an umbrella or canopy.
• Time your outdoor activities. UV radiation is strongest between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Plan your outdoor time around the sun's peak hours when you can. 

Go outside. Have fun. Don’t get burned. A tanning bed isn’t worth the risk. 

Areas of Focus Sunscreen Family Health Women's Health Children’s Health Agency withdraws decade-old plan for protecting minors from skin cancer Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. May 1, 2026

Your favorite brands might be in the fight against stricter food safety laws JR Culpepper April 30, 2026

More than a dozen states have enacted laws to protect consumers from harmful food chemicals and ultra-processed foods. Your favorite food brands may be tied up in efforts to erase them.

A draft bill known as the “FRESH” and Affordable Foods Act, introduced last week by Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.), would take an unprecedented step in food policy by undoing many state laws aimed at strengthening food safety. States would also lose authority to regulate food chemicals in the future.

If enacted, the bill would make it dramatically easier for the food industry to add new chemicals to the food supply without meaningful review by the Food and Drug Administration – and would make it harder for the public to get information about these substances.

The bill closely mirrors previous proposals advanced by Americans for Ingredient Transparency, or AFIT. This is a front group lobbying for the interests of the largest food manufacturers and trade associations in the country. 

Names you might recognize on AFIT’s website include the Coca Cola Company, General Mills, Hormel Foods, Ken’s, Keurig Dr Pepper, Kraft Heinz, McCormick & Company, Nestlé, Ocean Spray, PepsiCo, Sargento and Tyson Foods. 

While AFIT isn’t officially backing the bill, the clear parallels between its wishlist and the legislation make its involvement appear likely. 

Brand favorites are tied up in the food fight

The companies belonging to AFIT own thousands of popular U.S. food and drink brands, whose products could be sitting on your shelves or in your fridge right now.

Below are just a few brands – many of which are known for promoting healthy or kid-friendly foods – owned by companies who are members of the front group AFIT.

General Mills is known for classic cereal brands like Cheerios. It also owns Cascadian Farm, EPIC protein bars, Larabar, Nature Valley and Yoplait.

Nestlé is the parent company of a range of brands, from Gerber baby and toddler foods to San Pellegrino waters to Orgain protein powders and nutritional supplements.

Keurig Dr Pepper owns the Mott’s brand, which caters to kids and families with its applesauce, juice and other snack lines. It also owns multiple flavored water brands, including Bai and Core Hydration.

PepsiCo is the parent company of multiple brands marketing nutrition supplements and healthier beverage options like Bubly, Poppi and Lifewater. Its products also include Sabra hummus, PopCorners chips, and Quaker oats, bars and cereals.

The complete list of foods owned by member companies of AFIT spans products found in virtually every grocery aisle. It includes a wide range of popular meat and poultry items, cookies and crackers, chips and snacks, energy and sports drinks, canned food, condiments, spices and seasonings, and prepared and frozen meals.

The FRESH Act makes food less safe

The retroactive reach of the FRESH Act – undoing existing state food safety laws – is its most radical feature and the one that has received the least attention. 

California’s Food Safety Act, which bans Red Dye No. 3, brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate and propyl paraben from food sold in the state, would be nullified. 

Similar laws in Arkansas, Texas and Utah banning the same chemicals would be void. Taken together, these state laws represent years of effort, public advocacy and the democratic process, which would all be eliminated overnight by one single federal bill.  

The FRESH Act would also make it easier for companies to add chemicals to food without FDA approval. Food chemicals already approved, including those considered “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, would not receive additional FDA review. 

But GRAS chemicals aren’t necessarily safe chemicals. That’s because nearly 99% percent of the chemicals approved as GRAS since the year 2000 have been greenlighted by industry, not the FDA. 

The FRESH Act would undermine an already weak system for approving new chemicals. It would allow food chemical companies to submit even less information to the FDA on the chemicals they use. 

The bill would also let companies enlist industry-funded expert panels to decide food chemicals are safe, as long as they are added to an FDA database. Experts could also continue to have conflicts of interest as long as they are “managed.” If the FDA doesn’t respond to a request to add a new chemical to the GRAS list in 90 days, it would be added by default.

Under the FRESH Act, even if the FDA does ban a food chemical due to health and safety risks, the chemical of concern would still be allowed in food for two years. Companies may also ask the FDA to hide safety information from the public or delay chemical restrictions indefinitely by requesting hearings.

Everything the bill aims to achieve is a striking contrast to the agenda of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Under his signature “Make America Healthy Again,” Kennedy has called out food dyes, ultra-processed foods and the GRAS loophole as targets for reform. 

What consumers can do now

In the absence of federal action, states have stepped up to protect our health by removing toxic chemicals from our food. The FRESH Act would strip states of that power and place food safety in the hands of chemical companies instead.

Contact your representative and urge them to preserve critical public health protections by rejecting the FRESH Act. This is a direct attack on states rights and food safety. Your call carries weight.

At home, shoppers can check EWG’s Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Chemicals, which highlights top food chemicals to avoid due to health and safety concerns. 

For some extra help, take a look at EWG’s Food Scores, which provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help you identify alternatives. 

Or if you’re on the go, EWG’s Healthy Living app puts that information in your pocket while you shop.

The food industry, including some of your favorite brands, is hoping consumers aren’t paying attention to this fight. Let’s prove them wrong.

Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN April 30, 2026

Kursk II is one of Rosatom’s most important nuclear construction projects within Russia. Four of the most advanced and powerful units in Rosatom’s history—VVER-TOI reactors with capacities of up to 1,250 MW each—are being built there.

But this site is also the Russian nuclear power plant closest to the border with Ukraine. Likely for this reason, Rosatom is carrying out construction under conditions of limited transparency—either not publicly disclosing key construction milestones or doing so with significant delays and inconsistencies. This has led to confusion even at the level of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

To read the rest of this article, click here.

The post The curious, secretive case of the Kursk II nuclear power plant’s weird data appeared first on Bellona.org.

EWG applauds House passage of Luna amendment to protect public from toxic pesticides Anthony Lacey April 30, 2026

WASHINGTON — House lawmakers today passed a farm bill amendment, led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), that removes a controversial liability shield for pesticide manufacturers.

The successful 280-142 vote scraps a provision that would have given the companies sweeping immunity from liability for illnesses linked to their products. 

The vote also preserves states’ authority to adopt stronger health warnings for pesticides.

The following is a statement from EWG’s Legislative Director Geoff Horsfield:

EWG strongly supports the House’s adoption of Rep. Luna’s amendment to the farm bill. By striking provisions that would have shielded pesticide manufacturers from accountability and undermined state and local protections, the House has taken an important step to safeguard public health.

At a time when communities nationwide are increasingly concerned about the risks associated with pesticide exposure, lawmakers should be strengthening – not weakening – the ability of states and local governments to act. 

Preserving these protections ensures that communities, especially farmworkers and children, are not left vulnerable from exposure to harmful farm chemicals.

EWG commends the House for rejecting efforts to erode state and local authority and urges Congress to maintain this critical language as the farm bill advances. Protecting people from toxic pesticides must remain a top priority.

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Pesticides Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 April 30, 2026

Senior executives, directors, and major investors from the world’s largest fertiliser and grain companies have sold shares worth more than $66 million (£49 million) during price hikes linked to the Iran war, DeSmog can reveal.

Since the outbreak of the conflict in February, provoked by a U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran, fertiliser prices have increased by almost 45 percent – leading wheat producers in Australia to pare back planting, and some UK farmers to warn they may not sow for the summer season, risking soaring global grain prices.

The increased costs come after Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route. Around one-third of the world’s fertiliser, 20 percent of liquefied natural gas, and 25 percent of seaborne oil usually passes through the strait. The vast majority of chemical fertilisers are made from fossil fuels. 

DeSmog’s new analysis found that insiders at three firms – fertiliser giants CF Industries and Nutrien, and grain company Archer Daniels Midland – have sold shares worth tens of millions since the outbreak of the conflict.

As commodity prices have increased, so have the share prices of the world’s largest fertiliser and grain companies. In March, Nutrien saw its share value grow by over 50 percent, and CF Industries by nearly 40 percent. Although grain company shares have increased less markedly, they have also shown an upward trend.

DeSmog found that Kenneth Alvin Seitz, the CEO of the world’s largest fertiliser company, Nutrien, sold shares worth almost $5 million (£3.7 million) in March 2026 after the outbreak of the Iran war, making a $1.8 million (£1.3 million) profit on the transaction.

Three senior vice presidents at Archer Daniels Midland also banked nearly $8.5 million (£6.3 million) selling shares.

The Financial Times reported last month that insiders at CF Industries sold more than $30 million (£22 million) in shares after Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz on 2 March. DeSmog’s analysis found that, in total, insiders at the firm have sold almost $50 million (£37 million) of shares since the war began.

In the U.S., Canada and, some European countries, publicly traded corporations must declare the sale of shares by insiders, including senior executives, board members, significant shareholders, and their close family members.

The findings come weeks after the United Nations’ World Food Programme warned that the conflict in the Middle East could push roughly 45 million more people into acute hunger. In the UK, food prices will rise by “at least” nine percent this year, according to warnings from the country’s Food and Drink Federation in late March.

“These findings are outrageous, but we shouldn’t be surprised,” said Mónica Vargas Collazos, head of the global programme at Grain, a sustainable food campaign group.

“When there are conflicts or other supply shocks, these companies use their monopoly power to jack up prices, extract mega profits, and enrich shareholders. Farmers and consumers pay the price.”

All the companies and individuals named were approached for comment, and there is no suggestion that they breached any rules or laws.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); Fertiliser Boom

Bosses also cashed in during the Ukraine war. DeSmog’s findings reveal that insiders at five of the world’s largest fertiliser and grain companies – also including Bunge and Mosaic – sold shares worth nearly $515 million (£380 million) during price hikes liked to both the Iran and Ukraine wars.

W. Anthony Will, CEO of the world’s third largest fertiliser company CF Industries until January, sold shares worth over $150 million (£111 million) during price spikes linked to the conflicts. Will acted as an advisor to CF Industries until mid-March, and remains on its board.

Insiders at Archer Daniels Midland sold more than $90 million (£67 million) during the two wars, while insiders at Bunge unloaded shares for over $175 million (£129 million) during price spikes tied to the Ukraine war.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 caused fertiliser prices to quickly peak, followed by further increases between August and December as Russia’s squeeze on Europe’s gas supply caused fertiliser manufacturers to pause some operations.

Insiders at CF Industries banked just under $180 million (£134 million) in share sales in the year following the invasion.

Jennifer Clapp, food security expert with IPES-Food, and a professor at the University of Waterloo, Canada, told DeSmog that the findings underlined the need to move away from fossil fuels in food production.

“This crisis has revealed, in all too vivid terms, just how dependent our food system is on fossil fuels,” she said. “It is long past time to break free from this insecure oil-addicted model, and shift to more ecological forms of farming and more local, territorial food systems.”

Pie – share sales
Infogram Big Beneficiaries

In total, DeSmog identified 11 months where the Ukraine and Iran wars contributed to soaring fertiliser and grain prices. Insiders sold 45 percent more shares in these 11 months than in the three intervening years combined.

Company executives often pre-plan sales and acquisitions ahead of time to demonstrate that they are not trading based on insider knowledge or gaming the market. Of the 136 sales analysed, only 28 were linked to these plans – suggesting that the vast majority were deliberate, in-the-moment decisions based on high share prices.

Beneficiaries included CF Industries’ Christopher Bohn, the company’s current CEO, who sold more than 150,000 shares for over $13 million (£9.6 million) in February and August 2022. He was the company’s chief financial officer at the time.

Other beneficiaries included an executive vice president CF Industries who sold shares worth nearly $30 million (£22 million) during key moments of the Ukraine war.

Executives and board members are often awarded shares by firms as part of compensation plans. CF Industries awarded W. Anthony Will, its then CEO, more than 150,000 shares on 28 February 2022 at the end of a three year compensation plan. 

As part of compensation packages, companies can also give executives and directors the right to buy shares for several years at a fixed price, incentivising the individuals to increase their value. In multiple transactions, insiders were able to use this arrangement to purchase shares below market price, and then sell them for a significant profit.

Alongside his freely awarded shares, Will also purchased more than 1 million shares at below market price on 28 February. He then sold over 1.2 million shares worth $100 million (£74 million) the same day – four days after the Ukraine war broke out.

In one transaction, on 25 February 2022, the day after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, CF Industries’ Christopher Bohn purchased more than 100,000 shares under price guarantees dating back as far as 2014. He sold these shares at up to double the price – making $4 million (£3 million) in profit.

Grain Prices

Global wheat prices could rise by 4.2 percent if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed for a sustained period, according to the Kiel Institute.

Rising grain prices have been caused in part by disruptions to oil and gas supply – increasing the cost of fertilisers and therefore of intensive food production.

Archer Daniels Midland and Bunge are part of the “ABCD” firms that collectively control more than 70 percent of the global grain market.

In 2022, following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the value of shares in the two companies increased by almost a third.

Share sales
Infogram

Beneficiaries included Juan R. Luciano, CEO of Archer Daniels Midland, who purchased 300,000 shares at below-market price before selling them for almost three times the value in October 2022. He made a $18 million (£13 million) profit from the transaction.

The transaction was pre-planned, but will have been scheduled to take place on a particular date or once share prices reached a certain high.  

Archer Daniels Midland’s share price soared in October 2022 – the month when Russian leader Vladimir Putin upped threats to leave the Black Sea Grain Deal, which allowed for the safe export of grain, food, and fertiliser from Ukrainian ports.

The single biggest wins were made by Paul J. Fribourg and Continental Grain, a private investment firm and agribusiness conglomerate led by Fribourg and established by his family. Fribourg was a board member at Bunge until the end of 2022. He and Continental Grain sold shares worth nearly $170 million in March 2022, although they also appear to have begun selling off part of their stake in the months prior to Russia’s invasion.

Bunge told DeSmog that “Continental Grain has no current ownership position and exited its stake in Bunge in 2023.”

A spokesperson added that “Bunge’s role is to help keep essential food, feed and fuel supply chains moving safely and reliably, in compliance with all applicable laws.”

Fact checked by Brigitte Wear

The post Fertiliser and Grain Bosses Bank $66 Million Selling Shares During Iran War appeared first on DeSmog.