G1. Progressive Green

Two chemicals with safety concerns are still in your food. EWG is urging the FDA to act. Iris Myers July 24, 2026

Two additives, known as ADA and BHT, are found in cereal, baked goods and other processed food millions of Americans enjoy. They’re also linked to potential health harms such as cancer and hormone disruption, so EWG is reiterating calls for banning their use in food.

Even though research on the two chemicals is ongoing, studies so far in animals or humans have already found their potential to cause health problems. These concerns justify the Food and Drug Administration revoking its approval for use of the two additives, EWG said in a pair of letters submitted to the agency earlier this month.

Safer alternatives to ADA and BHT are available, allowing manufacturers to achieve the same functions without relying on these chemicals. Some retailers – including major chains like Pizza Hut and Whole Foods Market – have already taken steps to get one or both of the additives out of their products. 

It’s time for the regulatory system to catch up with the science and food companies’ voluntary actions.

Ongoing FDA review

The comments follow the FDA’ s request for information, or RFI, about the two chemicals in food earlier this year – ADA, or azodicarbonamide, and BHT, or butylated hydroxytoluene. 

It’s part of the agency’s new program to reevaluate the safety of food chemicals.

The RFI only gathers input – it isn’t any kind of policy action. But the comments it receives on the request could eventually be used to guide decisions about allowing the additives in food.

That’s why EWG weighed in with written comments highlighting our concerns. The deadline to submit comments on BHT has been extended to August 13. The comment period for ADA closed on July 13.

What is ADA?

ADA was greenlighted for use in food in 1962 by the FDA as “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS. It’s added to baked goods as a dough conditioner. 

ADA breaks down during breadmaking, and two of its breakdown products, semicarbazide and urethane, have been shown to cause cancer. Urethane can also damage the reproductive system.

Because of these concerns, ADA is not permitted as a food additive in Australia or the European Union. International evaluations have also identified kidney effects in laboratory animals exposed to ADA.

Despite these concerns, the FDA has not thoroughly reexamined ADA’s safety in light of newer research on its potential health effects.

Lawmakers in New York and Texas introduced legislation to remove ADA from food sold in their states, but neither bill passed.

Several food retailers, including Whole Foods, Aldi and Walmart, have voluntarily removed or restricted ADA in their products. A 2025 survey by the American Bakers Association found that nearly 95% of its member companies already don’t use ADA.

Given the evidence of health risks – and how few companies still use the chemical – the FDA should take decisive action to end the use of ADA in food.

What is BHT?

The FDA approved BHT for use in food in 1954 and deemed it GRAS in 1959. The chemical is commonly added to breakfast cereal, frozen pizza, chewing gum and other processed foods, acting as a preservative, extending the shelf life of fats and oils. 

While it has not been formally classified as a carcinogen, studies have linked it to tumor promotion in animals. It has also been linked to damage to DNA and hormonal disruption.

A 2019 study found that U.S. residents had some of the highest exposure levels of BHT globally, with some exposure estimates exceeding safety limits. The chemical has been detected in human cord blood, breast milk, blood, urine and body fat.

Some states have already acted on concerns about BHT’s health effects, and several major food retailers and manufacturers, including Whole Foods and General Mills, have voluntarily removed the chemical from many products. 

Given the already available evidence showing the potential health risks of BHT, the FDA should act to immediately revoke approval for its use in food.

The trouble with GRAS

Both BHT and ADA remain on the market, thanks to their GRAS status.

When Congress created the GRAS exemption, in 1958, it was intended to apply to ingredients whose safety was beyond dispute, such as salt, water, yeast and vinegar.

But in the decades since, GRAS has expanded far beyond that intent. Since 2000, nearly 99% of new food chemicals have entered the market through the GRAS loophole, according to a 2025 EWG analysis. This lets scores of food chemicals reach store shelves with little government oversight, leaving food safety in the hands of manufacturers.

To protect the safety of our food supply from harmful chemicals like BHT and ADA, the FDA must close the GRAS loophole.

In March 2025 the Department of Health and Human Services, of which the FDA is part, announced a plan to review GRAS, originally slated for October 2025. That timeline has since been delayed to December 2026. The announcement could eventually lead to changes in the GRAS rule, but without firm proposals, there’s no real progress on food safety.

In the absence of enforceable federal action on GRAS, New York passed a bill that would ban use of three harmful food chemicals statewide – Red Dye No. 3, potassium bromate and propyl paraben – and reform the GRAS loophole at the state level. The bill awaits Gov. Kathy Hochul’s signature.

What you can do

While we wait for the FDA to act on BHT and ADA and amend the GRAS loophole, consumers can minimize exposure to harmful food chemicals with these tips.

• Check ingredient labels and avoid food products that contain BHT and ADA. Food companies must list these on packaged food labels if they’re added as a food ingredient.
• Consult EWG’s Food Scores database to find products without BHT, ADA and other concerning ingredients. When you’re on the go, use EWG’s Healthy Living™ app to find products without toxic chemicals.
• Whenever possible, look for packaged foods that are certified organic. These products must meet strong standards that protect consumers from exposure to potentially harmful additives.
• Reduce consumption of ultra-processed foods when possible. Many contain ingredients of concern that could harm your health.

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Authors Iris Myers July 24, 2026

The Stay Grounded network has launched a new project called ‘Red Lines for Airports’. It seeks to unite and support groups campaigning against airport expansion projects and build power for a reduction of air traffic. As part of it we’re running a European Tour, visiting members, and supporting with workshops and skill-shares. Here Sara Fromm, German contact campaigner and action coordinator at…

Source

The Stay Grounded network has launched a new project called ‘Red Lines for Airports’. It seeks to unite and support groups campaigning against airport expansion projects and build power for a reduction of air traffic. As part of it, we’re running a European Tour, visiting members, and supporting with workshops and skill-shares. Here, Inês tells us about her trip to Madrid to support…

Source

EWG names former California pesticide regulator Emily Bryson senior policy director Anthony Lacey July 23, 2026

SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group today announced that Emily Bryson, a veteran environmental scientist and former senior leader at the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, has joined the organization as senior policy director for California.

At EWG, Bryson will help lead the organization’s California regulatory agenda, with a particular focus on pesticides, public health and advancement of stronger protections for farmworkers, consumers and communities.

Bryson brings to EWG nearly a decade of experience at the nation’s leading pesticide regulatory agency. In that role she helped develop science-based policies to reduce pesticide exposure, strengthen protections for agricultural workers and guide the state’s response to emerging technologies.

“Emily’s experience is exactly what EWG needs as we continue to push for stronger protections from harmful chemicals across California,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. 

“She understands the science, regulatory process and real-world impacts toxic chemicals have on workers, communities and consumers. Emily’s expertise strengthens an already strong EWG team, particularly as California continues to lead the nation on public health policy.”

Protecting agricultural workers

Bryson most recently served as a supervising senior environmental scientist in the DPR’s Worker Health and Safety Branch. While there, she managed a team of scientists conducting pesticide exposure studies and developing regulations to better protect agricultural workers. 

During her tenure, she led initiatives to modernize pesticide mitigation efforts, supervised scientific research measuring occupational pesticide exposure, and worked with stakeholders across government, academia, agriculture, labor organizations and public health.

She also founded and chaired DPR’s Emerging Technologies Workgroup and represented the department on numerous state and federal advisory committees addressing pesticide safety, agricultural innovation and worker protections.

Earlier in her career, Bryson authored studies evaluating pesticide exposure among agricultural workers, helped develop worker safety regulations and conducted outreach to farmworkers and agricultural communities throughout California. Her public health research has also examined links between environmental pesticide exposure and autoimmune diseases in children.

Safeguards against harmful pesticides

“I've spent my career working to ensure pesticide policies are grounded in sound science and protect the people most at risk from exposure,” said Bryson. “EWG has been a leading voice for healthier food, safer farming and stronger protections from harmful chemicals for decades. 

“I'm excited to join such an outstanding team and help advance policies that better protect workers, families and the environment,” she added.

Bryson earned a master’s degree of public health in environmental health from San Diego State University and a bachelor’s degree in anthropology from California State University, Long Beach.

###

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. Visit www.ewg.org for more information.

Areas of Focus California Veteran scientist brings nearly a decade of experience protecting farmworkers and advancing pesticide safeguards Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 July 23, 2026

Last week, something incredible happened. On 15 July 2026, more than 50 of our partners, friends and comrades from across the movement gathered to discuss a bold new vision for South Africa’s energy future. Our message is already loud and clear: “Asinimali Kodwa Sinelanga!” — we have no money, but we have the sun. The struggle to afford the basics of life, including electricity, continues in South Africa, but there are opportunities to help solve the crises we face. We must take them!

A crisis we can’t ignore

If we’re being honest about the situation: it’s grave. Since 2007, electricity prices in South Africa have skyrocketed by 1,172%, rising six times faster than inflation. Today, nearly 60% of households live below the poverty line, and many families are forced to make the impossible choice between buying maize meal or keeping the lights on.

The government’s current Free Basic Electricity (FBE) grant of 50-60 kWh is symbolically insufficient. It might power a lightbulb, but it won’t run a fridge, a stove, or a heater. Meanwhile, our reliance on ageing, fragile coal plants is costing the public R960 billion (US$55.2 billion) a year in health impacts alone.

The vision: 350 kWh of clean, public power

Our demand is clear: we want a 350 kWh FBE grant generated with publicly financed renewable energy. This isn’t just a number we pulled out of a hat. Based on the recommendations of experts from the Public Affairs Research Institute (PARI) and other economic justice organisations, 350 kWh is the Minimum Threshold Level of Consumption required for a family to reach basic developmental standards. Data from the Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity group (PMBEJD) shows that even households with only one person working for a minimum wage already purchase an average of 350 kWh just to survive. By securing this grant, we enable bulk food refrigeration, hot water, and the “micro-business capability” needed to break the cycle of poverty.

As massive investments from the Just Energy Transition Investment Plan (JET-IP) and other international sources flow into the country, it only makes sense that this money is first spent where it matters most. These funds must be directed toward programs that directly alleviate poverty and support economic activity in our most underresourced communities. This is a necessary step to finally reducing the historical inequalities that continue to hold us back. By shifting the R118 billion (US$6.8 billion) currently spent on annual fossil fuel subsidies, we can begin public funding of clean, affordable power for households across the country.

 

Building our campaign community

The meeting was a generous and celebratory start to this journey. We heard from researchers, media experts, and grassroots organisers from organisations across the country. We’re moving forward strategically. Our eyes are on the local government elections on 4 November 2026. We’re going to use this moment to demand that every candidate pledges to support 350 kWh of FBE from municipal solar power.

Get involved

We need everyone in this fight. There are two ways you can help right now:

1. Join a Working Group: If you represent an organisation or have specific skills to offer, please sign up for a working group and join our next planning meeting on 29 July 2026.
2. Join the Campaign for Affordable Electricity. Get campaign updates and action alerts by signing up to our email list.

Together, we can secure the clean, affordable power our communities deserve.

In solidarity, 

Ferron Pedro
Senior Campaigner, 350.org South Africa

 

The post Asinimali Kodwa Sinelanga: Taking Our Next Steps Towards Climate & Economic Justice appeared first on 350.

How Iowa’s many factory farms may be harming health and the environment Ketura Persellin July 22, 2026

If you’ve eaten sausage or ham – or any kind of pork product – there’s a good chance it came from Iowa. 

The Hawkeye State raises about a third of all hogs in the U.S. – more by a wide margin than any other state, along with some poultry and beef. 

Iowa also has a high – and rising – rate of cancer. It’s one of only three states where cancer is rising. Those two things may be related.

Manure from all that livestock may well be partly responsible, because it can end up in drinking water, exposing people to a greater risk of cancer.

 A new EWG analysis finds Iowa has over 15,000 factory farms – thousands more than state data shows. These animals produce a staggering amount of manure: 107 million tons a year.

The average human produces about 12 tons of solid waste over the course of an entire lifetime. Iowa’s factory farms annually generate more waste than the entire population of New York City, enough to fill more than 38,000 Olympic-size swimming pools.

How factory farms pollute water

To be disposed of, the manure is spread – untreated – on nearby farm fields, fulfilling two purposes – disposal and, because of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus, fertilizer for neighboring cropland. 

But those fields can’t always absorb all the nutrients – if the ground is frozen, for instance, or if the growing crops already have enough nitrogen or phosphorus. The excess manure or nutrients may run off fields or get into tile drains below fields, flowing into water, or leach through soil into groundwater, contaminating the drinking water supply. 

Once nitrogen enters the water, it can become nitrate, which is harmful at different levels in drinking water. 

Research links nitrate – found in manure and commercial nitrogen fertilizer – in drinking water to an increased risk of colorectal, bladder, kidney, ovarian and thyroid cancers. It’s also linked to adverse birth outcomes, including preterm birth, low birth weight and spina bifida. 

Many Iowans are affected by exposure to nitrate. Results of tests for nitrate showed that 146 Iowa community water systems – serving 1.2 million people – between 2021 and 2023 had elevated levels of the contaminant, EWG found.

Outdated nitrate limit

That means 1.2 million Iowans are being served water with elevated levels of nitrate and being exposed as a result to elevated risks of cancer and birth defects. 

Eighty-one water systems, serving almost 800,000 people, served water that tested even higher. Eight systems, serving 56,000 people, exceeded the federal nitrate legal limit.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s limit on nitrate in drinking water, set in 1962, aimed to prevent a potentially fatal condition in infants sometimes called “blue baby syndrome.”

Recent research links nitrate exposure at levels well below the legal limit to a higher risk of colorectal and other cancers, thyroid disease and birth defects. 

Iowa already has the second-highest rate of new cancer cases in the country, a trend researchers have connected to a number of environmental factors, like water contamination, although other factors are also at play.

It’s not just Iowans who are affected. Nitrate contamination travels through surface water and groundwater aquifers, and the food raised on treated land moves through the food supply. 

So anyone who eats or drinks items connected to industrial agriculture has a stake in how well this waste is managed.

Threat to the environment 

Manure contamination of water also contributes to other problems affecting public health and the environment. Phosphorus and nitrate in excess can affect aquatic ecosystems and contribute to algae blooms.

Industrial-scale meat production also contributes to climate change. Excess nitrogen can break down into nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas, trapping heat in the atmosphere. Extreme weather events, such as drought followed by heavy rain, can lead to higher nitrous oxide emissions from farming. 

The problem keeps getting worse

The number of the largest animal facilities in Iowa grew nearly 13% between 2019 and 2025, climbing to 4,444 operations, the new EWG analysis found.

But it’s not just sheer growth in the number of these operations that causes an issue. It’s also the consequences of growth. 

Large operations make up less than a third of all farms in the state, which are mostly smaller and mid-size operations. But because of the sheer quantity of animals they house, they produce 60% of the manure. 

As livestock production consolidates into bigger, more concentrated operations, the waste problem intensifies along with it, becoming more difficult to manage, whether to spread as fertilizer without triggering runoff or to transport it longer distances.

Policy failures

Federal policy failures that could control and manage industrial farms’ growth are at least partly to blame. 

For purposes of federal oversight, factory farms are defined by their size. An operation may be too small to qualify as a large farm subject to stricter permitting and planning rules, even if they  produce virtually the same amount of manure. That’s the case with over 3,200 Iowa operations, which fall under the large threshold by at most 50 animals.

Federal funding paid through farmer subsidies effectively promotes factory farm expansion rather than programs intended to promote a safer, more climate-resilient farming system. Instead of protecting water quality or the climate, taxpayers’ money supports the expansion of factory farming.

What you can do

You can’t personally fix a state’s water quality, but everyday choices add up and send a signal to the market. 

Eating less meat, or choosing meat that wasn’t raised on a factory farm, reduces demand for the kind of large-scale, concentrated production driving this problem. Consult our meat and dairy label decoder for guidance.

In the grocery store, look for labels on meat and poultry like Animal Welfare Approved, Certified Humane (paired with “grass-fed” or “pasture-raised”), or Global Animal Partnership’s more stringent standards. These labels indicate the animals were raised in better conditions, with more space and less concentration of waste than is typical of a factory farm.

Beyond the grocery store, consumer advocacy is also critical. Encourage local, state and federal officials to strengthen oversight of manure application and push for change in the priorities of federal expenditures.  

Areas of Focus Factory Farms Authors Ketura Persellin July 22, 2026

EWG applauds Senate vote on UPF disclosure bill Iris Myers July 22, 2026

WASHINGTON – Senate lawmakers today advanced a bill, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), that addresses the harms caused by ultra-processed food, or UPF. 

S. 5026, the Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act, would require a disclosure on front of the package of food that’s UPF. The bill cleared the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee today, advancing the bill to the full Senate. 

The following is a statement from the Environmental Working Group’s Senior Vice President for Government Affairs, Scott Faber. 

Defining UPF and requiring a front-of-package disclosure is long overdue. 

Diets high in UPF are a driver of chronic disease, linked to everything from diabetes to depression to dementia. The United States leads the world in UPF consumption, and kids now get more than 60% of their calories from these foods. 

We applaud senators for advancing legislation to help consumers identify and avoid UPF.

For more information about UPF, visit: https://www.ewg.org/areas-focus/food-water/ultra-processed-foods

###

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 Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 July 22, 2026

• July 22, 2026

Climate Blind, Weakly Regulated And Costly: SANPC Bill Is Not In Public Interest

The Green Connection recently submitted written comments to Parliament calling for the South African National Petroleum Company (SANPC) Bill to be withdrawn. The eco-justice organisation warns that the proposed legislation could deepen South Africa’s dependence on oil and gas, while simultaneously weakening public oversight and exposing taxpayers to major environmental clean up costs. The Bill would establish a single state owned oil and gas company – consolidating iGas, PetroSA and the Strategic Fuel Fund (SFF) responsible for oil and gas exploration, production, storage, transport and sales, including through new liquefied natural gas infrastructure in South Africa and abroad.

“The Bill would place an exceptionally broad range of oil and gas functions in the hands of a single state-owned entity – making strong oversight, transparency and public accountability essential. That level of power is especially concerning because the Bill is climate-blind at precisely the moment when South Africa’s laws and international commitments require climate accountability."

"It is not only shocking but very concerning that the Bill does not refer to climate change, not once, despite South Africa having recently enacted a Climate Change Act. Section 7 of the Act - which came into operation in March 2025 - requires government departments to review and if necessary revise, coordinate and harmonise their laws and policies to ensure that the risks of climate change are taken into consideration, and to give effect to the principles and objects of the Act (including climate change mitigation and adaptation). Ignoring climate change in a Bill of this magnitude is not merely an oversight because, fundamentally, it undermines the whole-of-government approach that South Africa has committed to."

"By failing to acknowledge the climate crisis, the Bill risks locking the country into long-term fossil fuel infrastructure when public policy should be accelerating a fair shift away from oil and gas." Lisa Makaula The Green Connection Advocacy and Programmes Lead

Makaula also highlights a separate but equally important concern relating to PetroSA’s substantial legacy decommissioning and rehabilitation liabilities. She says, “These obligations are estimated to cost around R10 billion, yet only about R3 billion has reportedly been set aside. And since the Bill is contradictory on whether these liabilities will transfer to the new SANPC, along with PetroSA’s valuable rights and assets, or if it will be left behind in an underfunded PetroSA severed from its revenue streams, taxpayers could eventually end up footing these very expensive bills.”

Notably, in an April 2024 media statement the then-Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (now the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources) indicated that to kickstart the operations of the new entity, a ‘lease and assign model’ was being proposed to ‘strategically select what is leased and assigned to the SANPC by ring-fencing or isolating PetroSA’s legacy assets such as decommissioning liability and current operating challenges of the Gas to Liquid Refinery’.

The Green Connection further cautions that future oil and gas revenues could bypass the national budget. The State is entitled to a 20% carried interest in future oil and gas projects – a direct stake in production, separate from taxes and royalties. Under the Bill, revenue from this stake would flow directly to the new company to fund its operations, instead of being paid into the National Revenue Fund where Parliament normally determines how public money is spent. The organisation recommends that any such revenues be paid into the National Revenue Fund, or into a transparent,
ring-fenced statutory fund dedicated to the just transition, decommissioning and rehabilitation.

“There are several strong reasons that Parliament should withdraw the SANPC Bill. However, if it should proceed, the Bill must be fundamentally amended to protect the public interest, strengthen oversight and ensure that any oil and gas revenues support the just transition – not further fossil fuel expansion,” Lisa Makaula The Green Connection Advocacy and Programmes Lead

Compared with an earlier 2023 version of the Bill, several oversight safeguards appear to have been removed. These include requirements for government approval of subsidiaries, foreign transactions and new funding sources, as well as stronger checks on the appointment and removal of senior executives. The Green Connection says these changes are concerning in light of South Africa’s recent experience of state capture and corruption at state-owned entities.

The submission also raises additional governance and process concerns, including the absence of dedicated board representation for affected communities or civil society, weak rules for disqualifying unsuitable board members, unclear whistle-blower protections and reduced checks on senior appointments. The Green Connection has asked Parliament to confirm whether the Bill should have been referred to the provinces because of its potential environmental and community impacts, and whether it should first have been considered by NEDLAC, given its significance for economic policy, labour, business and communities.

“Coastal communities and small-scale fishers are already living with the consequences of risky ocean and energy decisions. Any new state-owned energy company must be accountable to the people most affected by its decisions. Communities should not be left out of governance, consultation or the benefits of public resources.” Neville Van Rooy The Green Connection Outreach Ambassador

The Green Connection has requested the opportunity to make an oral submission when public hearings are held.

The Green Connection administrator September 4, 2024 Past News THE GREEN CONNECTION AND NATURAL JUSTICE NOW HAVE THE RECORD OF DECISION TO PROGRESS LEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST TOTALENERGIES

September 4, 2024 THE GREEN CONNECTION AND NATURAL JUSTICE NOW HAVE THE RECORD OF DECISION TO PROGRESS LEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST

The Green Connection administrator October 30, 2024 Past News COASTAL COMMUNITIES AND ECO-JUSTICE GROUPS’ OFFSHORE DRILLING APPEAL HIGHLIGHTS THREATS TO LIVELIHOODS, MARINE ECOSYSTEMS, AND CLIMATE GOALS

October 30, 2024 COASTAL COMMUNITIES AND ECO-JUSTICE GROUPS’ OFFSHORE DRILLING APPEAL HIGHLIGHTS THREATS TO LIVELIHOODS, MARINE ECOSYSTEMS, AND CLIMATE GOALS

The Green Connection administrator November 6, 2024 Past News TO PROTECT OCEANS AND LIVELIHOODS, WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT SET TO HEAR ANOTHER CASE AGAINST TOTALENERGIES DRILLING PLANS IN SOUTH AFRICAN WATERS

November 6, 2024 TO PROTECT OCEANS AND LIVELIHOODS, WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT SET TO HEAR ANOTHER CASE AGAINST TOTALENERGIES DRILLING

The Green Connection administrator November 17, 2024 Past News WITH CLIMATE TALKS UNDERWAY, WHY MUST CIVIL SOCIETY STILL FIGHT TOTALENERGIES’ FOSSIL FUEL DRILLING IN COURT?

November 17, 2024 WITH CLIMATE TALKS UNDERWAY, WHY MUST CIVIL SOCIETY STILL FIGHT TOTALENERGIES’ FOSSIL FUEL DRILLING IN COURT? As

The Green Connection administrator January 24, 2025 Past News Eskom’s Proposed Retail Tariff Plan: The Green Connection Joins Calls For Energy Justice And Stakeholder Engagement

January 24, 2025 Eskom’s Proposed Retail Tariff Plan: The Green Connection Joins Calls For Energy Justice And Stakeholder Engagement. Photo

The Green Connection administrator February 28, 2025 Latest News Eco-Justice Organizations Reject Draft Scoping Report For Offshore Drilling On SA’S West Coast (TEEPSA DWOB South).

February 28, 2025 Eco-Justice Organizations Reject Draft Scoping Report For Offshore Drilling On SA’S West Coast (TEEPSA DWOB South). Just

The Green Connection administrator September 4, 2024 Past News THE GREEN CONNECTION AND NATURAL JUSTICE NOW HAVE THE RECORD OF DECISION TO PROGRESS LEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST TOTALENERGIES

September 4, 2024 THE GREEN CONNECTION AND NATURAL JUSTICE NOW HAVE THE RECORD OF DECISION TO PROGRESS LEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST

The Green Connection administrator October 30, 2024 Past News COASTAL COMMUNITIES AND ECO-JUSTICE GROUPS’ OFFSHORE DRILLING APPEAL HIGHLIGHTS THREATS TO LIVELIHOODS, MARINE ECOSYSTEMS, AND CLIMATE GOALS

October 30, 2024 COASTAL COMMUNITIES AND ECO-JUSTICE GROUPS’ OFFSHORE DRILLING APPEAL HIGHLIGHTS THREATS TO LIVELIHOODS, MARINE ECOSYSTEMS, AND CLIMATE GOALS

The Green Connection administrator November 6, 2024 Past News TO PROTECT OCEANS AND LIVELIHOODS, WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT SET TO HEAR ANOTHER CASE AGAINST TOTALENERGIES DRILLING PLANS IN SOUTH AFRICAN WATERS

November 6, 2024 TO PROTECT OCEANS AND LIVELIHOODS, WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT SET TO HEAR ANOTHER CASE AGAINST TOTALENERGIES DRILLING

The Green Connection administrator November 17, 2024 Past News WITH CLIMATE TALKS UNDERWAY, WHY MUST CIVIL SOCIETY STILL FIGHT TOTALENERGIES’ FOSSIL FUEL DRILLING IN COURT?

November 17, 2024 WITH CLIMATE TALKS UNDERWAY, WHY MUST CIVIL SOCIETY STILL FIGHT TOTALENERGIES’ FOSSIL FUEL DRILLING IN COURT? As

The Green Connection administrator January 24, 2025 Past News Eskom’s Proposed Retail Tariff Plan: The Green Connection Joins Calls For Energy Justice And Stakeholder Engagement

January 24, 2025 Eskom’s Proposed Retail Tariff Plan: The Green Connection Joins Calls For Energy Justice And Stakeholder Engagement. Photo

The Green Connection administrator February 28, 2025 Latest News Eco-Justice Organizations Reject Draft Scoping Report For Offshore Drilling On SA’S West Coast (TEEPSA DWOB South).

February 28, 2025 Eco-Justice Organizations Reject Draft Scoping Report For Offshore Drilling On SA’S West Coast (TEEPSA DWOB South). Just

The Green Connection administrator September 4, 2024 Past News THE GREEN CONNECTION AND NATURAL JUSTICE NOW HAVE THE RECORD OF DECISION TO PROGRESS LEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST TOTALENERGIES

September 4, 2024 THE GREEN CONNECTION AND NATURAL JUSTICE NOW HAVE THE RECORD OF DECISION TO PROGRESS LEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST

The Green Connection administrator October 30, 2024 Past News COASTAL COMMUNITIES AND ECO-JUSTICE GROUPS’ OFFSHORE DRILLING APPEAL HIGHLIGHTS THREATS TO LIVELIHOODS, MARINE ECOSYSTEMS, AND CLIMATE GOALS

October 30, 2024 COASTAL COMMUNITIES AND ECO-JUSTICE GROUPS’ OFFSHORE DRILLING APPEAL HIGHLIGHTS THREATS TO LIVELIHOODS, MARINE ECOSYSTEMS, AND CLIMATE GOALS

The Green Connection administrator November 6, 2024 Past News TO PROTECT OCEANS AND LIVELIHOODS, WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT SET TO HEAR ANOTHER CASE AGAINST TOTALENERGIES DRILLING PLANS IN SOUTH AFRICAN WATERS

November 6, 2024 TO PROTECT OCEANS AND LIVELIHOODS, WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT SET TO HEAR ANOTHER CASE AGAINST TOTALENERGIES DRILLING

The Green Connection administrator November 17, 2024 Past News WITH CLIMATE TALKS UNDERWAY, WHY MUST CIVIL SOCIETY STILL FIGHT TOTALENERGIES’ FOSSIL FUEL DRILLING IN COURT?

November 17, 2024 WITH CLIMATE TALKS UNDERWAY, WHY MUST CIVIL SOCIETY STILL FIGHT TOTALENERGIES’ FOSSIL FUEL DRILLING IN COURT? As

The Green Connection administrator January 24, 2025 Past News Eskom’s Proposed Retail Tariff Plan: The Green Connection Joins Calls For Energy Justice And Stakeholder Engagement

January 24, 2025 Eskom’s Proposed Retail Tariff Plan: The Green Connection Joins Calls For Energy Justice And Stakeholder Engagement. Photo

The Green Connection administrator February 28, 2025 Latest News Eco-Justice Organizations Reject Draft Scoping Report For Offshore Drilling On SA’S West Coast (TEEPSA DWOB South).

February 28, 2025 Eco-Justice Organizations Reject Draft Scoping Report For Offshore Drilling On SA’S West Coast (TEEPSA DWOB South). Just

The post Climate Blind, Weakly Regulated And Costly: SANPC Bill Is Not In Public Interest appeared first on The Green Connection.

Update on EWG-sponsored California bills to boost consumer safety, choice and transparency Ketura Persellin July 20, 2026

California, the world’s fourth-largest economy, could soon prove – once again – its status as a leader in environmental and public health policy that helps reshape the U.S. marketplace. 

When Sacramento lawmakers return from recess next month, they’ll consider four EWG-sponsored bills that address key issues: energy affordability, “forever chemicals” pesticides, toxic chemicals in diapers and ultra-processed foods, or UPF. 

If enacted, these bills would help consumers lead cleaner, healthier lives through transparency, commonsense safety regulations and choice. They face further votes in the Legislature in August before being sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature. 

1. Using solar to lower sky-high electricity bills (Senate Bill 868)

The average California ratepayer faces electricity bills higher than those of most Americans. “Balcony solar” could help.

SB 868 would make it easier for everyone, including renters, apartment and condo dwellers, as well as owners of single-family homes, to plug into the sun using balcony solar systems – small, portable solar panels that can easily be set up on a patio or balcony and taken along when the owner moves. 

The systems are inexpensive enough that ratepayers can recoup their investment within a couple of years, putting solar – and savings – within reach of more people. And the costs should decline as the market grows. 

But complex rules make accessing balcony solar unnecessarily hard, if not impossible for many.

That’s why EWG is sponsoring this bill, known as the Plug and Play Solar Act, authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). If enacted, it would ensure that balcony solar systems meet strict safety standards and remove hurdles for Californians who want to take more ownership over their utility bills.

SB 868 passed in the California Senate in May, and through the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee in June. No major amendments have been added to this bill and the next step in the process is review by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. 

2. Widespread use of PFAS pesticides (Assembly Bill 1603)

This bill would address the use of the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS that are currently being allowed to be used as pesticides in California.

Over 2.5 million pounds of these chemicals are applied to crops each year within the state, contaminating not just produce but soil and water too.

The bill follows EWG research showing state test results finding PFAS pesticides on nine in 10 California-grown samples of peaches, nectarines and plums. It’s critical to address this source of toxic pollution in the state that grows about half the country’s produce.

Our interactive map shows the California fields where PFAS pesticides are applied. 

As introduced, AB 1603, by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), would have banned the use, sale and manufacture of PFAS pesticides statewide beginning in 2035. It would have also immediately paused state approvals, phased out by 2030 the PFAS pesticides not allowed in Europe, and required public disclosure of PFAS pesticide uses. 

AB 1603 passed the Assembly in May and went on to pass through two Senate policy committees in June, Environmental Quality and Agriculture, where it was heavily amended. The Senate Appropriations Committee will next review the bill, followed by a full Senate vote.

The bill has been modified to no longer prohibit the sale or use of PFAS pesticides. It requires disclosure only. Still, that’s an important first step in addressing the use of these chemicals.

AB 1603 also maintains a categorical approach – viewing PFAS as a class of chemicals, rather than regulating them one at a time. 

3. Baby diapers made of mystery chemicals (Assembly Bill 1901)

Many categories of personal care products are a virtual black box, their ingredients a mystery. 

That’s especially true for baby diapers, since infants and toddlers wear them constantly for at least a couple years. Their developing bodies make them particularly vulnerable to toxic chemical exposure. 

AB 1901, by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), would require manufacturers of children’s diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in California to fully disclose their ingredients on product packaging and online.

Recent tests have found diapers may contain phthalates, linked to hormone disruption, bleaching agents associated with skin and respiratory irritation, and volatile organic compounds, including hazardous air pollutants like toluene and xylene.

Parents and caregivers deserve to know what chemicals sit for years on their child’s body 24/7.

AB 1901 passed the California State Assembly and the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. In August, the bill heads, with no major changes, to the Senate Appropriations Committee for review. 

4. What is and isn’t ultra-processed food (Assembly Bill 2244)

UPF make up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half of the typical adult diet in the U.S. 

AB 2244 addresses the confusion shoppers face in distinguishing ultra-processed from less processed food, with the intent of helping to rein in skyrocketing and harmful UPF consumption. 

If enacted, the bill would establish a system for certifying qualifying foods as free from the additives, emulsifiers, food dyes and flavors that often characterize UPF. It would tie that system to California’s first-in-the-nation definition of UPF, which was adopted last year as the result of an earlier bill, also intended to stem the consumption of UPF.

Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) is the lawmaker behind this bill and several other pioneering laws addressing food safety, especially for kids. His work has helped galvanize a national movement to address food chemicals. 

AB 2244 passed the Assembly in May, when it was revised to give grocers more flexibility in how they display products sporting the UPF label. The Senate health and judiciary committees have passed the bill, and the Senate appropriations panel will consider it next.

Protein powder bill falls short

EWG also sponsored a fifth bill, which aimed to require manufacturers of protein powder and shakes to disclose levels of heavy metals in their products. 

Millions supplement their protein intake in various forms every day. But they have no way to know whether the shakes, powders and bars they consume contain concerning levels of harmful contaminants: lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic. One recent study showed about half the products tested exceeded at least one state or federal safety limit for these contaminants.

The fifth bill, SB 1033, would have required manufacturers to disclose levels of heavy metals in their products. Its author, state Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego), sought to make manufacturers accountable for a product that is under-regulated by federal standards.

This bill would have brought greater transparency to protein products, much like an earlier law, which holds producers of baby food to a safety standard for heavy metal. But the legislation did not advance out of the Senate.

Areas of Focus Ultra-Processed Foods Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals Pesticides PFAS Chemicals California July 23, 2026

Antimining Barricade Torn Down In Palawam - But Indigenous People Resistance Will Not Be Silenced

Palawan — long celebrated as the Philippines’ last ecological frontier — is now ground zero for a disturbing pattern: mining incursions advancing with impunity, and Indigenous Peoples’ rights being trampled by the very institutions mandated to protect them.

On March 26, in Sitio Linao, Barangay Ipilan, Brooke’s Point, Pala’wan communities watched in shock as two backhoes belonging to Calmia Nickel Inc. (CNI) crossed the invisible boundary that has safeguarded their upland ancestral domain for generations. For the first time, heavy machinery penetrated a landscape where selfsufficiency still thrives: forests rich with wildlife, upland rice and cassava fields, and dozens of freshwater springs sustaining entire communities.

Support the Pala’wan

What you can do: to support this struggle, please sign and send this email letter to Hon. Cesareo Benedito Jr., Mayor of Brooke’s Point, including also the other electronic addresses in Cc.

/* Contenedor */ .palawan-actions { width: 100%; padding: 30px 20px; box-sizing: border-box; } .palawan-actions-desktop, .palawan-actions-mobile { align-items: center; justify-content: center; flex-wrap: wrap; gap: 14px; } /* Botones */ .palawan-actions .palawan-button { position: static !important; display: inline-flex !important; align-items: center; justify-content: center; float: none !important; width: auto !important; min-height: 48px; margin: 0 !important; padding: 12px 22px !important; background: #94164f !important; color: #ffffff !important; border: 2px solid #94164f !important; border-radius: 4px !important; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px !important; font-weight: 700 !important; line-height: 1.2 !important; letter-spacing: 0 !important; text-align: center; text-decoration: none !important; white-space: nowrap; cursor: pointer; box-shadow: 0 3px 8px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14); transition: background-color 0.2s ease, color 0.2s ease, border-color 0.2s ease, transform 0.2s ease; } /* Evita el ícono y el desplazamiento automático de Divi */ .palawan-actions .palawan-button::before, .palawan-actions .palawan-button::after { display: none !important; content: none !important; } .palawan-actions .palawan-button:hover, .palawan-actions .palawan-button:focus { padding: 12px 22px !important; background: #ffffff !important; color: #94164f !important; border-color: #ffffff !important; transform: translateY(-2px); } .palawan-actions .palawan-button:focus-visible { outline: 3px solid rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.6); outline-offset: 3px; } /* Escritorio */ .palawan-actions-desktop { display: flex; } .palawan-actions-mobile { display: none; } /* Tablet y celular */ @media only screen and (max-width: 980px) { .palawan-actions { padding: 24px 20px; } .palawan-actions-desktop { display: none !important; } .palawan-actions-mobile { display: flex !important; } } /* Celular */ @media only screen and (max-width: 480px) { .palawan-actions-mobile { flex-direction: column; gap: 12px; } .palawan-actions .palawan-button { width: 100% !important; max-width: 280px; white-space: normal; } } Send with Gmail Send with Outlook Copy letter Open email app Copy letter function getPalawanActionSubject() { if (!window.palawanSelectedSubject) { const subjects = [ "Protect Brooke's Point and Palawan's Indigenous communities", "Stand with the Indigenous communities of Palawan", "Urgent action needed to protect Brooke's Point", "Defend Palawan's forests and Indigenous rights", "Stop mining expansion in Brooke's Point", "Protect Palawan's Last Ecological Frontier", "Respect Indigenous rights in Brooke's Point", "Appeal to protect Brooke's Point from mining" ]; window.palawanSelectedSubject = subjects[Math.floor(Math.random() * subjects.length)]; } return window.palawanSelectedSubject; } function getActionEmailData() { return { to: 'brookespointmayorsoffice@gmail.com', cc: [ 'mabuhay@palawan.gov.ph', 'tjsmatta@gmail.com', 'oed@pcsd.gov.ph', 'ohea@denr.gov.ph', 'region4b@ncip.gov.ph', 'jenmarcantonjos@gmail.com', 'ich@unesco.org', 'comite.liaison.ong@unesco.org' ].join(','), subject: getPalawanActionSubject(), body: `Dear Mayor Benedito, With each passing month, I continue to receive deeply troubling reports regarding the accelerating intrusion of mining operations within Palawan, a UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve. Along with many concerned individuals worldwide, I am particularly alarmed by developments in the Municipality of Brooke's Point, where the mining tenements of companies such as Ipilan Nickel Corporation (INC) and Calmia-MacroAsia overlap with the Mount Mantalingahan Protected Landscape (MMPL), an area of both national and international ecological significance. Allowing further degradation in these zones risks irreversible consequences for the island's sustainable future. Public records reveal that at least 218,854 trees have already been targeted under "Special Tree Cutting and EarthBalling Permits" for mining operations in Palawan. This number is staggering - not only because of the trees themselves, but because each permit threatens watersheds, biodiversity, soil stability and the entire ecological system that sustains life on the island. It is disheartening to learn of the Municipal Government's recent endorsement of the business permit renewal for Ipilan Nickel Corporation - an action that would authorize the cutting of approximately 32,000 trees in primary forest. I sincerely hope that this decision, supported by nine members of the Sangguniang Bayan, can still be reconsidered and ultimately reversed in the interest of long-term environmental stewardship. I am equally concerned about the situation in Sitio Linao, where the barricade erected by Indigenous residents to stop Calmia's heavy equipment was dismantled on 29 June. This community has safeguarded and sustainably managed its environment for generations, and their grievances merit urgent attention and meaningful action. They are not alone in facing the impacts of mining; the livelihoods of farmers and fisherfolk across Brooke's Point are already being undermined, as seen in the experience of barangay Maasin proper. This pattern of harm cannot be allowed to continue. I respectfully urge your office not to endorse a business permit to Calmia Nickel Inc. and to ensure that existing operations - particularly those of INC - are not permitted to expand, and ideally are halted altogether. While the recent provincial moratorium on new mining applications is a welcome step, it is discouraging to learn that several officials are circumventing it with increasing ease and impunity. Please be assured that the international network of civil society organizations is closely monitoring the situation in Palawan and remains committed to supporting efforts to protect what has long been recognized as the "Philippines' Last Ecological Frontier." As Mayor, you hold the authority and responsibility to ensure that Brooke's Point remains one of the greenest and most beautiful municipalities in Palawan. I earnestly hope that you will use your mandate to safeguard the forests that Indigenous peoples have protected for centuries, so that future generations may inherit a landscape that remains intact, vibrant, and life-sustaining. Respectfully, [Your Name]` }; } function openActionEmail(type) { const data = getActionEmailData(); if (type === 'gmail') { window.open( 'https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1' + '&to=' + encodeURIComponent(data.to) + '&cc=' + encodeURIComponent(data.cc) + '&su=' + encodeURIComponent(data.subject) + '&body=' + encodeURIComponent(data.body), '_blank' ); } if (type === 'outlook') { window.open( 'https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink/compose?' + 'to=' + encodeURIComponent(data.to) + '&cc=' + encodeURIComponent(data.cc) + '&subject=' + encodeURIComponent(data.subject) + '&body=' + encodeURIComponent(data.body), '_blank' ); } if (type === 'mailto') { window.location.href = 'mailto:' + data.to + '?cc=' + encodeURIComponent(data.cc) + '&subject=' + encodeURIComponent(data.subject) + '&body=' + encodeURIComponent(data.body); } } function copyPalawanLetter(button) { const data = getActionEmailData(); const completeText = 'TO: brookespointmayorsoffice@gmail.com\n' + 'CC: mabuhay@palawan.gov.ph, tjsmatta@gmail.com, oed@pcsd.gov.ph, ohea@denr.gov.ph, region4b@ncip.gov.ph, jenmarcantonjos@gmail.com, ich@unesco.org, comite.liaison.ong@unesco.org\n\n' + data.body; const textArea = document.createElement('textarea'); textArea.value = completeText; textArea.setAttribute('readonly', ''); textArea.style.position = 'fixed'; textArea.style.top = '0'; textArea.style.left = '0'; textArea.style.width = '1px'; textArea.style.height = '1px'; textArea.style.padding = '0'; textArea.style.border = '0'; textArea.style.fontSize = '16px'; textArea.style.opacity = '0.01'; document.body.appendChild(textArea); textArea.focus(); textArea.select(); textArea.setSelectionRange(0, completeText.length); let copied = false; try { copied = document.execCommand('copy'); } catch (error) { copied = false; } document.body.removeChild(textArea); if (copied) { showCopyConfirmation(button); return; } /* Segundo intento para navegadores compatibles */ if (navigator.clipboard && window.isSecureContext) { navigator.clipboard.writeText(completeText) .then(function () { showCopyConfirmation(button); }) .catch(function () { showManualCopy(completeText); }); } else { showManualCopy(completeText); } } function showCopyConfirmation(button) { const originalText = button.textContent; button.textContent = 'Letter copied!'; setTimeout(function () { button.textContent = originalText; }, 2000); } function showManualCopy(text) { window.prompt( 'Press and hold the text, then select Copy:', text ); }

According to tribal leader Panglima Celso Paida,

“The company entered our ancestral domain without consulting us at all. We had no choice but to act immediately and set up a community barricade to stop further intrusions. In spite of this, they’re leveling an area where they, supposedly, plan to put up their building.”

For nearly three months, indigenous residents guarded the barricade day and night. It became a living symbol of resistance – a collective assertion of ancestral rights and a civil society defense of Brooke’s Point’s watersheds, which sustain upland communities, farmers, and fisherfolk downstream.

A Brutal Dismantling — Backed by State Agencies

On June 29, this outpost of Indigenous selfdetermination was dismantled. The operation was carried out with coordination and support from the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), Palawan National Police (PNP), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Mining and Geoscience Bureau (MGB) and other agencies.

The order to dismantle the barricade was executed under NCIP Memorandum Order No. 1562026, based on a resolution issued by IPDOBICAMM, an organization whose legitimacy is widely contested by true Pala’wan leaders. In a striking display of bias, NCIP Provincial Director Atty. Jansen Jontilla personally served the dismantling order while wearing a mining helmet — a visual confirmation of where NCIP’s loyalties lie, and a betrayal of the very communities the agency is legally mandated to protect.

Illegitimate Leaders Elevated, True Custodians Ignored

IPDOBICAMM President Julhadi Titte, a key figure behind the dismantling, claimed the barricade violated prior agreements and breached IP rights under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA). But Pala’wan leaders reject this narrative outright. One of them argues: “Titte is not a legitimate Indigenous leader, he does not belong to the Pala’wan tribes and IPDOBICAMM does not represent the true custodians of the ancestral domain, across the six ‘barangays’ (administrative units)”. Yet NCIP continues to elevate such figures – a pattern that conveniently aligns with mining interests.

“IPDOBICAMM was created through collusion between mining companies and NCIP. Our legitimate leaders are reorganizing through PEKP (traditional leaders), supported by MKE (women’s groups) and SAMAKA (youth opposing mining).”

A respected Pala’wan representative

A Flawed FPIC Process — Manipulated to Favor Mining

The agreements cited by IPDOBICAMM are deeply questionable. According to legitimate Pala’wan leaders, the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) process was manipulated by NCIP officials. One leader explains: “NCIP validated mining approval through dubious ‘majority’ votes rather than genuine consensus, as required by IPRA.”

An indigenous woman advocate corroborates:

“Several of those consulted are not truly indigenous. They collaborate with mining companies for personal gain. They speak in our name without our consent — and NCIP validates them instead of us.”

Mining Agreements Built on Fraud and Violations

The Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) of MacroAsia Mining Corp., implemented by Calmia Nickel Inc., allegedly received community support leading to NCIP’s issuance of a Certification Precondition (CP). But the consultations involved illegitimate leaders, not the true custodians recognized by local communities.

Indigenous leaders are now demanding an investigation into how the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was secured – and how mining approvals were pushed through despite widespread opposition.

“Why does NCIP follow the orders of IPDOBICAMM - a group that manages mining royalties - instead of the indigenous community who actually live within the ancestral lands to be mined?”

Victor Colili – Former Brooke’s Point Councillor and Indigenous Peoples’ leader

“NCIP was created to protect Indigenous Peoples, not undermine them. When decisions affecting ancestral domains disregard the voices of those who have long protected these lands, public trust in the institution collapses.”

Mary Jean Feliciano – Vice Mayor of Brooke’s Point

Legal Violations, Broken Promises, and a Threat to a UNESCO Landscape

MacroAsia/Calmia promised nine programs for IPs in the MOA — none have been fulfilled. Their mining tenement overlaps with the Mount Mantalingahan Protected Landscape (MMPL), a UNESCOrecognized biodiversity hotspot feeding 33 rivers and providing ecosystem services valued at US$5.5 billion, supporting 200,000 people.

The project also lacks a business permit from the Brooke’s Point Mayor and should not be allowed to push through, given the Provincial Ordinance No. 3646, which imposes a 50year mining moratorium. Yet enforcement agencies continue to ignore these violations. This reflects a familiar pattern in Philippine resource governance: corruption, clientelism, and impunity, undermining Palawan’s status as a UNESCO Man & Biosphere Reserve and threatening one of the country’s last intact forests.

IPRA Under Attack — A Dangerous Legislative Shift

The Philippines has some of Asia’s strongest Indigenous rights laws. Yet corruption hollow them out. Even the landmark Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) is now under threat. Proposed laws such as House Bill 9608 and House Bill 621 seek to transfer IPRA functions from NCIP to DENR — the same agency whose Mines and Geosciences Bureau grants mining permits. If passed, Indigenous rights would fall under the authority of those who profit from their erosion. This would mark the death of IPRA.

“The destruction of the barricade will not stop us. It will only make us more determined to defend our forest and the future of the coming generations.”

Blockade participants led by Celso Paida

Indigenous Resistance Continues

Despite the dismantling, Indigenous resolve remains unbroken.

The struggle of the Pala’wan and civil society to protect Brooke’s Point’s pristine environment will continue — until mining operations retreat and ancestral domains are respected.

What you can do: To support this struggle, please sign and send this email letter to Hon. Cesareo Benedito Jr., Mayor of Brooke’s Point, including also the other electronic addresses in Cc.

/* Contenedor */ .palawan-actions { width: 100%; padding: 30px 20px; box-sizing: border-box; } .palawan-actions-desktop, .palawan-actions-mobile { align-items: center; justify-content: center; flex-wrap: wrap; gap: 14px; } /* Botones */ .palawan-actions .palawan-button { position: static !important; display: inline-flex !important; align-items: center; justify-content: center; float: none !important; width: auto !important; min-height: 48px; margin: 0 !important; padding: 12px 22px !important; background: #94164f !important; color: #ffffff !important; border: 2px solid #94164f !important; border-radius: 4px !important; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px !important; font-weight: 700 !important; line-height: 1.2 !important; letter-spacing: 0 !important; text-align: center; text-decoration: none !important; white-space: nowrap; cursor: pointer; box-shadow: 0 3px 8px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14); transition: background-color 0.2s ease, color 0.2s ease, border-color 0.2s ease, transform 0.2s ease; } /* Evita el ícono y el desplazamiento automático de Divi */ .palawan-actions .palawan-button::before, .palawan-actions .palawan-button::after { display: none !important; content: none !important; } .palawan-actions .palawan-button:hover, .palawan-actions .palawan-button:focus { padding: 12px 22px !important; background: #ffffff !important; color: #94164f !important; border-color: #ffffff !important; transform: translateY(-2px); } .palawan-actions .palawan-button:focus-visible { outline: 3px solid rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.6); outline-offset: 3px; } /* Escritorio */ .palawan-actions-desktop { display: flex; } .palawan-actions-mobile { display: none; } /* Tablet y celular */ @media only screen and (max-width: 980px) { .palawan-actions { padding: 24px 20px; } .palawan-actions-desktop { display: none !important; } .palawan-actions-mobile { display: flex !important; } } /* Celular */ @media only screen and (max-width: 480px) { .palawan-actions-mobile { flex-direction: column; gap: 12px; } .palawan-actions .palawan-button { width: 100% !important; max-width: 280px; white-space: normal; } } Send with Gmail Send with Outlook Copy letter Open email app Copy letter function getPalawanActionSubject() { if (!window.palawanSelectedSubject) { const subjects = [ "Protect Brooke's Point and Palawan's Indigenous communities", "Stand with the Indigenous communities of Palawan", "Urgent action needed to protect Brooke's Point", "Defend Palawan's forests and Indigenous rights", "Stop mining expansion in Brooke's Point", "Protect Palawan's Last Ecological Frontier", "Respect Indigenous rights in Brooke's Point", "Appeal to protect Brooke's Point from mining" ]; window.palawanSelectedSubject = subjects[Math.floor(Math.random() * subjects.length)]; } return window.palawanSelectedSubject; } function getActionEmailData() { return { to: 'brookespointmayorsoffice@gmail.com', cc: [ 'mabuhay@palawan.gov.ph', 'tjsmatta@gmail.com', 'oed@pcsd.gov.ph', 'ohea@denr.gov.ph', 'region4b@ncip.gov.ph', 'jenmarcantonjos@gmail.com', 'ich@unesco.org', 'comite.liaison.ong@unesco.org' ].join(','), subject: getPalawanActionSubject(), body: `Dear Mayor Benedito, With each passing month, I continue to receive deeply troubling reports regarding the accelerating intrusion of mining operations within Palawan, a UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve. Along with many concerned individuals worldwide, I am particularly alarmed by developments in the Municipality of Brooke's Point, where the mining tenements of companies such as Ipilan Nickel Corporation (INC) and Calmia-MacroAsia overlap with the Mount Mantalingahan Protected Landscape (MMPL), an area of both national and international ecological significance. Allowing further degradation in these zones risks irreversible consequences for the island's sustainable future. Public records reveal that at least 218,854 trees have already been targeted under "Special Tree Cutting and EarthBalling Permits" for mining operations in Palawan. This number is staggering - not only because of the trees themselves, but because each permit threatens watersheds, biodiversity, soil stability and the entire ecological system that sustains life on the island. It is disheartening to learn of the Municipal Government's recent endorsement of the business permit renewal for Ipilan Nickel Corporation - an action that would authorize the cutting of approximately 32,000 trees in primary forest. I sincerely hope that this decision, supported by nine members of the Sangguniang Bayan, can still be reconsidered and ultimately reversed in the interest of long-term environmental stewardship. I am equally concerned about the situation in Sitio Linao, where the barricade erected by Indigenous residents to stop Calmia's heavy equipment was dismantled on 29 June. This community has safeguarded and sustainably managed its environment for generations, and their grievances merit urgent attention and meaningful action. They are not alone in facing the impacts of mining; the livelihoods of farmers and fisherfolk across Brooke's Point are already being undermined, as seen in the experience of barangay Maasin proper. This pattern of harm cannot be allowed to continue. I respectfully urge your office not to endorse a business permit to Calmia Nickel Inc. and to ensure that existing operations - particularly those of INC - are not permitted to expand, and ideally are halted altogether. While the recent provincial moratorium on new mining applications is a welcome step, it is discouraging to learn that several officials are circumventing it with increasing ease and impunity. Please be assured that the international network of civil society organizations is closely monitoring the situation in Palawan and remains committed to supporting efforts to protect what has long been recognized as the "Philippines' Last Ecological Frontier." As Mayor, you hold the authority and responsibility to ensure that Brooke's Point remains one of the greenest and most beautiful municipalities in Palawan. I earnestly hope that you will use your mandate to safeguard the forests that Indigenous peoples have protected for centuries, so that future generations may inherit a landscape that remains intact, vibrant, and life-sustaining. Respectfully, [Your Name]` }; } function openActionEmail(type) { const data = getActionEmailData(); if (type === 'gmail') { window.open( 'https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1' + '&to=' + encodeURIComponent(data.to) + '&cc=' + encodeURIComponent(data.cc) + '&su=' + encodeURIComponent(data.subject) + '&body=' + encodeURIComponent(data.body), '_blank' ); } if (type === 'outlook') { window.open( 'https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink/compose?' + 'to=' + encodeURIComponent(data.to) + '&cc=' + encodeURIComponent(data.cc) + '&subject=' + encodeURIComponent(data.subject) + '&body=' + encodeURIComponent(data.body), '_blank' ); } if (type === 'mailto') { window.location.href = 'mailto:' + data.to + '?cc=' + encodeURIComponent(data.cc) + '&subject=' + encodeURIComponent(data.subject) + '&body=' + encodeURIComponent(data.body); } } function copyPalawanLetter(button) { const data = getActionEmailData(); const completeText = 'TO: brookespointmayorsoffice@gmail.com\n' + 'CC: mabuhay@palawan.gov.ph, tjsmatta@gmail.com, oed@pcsd.gov.ph, ohea@denr.gov.ph, region4b@ncip.gov.ph, jenmarcantonjos@gmail.com, ich@unesco.org, comite.liaison.ong@unesco.org\n\n' + data.body; const textArea = document.createElement('textarea'); textArea.value = completeText; textArea.setAttribute('readonly', ''); textArea.style.position = 'fixed'; textArea.style.top = '0'; textArea.style.left = '0'; textArea.style.width = '1px'; textArea.style.height = '1px'; textArea.style.padding = '0'; textArea.style.border = '0'; textArea.style.fontSize = '16px'; textArea.style.opacity = '0.01'; document.body.appendChild(textArea); textArea.focus(); textArea.select(); textArea.setSelectionRange(0, completeText.length); let copied = false; try { copied = document.execCommand('copy'); } catch (error) { copied = false; } document.body.removeChild(textArea); if (copied) { showCopyConfirmation(button); return; } /* Segundo intento para navegadores compatibles */ if (navigator.clipboard && window.isSecureContext) { navigator.clipboard.writeText(completeText) .then(function () { showCopyConfirmation(button); }) .catch(function () { showManualCopy(completeText); }); } else { showManualCopy(completeText); } } function showCopyConfirmation(button) { const originalText = button.textContent; button.textContent = 'Letter copied!'; setTimeout(function () { button.textContent = originalText; }, 2000); } function showManualCopy(text) { window.prompt( 'Press and hold the text, then select Copy:', text ); }

Is your community, organization, or network interested in becoming a YLNM member? Would you like to know more about us? Please send an email enquiry to membership[at]yestolifenotomining.org

Subscribe to our bi-monthly newsletter Suscríbase a nuestro boletín

Yes to Life No to Mining global solidarity network since 2012 | Contact Us

• Follow
• Follow
• Follow
• Follow

Maybe we can work together in community to build grassroots power, take direct action, disrupt unjust systems, and resist corporate encroachment.

The post From Fracking to Data Centers—Hamster Wheels and That Same Old Song and Dance appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

Safe food depends on the states Iris Myers July 20, 2026

The recent outbreak of cyclosporiasis, a food-borne illness, has shown we can’t count on the federal government to make sure our food is safe. 

States have always played a central role in the safety of our food, tracking pathogens and inspecting food manufacturing facilities, farms and restaurants. 

The states have become even more important in recent years, as the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, agencies that have been underfunded for decades, have laid off experienced food safety experts, conducted fewer inspections, tracked fewer pathogens,including cyclospora, and delayed efforts to trace the source of foodborne illnesses. 

The states are especially important for the safety of food chemicals. 

While states have acted to ban many toxic chemicals from food and food packaging, including chemicals linked to cancer, the FDA has banned just two – and only after states had done so. Some food chemicals have been under review by the FDA for decades.

When it comes to the toxic chemicals in our food, the FDA has a long history of failure. 

It has largely allowed food chemical companies to decide which food chemicals are safe and  permitted these companies to add new chemicals to food without the FDA’s knowledge. 

Now, on behalf of the food industry, some members of Congress want to make things even worse. 

It would block states from keeping our food safe, and would do so both retroactively and prospectively. This isn’t just about stopping states from passing new protections. It would also wipe out laws already in effect. In all, the proposal in Congress could preempt more than 100 state laws, including state and local regulations that keep restaurant food safe. 

Food companies want to block state laws that: 

• Ban PFAS from food packaging and cookware
• Ban BPA and phthalates from food packaging
• Ban synthetic dyes from school foods and lead from lunch boxes 
• Define and remove ultra-processed food from school food. 
• Require testing and reporting on toxic metals in baby foods. 

State and local food labeling laws that apply to food packages and menus, such as allergen warnings, could be blocked. State laws that exempt entrepreneurs who make food at home for sale at farmers markets could be in jeopardy. Enforcement of state laws could also be blocked by the food industry’s proposal, including state laws that allow consumers to sue food companies when they have been injured. 

Even state pet food laws could be invalidated. 

Blocking our states from keeping our food safe – during the nation’s worst food safety outbreak in years – would be hard to stomach. After four recent food safety failures, including the 2024 McDonald’s e. Coli outbreak and three infant formula recalls, we should be making our food safety laws stronger, not weaker. 

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals Authors Scott Faber July 20, 2026

This is a guest blog by Dr Michael T. David,  Founder and Executive Director of the Global Initiative for Food Security and Ecosystem Preservation (GIFSEP). GIFSEP is a non-profit organization founded on the ideals of Environmental Education, Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, Renewable Energy and Sustainable Development. They mobilize communities to build resilience to a changing climate so as to conserve and protect the environment.

For years, the people of Awo Akpali, a remote community in Ankpa Local Government Area of Kogi State in Nigeria, have lived with the painful legacy of coal mining. While the coal extracted from beneath their land generated wealth for coal mining companies, the community was left with environmental degradation, poor health, and no access to one of the most basic necessities of modern life i.e  electricity.

Community members at the training session on how to install and maintain solar pv system photo credit: GIFSEP

When night fell, so did healthcare.

At the community’s Primary Health Centre, health workers often relied on torchlights and the light from mobile phones to attend to patients. Mothers in labour, sick children, and emergency cases faced an uncertain future whenever they arrived after sunset. Essential healthcare services were severely limited, not because there were no health workers, but because there was simply no electricity.

Today, that story is changing. As part of its Solar for Communities Initiative, the Global Initiative for Food Security and Ecosystem Preservation (GIFSEP) has installed a solar power system at the Awo Akpali Primary Health Centre, bringing clean, reliable electricity to a facility that had operated in darkness for years.

Terrance,  project lead GIFSEP and hospital staff after installation is complete .Photo credit: GIFSEP

The initiative was implemented with support from 350Africa.org and the Global Greengrants Fund, demonstrating how renewable energy can improve healthcare while advancing climate justice for underserved communities.

The solar installation is more than an energy project, it is restoring dignity to healthcare. Health workers can now provide services safely at night, power essential medical equipment, preserve temperature-sensitive medicines, and offer better care to patients when they need it most.

For GIFSEP, the intervention represents the next chapter in a long-standing partnership with the community.

Through its Coal Free Nigeria Campaign, GIFSEP previously worked with residents of Awo Akpali to build awareness of environmental and community rights. Community members were trained to understand the environmental, health, and social impacts of coal mining and empowered to advocate for the protection of their land and livelihoods. Their collective efforts contributed to the eventual closure of the coal mining operations that had negatively affected the community for years.

 

Solar inverter at the hospital.   credit: GIFSEP

Rather than leaving the community with only the closure of the mine, GIFSEP sought to demonstrate that cleaner and more sustainable alternatives are possible.

Under the Solar for Communities Initiative, residents were sensitized on the benefits of renewable energy as a practical solution for communities that remain outside Nigeria’s public electricity grid. Women and young people also received hands-on training in basic solar installation and maintenance, equipping them with practical skills that can create new livelihood opportunities while supporting the adoption of clean energy within their community.

Community members at the training session on how to install and maintain solar pv system  led by GIFSEP.Photo credit: GIFSEP

This approach reflects a broader vision of a just energy transition, one that not only moves communities away from polluting fossil fuels but also ensures they benefit from cleaner technologies, improved livelihoods, better healthcare, and increased resilience.

 

The post From Darkness to Hope appeared first on 350.

This is a guest blog by Peter Crisp of Fossil Free Football, a fan campaign aiming to kick big polluters out of the world’s favourite sport.  

The ongoing 2026 FIFA World Cup will likely be the hottest ever, produce more pollution than any event in history, and promote the world’s biggest oil company to billions of viewers. Yet it could also be a turning point. As football’s vulnerability to the climate crisis becomes impossible to ignore, more and more fans and players are calling for sporting authorities to do better.

The Heat Threat 

The climate crisis is fuelling extreme heat across the planet, driven by decades of burning coal, oil and gas. And the 2026 World Cup is not immune. Researchers predict that 14 out of 16 match venues this year will exceed dangerous temperatures with one in four matches expected to be played in hazardous heat conditions. Just last year, a June heat wave hit multiple World Cup host cities at once. A repeat this year could put attendees at real risk. On June 24 2025, it was 102F/39C  in Boston. This year, on June 23, England will play Ghana in that same city  in a stadium without shade (see below) at 4PM…

Gillette Stadium, Boston, which will be used during the tournament, offers little heat protection to fans and players. Source: Nathan Macoul, Unsplash

The heat threatens safety and changes the game itself. Extreme heat means slower tempo, less pressing and earlier substitutions. 97 of 104 scheduled matches face a higher probability of performance-impairing conditions due to climate change — meaning fans paying record prices are increasingly likely to watch a less intense game. And while players have medical teams and cooling breaks, fans are often left to fend for themselves. While 3 of the 16 venues are air-conditioned, fans in queues, fan zones and on transport routes can be exposed to dangerous heat for hours — often far longer than the players on the pitch.

The International Federation of Association Football or FIFA (which is the governing body of world football), has done little to keep fans and players safe from obvious heat risks during World Cups. We’ve already seen the consequences when it doesn’t: In June 2024, an assistant referee collapsed during a Copa America match, while last year’s Club World Cup saw players and fans sheltering inside as heat again became a major point of concern. Despite this, FIFA has selected many stadiums without any shade, in locations that are not typically used for summer sports. 

A group of experts recently told FIFA that it should do more to keep players and fans safe. They called for it to lower the temperature threshold at which matches are delayed. Currently, FIFA will only consider pausing play at 32°C (measured in Wet Bulb Globe Temperature or WBGT, a scale that accounts for heat, humidity and sun exposure together). That bar is so high that it wouldn’t be triggered at 45°C with 20% humidity, or 35°C with 80% humidity — conditions that would be dangerous for anyone, let alone athletes playing at full intensity. Seventy professional players have also publicly backed those calls. FIFA has added water breaks to all matches regardless of temperature — fundamentally altering the experience of the game — but experts say those breaks should be doubled to six minutes to properly protect players. Many fans have pointedly noted that FIFA may be equally motivated by the advertising slots these breaks create.

FIFA’s unserious attitude on heat risks extends to its broader engagement with the climate crisis. Despite holding a “green card for the planet” and committing to net-zero by 2040, FIFA President Gianni Infantino has massively expanded the tournament, and the pollution it will produce as a consequence. He has added an extra 16 teams and 60 matches, and spread the World Cup across North America so that huge amounts of flying are required. Researchers estimate the whole tournament will generate over 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent worth of pollution. 

FIFA President Gianni Infantino once held a ‘green card for the planet’ to show his commitment to sustainability. Source: FIFA

Promoting Fossil Fuels to Billions

FIFA’s massive emissions are worsened by its sponsorship choices. It is reportedly earning about $100m per year to advertise the world’s largest oil company, Aramco. Billions of fans are therefore now receiving pro-oil messaging, just as we must urgently move away from fossil fuels. 

Aramco is 98.5% owned by the Saudi state and is a dominant source of the regime’s funding, earning $33.6bn in the first quarter of this year. These profits have bankrolled Saudi Arabia’s recent push into world sport including football –  often framed as part of its post-oil ‘Vision 2030’ diversification strategy. But the fact that Aramco is being globally promoted, (instead of any other non-oil enterprise) makes clear these sports investments are about protecting fossil fuel profits, not moving away from them. Sponsorships have helped promote Saudi Arabia and shielded it from criticism of its commitment to fossil fuels. It’s clear that the Aramco deal too is part of a broader pro-oil strategy that includes blocking climate talks and ‘hooking’ poorer countries on its oil. 

SoFi stadium, Los Angeles, USA vs. Paraguay, June 13. Source: image supplied

Aramco has been given top billing, with its brand splashed around stadiums at kick off, including at the tournament opener. Notably, the fixture was a repeat of the 2010 World Cup, but nostalgic fans looking back to iconic images from that year might have noticed a surprising (and disturbing) difference. While the 2010 tournament was sponsored by solar energy, this one is promoting Big Oil. Aramco’s World Cup advertising centres around its supposed “innovation” ,but there is nothing innovative about drilling, extracting and burning fossil fuels. The real breakthroughs are in solar, battery storage and electric vehicles — technologies that are cleaner, cheaper and faster-growing than oil has ever been. 

Opening match of 2010 World Cup, featuring solar sponsorship.

The Bigger Picture: Global Access to Sport Under Threat 

This summer, the heat impacts felt by football’s elite will be impossible to miss. But if the climate crisis is reaching its most well resourced event, then grassroots football,  the foundation the whole game is built on,  is surely being hit much harder. For every high-profile match affected by heat, there are thousands more unseen players around the world that are harmed by heat or flooding rain. FIFA profits billions from an ever-expanding tournament and big oil sponsorship — but it is ordinary fans and players who bear the cost, in dangerous heat and a worsening climate, without seeing any of the cash.

Credit: Sadhin Mahmud, Unsplash

Climate Damage: the Ultimate Fan Ripoff  

Many football fans feel our loyalty is being exploited. FIFA’s incessant focus on profit is stripping away the essence of our beloved game — and we must use this discontent, linked to the climate crisis, as a powerful opportunity for change.

The pattern of FIFA’s constant prioritisation of revenue over tradition and affordability is consistent. Unprecedented prices for match tickets, public transport and fan zones. Commercial “hydration” breaks inserted into matches. Fans banned from bringing their own water. Big oil on the stadium hoardings. Everything FIFA does turns up the heat for supporters while lining its own pockets. Its response to obvious heat risks at the next two World Cups hosted by Morocco, Spain and Portugal, and then Saudi Arabia, has been to float moving the tournament to winter, discarding decades of tradition rather than addressing the cause.

Hundreds of millions of fans have every reason to demand better. As heat impacts worsen and the costs of fossil fuels become impossible to ignore, football lovers have real power to push for a fundamental reset that puts players and fans before FIFA’s bottom line.

Source: Quang Nguyen Vinh, Pexels

What Could Serious FIFA Climate Policy Look Like?

FIFA claims its core mission is to “unite the world” by making football accessible to all. Delivering on that mission means putting the climate first, because we can’t play in dangerous heat or on a flooded field. Here’s what that looks like in practice:

• End the expansionist mentality. More teams, more matches, more flights means more pollution. Growth cannot come at the planet’s expense.
• Revise heat guidelines. Current thresholds don’t protect players or fans. FIFA must lower the bar for match delays and take welfare seriously.
• Ease the fixture calendar. An oversaturated schedule drives player burnout and unsafe conditions. Less is more.
• Drop the polluters. Sponsorship deals with oil companies like Aramco must give way to partnerships with clean, innovative industries.
• Put climate at the centre. Every decision FIFA makes should be guided by one question: does this make extreme weather worse?

The most popular sport on the planet needs to stop scoring ‘own goals’, and start playing for the right team.

If you’re a fan who is ready to take this message to your club or national association, connect with us at Fossil Free Football on social media and join our next online campaign session! 

The post 2026 FIFA World Cup & Extreme Heat appeared first on 350.

Since the first match kicked off in June, there have been no shortage of issues with the 2026 World Cup. Whether it’s presence of ICE at the tournament to the treatment of the Iranian team. Within these many issues, aviation itself plays a role, whether it’s the French national team using ICE deportation planes for their travel through to the boom in flight emissions as a result of the mega-event.

Source

EWG mourns the passing of David Baker, longtime board member and environmental justice leader Anthony Lacey July 16, 2026

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Working Group is deeply saddened by the death of David Baker, the second longest-serving member of its current board of directors. 

In his role – a position he held for more than two decades – he provided wise counsel, principled leadership and a constant reminder that environmental protection is fundamentally about protecting people. 

Baker was also a leader in the environmental justice movement. His unwavering commitment to equity, public health and community advocacy helped shape EWG.

As founder and executive director of Community Against Pollution, in Anniston, Ala., Baker dedicated his life to holding powerful polluters accountable. He fought for families whose communities had been burdened by toxic contamination. 

His work became a model for grassroots environmental justice advocacy nationally and inspired generations of advocates to stand up for clean air, clean water and healthy communities.

“David never let us lose sight of who this work is really about,” said EWG President and co-founder Ken Cook. “He brought the voices of communities living with pollution into every board meeting and every conversation. 

“His courage and wisdom made EWG a stronger organization and all of us better advocates,” Cook added.

Advocate for the unheard

Throughout his life, Baker was a fearless ally of people who too often went unheard. 

His leadership in Anniston exposed the devastating legacy of the chemical giant Monsanto polluting the small community with PCB contamination from the company’s chemical plant there. His work helped bring environmental justice into the national conversation. 

Baker understood that low-income communities and communities of color too often bear the greatest burden of pollution. He spent his life demanding accountability, transparency and justice.

“David was a force of nature – courageous, compassionate and deeply committed to doing what was right,” Cook said. 

Beliefs that guided his life’s work 

“He never sought the spotlight. He simply believed that people deserve clean air, clean water and a fair chance at a healthy life. That belief guided his life’s work and inspired everyone who had the privilege of knowing him,” Cook added.

Baker was a longtime member of the NAACP and the Coalition for Black Trade Unionists. 

Baker earned a degree in labor management from Cornell University. He received an honorary doctorate from the Alabama Legislature, in 2003. 

He was recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency with awards for outstanding leadership and contributions to the advancement of environmental justice. 

His work was also featured in Dennis Love’s book, “My City Was Gone.” 

“The Environmental Working Group extends its deepest condolences to David’s family and all who loved him. We are profoundly grateful for his decades of service, his friendship and the example he set for all of us,” said Cook.

###

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. Visit www.ewg.org for more information.

Areas of Focus Family Health Toxic Chemicals Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 July 16, 2026

Horne 5: A Sword of Damocles Hanging Over a Heavily Polluted Urban Area Quebec, Canada

Abstract

The Cultural Landscape of Rouyn-Noranda

Horne 5 – A Sword of Damocles

Timeline of Resistance

The turning point

Portraits of the activists

The systemic oppression of extraction

And to what end?

Endnotes

Download

Image: Horne 5. Credit: Ressources Falco Ltée, Rouyn-Noranda. (1)

Abstract

Our emblematic case of resistance to extractivism concerns the reopening of a mine in the city of Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec (Canada). Falco Resources Ltd’s Horne 5 mining project aims to extract a polymetallic deposit whose primary economic value lies in gold. The project is located in the Notre-Dame neighborhood and beneath Glencore’s Horne Smelter, which, since its opening in 1927, has drastically polluted the air in Rouyn-Noranda. The Horne 5 project ranks among the most dangerous, unacceptable, and harmful mining projects in Quebec in recent decades. In addition to posing significant psychosocial risks, this project entails catastrophic dangers for public safety, socioeconomic stability, and environmental protection.

Image: The Horne Smelter – A symbol of pollution in Rouyn-Noranda, 1978. Credit: Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec. (2)

 

Image: Workers at the Noranda Mine—photo taken between 1962 and 1978. Credit: Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, Rouyn-Noranda.

Image: Noranda Mine workers on the picket line during the 1946–1947 strike. Credit: Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, Rouyn-Noranda.

Image: Anti-pollution march organized by the Théâtre de Coppe, themed around the “burial” of Lake Osisko, 1985. Credit: Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, Rouyn-Noranda.

Image: Glencore’s Horne Smelter under snow and toxic waste, photo taken between 1962 and 1978. Credit: Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, Rouyn-Noranda.

Image: Glencore’s Horne Smelter continues to pollute to this day. Credit: Guillaume Proulx, 2019. Rouyn-Noranda.

 

The Cultural Landscape of Rouyn-Noranda

Rouyn-Noranda is a city of 42,000 residents, located on Nitakinan, Anicinape Aki, unceded Anishinaabe territory. The political context of Rouyn-Noranda has been marked by critical social and legal struggles and including a long legacy of tensions with extractive industries. This city is an island of culture (music, visual arts, performing arts, theater, etc.) within the boreal forest. Rouyn-Noranda is the home of a multicultural, resilient, activist, and family-oriented community. The Horne 5 project is located notably on the ancestral territory of the Long Point First Nation. Industrial activities have been a central part of Rouyn-Noranda’s development since the city’s founding 100 years ago this year.

Image: Facebook page of Collectif 33 (3) , Rouyn-Noranda.

If approved, the Horne 5 mining project would be situated at the very heart of this dynamic city, in a vibrant residential area, beneath an area already weakened by numerous abandoned mine tunnels. The literature also reflects a lack of data on mining in urban areas, as there are few such case studies.

Horne 5 – A Sword of Damocles

Image: Falco Resources Ltée. (4)

The Horne 5 project, which plans to extract 15,500 tons of ore per day from depths of up to 2,000 meters and generate 80 million tons of mine tailings, was entrusted to the BAPE (Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement) for a public review in 2024. As is standard procedure when the government grants such a mandate, the BAPE president formed a commission of inquiry to evaluate the project’s impacts. This formal examination brought to light several critical issues including:

1. Land subsidence and induced seismicity: Even before considering the risks associated with ground subsidence and induced seismicity, it is worth noting that the project is located beneath the Horne Smelter—an industrial complex with outdated infrastructure—where ponds of sulfuric acid and other toxic substances could cause major environmental disasters and pose significant risks of fatalities to workers as well as the general population. Rouyn-Noranda has, in fact, already witnessed a sudden ground subsidence in 2013, right in the heart of Mouska Park—a family recreation and playground area. The hole, over 3 meters wide, was located above the site of the former Chadbourne Mine, one of the many abandoned mines beneath the city. (5)

2. Ancestral Rights: The apparent violation of the ancestral rights of Long Point First Nation is a major issue in this mining project. Indeed, during the commission of inquiry, the government’s responses raised “reasonable doubts that the constitutional obligation to consult Indigenous peoples holding ancestral rights was not respected for all communities whose territory is affected by the Horne 5 mining project, starting with the Long Point First Nation.” (6)

3. Water Protection: In addition to threatening the integrity of numerous water bodies through the installation of freshwater intake pipelines, the Horne 5 project poses numerous risks of serious contamination of Lake Dufault, the lake that supplies the sole pumping station in the drinking water supply of the city of Rouyn-Noranda. This contamination could result from leaks in the 17-kilometer pipelines transporting mine tailings or from leaks in the tailings pond dams.

4. Greenwashing: The company uses greenwashing rhetoric regarding actions related to its project’s mining liability management plan, even though its plan for handling mine tailings poses a serious threat to the environment and human health. Indeed, after selecting an unreclaimed site to store the planned tailings, the developer is trying to convince the community that adding acid-generating, leachable, and cyanide-containing materials to the environment could be a beneficial option.

5. Air Quality: The industrial activities carried out by Glencore’s Horne Smelter in the city of Rouyn-Noranda generate alarming levels of heavy metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, copper, nickel, and lead). The company’s unacceptable levels of air pollution from the smelter and the government’s complicity in allowing it are one the most persistent and controversial environmental scandals in Quebec. The literature shows that the population of Rouyn-Noranda is exposed to an increased incidence of lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, neurological problems, and intra-uterine growth retardation. The Horne Smelter is still authorized to operate by smelting waste from all over the world to extract copper, provided that arsenic levels in the air in Rouyn-Noranda remain below 45 ng/m³. The company was granted an extension until 2030 to meet an interim threshold of 15 ng/m³, notwithstanding the Quebec standard of 3 ng/m³, and may maintain this threshold until 2033. However, the Institut national de santé publique du Québec stated in 2022 that while the 15 ng/m³ threshold protects vulnerable groups (such as children) from certain effects, the only target to be considered safe remains the 3 ng/m³ standard. The Horne 5 project thus seeks to operate in an environment where standards are already being exceeded, violating the enforcement regime of Section 197 of the Clean Air Regulation. Authorizing a new mining project would therefore only exacerbate an illegal situation that has been tolerated for far too long.

Credit: Guillaume Proulx, 2019, Rouyn-Noranda.

 6. Multiple social and economic costs: The socioeconomic impacts include, first and foremost, the aggravation of the housing crisis. The arrival of new workers and their families will lead to an increased demand for housing. This demand occurs despite an extremely low vacancy rate of 0,9 % recorded in 2025 (7), which is significantly below the 3% balance threshold recognized in Quebec. In other words, Rouyn-Noranda is already facing a severe housing crisis that will be further exacerbated by the arrival of new workers. “Furthermore, the gradual relocation of residents to create a buffer zone near the Horne Smelter — a measure to be implemented after 2028 — underscores the scale of the environmental and health challenges that the city and its population must (already) contend with.” (8) Added to this are the population’s anxiety and social fatigue, as well as threats to Rouyn-Noranda’s long-term attractiveness and vitality.

Timeline of Resistance

Here is an overview of the timeline of citizen mobilization related to the Horne 5 project.

• May 17, 2024 | Call for citizen mobilization

Release of a press release inviting the residents of Rouyn-Noranda to attend the first information meeting regarding the Horne 5 project. 

• May 21, 2024 | Official letters sent to the Minister of the Environment and the President of the BAPE 

An official letter was sent to the Minister requesting that the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE – Office of Public Hearings on the Environment) hold public hearings regarding the Horne 5 project, along with an official letter to the President of the BAPE requesting a preparatory meeting for the public prior to the public hearing. The preparatory meeting took place on August 13, 2024.

• June 27, 2024 | Invitation to a community engagement planning workshop

Release of a press release inviting citizens to a free workshop on July 7, 2024, on planning participation in the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE) hearings for the Horne 5 mining project.

• August 14 and 26, 2024 | Participation in strategic meetings with residents of Rouyn-Noranda

Two strategic meetings just before the start of the public inquiry.

• August 27, 2024 | Start of the BAPE hearings in Rouyn-Noranda: Several crucial questions to ask about the troubling Horne 5 mining project

Release of a press release stating: “Civil society is ready for the process. Despite the case being launched in the middle of summer and the company’s chaotic and unannounced presentation of documentation, the groups managed to study the case in detail by pooling their resources.”

Image: Rouyn-Noranda during the Bureau d’audiences publiques de l’environnement (BAPE) hearing on the Horne 5 project. Credit: Radio-Canada / Lise Millette (9)

• August 27–29, 2024 | Participation in the five sessions of the first part of the BAPE public hearings in Rouyn-Noranda.

Period for providing information and presenting the ins and outs of the project as well as environmental issues. Citizens may, in particular, ask questions of the proponent.

Image : BAPE in the works, café-bar L’Abstracto, Rouyn-Noranda. Credit: Guy Leclerc 

• September 16–26, 2024 | Period set aside for the submission of views orally, via a brief, through comments, or via annotated images.

September 26 was the deadline for submitting briefs. The Coalition Québec Meilleure Mine and MiningWatch Canada submitted a joint brief regarding Falco Resources Ltd.’s Horne 5 mining project. 

• September 30 to October 3, 2024 | Second part of the BAPE public hearing for Falco Resources’ Horne 5 mining project.

This second part allows individuals to speak on the subject. It is an opportunity to, for example, make recommendations or even present one’s brief orally. 

• Fall 2024 | Recommendation by regional health authorities to commission a seismic risk analysis.

Regional health authorities (the CISSS-AT) recommended that the ministry require in-depth studies on the risks of earthquakes caused by the mine. The primary concern is the radiation oncology center—also located in the Notre-Dame neighborhood—in Rouyn-Noranda, where vibrations could damage medical equipment.]
 

• December 23, 2024 | Submission of the BAPE report to the minister

The turning point

It was through the process of the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE) that the Commission of Inquiry officially concluded, on January 7, 2025, that the Horne 5 project is unacceptable. The report states that the project does not meet minimum requirements for safety, public health, and environmental protection. A large network of organizations came together to stand up to Ressource Falco Ltd. before and during the BAPE-led Commission of Inquiry.

Image: Large demonstration in Rouyn-Noranda organized by Mères au front and their allies, October 13, 2024, on 9th Street | Enough is enough. Credit: Williams Nourry

Portraits of the activists

First Nations

• Long Point First Nation (LPFN) : Following the inquiry, the First Nation has raised concerns about the project’s impact on air and water quality, as well as on the local economy. It is demanding that environmental and socioeconomic studies be conducted directly by the community to protect its ancestral rights. The LPFN spoke at the BAPE hearings, asserted its rights over its traditional unceded territory, and emphasized that the project must obtain the LPFN’s prior and informed consent, as detailed in its press release: “No Consent = No Project”.

 Environmental Groups

• Abitibi-Témiscamingue Regional Environmental Council — A non-profit organization (NPO) dedicated to promoting environmental conservation and improving environmental quality. They submitted 162 recommendations to the BAPE, criticizing the lack of consideration for the project’s cumulative effects. The CREAT highlights the health risks illustrated by the “simple measures” (vacuuming with HEPA filters, specific dietary guidelines to limit lead and cadmium absorption) suggested to the public by provincial public health authorities, reflecting an environment already saturated with contaminants and environmental stressors. 

• Eau Secours — a Montreal-based non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the protection and responsible management of water in Quebec. Eau Secours has pointed out to the second part of the BAPE the glaring lack of consistency in the company’s proposal to create a mine tailings pond (projected to hold 40 million tons of highly reactive and acid-generating tailings) directly within the watershed of the city’s drinking water source, Lake Dufaut. The organization also points out that the developer has not presented an emergency plan in the event of a facility failure. 

• Action Boréale — a non-profit organization based in Abitibi-Témiscamingue dedicated to promoting the preservation of Quebec’s boreal forests. They have consistently reminded the government, following the release of the BAPE’s scathing report, of its responsibility for the environment. Action Boréale asserts that the project has more negative impacts than benefits for the community. 

• Société pour vaincre la pollution (SVP) — a non-profit organization working to defend citizens’ rights to a healthy environment: Offers support and states that “this is one mine too many for Rouyn-Noranda.” 

• MiningWatch Canada — an Ottawa-based non-governmental organization acting as a watchdog for the mining industry. They continue to call on the government to cease all investment in this harmful project and to publicly confirm its opposition. 

• Regroupement vigilance mines de l’Abitibi et du Témiscamingue (Revimat) — a non-profit organization advocating for improvements to the Mining Act and environmental protection. They have consistently reiterated their opposition to the project in a joint press release, noting in particular that “the possibility of seismic activity could damage the smelter’s structures and release toxic substances into the air.”  

• Comité Arrêt des rejets d’émissions toxiques (ARET) — a citizens’ group advocating for the reduction of air pollutants. They refer to air quality issues in the same press release: “We therefore expect these recommendations to put an end to the project, as the population is already unacceptably overexposed to toxic emissions.” 

Health, Social Justice, and Community Solidarity

• Mères au Front (Rouyn-Noranda) — a local chapter of the pan-Canadian Mères au Front movement, which brings together mothers and grandmothers driven by a desire to act to protect our children’s future and life on Earth in the face of the climate emergency. This group, acting solely out of a duty to protect future generations, places the right to health, safety, and a clean environment at the heart of its struggle. They believe that the mining industry is incompatible with urban areas and oppose the Horne 5 project because it would increase the vulnerability of a population already overexposed to numerous neurotoxic contaminants.

Image: Protest organized by Mères au Front on October 13, 2024, in Rouyn-Noranda to remind the Legault government that the ongoing situation in Rouyn-Noranda is unacceptable. Credit: Maude Desbois (10)

• Centre Entre-Femmes: Active in the community for over 30 years, this organization works to improve women’s living conditions. Its opposition to the Horne 5 project centers on poverty and economic inequalities: since the jobs created are primarily male- , the center condemns the widening wage gaps in industrial regions and calls for a gender-based impact analysis, also fearing an increase in the risk of violence and issues related to alcohol and drug use. 

• Coopérative d’habitation Boréale: Opposing the developer’s 15-year vision, the housing cooperative advocates for a 40-year urban development cycle to secure the neighborhood’s future. Its struggle highlights the invisible social costs: it points out that communities bear the brunt of the hardships (suicides, domestic violence) linked to fluctuations in the price of gold—human tragedies for which no budget provides to absorb the consequences. The Cooperative has received a very high volume of demand in recent years, a demand it cannot meet. 

• The Abitibi-Témiscamingue Tenants’ Association also opposes the Horne 5 project and participated in the BAPE, raising concerns in particular about the pressure this project would place on this “sacrificed zone.” This association considers housing to be “a place where everyone should be safe day and night.” The city of Rouyn-Noranda has been in a housing crisis for nearly 15 years. Their argument also emphasized that, in addition to all the dangers raised by the project, the community more often than not bears the burden of finding solutions and accommodations for the population. This additional pressure is absolutely undesirable for Rouyn-Noranda’s community organizations.

The systemic oppression of extraction

In Quebec, communities affected by mining projects are oppressed by a glaring lack of oversight by the government regarding the massive investments it grants to the mining sector, as well as by the acceleration of mining projects at the expense of communities. 

For its part, Falco Resources Ltd. engages in the constant withholding and distortion of information, in addition to failing to listen to the public’s concerns and to take environmental assessments seriously. The recent filing (released to the media in late May 2026) of the expert report commissioned to analyze the risks associated with seismic activity supports this view. This report, so eagerly awaited by the public, has failed to clarify the uncertainty that persists regarding the safety of people and the radiation oncology center. A freedom of information request yielded only a heavily redacted version of the report, making it impossible to access nearly all of its content. 

At the same time, the community of Rouyn-Noranda is enduring a historic cycle of threats of industrial closure from Glencore, creating deep polarization within families and the population, and placing citizens in a constant false dilemma between economic survival and the protection of the environment and overall health. 

Everyone has been holding their breath for a long time now.

A year and a half after the BAPE report was submitted, the Horne 5 project is entering the final stages of its environmental impact assessment. At this critical juncture preceding potential mining operations, communities are awaiting the final decision regarding the authorization decree, which is reportedly scheduled for June 2026, according to the company’s latest Advisory Committee meeting dated March 18, 2026. The city’s cultural landscape now hinges on this government decree, which will determine whether authorities choose to ignore or respect the BAPE’s finding of unacceptability. The community is sincerely holding out hope that the final decision will serve the best interests of the local population and the Anicinape First Nation, while ensuring the protection of the environment as well as water and air quality.

To date, however, the network of activists remains mobilized. 

Image: Large demonstration in Rouyn-Noranda organized by Mères au front and their allies, October 13, 2024| Enough is enough | NO TO HORNE 5 ! Credit: Williams Nourry

And to what end?

A victory would mean the rejection and permanent stop of the Horne 5 project in order to ensure the safety and health of the citizens of Rouyn-Noranda through a realistic assessment of the project’s cumulative impacts, the carrying capacity of the project site, and the relentless pace of the pro-extractive agenda of companies targeting the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region. In the meantime, we are proud to say that the people of Rouyn-Noranda are a great inspiration to the Coalition Québec meilleure mine, and that their efforts serve as an example to follow for other mining struggles throughout the province. The measures taken by the community to mobilize against all these extractive giants are “admirable on a global scale.”

Image: The Horne Smelter at sunset. Credit: Guillaume Proulx, 2020, Rouyn-Noranda.

Image: Notre-Dame neighborhood at night. Credit: Guillaume Proulx, 2019, Rouyn-Noranda.

Endnotes 

1 – Company Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/RessourcesFalco/

 2-  Rivard, J. (December 2021). Démarrage de l’usine d’acide sulfurique de la fonderie Horne – 20 décembre 1989 | Héros sans panache | Société d’histoire de Rouyn-Noranda.http://shrn.ca/des-jours-qui-ont-fait-rouyn-noranda/20-decembre-1989-demarrage-de-lusine-dacide-sulfurique-de-la-fonderie-horne

3 – Collectif 33 Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=122104798005292317&set=pcb.122104801341292317&locale=fr_CA

4 –  Cotnoir, J.-M. (May 25, 2026).Horne 5 : le flou persiste quant aux risques sismiques. Radio-Canada.https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2256119/horne-5-mine-risque-sismique-cisss-at

 5 –  Luneau, A.-C. (2013, February 6). Rouyn-Noranda : le sol s’affaisse au parc Mouska. Radio-Canada.  https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/599141/trou-parc-mouska

 6 –  QMM and MWC. (2024, September 26). Mémoire | BAPE projet minier Horne 5 de Ressources Falco à Rouyn-Noranda | Mining Watch Canada. https://miningwatch.ca/fr/blog/2024/9/26/memoire-bape-projet-minier-horne-5-de-ressources-falco-rouyn-noranda

 7-  OBVAT. (2026, 4 juin). Taux d’inoccupation des logements, Abitibi-Témiscamingue et Québec, 1996 à 2026p – L’Observatoire de l’Abitibi-Témiscamingue. https://www.observat.qc.ca/statistiques/taux-dinoccupation-des-logements-abitibi-temiscamingue-et-quebec-1996-a-2026p/ 

8- BAPE, Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement. (2024).Projet Horne 5 à Rouyn-Noranda par Ressources Falco ltée: rapport d’enquête et d’audience publique. Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement. https://www.bape.gouv.qc.ca/fr/dossiers/mine_horne5/

 9- Millette, L. (2025, March 4). Projet Horne 5 : Québec freine l’élan de Ressources Falco. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2145532/falco-horne-fonderie-rouyn-noranda-mine

 10-  Fortin-Rondeau, I. (2025, November 18). Le Pudding à l’arsenic : une version industrielle signée Fonderie Horne. https://www.meresaufront.org/billets-de-blogue/le-pudding-a-larsenic-une-version-industrielle-signee-fonderie-horne 

 

How we say YES to LIFE YLNM Position Paper (July 2026)

Image: Covas do Barroso Credit: Salva La Selva

 

1. Introduction: Saying Yes to Life

 

Yes to Life, No to Mining (YLNM) is a global solidarity network of and for Indigenous Peoples, impacted communities, local organisations, and networks who are standing up for their right to say No to Mining and to advance life sustaining and post-extractive futures.

 

In one of our earlier position papers, we laid out the reasons why we say “No to Mining.” These include the widespread and often unregulated destructive impacts of mining on environments and communities; and the pressures from companies and governments upon communities to accept projects often in the absence of people’s rights to free, prior and informed consent. 

All communities have the right to self-determination of livelihoods and futures, and to defend their territories, livelihoods and the wellbeing of the people and the earth. All communities have the right to say no to mining. 

At the same time, across the world, communities resisting mining are not only saying no to destruction, but yes to life. This paper is an articulation of how communities protect their territories and build lives of connection and thriving – for both present and future generations.

2. Defending Life: The Context of Extractivism 

Extractivism is a term which describes the logic of large-scale resource extraction to serve national and transnational corporate and economic interests, at the expense of local territories and communities. 

“(Extractivism) is a logic of violence that includes abuses to life, health, land, food, and water; displacement of people; violations of Indigenous Peoples rights; gender-based violence and discrimination against women; criminalisation of workers and human rights and environmental defenders; and the use of military and security forces to protect natural resources and corporate interests.” Nat Lowrey and Anisa Rogers writing for Chain Reaction (Friends of the Earth Australia), 2021.

Dron Alliansi Sulawesi – Toxic Tour 2023. Credit: Alliansi Sulawesi

Mining is one of the world’s most destructive forms of extractivism because of its scale and the wide range of impacts caused by its processes, not to mention the ever-increasing expansions for critical minerals under the banners of green energy transition, energy security, the “digital transformation” and defence. 

Expansions in the name of the “green transition” are not driven by care for people and environment, but by market factors – the economic values of key minerals and the geopolitical competition to control supply chains. The underlying logics of most “sustainable” or “green” mining enterprises are extractivism, capitalism, colonialism and imperialism. Saying yes to life means breaking free from these long-binding blights on our world and not falling for their new guises.

Another underpinning and prevailing myth is that of  “development as progress”. This has governed the agendas of the Global North over the Global South for decades. It is tied to the categorization of countries into developed and developing, the imperative of economic growth, and the false idea that transnational investment in resource extraction is the solution for poverty – an idea that not even its authors truly believe. 

It is time to take back the narrative. We assert that people and communities affected by mining and extractivism should have the right to define their own well-being, livelihoods and development pathways.  

The many justifications invented for mining expansions are creating a global profusion of “sacrifice zones”. These are geographical areas where the rights and health of people, lands, water and biodiversity are prioritised below capitalist interests. All over the world, mining frontiers are hotspots for human rights abuses, land grabbing and violence. 

Meanwhile these are often the very same areas where people are practicing sustainable and life-giving alternatives to extractivism, and are stewarding and safeguarding some of the most important ecosystems on the planet. 

In our previously published paper, “Towards Just Transitions for People and Planet”, we articulate the following:  “A truly just transition must be popular, inclusive, and grounded in the Right to Say No, and a right to choose non-extractive ways of life … This includes the amplification of alternatives to mining and extractivism, and empowering new paradigms of global justice that restore balance between peoples and the Earth.” In other words – a just transition is about defending life. 

3. What does “Yes to Life” Mean?

 

In a world where all futures are at stake, and where we cannot rely on top-down, capitalist and market-driven solutions to our intersected crises, it is essential to bring forth stories from the grassroots and extractive frontlines which help us to collectively imagine post-extractive futures. 

These are our “Yes to Life” stories: examples of surviving, thriving, growing and celebrating which demonstrate pathways and possibilities for pursuing a life-sustaining future at local and global levels.

Yes to life means centering land, water, forests and oceans as living systems with their own intrinsic rights to exist, persist and thrive, as well as to be healthy habitats for all living beings, including people who call these places home and depend on them for survival. 

Yes to Life means understanding communities as being Stewards of Life. It recognises the authority of Indigenous and community governance, and centres life-ways which are based on reciprocal relationships with nature.

Yes to Life means nurturing and supporting systems of Interdependence and Care, centred on the wellbeing of people and ecosystems and on our collective futures – human and other-than-human.

Yes to Life means protecting old ways and innovating new ways of living, which are regenerative and sustainable for generations into the future. It means imagining and bringing about a post-extractive future in which “many worlds fit” – a pluriverse, rather than a hegemony. 

“To say yes to life …

To create in order to reconnect” is, at its core, a collective affirmation:

Yes to autonomy.

Yes to caring for territory.

Yes to creativity as a form of resistance.

Because to create is also a way to resist.”

Claudia Alavez, coordinator of UNIR – Haiti

4. Principles for Saying Yes to Life

 

4.1 Territorial sovereignty and Indigenous self-determination

Globally, mining expansions disproportionately impact on Indigenous lands. In 2020, according to a report by the World Resources Institute, industrial and illegal mining together affected 450,000 hectares (over 20%) of Indigenous lands in the Amazon region. In Australia, a 2024 study found that 57.8% of critical mineral projects lay within formally recognised Indigenous lands. This went up to 79.2% when including land subject to undetermined native title claims. 

Indigenous stewardship is recognised to be one of the most important ways of preserving critical ecosystems and mitigating global warming. This is because the lands of Indigenous peoples largely contain critical ecosystems and carbon sinks; because many Indigenous traditional practices offer effective climate solutions, such as sustainable agriculture and water management systems; and because Indigenous peoples are custodians of unique knowledge and worldviews that emphasise deep kinship between humans and nature. 

Therefore, Indigenous self-determination over their lands and the extractive activities that affect them are fundamental to the principles and practice of Yes to Life.

4.2 The Right to Say No

The “Right to say No” is an essential balance of “Yes to Life” – one cannot exist without the other. In order to thrive, communities must be able to self-determine and set their own boundaries with regards to extractive projects that affect them. 

When unable to do so, communities are locked into uneven power dynamics with interests whose primary goal is to pursue projects in order to maximize investment returns for shareholders. This power dynamic makes the pursuit of life-sustaining economies and activities challenging, and sometimes even impossible – because when local energies and resources get sucked into survival efforts (firefighting), they are made less available for life-sustaining pursuits (growing green shoots). 

On the other hand, where possible, engagement in local actions that are positive and oriented towards thriving is one of the most important strategies used by communities to assert their sovereignty and to reject projects and influences that are not in their best interests.

4.3 The Rights of Nature and Earth Jurisprudence

Rights of Nature and Earth Jurisprudence movements are founded upon the recognition (understood by many Indigenous cultures) that Nature is a living community of interrelated and interdependent beings with inherent rights. 

As a legal tool for defending not only ecosystems but the communities which depend on them, Rights of Nature gained global attention in 2008 when Ecuador defined nature in its constitution as a living being (Pacha Mama) with rights to “exist, persist and thrive”. These revolutionary laws have become increasingly useful in supporting Ecuador’s grassroots struggles against state-backed oil and mining exploitation. The Los Cedros case, where the inherent rights of a cloud forest were successfully defended against a transnational mining company, is an emblematic example of how local and international networks can work together to bring forth the permanent protection of a biosphere.

Rights of Nature and Earth Jurisprudence movements and initiatives now spread around the world. They champion visions and strategies which challenge the colonial extractive power hegemony in both the Global South and North. The Rights of Nature has recently been recognised as an essential element of a “Just Transition” to a life-sustaining future – see our position paper for a slightly deeper dive on this topic. This is a powerful assertion of the principle of “Yes to Life” – not just for humans, but all species who share planet Earth with us.

The extraordinary biodiversity of Los Cedros Reserve in Ecuador, protected in 2021 by constitutional laws for Rights of Nature. Photo Credit: Liz Downes

 

4.4 Protection and regeneration of ecosystems

Mining expansions pose an ever greater threat to the world’s most vulnerable and biodiverse ecosystems. A 2026 analysis has revealed that more than 3,267 active mining operations are located within biodiversity hotspots – these operations account for almost 5% of the global mining industry’s total footprint. 

Mining is a key cause of deforestation – a 2024 study indicated that mining resulted in 1.4 million hectares of tree cover loss between 2001 and 2020. This only included extraction operations for five minerals (bauxite, iron ore, copper, gold and silver) and did not include the flow-on deforestation from pollution and infrastructure. Of this forest loss, 260,000 hectares were in Indigenous lands and areas around communities. 

More recently, the devastating impacts of massive industrial and illegal mining expansions can be seen across primary tropical rainforests and Indigenous lands in the Amazon, African, Asia and Pacific regions. Mining also impacts on ocean ecosystems: by pollution from land-based mines, dumping of toxic wastes, and the expansion of experimental explorations for metals in the deep sea. The protection and regeneration of ecosystems are vital to protecting what is left and rebuilding what is lost for a world where ecosystems and communities can thrive.

 

4.5 Community wellbeing over profit

Industries pushing “socially responsible mining” can never realistically prioritise community wellbeing over, or indeed as well as, investment. Even where companies claim they respect the needs of communities they operate in, there is a dynamic of corporate greed which is inherent to the practice of business under the capitalist model. The bottom line is always profit. 

For this reason, voluntary “environmental, social and governance” standards and schemes claiming to improve the due diligence of mining companies (such as certification schemes) fail by default to protect communities from harm. For communities to be able to ensure their own life-sustaining futures, their rights and wellbeing must be centred first and foremost over those of corporations. This means autonomy, sovereignty, the right to say no, and democratic decision-making power over any project that affects them. 

 

4.6 Solidarity and collective responsibility

It is difficult for projects building towards life-sustaining futures to be scaled up from the grassroots without global support and networks. Communities fighting mining are often living and working under direct threats of persecution, as well as struggling with food insecurity, threats to livelihoods, destruction of their lands and possibly poverty and other social injustices. 

To make our struggles visible is a call to action: it is to say that extractive frontlines cannot sustain themselves alone. People cannot survive and thrive and defend life against threats when they are isolated. We have a collective responsibility to support and advocate for those who are living under systems of oppression.

 

4.7 Intergenerational justice

The adverse impacts of extractivism are often intergenerational. In the case of mining projects, operations may last decades – which means decades of tailings accumulation, toxic runoff, land degradation, and soil, water and air contamination. Impacts may continue for decades, centuries or millennia after a mine is closed; and sometimes the damage is irreversible – as in the case of species extinctions, destruction of ecosystems, or the permanent displacement of communities.

So in terms of intergenerational justice, “Yes to Life” means creating and defending the conditions that make it possible for life to continue into the future. It means protecting lands, water, biospheres, and the communities which depend on them for the sake of all generations.

5. Pathways: How Communities Say Yes to Life 

We stand in solidarity with local communities resisting extractivism and uphold their right to decide in respect of all decisions that affect their lands, waters, and futures. This includes autonomy, self-determination, and territorial sovereignty of Indigenous peoples everywhere, and affirm the right of all communities to protect and care for their territories according to their own values and knowledge systems. And we stand for the rights of communities to forge alternatives to the industrial extractive model which help them not just survive, but thrive on their own terms. 

This section, the core of our paper, presents a tapestry of alternatives: ways in which communities are saying yes to life and sowing and tending the seeds of a future without mining in their lands.

 

5.1 Defending Territories and the Right to Say No

Private property sign expressing no to mining interests, Intag, Ecuador. Photo Credit: Liz Downes

Almost all struggles against extractivism start, and are sustained, at the local level. Mapping tools like the Environmental Justice Atlas paint a sobering picture of the sheer number of communities fighting for their lands across the globe, particularly in the Global South. At time of writing the EJ Atlas contains 4524 cases centred around mining, water justice, land clearance and waste disposal issues; and of course, many cases are not mapped. 

As the intensification of mining puts pressure on ever more local frontiers, communities are defending their Right to Say No in every possible way available to them – through organising, assemblies, solidarity networks, legal struggles, direct action, and much more. These struggles often involve long and gruelling campaigns which, sadly, are ultimately unsuccessful in stopping projects or preventing damage. 

However, whatever the outcome, the act of protecting life does not lose its value. And there are cases around the world where resistance has succeeded in defending life. It is vitally important to make these wins visible and celebrate them in the spirit of “Yes to Life.” 

Sulawesi, Indonesia, hosts the world’s largest nickel mining industry. Enormous, open-pit Chinese, Brazilian and Australian-owned mines funnel ore into a “hellscape” expanse of processing plants and smelters – the Morowali Industrial Park – which stretches along the coast of Central Sulawesi. The environmental and social impacts of this industry are nothing short of catastrophic. And recent expansions further threaten the livelihoods of rice and pepper farmers, who provide thousands of jobs in their regions and protect large tracts of biodiverse rainforest.

Some communities have responded by forming female-led resistance collectives – such as the Loeha Raya Women Fighters of Lake Towuti. These women are organising a campaign to protect their air, water and land from a new mining concession owned by Brazilian company, Vale. Despite intimidation and threats from both company and state, they continue to push back against Vale with a strength that defies the scale of what they are up against – a strength rooted in their conviction that no mining “jobs” can replace the loss of their homes. 

Image: Loeha Raya Women Fighters with YLNM and Rainforest Rescue, 2024, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Photo credit: YLNM

In Colombia in 2017, the citizens of the mountain district of Cajamarca voted with a 98% majority to ban a huge gold mining project owned by South African company AngloGold Ashanti. The popular consultation was led by grassroots youth activists and small-scale farmers. The victory helped inspire a movement of similar democratic consultations across the country, all soundly rejecting planned mining, oil and gas projects.

“By saying ‘no’ to mining, communities are not saying no to development. They’re saying we need to transition to new forms of development that are not based on exploiting non-renewable resources. People in Colombia are calling for a new paradigm and a new development model that includes alternatives that are rooted in and serve the well-being of the planet and the people.”

YLNM coordinator Mariana Gomez, quoted in The Gaia Foundation.

For over 14 years, communities in Cajamarca, in the highlands of Peru, have fought to hold back the Minas Conga gold project – a planned expansion of Newmont’s massive Yanacocha open-pit mine. The Yanacocha mine itself has an appalling record of air, soil and water contamination and water depletion; the Minas Conga project is projected to be three times the size and threatens to dump its waste in the source lands of five major rivers. Despite being met with violent oppression by the state, civil society groups have remained defiant and have fought several legal battles against the company’s attempts to manufacture environmental and social licence. To date, the multi-billion-dollar project remains stalled.    

Large-scale popular resistance can galvanise the voice for “No to mining” and achieve the blocking of projects that would otherwise devastate lands and livelihoods. In Serbia, a national people’s movement has to date prevented Rio Tinto from developing the huge Jadar lithium project in a historic district. In the Solomon Islands in 2020, the remote community of Wagina Island won a seven year legal battle to stop a Chinese-owned bauxite mining project which would have affected the livelihoods of up to 60% of the population. 

 

5.2 Practising Indigenous Sovereignty 

Indigenous communities, as prior mentioned, suffer the brunt of contemporary mining expansions for so-called critical minerals. “Yes to Life” for most Indigenous communities is deeply grounded in connection to land, sacred sites, and place-based cultural heritage.

In Ontario, Canada, the Eagle’s Nest nickel project – owned by Australian company Wyloo Metals – is a huge mining operation proposed on Treaty 9 territory on what local First Nations call ‘the breathing lands’. The area covers wetland and peatland ecosystems which form one of the world’s most important carbon storage sinks. In 2021 several First Nations declared a moratorium against mining on these territories: 

“This MORATORIUM is urgently required because, as the caretakers of this part of the Earth where the Creator put us, we have a profound and sacred duty to ensure that this part of the Earth is not so wounded from Ring of Fire development that it can longer support our relations and ways of life, or help protect the world from catastrophic climate change; as the James Bay lowlands stand as one of the last and most important bastions of defence against climate collapse.”

At the end of 2025 an access road was  approved to go ahead by the Government of Ontario, which is pushing the project as a multi-billion-dollar investment in renewable energy resources. Despite this setback, First Nations remain firm in defense of their lands, alongside allies such as the Friends of the Attawapiskat River, the Land Defense Alliance, and the Mining Injustice Solidarity Network. 

In the Philippines, indigenous communities have asserted their rights to defend territories against mining for decades – often while facing serious persecution from the government, corporations and private interests. In the province of Palawan, nickel mining expansions are threatening a once-pristine UNESCO biosphere reserve and the lands of the Pala’wan, Tagbanuwa and Batak peoples. The Coalition Against Land Grabbing (CALG), a coalition of indigenous campaigners, are urging a moratorium on mining based on damage already done to ecologically sensitive areas and agricultural lands, and on the “illegitimacy” of the Free Prior and Informed Consent process employed by the mining company.

On 18th February 2023, to save Brooke’s Point biocultural diversity paradise from ruthless incursion of mining development in the island of Palawan (Philippines) indigenous peoples and local residents put up barricades. People perceive these as one of their last remedies to halt ongoing destruction. Photo credit: Coalition Against Land Grabbing CALG

Indigenous peoples often have to resort to protracted legal battles to defend sacred sites and territories. Occasionally there are wins or milestones worth celebrating – with the caveat that there is often a long fight to continue. In May 2025, nine tribes of the Lakota Sioux of Black Hills, South Dakota, won a lawsuit which cancelled the permit of a graphite drilling project threatening their sacred grounds of Pe’Sla. 

During the same week, Yindjibarndi traditional owners were awarded $150 million in the latest iteration of their twenty-year legal fight against an iron ore mine owned by Australia’s second richest person, Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest. For the Yindjibarndi, this is nowhere near a “win”, or the end of their struggle: the amount represents a fraction of the $1.8 billion they asked for, and more importantly will never make up for the destruction of up to 250 cultural sites by mining operations. Nevertheless, the result highlights the urgent need for accountability for mining companies who operate with near impunity when it comes to Native Title laws in Australia.

In Sweden, Saami reindeer herders filed a petition to the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, complaining that three metals mining concessions had been granted on their land, in violation of their Free, Prior and Informed Consent and of national laws protecting their territory and traditional way of life. After five years of legal process, in 2025 the UN finally ruled in favour of the Saami. 

 

5.3 Protecting and Regenerating Ecosystems 

Around the world mining-impacted communities are engaged in ecosystem protection and regeneration activities, in order to restore damaged environments, defend territories, and develop and protect local livelihoods as a preventative measure against mining incursions. 

In the Finnish Boreal, the small community of Selkie has not only stopped decades of destructive peat mining through a spirited campaign, but has undertaken to restore the fragile river catchments and wetlands which had been polluted by the mine. Through a restoration programme bringing together traditional knowledge and science, this wetland has enjoyed a dramatic return to health, with many key species of birds and fish reviving their populations. Read their incredible story, Landscapes of Renewal, here.

In Myanmar, Indigenous Karen people created the Salween Peace Park – an initiative to protect their land, livelihoods and extraordinary biodiversity, and to assert their right to self-determination. During over 70 years of armed conflict, hundreds of thousands of Karen people have experienced genocide, torture, sexual violence, and displacement at the hands of the state armed forces. Karen lands are threatened by logging, private agribusiness, infrastructure projects and gold mining. Karen communities have resisted these threats  through public celebration of their culture, identity and nature stewardship. And so the Salween Peace Park came into being. 

 

“The Salween Peace Park empowers our indigenous Karen communities to guide local development and conservation in line with traditional knowledge and cultural practices. By basing local governance in the hands of the community, the Salween Peace Park enables the conservation of nature and Karen culture, and the pursuit of a peaceful and stable life for local communities, something that is denied to them by Myanmar government laws and military ambitions.” 

 

These hopes and dreams have been challenged by ever-increasing militarisation – in 2021 after the coup, and again in 2023, state military-led airstrikes bombarded villages. These assaults have forced hundreds of people to flee and live deeper in the forest, terrified of the next attack. Despite this, conservation and territorial defence activities continue. In 2024, Karen people embarked on a new campaign of self-determination – to register their own land titles without government approval. This process has involved an intensive mapping and documenting of ancestral lands, registering the data in a database, and handing out titles to locals. 

 

5.4 Defending Food Sovereignty and Land-Based Livelihoods

The term ‘food sovereignty’ was first coined in 1996 by the global peasant movement, La Vía Campesina. This is the right of communities to define their own food and agriculture systems, and to produce healthy and culturally appropriate food through ecologically sustainable methods. 

Food sovereignty is not just food security – it is a much broader political concept which asserts food as a human right rather than a commodity. It centres justice and solidarity over profit. It puts the needs and aspirations of those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies, rather than market demands. It defends the interests and inclusion of future generations. It offers strategies to resist and dismantle the current corporate trade and food regime, and directions for food, farming, pastoral and fisheries systems determined by local producers and users. Defending food sovereignty is a powerful way for communities to say “no to mining” and “yes to life”. 

Covas do Barroso is a mountainous rural region in Portugal famous for its traditional agro-silvo-pastoral food production, which has been recognised as a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS) by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. Local communities have very strong ties to the land, which is administered as a system of communal lands covering approximately 2000 hectares, called baldios. 

Unfortunately the region also contains lithium resources. In 2023, after years of aggressive encroachments to conduct explorations, UK-based company Savannah Resources was given the green light by the Portuguese government to develop its mining project. Most of the mining area covers the baldios. Local communities have reacted by conducting vigils, blockades, filing lawsuits, hosting international protest camps, creating street theatre, among other tactics. They argue that economic value cannot be assigned to communal lands; and furthermore, the mountains themselves are alive and cannot be quantified:

“When we allow ourselves to be truly present in the mountains, with all our senses immersed in it, listening to its sounds and its silences, seeing its colours, its shapes, its species; when we allow ourselves to feel its soil; when we quench our thirst in its waters or eat its fruits; when we feel the heat of its wood or the breeze of its breath on our skin; when it makes us feel fear or joy; we realise once again that the mountain is alive, that the mountain is part of us and we are part of the mountain.”

From New Tales of the Barroso Mountains, published by YLNM.

In Cajamarca, Colombia, food sovereignty is at the core of “Yes to Life” initiatives and non-extractive livelihoods being developed since civil society resistance stopped AngloGold Ashanti’s huge proposed gold mining operation in 2017. Communities and their local environmental youth collective, COSAJUCA, have built partnerships with local agronomists to teach people pathways towards developing their own sustainable businesses. Cooperative agribusiness has flourished. But the most inspiring story of all is that of the arracacha – a native Andean parsnip of which the Cajamarca region is the world’s biggest producer.  

In 2017, soon after the victory against the mining project, a local arracacha producing association, APROSAN, formed a partnership with the socially and environmentally conscious Colombian restaurant chain, Crepes&Waffles. The partnership assured a stable, generous market price for APROSAN’s products and supported the association to develop less chemical-intensive and more ecologically friendly farming systems. Crepes&Waffles has since expanded its buying of products from Cajamarca to some fruits and raw sugar. APROSAN has also moved into upscaling the processing of arracacha with new cooperatives and selling the raw vegetable as well as products like arracacha chips all over the country, transforming the vegetable from a “peasant food” to the real gold of Cajamarca.

Arracacha: The “real gold” of Cajamarca, Colombia. Photo: Federico Pardo for We Feed The World, The Gaia Foundation, 2019.

Farming communities in northwestern Haiti have collectivised to generate creative solutions to poverty, environmental degradation, and other pressures brought on partly by threats of gold mining in the northern territories of the country. While Haiti currently does not have a visible government and there is no mining legislation, transnational companies are expressing interest, and people are speculating that processes are occurring behind closed doors to allow projects to progress with no consultation. They are preparing.  

A grassroots collective, UNIR, runs workshops and educates affected rural communities in a participatory way, using games, flash cards and trivia to make people aware of the mining being proposed. Their campaign, “Create to Reconnect” has four highly successful initiatives in environmental education and action: Reducing plastic use and designing eco-friendly sanitary towels for women (led by a young woman from the north of the country); installing composters in northern Haiti to revive the use of natural fertilizers in planting; home gardens, integrating more than 15 crops in a single space; and school programs making “eco-bricks”.

“It is a very significant process for us, because we are supporting four community initiatives which promote something special: to create, imagine and inhabit our territory from our own solutions which come from our daily life and the real needs of our communities.”

Claudia Alavez, coordinator of UNIR and member of Yes to Life No to Mining

Ecological restoration and the strengthening of food sovereignty through collective reforestation and food production initiatives in southeast and north Haiti. Photo credit: UNIR Haiti, 2026

5.5  Water sovereignty

Water is essential for all life. But humans and many other species can only survive on fresh water, which makes up less than 2% of the water on earth. Of this, only 0.5% is immediately available to us, the rest being locked up in ice caps, groundwater systems and soil. Yet we are witnessing uncontrolled expansions of an industry which uses vast amounts – not just at the extraction stage, but to an even greater extent in ore processing and refining.

Some of the world’s biggest mining operations are located in arid lands where water is either scarce or exists in finite quantities, such as BHP’s operations in the Atacama desert of Chile, and Glencore’s huge nickel plant near Kalgoorlie in Western Australia. Mining also contaminates water supplies depended on by people and ecosystems. Hence, struggles against mining are often themed around water, its defence and its protection.

Through the Andes region, spanning Chile, Peru, Ecuador and Colombia, communities have used campaign slogans like “Water is Life” and “Water is worth more than lithium, gold, copper” to push back against mining expansions. In the highlands of Ecuador, the resistance against mining expansions have been largely built around the defense and sacredness of water. In 2018, a national “March for Water” involved hundreds of Indigenous people marching 600 kilometres from the country’s south to the capital, Quito, carrying swathes of blue material representing their sacred rivers.

“Water is Life” National March, Ecuador, 2018. Photo provided by Carlos Zorrilla

The arid region of Puna de Atacama spans parts of Chile, Argentina and Bolivia. It is erroneously known as the ‘Lithium Triangle’ because of its perceived richness in resources for the “green energy transition”. In reality it is a sacrifice zone where mining expansions for lithium brine in high-altitude salt lakes (salares) are having dire impacts on water, fragile ecosystems, and Indigenous livelihoods. Communities are fiercely resisting, because any more damage to water systems will mean death for their cultures and the entire landscape.

“Friends and farmers, with whom I shared a transcendental part of my life, generously explained to me how the collective use of water makes the existence of farming lands, forests, and wetlands possible amid the desert. The presence of farmers and shepherds, I understood, not only depends on these hydro-agro-ecosystems but also produces the conditions for their very existence … Mining stories are, when all is said and done, water stories.”  Ramón Balcázar, OPSAL (Plurinational Observatory for Andean Salares)

 

5.5 Building Community, Solidarity Economies and Intergenerational Justice

Local communities are strengthened in their resistance against extractivism when they share identities grounded in place. In Covas do Barroso, Portugal, communities are knitted together by their connection to the baldios – their traditional system of land stewardship. In Ireland, people have been resisting gold mining threats by Canadian company, Dalradian Resources, to the ecologically significant Sperrin Mountains for over ten years – as well as other mining concessions covering 25% of the land mass of Northern Ireland and 27% of the Republic of Ireland. Local groups are empowered and united by the spirit of duchás – the Irish concept for belonging or connection to land which is communal, ecological, and points to an identity shaped by place.

2024: Knitting community. During the camps in Covas do Barroso, a range of activities were organised, such as this crochet workshop led by one of the local residents. Photo: Guadalupe Rodríguez/ Salva la Selva

5.6 Protecting Defenders and Strengthening Collective Resistance 

Environmental defenders around the world get disproportionately targeted and persecuted by governments and corporations protective of their investments. According to Global Witness (2024) most assassinations each year are related to mining. Some statistics from recent years are covered in our paper “Why we say No to Mining.”

From 2012, the Philippines has been ranked as the deadliest country in Asia for people protecting land and the environment. More than 120 environmental campaigners have been murdered over the past 15 years, according to the grassroots organisation Coalition Against Land Grabbing (CALG) – with mining linked to a third of all killings. Through the years of persecution has emerged a tapestry of support for environmental defenders comprising grassroots organisations, Indigenous and rural communities. In the Asia Pacific region, these include Kalikasan, a network of environmental organisations advocating for persecuted defenders; and APNED (Asia Pacific Network for Environmental Defenders). 

In Ecuador, the numbers of environmental defenders being persecuted by corporations and government has increased sharply since 2016, when the country changed its mining investment laws and invited dozens of transnational companies to snap up mining leases across two million hectares of land – mainly Indigenous territories, biodiversity hotspots, and farmlands. As explorations and projects got underway with next to no environmental oversight and zero consultation, new local resistance groups sprang up everywhere. In 2021 several of these groups formed the National Anti-Mining Front, which continues to support a broad swathe of struggles, often with limited resources at their disposal. 

The Intag region of the northwest of Ecuador has a decades-long history of struggle against mining – the longest continuous resistance in Latin America. As a result the region has developed a tightly-linked network of civil society groups, which have collaborated in recent years to declare Intag a “Mining Free Zone”. Citizens have defended their lands in a wide variety of ways – from setting up chain blockades across roads to stop mining companies entering, to community assemblies, to conservation, reforestation and environmental education projects, to legal interventions against criminalisation of defenders, to court battles, and even a national referendum. Emblematic outcomes such as the court wins for the rights of nature in Los Cedros and Llurimagua would not have been successful without these strong civil society alliances. 

 

5.7 Collective decision-making, governances and convergences 

Strong local collective decision-making and community governance systems are critical in building up the power of civil society resistance and expanding solidarity networks.

The Karen people in Myanmar have constructed a regional coordination of governance to present a strong, united front in defense of their lands. This is grounded in local, grassroots governance bodies and a charter of principles; these local voices are then added together and channelled into a regional General Assembly. In this way, community voices are strengthened in relation to those of neighbouring stakeholders. Members of the General Assembly, in turn, work consistently with representatives of each community. 

“The Salween Peace Park empowers our indigenous Karen communities to guide local development and conservation in line with traditional knowledge and cultural practices. By basing local governance in the hands of the community, the Salween Peace Park enables the conservation of nature and Karen culture, and the pursuit of a peaceful and stable life for local communities, something that is denied to them by Myanmar government laws and military ambitions.”

Popular referendums have in many areas proved to be a powerful and decisive way to galvanise community resistance. In northwestern Ecuador, a campaign called “Quito Sin Minería” brought together rural communities in a campaign calling for a national referendum on mining in the mega-biodiverse Chocó Andino region. In 2023 over 60% of Ecuadorians voted to ban mining in that area. Just a couple of years earlier, the city of Cuenca similarly achieved a referendum at the provincial level, in which over 80% of voters said “no” to mining in the region’s highland watersheds. This win continues to bolster the resistance movements of Cuenca today, even in the face of increasing pressures from the state and corporations to advance grand-scale mining. 

Regional and global networks and convergences are a key way to articulate and solidify collective action, reflection and strategy. The Foro Social Panamazónico (FOSPA) is a biannual regional platform bringing together Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant communities, social movements, and civil society from across the Amazon basin. Similarly, in the Asia-Pacific region, the Asia Pacific Research Network (APRN) provides a collective space for civil society organisations to tackle shared social and environmental concerns and elevate the voices of frontlines. 

The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN) is a rapidly growing network now with members in 40 countries. GARN’s organisational structure is grounded in and centres the authority of Indigenous peoples and stands for transforming systems in vision of a regenerative society for all beings on planet Earth. La Via Campesina is an international movement of peasants defending and building food sovereignty across the Global South and North. The Thematic Social Forum on Mining and Extractivism is a solidarity network of people from mining-affected communities which has so far held three global assemblies – Johannesburg (2018), Indonesia (2023) and Brazil (2025). While the Global Tapestry of Alternatives weaves anti-capitalist, post-capitalist, localised democracy groups committed to transformative alternatives.

Bringing people face to face in international convergences around official events like the United Nations COP climate summits has helped to forge cross-sectoral alliances of civil society groups working in different thematic areas of the “just transition.” In November 2025 tens of thousands, including YLNM, converged around the COP30 in Belém, Brazil, in a huge show of unity for a liveable future:

“Our process brought together more than 70,000 people who make up local, national, and international movements of indigenous and traditional peoples, peasants, Indigenous Peoples, quilombolas, fisherfolk, traditional peoples who live from sustainable forest extraction, shellfish gatherers, urban workers, trade unionists, homeless people, babassu coconut breakers, terreiro peoples, women, the LGBTQIAPN+ community, young people, Afro-descendants, the elderly, and peoples from the forest, the countryside, the peripheries, the seas, rivers, lakes, and mangroves.”

People’s Summit March in Belém do Pará, Brazil, November 2025. Photo: Liz Downes

5.8  Celebration of Life

Yes to Life involves the celebration of life in all its diversity – creating movements and resistance that cannot be stamped out. 

The struggle in Tolima, Colombia against mining giant Anglogold Ashanti has gradually evolved, and since 2011 has brought together diverse parts of civil society to flourish into an annual celebration: a protest of art, music and political-environmental education in the city of Ibagué. The colourful Marcha-Carnaval, held on World Environment Day, draws thousands of people together in defense of Life, Water and Land and in opposition to state extractive policies in the name of the “green energy transition”. With national and even international participation, this event makes resistance against mining both attractive and joyful – a flame that cannot be easily put out. 

In Toronto, Canada, a bi-annual event called the River Run is held by the Grassy Narrows First Nation and allies in protest against the diverse extractive industries which impact their lands. The Grassy Narrows community has suffered many traumas including forced displacement, destruction of sacred sites through hydro damming, mercury contamination, logging, and mining expansions. They have also held a long-running blockade against extraction that functions as a language school and cultural center. Mercury poisoning in particular has a multi-generational impact on health within the community. Hence this family-friendly event is both about political action and celebrating survival. 

In Western Australia, a powerful initiative called “Reclaim the Void” was launched in 2022 by elders of Ngalia communities near Leonora – a town in the infamous “Goldfields” region where mining has occurred for over 150 years and which currently hosts over 60 operating open pit mines, some among the largest in the world. The region is riddled with the scars of old mines. The project brought people together in crafting “camps” in town and on Country (Ngurra) to weave huge brightly coloured rugs from discarded fabrics which were then exhibited in significant cultural and meeting places as a celebration of survival and reconnection to Ngurra and Tjukurrpa (law). 

 6. Transforming the Global System

Thematic Social Forum convergence in Indonesia, 2023. Photo: Guadalupe Rodriguez

Making local alternatives possible requires global structural change. As we have said in another position paper on the Just(ice) Transition, “we can’t mine our way out of the climate crisis — but we can build post-extractive futures that sustain life with dignity for all, and the inherent rights of Nature to exist, thrive and regenerate everywhere.” 

This means changing the entire way we conceptualise our political and economic systems at a global level, as well as supporting democratically owned energy transition initiatives at the grassroots level. At the very least we must decentralise the production of renewable energy, demand the reduction of consumption by the world’s richest and most industrialised countries, and centre the imperative to stop creating sacrifice zones in the name of climate action, energy security, national security or AI. 

 

6.1 Degrowth: Reducing Demand for Extraction

The demand for extraction is created by production for the sake of profit, not need, and for the manufactured consumption patterns of the Global North and its industrial imperialism. This occurs at a relentless cost to the Global South and the marginalised communities within richer countries. 

Degrowth is an increasingly accepted umbrella term for one movement that posits scalable alternatives to the hegemonic global economic system. In a previous position paper we state: “the concept of degrowth is based on an internationalist justice-based perspective, and sheds special light on the necessity for the world’s most affluent regions and classes to reduce their (over)consumption and to tackle the unequal ecological exchange (extraction) of materials and labour from the poorer regions of the world.” 

Degrowth is rooted in anarchism. While propagated to some extent in academia, the concept is rarely mentioned in top-down, hierarchical climate mitigation discourse. It has largely (and rightly) fallen on grassroots groups to do the cutting-edge work of developing degrowth models and practices which have real social benefits.

Often these same groups are also doing justice work supporting the frontlines of extractive sacrifice zones. For example, the Australian Degrowth Network – which has emerged over the past few years in one of the world’s biggest mining jurisdictions – works in alliance with First Nations and anti-extractive networks while supporting community-building and local economic initiatives.

 

6.2 Just(ice) Energy Transitions 

What does a Just Transition mean to us? As we expressed in our previous paper on this topic: 

“A Just Transition means a transition shaped by peoples and communities, not imposed on them. It must centre the right to say no to destructive projects and the right to self-determination over territories, livelihoods, and ways of life. A just transition must also honour the Rights of Nature, recognising that ecosystems are not resource banks for human use, but living relatives whose well-being determines our own.” 

Farming communities in the “food basket” of southeastern Nigeria have for decades been fighting unscrupulous, mostly state-owned coal mining companies. In 2022, a prolonged action by women of the community of Owukpa resulted in the closing down of the coal mine operating right on their back door. However, by this time the mine and other regional operations had caused years of accumulated damage, particularly air and water pollution, which continues to impact on people’s health. 

Despite this, and despite a serious regional conflict which has made the area unsafe to live in for many and caused significant displacement, farming people are resilient and determined to resurrect their livelihoods. In January 2025, YLNM, in partnership with the Health of Mother Earth Foundation, distributed multifunctional solar power systems to 40 women in Owukpa. The beneficiaries noted that these systems would help improve their homes and businesses.

“We advocate for an energy transition that is both ecologically and socially just. Harnessing Nigeria’s vast solar and wind potential would provide clean, renewable alternatives to coal, offering communities like Owukpa a way forward without the environmental and health hazards associated with coal mining.” 

 

6.3 Corporate Accountability

We live in an age of economic imperialism and global corporate hegemony. Both must be dismantled in order for a life-sustaining future to be possible. Most attempts at regulation of transnational corporations come from within the power structures that maintain corporate hegemony (eg. so-called certification schemes). However, from the grassroots it is possible to address the impunity of companies and call out, or even directly disrupt, supply chains that cause harm. 

Since genocides such as that in Gaza and Congo and the increasing geopolitical and military tensions around the world, organisations such as YLNM have worked hard to draw attention to the money flows and mines-to-weapons pipelines which make these wars and conflicts so lucrative, as well as the impacts of mining expansions at all stages of the supply chain. Once these patterns are identified, strategic activism can bring accountability to the supply chain. This may include boycotts and sanctions, targeted protests and actions, market and shareholder actions, and legal cases. 

Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) is a highly problematic international system of secretive tribunals that allows corporations to sue states outside of domestic and international law. The grassroots is gaining traction in challenging this system. In April 2026, over 340 civil society organizations called for a “global coalition to break free from ISDS” ahead of the Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia. 

The international food sovereignty network La Via Campesina says: “People’s sovereignty, dignity, and justice cannot coexist with corporate impunity. The challenge before us is not just to document violations but also to interrupt the systems that make them profitable. To do that, we must reclaim the language of law, the tools of economics, and the principles of international solidarity—not as abstractions, but as weapons in the struggle for liberation.”

7. The Importance of Global Solidarity

Local mining and extractive frontlines often find themselves facing a perfect storm of challenges – corporate bullying and divide/conquer tactics, greenwashing and corruption, aggressive state-driven economic campaigns, environmental and social impacts, and – last but not least – violence and militarisation, which may be associated with any of these other factors.  

Communities struggling against violent conflict often find themselves isolated from outside resources and wider advocacy and support networks. This may be because areas are considered too volatile or dangerous; because state or corporate powers actively try to prevent anyone supporting frontlines; or because whole regions are impacted by violence and political conflict, causing overwhelm among human rights and environmental defence networks. Grassroots networks may be too stretched or under too much threat of persecution themselves to be able to support all the frontlines in crisis. 

Bigger NGOs often have comparatively more resources, but their hierarchical structures, competitive business models, funding conditions and self-censorship often create restrictions on the kinds of struggles they can or are willing to support. Without strong local connections, international NGO resources risk being detached from reality, or channelled simply to the most “charismatic” struggles which can attract media and donors – leaving less visible communities struggling on their own. 

For these reasons, when frontline communities are in crisis, it is the grassroots civil society organisations with strong global partnerships who are often best placed to connect struggles, amplify voices and enact timely responses. Global solidarity networks play a key role in making struggles visible, channeling resources to the frontlines that need them the most, supporting life-sustaining local economies, and celebrating alternatives to extractivism. 

Global networks are also well placed to amplify local issues of human rights abuses and environmental impacts, and connect these issues to activist groups who are working to dismantle the root problems and create alternatives at the systemic level. This means tying local struggles to the wider picture of growth-based economies, the imperialist ambitions of the Global North, and the global military-industrial complex. Local voices and stories no longer remain contained, isolated or unheard – they help to focus the energies of those with the most resources to act, and to create a world where extractivism, war, violence and militarisation are alien.

This is exactly why YLNM started twelve years ago from solidarity connections between Latin America and Africa. Now, we are a network of communities and organisations that span the globe.

8. Conclusion: A Future Rooted in Life!

 

As we have seen through this weaving of stories, “Yes to life” means a diverse range of concrete things that communities around the world are demonstrating and implementing in order to ensure a liveable future. 

 

Yes to life means … 

 

• Yes to post-extractive, local economies and livelihoods; 

• Yes to grassroots- and Indigenous-led solutions to the climate crisis;
• Yes to a truly just transition for people and planet; 
• Yes to protecting and restoring environments on which livelihoods depend;
• Yes to protecting and restoring biodiversity and waterways for the sake of the rights of all life to exist, persist and thrive;

and

• Yes to empowering economic models and practices based on kinship, collaboration and reciprocity with nature! 

 

We know that a fully just and sustainable transformation towards a better future cannot emerge from the same extractivist system that caused the collective crisis we’re in. Such a transformation must dismantle corporate power, challenge neocolonial dependencies, and redefine our relationship with nature based on care, solidarity, and ecological balance. 

 

As YLNM, we stand for and strive towards the nurturing of a global, systemic socio-ecological transformation which is empowered and led by the grassroots. 

 

We work together across the Global South and North to envision and forge the conditions for a human society that:

• Upholds the right of local communities and Indigenous peoples to say NO to mining and other destructive projects, on the basis of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent;
• Ensures protection for environmental and human rights defenders (EHRDs); 
• Advances post-extractivist and decolonial alternatives which are guided by planetary limits, peoples’ sovereignty and ecological justice;
• Promotes degrowth and reduced production within industries and sectors which are driving our planetary ecological and social crises;
• Promotes limits on over-consumption, particularly in the Global North;
• Dismantles imperialism;

and

• Recognizes and enforces the Rights of Nature and Earth Jurisprudence as foundational models for sustainable and democratic life on Earth.

Study: Pregnant women routinely exposed to chemicals of concern, some linked to poor birth outcomes Anthony Lacey July 16, 2026

Potentially harmful but commonly used chemicals were widely detected in urine samples of pregnant people, according to a new study. At least 45 individual of these chemicals were found in half of the study’s participants. 

The authors measured the presence of over 100 different chemicals, choosing those that people are commonly exposed to and that have a high probability of leading to poor birth and child health outcomes. 

This group of chemicals include those often found in personal care products, food, drinking water and household items, including phthalates, pesticides and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs. 

The lead researchers are affiliated with the Gillings School of Global Public Health at the University of North Carolina, Stanford University School of Medicine and the Woods Institute for the Environment. 

For the study, published in JAMA Network Open, scientists collected urine samples from over 5,300 pregnant women across the U.S. Of the 113 specific chemicals tested for, all but three were detected in at least one sample. 

Samples were collected on average in the second trimester at multiple research sites in 14 states between 2000 and 2021. 

Links to worse birth outcomes

Exposure to many of these chemicals, but especially phthalates and PAHs, were associated with shorter gestation and lower birth weights. The findings are concerning because these factors are linked to poorer long-term health and development in children.

Phthalates help make plastic flexible and stabilize fragrances in products. Commonly used phthalates and their replacements were associated with earlier delivery and increased risk of preterm birth. 

PAHs make up a large class of chemicals that are produced when coal, oil, gas, wood or tobacco are burned. Car exhaust, grilling and cigarette smoke are all potential sources of exposure. 

The study reported that higher levels of PAHs were associated with increased risk of lower birth weight adjusted for gestational age. This means that even when accounting for how early or late a baby was born, mothers who were exposed to higher levels of PAHs during pregnancy had babies that weighed less than expected at birth.

UNC professor of epidemiology Jessie Buckley, Ph.D. led the research. She says: “Our study underscores the importance of reducing harmful chemical exposures during pregnancy. Even small differences in birth weight or gestational age can have significant impacts on children’s health.”

‘Regrettable substitutions’ linked to same effects

The urine samples in this study were collected from participants over two decades. During that time, several chemicals found more widespread use while others were phased out, including some “high concern” phthalates banned by states or regulatory agencies for use in children’s products or food packaging. 

But in these circumstances, manufacturers often replaced the concerning chemicals with structurally similar alternatives, effectively perpetuating exposures that pose similar health harms.

For example, as concern rose about exposure to one phthalate, di-2-ethylhexylphthalate, or DEHP, manufacturers replaced it with diisononyl phthalate, or DiNP.

Researchers found the replacements for common phthalates were detected in the urine samples and were associated with the same health risks as the banned substances they replaced.

One of the stronger links to shorter gestation, or earlier delivery, was driven by this replacement ingredient. For example, DiNP was significantly associated with a 16% increase in risk of preterm birth.

Today, DiNP has been phased out again in favor of other structurally similar, but different, phthalate replacements that are likely to have the same impacts on health. DiNP may still be present in products, even though the levels are heavily restricted by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

Reducing your exposure to chemicals

The study findings highlight that exposure to harmful chemicals during pregnancy can affect birth outcomes, which may in turn influence children’s health long term. Some of the chemicals linked to birth and children’s health outcomes include phthalates found in personal care products or food packaging.

Consumers seeking safer products can read labels and consult ingredient-checking tools such as EWG’s Skin Deep® database or use EWG’s Healthy Living™ app, which includes Skin Deep.  

Phthalates used in personal care products might not always show up on the label if they are part of a fragrance blend. Avoid products that do not disclose their fragrance. The umbrella term “fragrance” or “parfum” can be a blend of up to 100 ingredients, some of which may be chemicals associated with health harms. 

Consumers can also choose cleaning and personal care products bearing the EWG Verified® mark, which are free from EWG’s chemicals of concern and meet strict standards for health. 

Consumers who want to reduce exposure to pesticides from food residues can consult EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™ and download EWG’s guide to washing produce.

Efforts to reduce exposure do not require replacing everything at once. Even a small change, such as swapping out one product for a safer alternative, can be a simple way to start reducing exposure to harmful chemicals. 

Areas of Focus Women's Health Toxic Chemicals Pesticides Phthalates Authors Alexa Friedman, Ph.D. July 16, 2026

‘Triple dipping’ taxpayer dollars: Trump eyes billions more in subsidies for wealthy farms Anthony Lacey July 16, 2026

The Trump administration is asking Congress to send another $11 billion to farmers through taxpayer-funded farm subsidies, even though many would-be recipients are wealthy farms that already receive billions through several farm subsidy programs.

If Congress approves the request, it would be on top of the $12 billion currently allotted to farmers through the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program this year. 

Farmers also already receive payments from two other categories: commodity programs and the federal Crop Insurance Program, new EWG research finds. According to data in EWG’s recently updated Farm Subsidy Database, farmers last year received a staggering $29.5 billion by “triple dipping” into three categories of farm subsidies. 

The administration’s request, combined with these other payouts, would make payments swell to over $50 billion in 2026. This will place an even greater burden on taxpayers whose median income and wealth remain well below those of the average farm household. Total payments would make up a third of farm income this year.

Many smaller farmers are facing legitimate financial challenges, including lower commodity prices, higher input costs and uncertainty driven by President Donald Trump’s tariffs and the war with Iran. But America’s farm subsidy system overwhelmingly rewards the nation’s largest and wealthiest operations, not the family farms most in need of assistance.

Trump’s latest $11 billion bailout plan is largely the result of self-inflicted problems: a farm economy troubled due to the tariffs and war, which he started and which created instability in the global export markets. Rather than addressing those underlying policy choices, the administration is once again asking taxpayers to foot the bill.

Neither the House farm bill passed this spring nor the Senate farm bill now under consideration would make any much-needed changes to federal farm subsidy programs. Reform is vital to limit – not increase – the many billions taxpayers are paying to lucrative farms every year. These farms already benefit from multiple programs – they don’t need more support.

Triple dipping happens each year

EWG identified three sources of the billions in Department of Agriculture 2025 payments: crop insurance and traditional commodity farm subsidy programs that pay out every year, and ad hoc programs approved by Congress.

Six individual programs are covered by the three USDA farm support payment categories:

• An indemnity payment from the taxpayer-subsidized federal Crop Insurance Program.
• A payment from one of two traditional commodity subsidy programs tied to crop prices or revenues: the Price Loss Coverage program, or PLC, and the Agricultural Risk Coverage program, or ARC.
• Payments from three ad hoc programs established by Congress: the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program to help farmers with increased costs and reduced crop prices, and the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program and the Emergency Livestock Relief Program designed to support farmers through weather and climate disasters.

Farmers collected $29.5 billion in 2025 from the three types of payments. The largest share of payments were made in the ad hoc category. Together the three ad hoc programs accounted for $16.3 billion, representing over half of all payments. (See Figure 1.)

Crop insurance paid out 37% of total payments from all programs in 2025, or $11 billion. Payments from the ARC and PLC commodity programs made up the smallest share, at $2.1 billion, or 7% of total payments. 

But ARC and PLC payments will increase from 2025 levels in future years due to higher subsidies established in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA, which Republicans pushed through Congress last year.

Figure 1. Ad hoc farm subsidy programs were by far the largest source of payments to farmers in 2025

Image

Source: EWG, from the USDA Risk Management Agency, Summary of Business data, and Farm Service Agency, Payment Files Information

Farmers in 3,053 counties across the country received payments from at least one of the three farm support categories. In a total of 2,320 counties, or 76%, farmers collected payments from all three. 

The ad hoc programs had the largest reach, with farmers in 98% of the counties receiving payments. 

Just under half of all payments from the three payment categories – $14 billion in taxpayer dollars – went to farmers in just seven states, in descending order of largest payments: Texas, Minnesota, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota and Illinois.

The payments were very highly concentrated in just a few states, with farmers in Texas, Minnesota and Kansas alone accounting for 25% of all payments. 

Farmers and taxpayers pay into crop insurance premiums every year. Taxpayers shoulder 63% of the cost, on average, and indemnity payments are made from total premiums collected. 

Taxpayers foot all – 100% – of the cost of traditional commodity farm subsidy programs and the ad hoc subsidy programs. An increase in ad hoc subsidies, as the administration is requesting, would send considerably more taxpayer money to farmers.

The largest farms benefit the most

The push for another bailout comes as some farmers are struggling financially given increased costs for critical supplies like such as fuel and fertilizer, 

And it’s a jarring request at a time when millions of hardworking Americans across the country are also grappling with everyday living costs. Incomes are not keeping up with the rising cost of living, and almost half of Americans cannot afford basic living expenses like food, rent and healthcare.

Trump’s bid to send even more taxpayer money from an additional ad hoc program to farmers would benefit the largest and wealthiest farms the most. 

In 2025, the top 10% of farms received 59% of all commodity subsidies. At the same time, the smallest 80% of recipients only got 22% of payments. 

Most farm subsidies go to growers of commodity crops like corn and soybeans. Very little funding goes to farms that grow food like the fruits and vegetables millions of Americans eat, referred to as “specialty crops.”

Farm household income and wealth are also significantly higher than the average U.S. household. In 2024, the median farm household income was $102,748, much greater than the median U.S. household income of $83,730. 

Just 2% of all family farm households had levels of wealth below the median American wealth. 

Farmers qualify for commodity and ad hoc subsidies as long as their annual income is not above $900,000 per person, or $1.8 million for a farmer and his or her spouse. But the Crop Insurance Program does not have an income limit, so farmers who make above that level still qualify for premium subsidies and indemnity payments.

No need for more payments

The Trump administration’s latest proposal comes a year after enactment of the OBBBA, which expanded farm subsidies while paying for those increases by making deep cuts to nutrition assistance for hungry Americans.

By expanding subsidies at the expense of hungry people, the law increases the likelihood of farmers’ triple dipping into multiple farm support programs. It causes serious harm to millions while benefiting relatively few farmers.

Reform of the farm subsidy program to prevent triple dipping and make other much-needed fixes to these massive payouts is long overdue. But the House-passed farm bill and Senate farm bill under consideration won’t rein in farm subsidies.

Mostly large and wealthy commodity crop growers already receive billions of dollars from multiple farm subsidy programs every year. These farmers do not need even more taxpayer support from another new Trump-driven ad hoc farm subsidy program.

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Farm Subsidies Authors Anne Schechinger, M.S. July 16, 2026