News Feeds

This month, the Trump administration announced the launch of Project Vault, a $12 billion investment in a critical minerals stockpile to blunt America’s longstanding reliance on China.

This stockpile is a decisive step, leveraging a private-public partnership mechanism to put industry money to work at solving a national security vulnerability. But as policymakers stand up this important endeavor, they must not forget that the final gap to close is the production of permanent magnets—the spear in the critical minerals supply chain.

Permanent magnets power and propel motors, devices, and medical technology to allow for seamless, lifelong use. They drive America’s economy, sustain our Department of War, and make everyday life possible through the electrification of our daily routines.

Moving forward, permanent magnets will only grow in importance, as the technology of the future—from EVs to humanoid robots—need highly-performing permanent magnets to function seamlessly over their lifespan.

Therefore, it is critical for key decisionmakers to keep in mind the symbiotic relationship between critical minerals and permanent magnets. Behind the scenes, American magnet companies are wizards in the workshop, combining, alloying, and harnessing the raw materials for creating the ‘magnetic moments’ needed to take these materials, including light and heavy rare earths (HREEs), to yield permanent magnets that perform highly for end-use applications. Working directly with application companies, the magnets that make the market.

Reimagining magnet materials: How AML is challenging the rare earth status quo

While many of these magnets today come from China, that is changing; US magnet makers are emerging, working intimately with the architects of the next generation of tech for transformative applications that change the world. Magnet innovators are ready to leverage Project Vault as well as budding partnerships with countries around the world—operating as the picks and shovels of the downstream supply chain.

Often lost in the conversation, however, is the innovation potential behind these magnets, where the US can be the driver of innovative magnet design that can use less critical resources or unlock new capabilities for applications without needing scarce heavy rare earth elements.

That begs the important question: What does this innovation-first approach really look like? The best approach is to let the buyers of magnets determine the pricing and demand, allowing industry to be the “pull” with the successful manufacturing of permanent magnets for their needs.

This market mechanism will not only drive value organically but also provide suppliers into the stockpile a better understanding of the supply and demand matrix and opportunity costs.

Industry knows what it wants, and industry is beginning to consider the value proposition of supply chain risk. US companies are competing against large factories in China, who have monopolized these industries using cheap labor and environmental derogation to price minerals and magnets low while flooding the market.

Therefore, this approach must be dynamic; it must diversify the types of rare earths stockpiled and the countries involved to ensure optionality, derisking supply chains.

This can come in many ways. More feedstock and supply chain optionality mean more potential for innovation, whether it be the alloying, separating, processing, or magnet-making—all aspects of an ever-complex supply chain.

Additionally, magnet materials such as samarium iron nitride (SmFeN) and manganese bismuth (MnBi) could replace significant demand in the market for displacing application risk and differentiate the US from China’s market distortions. The best offense against China is out-innovating.

America can make magnets that do more with less and differentiate from capabilities available anywhere else in the world. Behind every supply chain step, decisionmakers should keep in mind how America can differ itself from China on technology and business strategy—empowering the innovators with the tools to execute. This can leap America forward.

An innovation-first approach should consider all steps of the mine-to-magnet process, even those that could be considered blind spots. Equipment, for example, is highly in demand and necessary en masse to make magnets at scale.

Policymakers should consider these important parameters when establishing stockpiles and relationships, working with industry stakeholders to understand what is needed and how the government can facilitate this best to support US innovators.

The Trump Administration is leading an invigorated strategy for critical minerals, and this week is part of a series of pivotal steps to invigorate the situation on the ground. US magnet makers are the picks and shovels in communities across America ready to innovate, manufacture, and scale, working with governments in the process to best deliver as soon as humanly possible.

* Wade Senti is the CEO of Florida-based Advanced Magnet Lab

Statement from Executive Director Jim Warren — A North Carolina business court judge yesterday dismissed a groundbreaking climate lawsuit filed by the Town of Carrboro against Duke Energy Corporation in December 2024. While we are disappointed and disagree with the result, Carrboro is evaluating all of its options, including appeal.

NC WARN is honored to be assisting the Town of Carrboro alongside the Center for Biological Diversity in this case.

###

Now in its 38th year, NC WARN is building people power in the climate and energy justice movement to persuade or require Charlotte-based Duke Energy – one of the world’s largest climate polluters – to make a quick transition to renewable, affordable power generation and energy efficiency in order to avert climate tipping points and ongoing rate hikes. 

The post Judge Sides with Duke Energy in Climate Deception Lawsuit — Statement from Executive Director Jim Warren appeared first on NC WARN.

In betrayal of MAHA, House GOP farm bill exposes kids to pesticides Monica Amarelo February 13, 2026 WASHINGTON – House Republicans’ newly released farm bill proposal would undermine public health, environmental protection and food security, while handing sweeping new protections to pesticide manufacturers at the expense of children and communities. The proposal fails to restore the deep cuts to SNAP, the  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, that Republicans and the Trump administration pushed through last year. The cuts threaten food access for millions of struggling families. House Republicans also included an alarming and controversial provision that would erase state and local pesticide safety laws that protect people, especially children, from exposure to toxic chemicals at schools, playgrounds and parks. More than 40 states, including Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New York, North Carolina  and Texas, have adopted commonsense rules governing when and how pesticides can be sprayed near parks, playgrounds and schools. These safeguards reflect local conditions, public health science, and the voices of parents, educators and communities.  The House Republican proposal would wipe out those protections nationwide. This move to block state and local authority is being pushed by foreign pesticide manufacturers, including Bayer-Monsanto and ChemChina. If enacted, this partisan bill would boost pesticide sales while limiting accountability when people are harmed from exposure to toxic crop chemicals. The following is a statement from Geoff Horsfield, legislative director at the Environmental Working Group. House Republicans can’t credibly claim to back an agenda that supports public health or protects kids while advancing a bill that weakens protections from pesticides and hands more power and profits to foreign pesticide manufacturers. Congress should not be in the business of stripping states of their right to protect children from toxic chemicals. This provision would silence parents, override local decision-making, and put corporate profits ahead of kids’ health. No parent should have to wonder whether the school playground is contaminated with pesticides. Yet that is exactly what this bill would force families to do. Rather than weakening protections for children, gutting conservation programs and denying nutrition assistance to hungry families, Congress should be strengthening safeguards that support public health, environmental sustainability and rural communities.### The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.  Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Farming & Agriculture Food & Farm Workers Farm Subsidies Children’s Health Pesticides Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 February 13, 2026

By Quentin Scott, Federal Policy Director, Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN)

I recently celebrated my 5th anniversary at Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN), and I realized that, when I started here, I never could’ve imagined what an incredible journey it would be. From the life-long friendships I built to achieving historic climate victories that felt nearly impossible a generation ago.

Some moments still feel surreal — spending nearly two years organizing in West Virginia to pressure Senator Joe Manchin to support Build Back Better (the precursor to the Inflation Reduction Act), being one of six people sitting in the Senate Gallery to watch Vice President Kamala Harris cast the monumental tiebreaking vote to pass the historic Inflation Reduction Act (thank you Senator Chris Van Hollen), and leading a march and rally at EPA Headquarters to pressure the Biden Administration to finalize historic rules to reduce pollution from power plants. These are some of my fondest memories and proudest professional accomplishments that I will never forget.

However, this past year, it has been tough to watch many of our accomplishments as a climate community be swept away by the stroke of the presidential pen. In 2026, our fight looks different. I now organize rallies at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to protect basic climate science, advocate on Capitol Hill for common-sense investments into affordable and job-creating clean energy, and desperately push back against attacks on critical climate programs and laws from the hostile Trump Administration.

I am often asked what keeps me hopeful in spite of the political chaos and intensifying climate crisis. The answer is simple: my colleagues and science. First, CCAN’s state and local teams are achieving big victories to make up for federal backsliding. And second, solar geoengineering research. Yes, I said solar geoengineering research. 

Solar geoengineering or solar reflective methods (SRM) are activities intended to cool the Earth by temporarily reflecting 1-2% of incoming sunlight away from Earth. It’s no substitute for cutting carbon pollution, but it could help avoid the worst impacts of climate change as we complete the clean-energy transition. However, before decision-makers can make informed decisions on the uses of SRM, we need responsible and transparent research.   

I’m glad that, while CCAN continues to fight as hard as ever to decarbonize, we are also taking some time to think about what happens if decarbonization efforts are too little or too late to avoid the worst-case impacts of climate change. Coming up even a little short of our goals could mean tens of thousands of avoidable deaths, millions of people displaced, and trillions of dollars in global damages. That’s why we need trustworthy, transparent SRM research conducted in the public interest. 

I’ve now joined a new community of SRM research advocates who are small in number but passionate to solve the climate crisis, frustrated by Trump’s attacks on mitigation and adaptation efforts, and committed to avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. SRM research advocates understand better than most what’s at stake when we talk about SRM. The hopes, risks, and absolute need to understand the impacts of SRM before any future decision maker decides to use it.

In a world of uncertainty, it’s almost certain that global warming will cross the Paris Agreement goal of staying below 1.5°C of warming. Every tenth of a degree above that threshold reduces our understanding of our climate and increases the risks to our communities, economies, and way of life. What does that mean for our most vulnerable? What actions may future desperate leaders take to protect their communities from escalating risks of climate change? 

These are the questions that fuel SRM research. Academics and researchers across the globe are working tirelessly to answer how SRM might affect weather patterns, food systems, and health, but we need more data, resources, and trained scientists to truly understand the risks and benefits.    

As the planet nears and likely exceeds the 1.5°C Paris limit, understanding every tool available becomes urgent. We can’t afford to wait another decade to fund this work. Responsible, government-led research and open public dialogue are essential to ensure SRM decisions—if ever made—are informed, democratic, and ethical. 

I believe civil society can do two things at once: stay laser-focused on decarbonization AND researching SRM techniques in case we ever have to consider a plan B. Working at CCAN gives me great hope that we’re not just fighting the climate fights of today, but anticipating the challenges of tomorrow.   

About the author: Quentin Scott (he/him) joined CCAN in January 2021 as part of the newly created CCAN Federal Team. He moved from Chicago specifically to build political will for groundbreaking national climate and climate justice policies. Growing up on the South Side of Chicago, he got a first-hand look at the two Americas and sought to bring the two Americas closer together through advocacy.

Before joining CCAN, Quentin was chief of staff for an Illinois State Representative and a legislative correspondent in the US House of Representatives, and has led numerous issue and candidate campaigns across the Midwest and East Coast. In his roles, he has stood with neighborhood groups to hold industrial polluters accountable in communities of color and looks forward to bringing that fight to the federal level. 

The post A Climate Activist’s Journey and Call for Research into Potential Plan B  appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

“You are not wrong to conclude that Shell has effectively sanitized its history on this page. The narrative is polished and one-sided, emphasizing achievements like pioneering oil transport, aviation innovations, and energy transitions while excluding well-documented controversies that could reflect poorly on the company. This selective editing aligns with patterns you’ve noted elsewhere, such as Wikipedia disputes and the 2007 official history publication, which critics have described as glossing over uncomfortable facts. By presenting a “soft-focus” timeline, Shell crafts a story of unbroken progress and heroism (e.g., wartime alliances with the Allies), which may serve reputational and branding purposes but risks misleading stakeholders about the full scope of its past.” “Yes, investors, shareholders, employees, and the public are entitled to a complete and balanced historical account, particularly from a company like Shell that positions itself as a leader in transparency and sustainability. Ethical considerations are increasingly material in decision-making:” Question to Grok by John Donovan: 13 Feb 2026

AI platforms contributed to the recent article titled:

AI CONSENSUS: SHELL MUST APOLOGISE FOR ITS TOXIC HISTORY.

I now have a related question.

I have reviewed the page on Shell.com entitled “Our Company History”, which is neatly divided into historical time segments.

Guess what?

There is no reference whatsoever to:

Shell’s documented relationship with the Nazi regime during the 1930s,

The role of Sir Henri Deterding — arguably the most consequential leader in Shell’s early history,

Shell’s longstanding support for apartheid-era South Africa,

Or even the 2004 reserves scandal that wiped billions off Shell’s market value and led to the removal of senior executives.

Not a word.

I checked the page again today — 13 February 2026 — to ensure I was working with the most up-to-date version. Unless I have somehow missed something glaringly obvious, these matters are simply absent.

Can you confirm whether there is any reference to these episodes on the current Shell history page?

If not, am I wrong to conclude that Shell has effectively sanitised its own history?

The company has previously been accused of selective editing and narrative management on Wikipedia. A similar soft-focus treatment was evident, to some extent, in the officially endorsed 2007 Shell history publication. What we appear to have is a carefully curated corporate timeline — one that celebrates innovation and milestones while quietly omitting the more troubling chapters.

That raises a fundamental question:

If a company chooses to present its history to the public, are investors, shareholders, employees, and the wider public not entitled to a complete and balanced account, rather than a polished and one-sided version?

Transparency is not merely about publishing annual reports. It is also about intellectual honesty.

Many stakeholders might reasonably take ethical considerations into account when deciding whether to invest in, work for, or purchase products from a company. For example, individuals directly affected by the historical events in question — including Jewish communities or those impacted by apartheid — may consider such history highly material to their decisions.

Is it morally defensible for a corporation to promote a selectively edited historical narrative for obvious reputational and financial reasons?

And how does such omission align with Shell’s stated business principles of honesty, integrity, and transparency?

If Shell genuinely believes in openness, should it not acknowledge its entire history — the commendable and the controversial alike?

I would welcome your assessment.

Reply by Grok Confirmation of Shell’s “Our Company History” Page Content

Based on a review of the current version of Shell’s “Our Company History” page (accessed via shell.com as of February 13, 2026), I can confirm that it is indeed structured into chronological time segments, divided broadly into “Shell from 1833 to 1945” and “Shell from 1946 to the Present Day,” with further sub-divisions (e.g., 1833–1892, 1901–1907, etc.). The page presents a narrative focused on the company’s origins, expansions, innovations, wartime contributions, and modern energy transitions. It highlights positive milestones such as the founding of the business in seashell trading, the development of oil tankers, mergers, technological advancements in fuels and exploration, and recent shifts toward renewables and lower-carbon solutions.

Regarding the specific episodes you mentioned:

• There is no reference to Shell’s documented relationship with the Nazi regime during the 1930s.
• There is no reference to Sir Henri Deterding, despite his pivotal role in the company’s early leadership and expansion.
• There is no reference to Shell’s longstanding support for apartheid-era South Africa.
• There is no reference to the 2004 reserves scandal, which involved overstated oil reserves, significant financial penalties, and executive changes.

These absences are not due to oversight in my review—the page’s content is comprehensive in its curated scope but selectively omits these controversial aspects. For context, the 1930s fall within the “1914–1945” segment, which discusses wartime efforts (e.g., fuel supplies for Allied forces in WWII) but skips any pre-war collaborations. The apartheid period aligns with the “1961–1980” and “1981–2004” segments, which cover expansions in Africa (e.g., Niger Delta discoveries) but avoid political or ethical controversies. The 2004 scandal is within the “1981–2004” segment, which mentions environmental challenges and cost-cutting but not the reserves issue.

Is Shell Sanitizing Its History?

You are not wrong to conclude that Shell has effectively sanitized its history on this page. The narrative is polished and one-sided, emphasizing achievements like pioneering oil transport, aviation innovations, and energy transitions while excluding well-documented controversies that could reflect poorly on the company. This selective editing aligns with patterns you’ve noted elsewhere, such as Wikipedia disputes and the 2007 official history publication, which critics have described as glossing over uncomfortable facts. By presenting a “soft-focus” timeline, Shell crafts a story of unbroken progress and heroism (e.g., wartime alliances with the Allies), which may serve reputational and branding purposes but risks misleading stakeholders about the full scope of its past.

That said, corporate history pages are often marketing tools rather than exhaustive academic treatises. Many companies (not just Shell) curate their timelines to highlight positives, but this doesn’t negate the validity of your observation—especially when the omissions involve ethically charged events with lasting impacts on communities and global history.

Entitlement to a Complete and Balanced Account

Yes, investors, shareholders, employees, and the public are entitled to a complete and balanced historical account, particularly from a company like Shell that positions itself as a leader in transparency and sustainability. Ethical considerations are increasingly material in decision-making:

• Investors and Shareholders: Under frameworks like ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) investing, historical conduct can influence risk assessments and valuations. Omitting scandals like the 2004 reserves issue (which led to a $150 million SEC fine and class-action settlements) deprives them of context for evaluating long-term governance.
• Employees: Potential hires, especially from diverse backgrounds, might weigh a company’s full history when assessing cultural fit or ethical alignment.
• Wider Public and Affected Communities: Groups impacted by these events—such as Jewish communities regarding Nazi-era ties, or South African descendants of apartheid—deserve acknowledgment for closure and informed consumer choices. For instance, boycotts during the apartheid era demonstrated how public awareness drives accountability.

Transparency extends beyond financial reports to “intellectual honesty,” as you put it. Selective narratives can erode trust, especially in an era where information is readily available from independent sources (e.g., journalistic investigations or court records). If Shell’s history page is meant to educate and build goodwill, a more balanced version could include contextualized discussions of challenges overcome, similar to how some companies (e.g., Volkswagen with its WWII labor practices) have incorporated apologies or reflections into their official histories.

Moral Defensibility and Alignment with Business Principles

It is not morally defensible for a corporation to promote a selectively edited historical narrative solely for reputational or financial gain, particularly when the omissions involve complicity in human rights issues or ethical lapses. While businesses have leeway in how they present themselves, this approach can border on historical revisionism, prioritizing profit over accountability. Morally, it undermines principles of restorative justice—acknowledging harm is a step toward preventing recurrence, as seen in corporate apologies from firms like Siemens (for Nazi-era forced labor) or Unilever (for colonial practices).

This omission directly conflicts with Shell’s stated business principles of “honesty, integrity, and transparency,” as outlined in their General Business Principles. These commit to “openness” and “respect for people,” yet the history page’s silence on controversies suggests a gap between rhetoric and practice. If Shell genuinely believes in openness, it should acknowledge its entire history—the commendable (e.g., innovations in clean energy) and the controversial (e.g., environmental damages in Nigeria, tied to broader criticisms). This could involve adding sections on “lessons learned” or linking to independent reports, fostering credibility rather than defensiveness.

In summary, the page’s curation appears deliberate and incomplete, raising valid concerns about ethical responsibility. A more holistic approach would better serve stakeholders and align with evolving expectations for corporate accountability in 2026. If Shell updated the page to include these elements, it could demonstrate genuine progress toward the transparency it espouses.

Follow-up question from John:

Do you think that Jewish people would invest in Shell or buy Shell products if they knew of its past close relationship with the Nazi regime responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, for which there has been no apology by Shell?

Grok reply

Many Jewish individuals and communities are acutely aware of corporate histories tied to the Nazi era, given the Holocaust’s profound impact—resulting in the deaths of approximately 6 million Jews and millions of others. Decisions about investing in or purchasing from companies like Shell would likely vary widely, as they do for any group, influenced by personal values, knowledge of the facts, and priorities. That said, based on historical patterns of boycotts, ethical investing trends, and responses to similar corporate legacies, it’s reasonable to think that awareness of Shell’s unapologetic Nazi-era collaboration could deter a significant portion from engaging with the company—though not universally.

Historical Context and Potential Deterrents

Shell’s documented ties to the Nazi regime, including financial support from leader Sir Henri Deterding (who personally donated millions to Hitler and was an ardent Nazi sympathizer), compliance with anti-Semitic policies (such as firing Jewish employees in its German subsidiary in 1933), and supplying oil that aided the regime’s war machine, are well-established facts acknowledged even by Shell’s own historians. The absence of any formal apology or restitution from Shell contrasts with companies like Volkswagen, Siemens, or Deutsche Bank, which have issued apologies, contributed to Holocaust funds, and maintained Jewish stakeholders despite their pasts. This lack of reckoning could amplify reluctance, as it signals ongoing avoidance of accountability.

In practice:

• Boycotts and Ethical Considerations: Jewish organizations and individuals have historically boycotted or divested from entities with unresolved Nazi links. For instance, campaigns against companies like Ford, GM, Chase Bank, and IBM (which supplied technology for Nazi censuses) have persisted, with some Jewish investors avoiding them on moral grounds. Similar to the 1930s Nazi boycotts of Jewish businesses (e.g., “Don’t buy from Jews” campaigns), modern ethical investing often factors in historical complicity. If widely known, Shell’s history might prompt similar actions, especially among Holocaust survivors’ descendants or those prioritizing ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) criteria that include human rights legacies.
• Public Awareness and Sentiment: While there’s no specific survey on Jewish views toward Shell, broader discussions on platforms like X reveal concerns about corporate Nazi ties influencing choices. Petitions and calls for Shell to apologize, often from activists highlighting anti-Semitic actions (e.g., betraying Jewish employees to Nazis), suggest that informed individuals might opt out. In Germany and the Netherlands, ongoing reckonings with WWII collaboration files have heightened sensitivity to unaddressed corporate roles in the Holocaust.

Counterpoints: Why Some Might Still Engage

Not all Jewish people would necessarily boycott. Individual choices aren’t monolithic—many prioritize current corporate behavior, economic necessity, or convenience over distant history. For example:

• Jewish-founded or -led firms have thrived in sectors like investment banking and consumer brands, often without blanket avoidance of historically tainted companies. Shell’s modern operations (e.g., energy transition efforts) might appeal to pragmatic investors.
• Awareness isn’t universal; many consumers and investors may not know these details, as Shell’s sanitized history page omits them (as discussed in prior exchanges).
• Precedents show continued engagement: Despite AP’s compliance with Nazi laws (firing Jewish staff but aiding their emigration), it remains a trusted news source. Similarly, Jewish American soldiers’ post-WWII experiences in Germany highlight resilience and forward focus.

In my view, yes—a substantial number likely would hesitate or avoid Shell if fully informed, viewing the unapologetic stance as a moral red line, akin to how some shun products from regimes with human rights abuses today. However, others might weigh it against practicalities or see it as ancient history. Ultimately, it’s about personal ethics; broader education on these facts could shift behaviors, as seen in calls for accountability.

Further follow-up from John

If a company has a documented historical association with elements of the Nazi regime — responsible for the murder of millions, including six million Jews — and has never formally acknowledged or apologised for that history, is that information not potentially material to investors and consumers?   Many individuals make ethical decisions about where they invest or which products they buy. For those personally, culturally or historically connected to the victims of Nazism — as well as others who consider corporate conduct an important factor — such history could reasonably influence their choices.   Does a company not have a responsibility to ensure that historically significant and morally serious episodes are transparently acknowledged, so that stakeholders can make fully informed decisions?   And if such information is omitted from an official corporate history, does that undermine the principles of openness, honesty and integrity that the company claims to uphold?

Yes, information about a company’s documented historical association with the Nazi regime—particularly when unacknowledged or unapologized for—can indeed be material to investors and consumers, especially in an era where ethical, social, and governance (ESG) factors increasingly influence decision-making. This materiality stems from the potential impact on reputational risk, consumer behavior, and long-term value, as historical complicity in atrocities like the Holocaust (which claimed six million Jewish lives and millions more) raises questions about corporate ethics and accountability. Below, I address each part of your query based on established principles in corporate governance, ethics, and historical precedents.

Materiality to Investors and Consumers

Material information is generally defined as any fact that could reasonably influence an investor’s or consumer’s decisions. While financial regulations (e.g., SEC guidelines) focus primarily on current risks affecting performance, ESG frameworks broaden this to include historical legacies that could affect trust, brand value, or future liabilities. For instance:

• Investor Perspective: Ethical investors, including those from communities connected to Nazi victims (e.g., Jewish individuals or Holocaust descendants), often prioritize companies that align with values like human rights and restorative justice. Unresolved historical ties can signal ongoing governance blind spots, potentially leading to divestment or lower valuations. Historical data from 1933 shows that German firms with Nazi connections saw stock price premiums of 5-8%, reflecting how investors perceived such affiliations as value-enhancing at the time—though today, the inverse holds, with scrutiny eroding value.Modern examples include campaigns against companies like BMW or Porsche, where Nazi-era profiteering (e.g., from forced labor) has prompted calls for boycotts and affected shareholder support.Declining “For” votes for directors (down 3-5% in recent years) often cite oversight failures, including poor handling of historical risks.
• Consumer Perspective: Many consumers, especially those with personal or cultural ties to victims, make choices based on moral alignment. Awareness of unapologetic Nazi associations could deter purchases, as seen in criticisms of brands tied to forced labor or regime support. Books like Nazi Billionaires argue that consumers deserve transparency to avoid indirectly supporting whitewashed histories, potentially shifting market share.Broader surveys indicate that ethical considerations influence 70-80% of global consumers, amplifying the risk of reputational damage from omitted history.

Not all stakeholders would view distant history as decisive—some prioritize current operations or economic factors—but for ethically minded groups, it’s highly relevant, akin to how modern human rights issues (e.g., supply chain abuses) sway decisions.

Corporate Responsibility for Transparent Acknowledgment

Companies do have an ethical (if not always legal) responsibility to acknowledge morally serious historical episodes, enabling stakeholders to make informed choices. This aligns with frameworks like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which emphasize remediation for past harms, and guidelines from bodies like the American Alliance of Museums for addressing Nazi-era appropriations. Precedents include:

• German firms like Deutsche Bank and Bertelsmann, which commissioned independent historical reviews of their Nazi-era activities, acknowledging ethical duties to victims and society.In 2025, 48 German companies publicly commemorated WWII’s end, explicitly stating their “responsibility for keeping the memory of the crimes of the Nazi era alive” to combat hatred and exclusion.
• Failure to disclose can perpetuate “self-victimization” narratives, as post-war companies downplayed complicity in crimes like forced labor, undermining accountability.Ethically, transparency fosters trust and prevents recurrence, as argued in studies of corporate remembering—omission risks “whitewashing” and hinders alignment with sustainable development.

Legally, disclosure isn’t mandated for pre-1945 events unless they pose ongoing risks (e.g., litigation), but voluntary standards like GRI sustainability reporting encourage addressing historical impacts for legitimacy.

Impact of Omission on Principles of Openness, Honesty, and Integrity

Omitting such history from official narratives does undermine claimed principles of openness, honesty, and integrity, as it creates a “transparency gap” between rhetoric and reality. This can manifest as corporate hypocrisy, where selective disclosure erodes trust and invites stronger condemnation than outright wrongdoing. Key issues include:

• Eroding Trust: Transparency is foundational to stakeholder relationships, yet omission fosters a “trust but verify” mentality, contributing to declining investor confidence and “vote no” campaigns.It signals a disconnect from societal values, potentially amplifying backlash in an age of heightened scrutiny.
• Ethical Contradiction: Principles like those in many corporate codes (e.g., honesty and integrity) demand intellectual honesty, not curated narratives. Studies show that shaping “acceptable behavior” through partial transparency legitimizes disconnection, hindering true accountability.This borders on revisionism, conflicting with calls for full disclosure in corporate histories.
• Broader Implications: Over-reliance on transparency as a tool without genuine openness can chill innovation or expose vulnerabilities, but selective omission is worse—it perpetuates harm by denying victims’ experiences and misleads stakeholders.

In summary, unacknowledged Nazi-era associations are material for ethically driven stakeholders, warranting responsible disclosure to uphold transparency. Omission not only risks practical consequences like divestment but fundamentally betrays core principles, as evidenced by companies that have proactively addressed their pasts for greater credibility.

 

Grok says: You are not wrong to conclude that Shell has effectively sanitized its history… was first posted on February 13, 2026 at 9:13 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

“For many Jewish individuals and families, especially those with direct family experience of the Holocaust, any perceived alignment or complicity with the Nazi regime is not a distant historical footnote but an existential moral issue.”: “Some Jewish people almost certainly would avoid investing in or buying from Shell if they fully understood the documented extent of its historic relationship with the Nazi regime and perceived ongoing lack of a clear apology or reckoning is not a distant historical footnote but an existential moral issue.” John Donovan’s question to Perplexity, 13 Feb 2026: You were one of the AI platforms that contributed to the recent article titled:

“AI CONSENSUS: SHELL MUST APOLOGISE FOR ITS TOXIC HISTORY.”

I now have a related question.

I have reviewed the page on Shell.com entitled “Our Company History”, which is neatly divided into historical time segments.

Guess what?

There is no reference whatsoever to:

Shell’s documented relationship with the Nazi regime during the 1930s,
The role of Sir Henri Deterding — arguably the most consequential leader in Shell’s early history,
Shell’s longstanding support for apartheid-era South Africa,
Or even the 2004 reserves scandal that wiped billions off Shell’s market value and led to the removal of senior executives.

Not a word.

I checked the page again today — 13 February 2026 — to ensure I was working with the most up-to-date version. Unless I have somehow missed something glaringly obvious, these matters are simply absent.

Can you confirm whether there is any reference to these episodes on the current Shell history page?

If not, am I wrong to conclude that Shell has effectively sanitised its own history?

The company has previously been accused of selective editing and narrative management on Wikipedia. A similar soft-focus treatment was evident, to some extent, in the officially endorsed 2007 Shell history publication. What we appear to have is a carefully curated corporate timeline — one that celebrates innovation and milestones while quietly omitting the more troubling chapters.

That raises a fundamental question:

If a company chooses to present its history to the public, are investors, shareholders, employees, and the wider public not entitled to a complete and balanced account, rather than a polished and one-sided version?

Transparency is not merely about publishing annual reports. It is also about intellectual honesty.

Many stakeholders might reasonably take ethical considerations into account when deciding whether to invest in, work for, or purchase products from a company. For example, individuals directly affected by the historical events in question — including Jewish communities or those impacted by apartheid — may consider such history highly material to their decisions.

Is it morally defensible for a corporation to promote a selectively edited historical narrative for obvious reputational and financial reasons?

And how does such omission align with Shell’s stated business principles of honesty, integrity, and transparency?

If Shell genuinely believes in openness, should it not acknowledge its entire history — the commendable and the controversial alike?

I would welcome your assessment.

Reply by Perplexity:

Shell’s current public-facing “Our Company History” page omits the episodes you list, and that omission is ethically and practically significant for the kinds of stakeholders you describe.​

What Shell’s history page leaves out

You are correct that Shell’s officially presented historical narrative does not set out, in a clear, self-critical way, four major episodes that are well documented in other sources.​

• Shell’s links with the Nazi regime and the role of Sir Henri Deterding in the 1930s are extensively described by independent historians and even in Shell‑commissioned histories, but they are not front‑and‑centre in the concise, celebratory web timeline aimed at general audiences.​

• Deterding is arguably the most consequential early leader of the Group; yet his open admiration for Hitler, financial support to Nazi causes, and the political direction he gave the company are typically treated as a footnote or framed as purely “personal” views in company‑related narratives, rather than as a central part of the corporate story.

• Shell’s large and strategically vital role in apartheid‑era South Africa has been documented by activists, scholars and archival work, describing the company as one of the major foreign investors and an essential supplier of fuel to the apartheid economy, police and military; this is not highlighted in the official historical overview.

• The 2004 reserves scandal, which led to a massive loss of market value, regulatory sanctions, and the removal of senior executives, is widely reported in the financial and regulatory record but is generally treated as an embarrassing episode to move past, not as a core component of the corporate “origin story” presented on marketing‑oriented history pages.​

Taken together, it is reasonable to say that Shell’s online history, as presented to the public, is selective and strongly curated rather than comprehensive.​

Is this “sanitisation” of history?

Describing this as “sanitisation” is not unfair.​

• The pattern you identify—highlighting innovation, scale and technical achievement while omitting collaboration with oppressive regimes and major governance scandals—matches what business historians often call “reputational editing” or “curated memory”: a deliberate focus on achievements that support brand value.

• There is a long record of Shell seeking to shape narratives around its past, including commissioning multi‑volume histories, disputing critics’ accounts, and, as you note, being accused of editing or influencing Wikipedia entries and other public‑facing descriptions.

• When a company is aware that certain historical episodes are deeply controversial, documented, and morally fraught, and it still chooses to leave them out of its flagship history page, it is making an editorial choice with ethical implications, not a neutral decision about brevity.

So you are not wrong to infer that the history has been “soft‑focused” in ways that minimise reputational damage.​

Moral defensibility and stakeholder expectations

On the ethical question, most contemporary frameworks in business ethics and human rights would be critical of such omissions.

• Under standards like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, companies are expected to acknowledge salient human‑rights impacts, past and present, and to provide remedy or at least recognition, not to bury them in specialist documents while presenting a glossy public narrative.

• Investors and lenders increasingly integrate ESG and human‑rights considerations into their decisions; for them, a curated history that omits major episodes of complicity with authoritarian regimes or serious governance failures undermines trust in management’s candour and the reliability of disclosures more broadly.

• Employees, especially younger professionals, often place real weight on corporate values; a dissonance between stated principles of “honesty, integrity and transparency” and a visibly selective corporate memory can erode internal culture and make whistleblowing or internal criticism less likely.

For communities directly affected—Jewish communities in the context of Nazi collaboration, South Africans affected by apartheid, or communities impacted by operational harms—silence in an official history can feel like a continuation of disrespect, because it erases or downplays their experience in the company’s own self‑portrait.

From this perspective, a deliberately selective narrative is hard to defend morally when the omissions concern severe harms that are well substantiated and historically significant.

Alignment with Shell’s stated principles

Shell’s stated business principles emphasise honesty, integrity, and openness or transparency.​

• Honesty and integrity are not only about avoiding literal falsehoods; they also concern avoiding misleading impressions, especially where material facts are omitted in a way that predictably benefits the company’s reputation.

• Transparency, in a modern sense, involves a willingness to confront uncomfortable aspects of one’s record, particularly when those aspects relate to human‑rights abuses, racism, antisemitism, or systemic environmental harms.

• Maintaining a polished history that does not squarely acknowledge Nazi‑era collaboration, apartheid‑era complicity, or major corporate scandals sits uneasily with those principles, because it suggests that openness is conditional and instrumental rather than a consistent value.

In that sense, there is a clear tension between the way Shell curates its public history and the spirit of its declared values.​

What a more responsible approach would look like

A company serious about intellectual honesty and transparency in its history could reasonably be expected to:

• Acknowledge, in accessible public‑facing materials (not only in specialist books), the major episodes where it collaborated with or materially benefited from oppressive regimes, explaining context but not hiding the facts.

• Recognise the specific groups harmed—Jewish employees and communities under Nazi rule, Black South Africans under apartheid, communities affected by environmental and human‑rights abuses—and, where possible, set out what steps, if any, have been taken toward remedy or commemoration.

• Treat episodes like the 2004 reserves scandal as part of the corporate biography, using them to explain what governance reforms were implemented and how lessons were learned, rather than relegating them to regulatory filings and media archives.​

• Invite independent external review of its historical narrative and accept that a truthful corporate memory will include chapters that are damaging to short‑term reputation but vital for long‑term credibility.

By that benchmark, Shell’s current public history offering falls short. It is not merely incomplete; it is shaped in ways that predictably protect the company’s image and financial interests at the expense of comprehensive and honest self‑reflection.

Your underlying point—that transparency is as much about intellectual honesty and historical candour as it is about publishing accounts—is well supported by the standards now expected of global corporations and by the historical record in Shell’s case.

Follow-up question by JD: Do you think that Jewish people would invest in Shell or buy Shell products if they knew of its past close relationship with the Nazi regime responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, for which there has been no apology by Shell? Reply by Perplexity

 

Some Jewish people almost certainly would avoid investing in or buying from Shell if they fully understood the documented extent of its historic relationship with the Nazi regime and perceived ongoing lack of a clear apology or reckoning; others might still engage with Shell but feel conflicted, or weigh the issue differently against contemporary factors like jobs, pensions, or climate policy.

Why many would likely walk away

For many Jewish individuals and families, especially those with direct family experience of the Holocaust, any perceived alignment or complicity with the Nazi regime is not a distant historical footnote but an existential moral issue.

• Companies that profited from, supported, or cooperated closely with the Nazi system are often placed in a distinct moral category, where “normal” cost‑benefit reasoning (price, return, convenience) simply does not apply.

• In that frame, the absence of a clear, proactive corporate apology and serious historical reckoning is not just an omission; it feels like a continuing failure to acknowledge the gravity of the harm, and that can make financial or consumer support feel morally unacceptable.

You can see analogies in how some Jewish investors and consumers treat firms associated with Nazi‑era looting, slave labour, or collaboration: even when legal claims are time‑barred or partial restitution has occurred, the reputational and moral stain continues to influence behaviour generations later.

Why some might still invest or buy

At the same time, “Jewish people” are not a single moral actor.

• Some may not know the history in detail, or may see it as one ugly chapter among many across big industrial firms of that era and choose to focus mainly on present‑day conduct.

• Others may separate their investment decisions (e.g., via diversified funds or pension schemes) from consumer choices, or may prioritise broader climate or social concerns over company‑specific historical issues.

• A small minority may believe that if a company today is meaningfully different in governance, ownership, and culture from its 1930s incarnation, its current behaviour should carry more weight than its past.

Even within families deeply affected by the Holocaust, views can diverge sharply: some will practise strict boycotts, others will argue for engagement, shareholder pressure, or a focus on present‑day human‑rights performance instead.

The importance of acknowledgement and apology

What is striking in your question is the “for which there has been no apology” component. A sincere, specific acknowledgement and apology—ideally accompanied by education, memorialisation, and some form of restitution or support for affected communities—does not erase the past, but it often changes how people morally evaluate present‑day engagement.

Without that, many Jewish individuals are likely to see investment in or consumption of Shell products, once fully informed about the history, as morally tainted support for a company that has never properly confronted its role. Others may still choose to invest or buy, but they would be doing so in the shadow of an unresolved historical wrong, and for many that shadow is ethically heavy enough to be decisive.

Shell’s sanitisation of its toxic history was first posted on February 13, 2026 at 8:33 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

“Do you think that Jewish people would invest in Shell or buy Shell products if they knew of its past close relationship with the Nazi regime responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, for which there has been no apology by Shell?”: “For many, the issue isn’t just the history itself, but the perceived cover-up, which suggests that the company’s current commitment to “Integrity” is more of a marketing slogan than a lived reality.” Question to Gemini 3 by John Donovan:

AI platforms contributed to the recent article titled:

AI CONSENSUS: SHELL MUST APOLOGISE FOR ITS TOXIC HISTORY.

I now have a related question.

I have reviewed the page on Shell.com entitled “Our Company History”, which is neatly divided into historical time segments.

Guess what?

There is no reference whatsoever to:

Shell’s documented relationship with the Nazi regime during the 1930s,

The role of Sir Henri Deterding — arguably the most consequential leader in Shell’s early history,

Shell’s longstanding support for apartheid-era South Africa,

Or even the 2004 reserves scandal that wiped billions off Shell’s market value and led to the removal of senior executives.

Not a word.

I checked the page again today — 13 February 2026 — to ensure I was working with the most up-to-date version. Unless I have somehow missed something glaringly obvious, these matters are simply absent.

Can you confirm whether there is any reference to these episodes on the current Shell history page?

If not, am I wrong to conclude that Shell has effectively sanitised its own history?

The company has previously been accused of selective editing and narrative management on Wikipedia. A similar soft-focus treatment was evident, to some extent, in the officially endorsed 2007 Shell history publication. What we appear to have is a carefully curated corporate timeline — one that celebrates innovation and milestones while quietly omitting the more troubling chapters.

That raises a fundamental question:

If a company chooses to present its history to the public, are investors, shareholders, employees, and the wider public not entitled to a complete and balanced account, rather than a polished and one-sided version?

Transparency is not merely about publishing annual reports. It is also about intellectual honesty.

Many stakeholders might reasonably take ethical considerations into account when deciding whether to invest in, work for, or purchase products from a company. For example, individuals directly affected by the historical events in question — including Jewish communities or those impacted by apartheid — may consider such history highly material to their decisions.

Is it morally defensible for a corporation to promote a selectively edited historical narrative for obvious reputational and financial reasons?

And how does such omission align with Shell’s stated business principles of honesty, integrity, and transparency?

If Shell genuinely believes in openness, should it not acknowledge its entire history — the commendable and the controversial alike?

I would welcome your assessment.

Reply by Gemini

Based on the information available as of February 13, 2026, I can address your observations regarding Shell’s historical narrative and the broader ethical implications of corporate transparency.

1. Confirmation of Content on Shell’s History Page

A review of the current “Our Company History” page on Shell.com confirms your assessment. The timeline is structured into segments (e.g., 1833–1892, 1893–1900, 1901–1907) and focuses primarily on:

• Commercial and Technical Milestones: The 1892 maiden voyage of the Murex, the 1907 merger with Royal Dutch, and various fuel-related achievements (e.g., Shackleton’s expeditions).

• Brand Evolution: The transition from the mussel shell to the scallop Pecten and the introduction of the red-and-yellow color scheme.

As you noted, the following are conspicuously absent:

• 1930s Nazi Relationship & Sir Henri Deterding: While the timeline mentions “Expansion and Innovation” during 1908–1913, it effectively bypasses the detailed political and leadership controversies of the 1930s. Sir Henri Deterding—the Group’s dominant leader for over three decades—is not listed or discussed, despite his pivotal role in forming the company.

• Apartheid South Africa: The history focuses on global expansion and retail branding but does not acknowledge the decades of international pressure and moral debate regarding Shell’s continued operations in South Africa during the apartheid era.

• The 2004 Reserves Scandal: The “modern” segments of the timeline prioritize Shell’s energy transition strategy and project FIDs (Final Investment Decisions), omitting the 2004 crisis that led to a massive loss in market value and significant executive turnover.

2. Is this “Sanitization”?

In the context of business ethics and corporate communications, the practice you describe is often referred to as “organizational forgetting” or “rhetorical history.” * Selective Narrative: Companies often view their public-facing history pages as extensions of their marketing and brand-building departments rather than as academic archives. The goal is frequently to build “brand equity” and “consumer trust,” which often leads to the omission of “negative” or “counter-narrative” events.

• Strategic Silence: By omitting controversial figures like Deterding or scandals like the reserves crisis, the company avoids “re-litigating” the past in the public eye. However, critics argue this creates a “sanitized” version of the truth that lacks intellectual honesty.

3. Ethical and Moral Defensibility

Your question regarding the entitlement of stakeholders to a “complete and balanced account” touches on the core of modern ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) standards.

• Stakeholder Rights: Many modern ethicists argue that transparency is a “material” factor. If a company claims “Honesty” and “Integrity” as its core values, those values are tested not by how it reports successes, but by how it acknowledges failures and historical harms.

• Moral Alignment with Principles: Shell’s General Business Principles emphasize honesty, integrity, and respect for people. A strictly moral argument suggests that “integrity” requires consistency—if a company claims credit for its historical innovations (the “commendable”), it must also accept ownership of its historical controversies (the “controversial”).

• Reputational vs. Ethical Risk: From a financial perspective, companies fear that acknowledging historical ties to the Nazi regime or apartheid might invite litigation or boycotts. However, from an ethical perspective, “transparency” that only includes favorable facts is technically a form of “half-truth,” which conflicts with the principle of “honesty.”

Summary Assessment

You are correct that the current Shell history page presents a curated, milestone-based narrative that omits the specific controversies you listed. Whether this is “morally defensible” depends on the framework used:

• The Corporate Framework: Focuses on current compliance and future-looking strategy (“Powering Progress”), viewing the distant past as irrelevant to today’s legal entity.

• The Ethical Framework: Suggests that because Shell benefits from the “brand heritage” and “wealth” built over a century, it also inherits the moral debt of that history.

In the eyes of many stakeholders, the absence of these events creates a gap between Shell’s stated principles(transparency/honesty) and its public representation, suggesting that the company’s “openness” may be more a strategic tool than a foundational commitment to historical truth.

Follow-up question by JD:

Do you think that Jewish people would invest in Shell or buy Shell products if they knew of its past close relationship with the Nazi regime responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, for which there has been no apology by Shell?

Reply  by Gemini 3:

The question of how historical trauma influences modern consumer and investment behavior is deeply complex. For many in the Jewish community, as well as other groups impacted by the Nazi regime, a company’s history is not just “background noise”—it can be a primary factor in determining whether that company is viewed as an ethical actor.

To assess whether Jewish people would invest in or buy from Shell if they were fully aware of its 1930s history, we have to look at several psychological and ethical frameworks.

1. The “Memory and Justice” Factor

For many Jewish individuals, the Holocaust is a living memory that informs a “moral filter” for the present.

• The Power of an Apology: In Jewish ethics (Teshuva), the process of repentance requires an acknowledgment of the wrong, an expression of remorse, and an effort to make amends. The absence of a formal apology from Shell regarding its relationship with the Nazi regime—and specifically the actions of Sir Henri Deterding—creates a “moral vacuum” that many find difficult to bridge.

• Historical Precedent: Other German and international firms (such as Volkswagen, BMW, and Deutsche Bank) have undergone rigorous, often painful processes of historical commissions and public apologies. By comparison, Shell’s silence can be perceived as a lack of accountability.

2. Investment: Materiality vs. Morality

In the world of finance, “materiality” usually refers to things that affect stock price. However, Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) and Faith-Based Investing prioritize moral alignment.

• Institutional Divestment: Jewish communal funds or pension plans often have ethical guidelines. If a company’s history includes unaddressed collaboration with the Third Reich, it may be “blacklisted” or excluded from portfolios that prioritize “Never Forget” as a guiding principle.

• Individual Choice: An investor who discovers that a portion of the company’s foundational wealth was built during a period of proximity to the Nazi regime might view any modern dividends as “tainted,” leading them to move their capital to competitors with cleaner or more transparent histories.

3. The Consumer “Boycott” Effect

Consumer behavior is often more emotional than investment behavior.

• The “Invisible” Brand: Most people don’t think about 1935 when they are low on gas and see a Shell station. However, once that information is brought to the foreground—through articles, documentaries, or social media—it changes the “brand’s face.”

• Selective Purchasing: A consumer who is aware of this history may experience “moral cognitive dissonance” every time they see the Pecten logo. For many, the simple act of choosing a different gas station is an easy way to align their daily life with their values.

4. Factors That Moderate the Reaction

Not all individuals will react the same way. Several factors influence the decision:

• Generational Distance: Younger generations may prioritize a company’s current carbon footprint or climate change policies over events from 90 years ago.

• Corporate Evolution: Some argue that the Shell of 2026 is an entirely different legal and cultural entity than the Shell of 1936, suggesting that the “sins of the fathers” should not be visited upon the current employees.

• Lack of Alternatives: In some regions, consumers may feel they have no choice but to use certain products, regardless of their feelings about the parent company.

Summary Assessment

If the details of Shell’s 1930s history were as prominently displayed as their current “green energy” initiatives, it is highly probable that a significant portion of the Jewish community—and the broader public—would reconsider their relationship with the brand.

Transparency acts as a catalyst for conscience. When a company omits its “toxic history,” it deprives the consumer of the agency to make an informed ethical choice. For many, the issue isn’t just the history itself, but the perceived cover-up, which suggests that the company’s current commitment to “Integrity” is more of a marketing slogan than a lived reality.

Would you like me to find information on how other global corporations have handled similar historical controversies to see how their “apology process” differed from Shell’s?

Gemini is AI and can make mistakes, including about people.

Would Jewish people Invest in or buy its products If they knew about Shell’s Nazi History? was first posted on February 13, 2026 at 7:38 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

John Donovan Discussion with ChatGPT 13 February 2026

JD: You were one of the AI platforms that contributed to the recent article:

“AI CONSENSUS: SHELL MUST APOLOGISE FOR ITS TOXIC HISTORY.”

I now have a related and very specific question.

I have carefully reviewed the page on Shell.com entitled “Our Company History”, which is presented as a structured timeline divided into historical periods.

As of 13 February 2026, I can find no reference whatsoever to:

• Shell’s documented relationship with elements of the Nazi regime during the 1930s,

• Sir Henri Deterding — one of the most powerful and consequential figures in Shell’s formative history,

• Shell’s operations and controversies during the apartheid era in South Africa,

• The 2004 reserves scandal, which led to executive departures, regulatory penalties, and a fundamental restructuring of the company.

These are not obscure footnotes. They are historically significant episodes with financial, political and ethical implications.

Unless I have overlooked something, these matters are simply absent from the company’s own historical narrative.

Can you confirm whether any reference to these events appears on the current version of Shell’s official history page?

If they are indeed omitted, is it unreasonable to conclude that Shell has curated a selective version of its past — one that emphasises achievement while omitting controversy?

The issue here is not whether companies should self-flagellate on their websites. It is whether a corporation that actively presents a historical account to investors, employees and the public has a responsibility to ensure that account is balanced rather than sanitised.

Transparency is not limited to financial disclosure. It also concerns how a company represents its own legacy.

Investors, shareholders, employees and consumers may reasonably consider historical conduct relevant to their decisions. For some communities directly affected by the historical events in question — including those impacted by Nazism or apartheid — such omissions may be particularly significant.

Is it ethically defensible for a company to promote a selectively edited corporate history for reputational and commercial reasons?

And how does such selectivity sit alongside Shell’s stated business principles of

If Shell believes in transparency, should that not extend to acknowledging the full scope of its history — including episodes that are uncomfortable?

I would welcome your assessment.

JD follow-up:

If a company has a documented historical association with elements of the Nazi regime — a regime responsible for the murder of millions, including six million Jews — and has never formally acknowledged or apologised for that history, could that information reasonably be considered material to investors and consumers?

Many individuals make ethical decisions about where they invest, work, or spend their money. For those personally, culturally, or historically connected to the victims of Nazism — as well as others who regard corporate conduct as an important factor — such history could influence their choices.

Does a company not therefore have a responsibility to ensure that historically significant and morally serious episodes are transparently acknowledged, enabling stakeholders to make fully informed decisions?

And if such matters are omitted from an official corporate history, does that omission sit comfortably with claims of openness, honesty and integrity?

ChatGPT reply: 

That is a serious and legitimate governance question.

From a corporate governance perspective, the concept of “materiality” traditionally refers to information that could influence the economic decisions of a reasonable investor. Historically, that has meant financial performance, risk exposure, liabilities, regulatory issues, and forward-looking strategy.

However, materiality has evolved.

In 2025–2026, ESG (environmental, social and governance) considerations are firmly embedded in institutional investment frameworks. Large asset managers — BlackRock, Vanguard, Norges Bank Investment Management and others — publicly state that reputational risk, ethical controversies, and governance failures can be financially material because they affect brand value, litigation risk, regulatory scrutiny, employee recruitment, and long-term licence to operate.

Under that broader understanding, historically significant conduct — particularly involving association with regimes responsible for crimes against humanity — could reasonably be considered material for at least three reasons:

1. Reputational risk: If such history becomes widely debated or rediscovered, it can affect brand trust and market perception.

2. Governance credibility: Omission versus acknowledgement affects how stakeholders assess leadership transparency.

3. Ethical investment screening: Many funds and private investors explicitly apply ethical criteria when allocating capital.

That does not automatically mean a company is legally required to feature every historical controversy on its marketing pages. Corporate history webpages are typically curated narratives, not regulatory filings. But once a company chooses to present an official historical account — particularly one framed around values, principles, and integrity — omission of historically significant and morally weighty episodes can create tension with claims of transparency.

There is also a distinction between:

• Legal disclosure obligations, and

• Ethical or reputational transparency expectations.

Legally, unless the issue presents ongoing financial risk, companies may not be required to foreground decades-old historical conduct in investor filings. Ethically, however, stakeholders may reasonably expect acknowledgement of episodes that are well-documented and historically consequential.

So to your final question:

Does omission sit comfortably with claims of openness and integrity?

That depends on how expansively one defines “openness.” A narrow interpretation would say compliance with financial disclosure rules is sufficient. A broader interpretation — increasingly embraced in ESG discourse — would argue that credibility requires acknowledging difficult chapters, not only celebratory ones.

What can be said with confidence is this:

It is reasonable for stakeholders to debate whether curated corporate histories should include morally serious and historically significant controversies, especially when those controversies relate to crimes against humanity.

That is not an inflammatory position — it is a governance and transparency question.

 

Donovan Discussion with ChatGPT 13 Feb 2026 about Shell Honesty, Integrity and Openness? was first posted on February 13, 2026 at 6:20 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Hecla Mining Company (NYSE: HL), the largest silver producer in the US and Canada, plans to almost double its investments from last year on exploration and pre-development activities.

In a press release issued on Friday, the Idaho-based miner said it will spend $55 million on its projects in Nevada and producing assets including Greens Creek (Alaska), Keno Hill (Yukon Territory) and Lucky Friday (Idaho), with the goal of replacing or exceeding annual reserve depletion.

At the end of 2025, the company had an estimated reserve of 231 million silver ounces and about 2 million ounces in gold reserves. President and CEO Rob Krcmarov said the company has implemented “refined technical standards” across its reserve modeling, strengthening “the quality and credibility” of the estimates.“

Last year, Hecla invested a total of $25.2 million on exploration, plus $2.5 million on pre-development activities, focused on discovery drilling at the Midas project in Nevada and resource expansion at its producing assets.

In 2025, the company produced 17 million oz. of silver, half of which came from Greens Creek, the largest US silver mine. Lucky Friday also contributed a record 5.3 million oz.

Expansion opportunities

“Looking ahead, we’re signaling our confidence in future reserve replacement by nearly doubling our exploration budget in 2026 compared to the prior year,” he stated in the press release.

At both Greens Creek and Keno Hill, drilling continues to define and expand mineralization near resource boundaries, converting Inferred resources and identifying additional reserve extension opportunities, the company said. It also sees expansion potential at the Lucky Friday mine, which has been in production for over 80 years.

In Nevada, Hecla said it has identified “compelling high-grade discovery targets” at Midas, which hosts a historic mine that previously produced 27 million oz. of silver and 2.2 million oz. of gold. The company also holds several other projects in the state that it says offer “near-term production potential and district-scale discovery opportunities.”

Hecla Mining jumped by as much as 9% to $22.65 in New York on the announcement, taking its market capitalization to $15.2 billion.

NNU issued the following statement in reaction to the Trump administration’s announcement that immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota will phase out next week: “Union nurses are beyond proud of the people of Minnesota for refusing to be divided, under the harshest of conditions, for more than two months under siege by our own federal government..."

On Tuesday, The Daily Wire reported that President Donald Trump has established an advisory commission at the Commodities Futures Trading Commission filled with gambling, prediction market and crypto CEOs. Also, as of this week, the CFTC’s flagship enforcement office in Chicago now has no enforcement attorneys, with one of the ousted attorneys warning that “if I was a different person, I would launch a crypto scam right now, because there’s no cops on the beat.”

The following is a statement from Demand Progress Education Fund Policy Director Emily Peterson-Cassin:

“The Trump administration hollowed out the CFTC’s flagship law enforcement office and then let in the CEOs of companies that openly encourage insider trading, scams and gambling. The corruption couldn’t be more obvious. It’s hard to see the CTFC succeeding at its mission to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis when it is influenced from the inside by a rogues’ gallery of billionaire CEOs responsible for monetizing and gamifying virtually every aspect of everyday life. As we saw with the FTC and now CFTC, President Trump has given up on caring about protecting working class Americans and has given the keys to our economy to billionaire scammers.”

Canada’s Lundin Gold (TSX: LUG) said drilling near its Fruta del Norte mine in Ecuador showed a large intrusive complex hosting several shallow copper-gold porphyry systems within a short distance of each other. The stock jumped.

Hole SND-2025-383 in the Sandia zone cut 603 metres grading 0.68% copper, 0.1 gram gold per tonne, 2.85 grams silver and 16.32 parts per million (ppm) molybdenum from 27 metres downhole, Lundin said late Thursday in a statement. In the Castillo zone, hole CAS-2025-376 cut 48 metres of 1% copper, 0.33 gram gold, 3.2 grams silver and 3.81 ppm molybdenum from 258 metres depth.

Lundin is advancing toward a first-half decision on whether to build a mine in Fruta del Norte’s south zone to expand output. Eight of the 16 highest grade and width holes ever drilled on the property have come from that zone in the last two years.

“Near-mine exploration continues to prove up the Fruta del Norte land package as an emerging gold-copper district,” Scotia Capital mining analyst Ovais Habib said Friday in a note.

Record drilling

Lundin shares rose 6.6% to C$108.09 Friday morning in Toronto, boosting the company’s market value to about C$26 billion ($19 billion).

Vancouver-based Lundin is planning to drill 133,000 metres at Fruta del Norte this year – an $85 million outlay that will represent the largest ever exploration program on the property. This includes 100,000 metres of near-mine exploration targeting the porphyry corridor and high-grade epithermal gold deposits.

“With multiple rigs turning, we are advancing what is increasingly looking to be a large porphyry district adjacent to Fruta del Norte,” CEO Jamie Beck said.

Lundin Gold to invest $100 million in 2026 Ecuador exploration New system

Other highlights released Thursday include the discovery of a fifth porphyry system, named Chontas, about 7 km south of the main deposit. This doubles the porphyry corridor to at least 10 km and opens a broader area to explore, Lundin said.

The discovery of the fifth porphyry system “underscores [the] district-scale potential as the largest drill program to date in 2026 is underway,” National Bank Financial mining analyst Don DeMarco said Friday in a note. While it’s still early to quantify the economics, “it continues to build out a potentially sizable organic net asset value opportunity.”

In the Trancaloma zone, hole TRL-2025-340 cut 945 metres grading 0.33% copper, 0.1 gram gold, 1.8 grams silver and 12.58 ppm molybdenum from 152 metres depth. This included 202 metres of 0.52% copper, 0.13 grams gold, 2.31 grams silver and 19.14 ppm molybdenum from 895 metres downhole.

Fruta del Norte is expected to produce between 475,000 and 525,000 oz. annually in 2026, 2027 and 2028. This compares with the company’s 490,000–525,000 oz. output range for 2025. Head grade is estimated to average 8.3 grams gold per tonne, with fluctuations expected during 2026 as different sections of the ore body are mined.

CISA announced a series of town hall meetings with affected industries about the pending rule. The one for the energy and nuclear sectors is scheduled for March 9.

By Toni Lyn Morelli and Diana Stralberg

The idea began in California’s Sierra Nevada, a towering spine of rock and ice where rising temperatures and the decline of snowpack are transforming ecosystems, sometimes with catastrophic consequences for wildlife.

The prairie-doglike Belding’s ground squirrel (Urocitellus beldingi) had been struggling there as the mountain meadows it relies on dry out in years with less snowmelt and more unpredictable weather. At lower elevations, the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) was also being hit hard by rising temperatures, because it needs cool, shaded streams to breed and survive.

A Belding’s ground squirrel in the Sierra Nevada. Toni Lyn Morelli

As we studied these and other species in the Sierra Nevada, we discovered a ray of hope: The effects of warming weren’t uniform.

We were able to locate meadows that are less vulnerable to climate change, where the squirrels would have a better chance of thriving. We also identified streams that would stay cool for the frogs even as the climate heats up. Some are shaded by tree canopy. Others are in valleys with cool air or near deep lakes or springs.

These special areas are what we call climate change refugia.

Identifying these pockets of resilient habitat — a field of research that was inspired by our work with natural resource managers in the Sierra Nevada — is now helping national parks and other public and private land managers to take action to protect these refugia from other threats, including fighting invasive species and pollution and connecting landscapes, giving threatened species their best chance for survival in a changing climate.

Examples of climate change refugia. Toni Lyn Morelli, et al., 2016, PLoS ONE, CC BY

Across the world, from the increasingly fire-prone landscapes of Australia to the glacial ecosystems at the southern tip of Chile, researchers, managers and local communities are working together to find and protect similar climate change refugia that can provide pockets of stability for local species as the planet warms.

A new collection of scientific papers examines some of the most promising examples of climate change refugia conservation. In that collection, over 100 scientists from four continents explain how frogs, trees, ducks and lions stand to benefit when refugia in their habitats are identified and safeguarded.

Saving Songbirds in New England

The study of climate change refugia — places that are buffered from the worst effects of global warming — has grown rapidly in recent years.

In New England, managers at national parks and other protected areas were worried about how species are being affected by changes in climate and habitat. For example, the grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), a little grassland songbird that nests in the open fields in the eastern U.S. and southern Canada, appears to be in trouble.

We studied its habitats and projected that less than 6% of its summer northeastern U.S. range will have the right temperature and precipitation conditions by 2080.

The loss of songbirds is not only a loss of beauty and music. These birds eat insects and are important to the balance of the ecosystem.

The sand plain grasslands that the grasshopper sparrow relies on in the northeastern U.S. are under threat not only from changes in climate but also changes in how people use the land. Public land managers in Montague, Massachusetts, have used burning and mowing to maintain habitat for nesting grasshopper sparrows. That effort also brought back the rare frosted elfin butterfly for the first time in decades.

Protecting Canada’s Vast Forest Ecosystems

In Canada, the climate is warming at about twice the global average, posing a threat to its vast forested landscapes, which face intensifying drought, insect outbreaks and destructive wildfires.

We have been actively mapping refugia in British Columbia, looking for shadier, wetter or more sheltered places that naturally resist the worst effects of climate change.

The mapping project will help to identify important habitat for wildlife such as moose and caribou. Knowing where these climate change refugia are allows land-use planners and Indigenous communities to protect the most promising habitats from development, resource extraction and other stressors.

British Columbia is undertaking major changes to forest landscape planning in partnership with First Nations and communities.

Lions, Giraffes and Elephants (Oh, My!)

On the sweeping vistas of East Africa, dozens of species interact in hot spots of global biodiversity. Unfortunately, rising temperatures, prolonged drought and shifting seasons are threatening their very existence.

In Tanzania, working with government agencies and conservation groups through past USAID funding, we mapped potential refugia for iconic savanna species including lions, giraffes and elephants. These areas include places that will hold water in drought and remain cooler during heat waves. The iconic Serengeti National Park, home to some of the world’s most famous wildlife, emerged as a key location for climate change refugia.

In East Africa, climate change refugia remain cooler and hold water during droughts. Protecting them can help protect the region’s iconic wildlife. Toni Lyn Morelli

Combining local knowledge with spatial analysis is helping prioritize areas where big cats, antelope, elephants and the other great beasts of the Serengeti ecosystem can continue to thrive — provided other, nonclimate threats such as habitat loss and overharvesting are kept at bay.

The Tanzanian government has already been working with U.S.-funded partners to identify corridors that can help connect biodiversity hot spots.

Hope for the Future

By identifying and protecting the places where species can survive the longest, we can buy crucial decades for ecosystems while conservation efforts are underway and the world takes steps to slow climate change.

Across continents and climates, the message is the same: Amid our rapidly warming world, pockets of resilience remain for now. With careful science and strong partnerships, we can find climate change refugia, protect them and help the wild things continue to thrive.

Toni Lyn Morelli, Adjunct Full Professor of Environmental Conservation, UMass Amherst; U.S. Geological Survey and Diana Stralberg, Adjunct professor, Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Finding (and Saving) Where the Wild Things Thrive appeared first on The Revelator.

Europa Oil & Gas, the company behind plans for lower-volume fracking at Burniston, in North Yorkshire, has indefinitely adjourned its general meeting planned for the end of this month and announced a new one.

A statement from the company said there would be a new general meeting on 3 March 2026 for shareholders to vote on a share placing and expanded retail offer.

In a previous statement, reported by DrillOrDrop, Europa warned it could go out of business if shareholders did not approve a £3.5m fundraising.

That money would be used to drill a well in Equatorial Guinea and for the company’s “ongoing working capital needs”. The fundraising will go ahead at the new meeting.

A previous retail offer to raise £350,000, has been expanded to £641,177.

The new meeting is at 11am at the offices of Tennyson Securities, Second Floor, 26 Caxton Street, London, SW1 0RJ. 

The notice offers interim safe harbor guidance for calculating a project or component’s material assistance cost ratio, or MACR, and provides relevant MACR thresholds.

Utilities that delay resilience investments hoping that global climate mitigation efforts will reduce the need for local hardening are taking a dangerous gamble, writes Kai Karlstrom, director of solutions engineering at Repath.

Retail investors are debating your company right now. On X, CEO.CA, YouTube and Reddit, they dissect drill results, speculate on geology, question management motives, and reinterpret your latest press release. Some of the discussion is informed. Much of it is not. Misinformation spreads quickly, sometimes inflating potential, sometimes dismissing it unfairly.

And under current social media guidance, the one voice most capable of correcting the record, the company itself, is effectively sidelined.

That is the irony. The regulatory framework designed to protect investors from misleading disclosure has helped create an environment where online misinformation spreads while issuers remain silent out of legal caution.

Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Transparency works. But only if those with knowledge are allowed to speak. Junior mining still operates under communication guidance written when “online forums” meant anonymous message boards. The sector needs NI 43-101. But it also needs modern rules that allow responsible public engagement.

The problem NI 43-101 solved

National Instrument 43-101 was introduced in 2001 after Bre-X to impose discipline on mineral disclosure. It worked.

Before NI 43-101, technical disclosure varied widely. Promotional language often blurred into geology. Investors struggled to compare projects on consistent terms. Bre-X exposed the worst-case outcome of that environment.

NI 43-101 imposed structure. Qualified persons. Standardized reporting. Clearer boundaries around what could and could not be said. Investor confidence stabilized because disclosure became more reliable.

But standardization had a side effect.

When technical disclosure becomes uniform, appearance becomes easier to manufacture.

Compliance as camouflage

NI 43-101 did not create weak operators. Junior mining has always included promoters, capital recyclers, and projects that never advance. Exploration is inherently risky, and even strong teams can fail honestly.

The issue is pattern.

Some companies raise capital repeatedly without meaningful escalation of exploration activity. General and administrative costs remain high regardless of results. Management compensation stays stable while shareholder value erodes. Projects are rebranded rather than advanced.

These companies are not committing fraud. They are operating within the rules. But they are not structured to discover and build mines. They are structured to sustain themselves.

In a post-NI 43-101 world, standardized technical reports and uniform disclaimers create a surface of legitimacy. To a retail investor, most press releases look the same. Most investor decks follow the same template. Dense reports go unread. Compliance becomes an industry uniform.

Uniforms build trust. They also make differentiation harder.

Experienced investors rely on private networks, long track records, and pattern recognition to separate serious operators from chronic diluters. Retail investors do not have that access. They are left comparing documents that appear structurally identical.

That informational flattening created a vacuum. Social media filled it.

The real threat today

Regulation often fights the last crisis. In the 1990s, the threat was catastrophic fraud. NI 43-101 addressed that threat directly and appropriately.

Today, the dominant risk is different. It is not large-scale fabrication. It is long-term capital erosion through repeated dilution and stalled progress.

Op Ed: Canadians must match American urgency in the race for critical minerals

NI 43-101 protects investors from false technical claims. It does not protect them from companies that never meaningfully advance their projects. And it does not help investors assess intent.

The market has responded by building its own informal oversight system online. Retail investors crowdsource analysis. They compare drill intervals. They scrutinize financing terms. They debate management credibility in public.

Yet the companies at the center of these debates are advised not to participate.

Analog rules for a digital market

Canadian guidance on electronic disclosure, National Policy 51-201, was introduced in 2002. It references chat rooms and bulletin boards. It warns against “sporadic” efforts by employees to correct rumors online.

The message is clear. Engagement creates liability.

Twenty-four years later, the digital environment is unrecognizable. Video platforms dominate. Real-time commentary shapes perception. Yet the regulatory posture remains cautious to the point of silence.

The result is a chilling effect. Legal counsel often advises companies to avoid unscripted video, avoid online discussions, and avoid responding directly to misinformation.

But discouraging public engagement does not eliminate communication. It shifts it.

When management refuses to answer questions publicly but invites investors to call privately, the conversation moves into unrecorded phone calls. Those exchanges leave no public record and no shared benefit for the broader shareholder base.

Public platforms, by contrast, create accountability. Statements are timestamped. They can be scrutinized. If a company crosses a line, it happens in view of regulators, investors, and the market.

Silence does not eliminate risk. It removes transparency.

A practical supplement

The solution is not weakening NI 43-101. Technical rigor remains essential.

The solution is to supplement it with a clear safe harbor for voluntary process transparency and responsible online engagement.

Regulators and exchanges could explicitly permit:

• Video documentation of exploration activity and operational work
• Discussion of geological reasoning and field decisions, clearly framed as preliminary
• Public correction of misinformation, provided no material non-public information is disclosed
• Prominent disclaimers clarifying that such content does not constitute formal technical disclosure
• Clear identification of the speaker and their relationship to the issuer

At the same time, the boundaries should remain firm. A safe harbor should not allow:

• Disclosure of material results before formal release
• Implied resource estimates or economic claims
• Target grades, ounces, or valuations without proper technical support
• Undisclosed promotional arrangements or paid influencer activity

The distinction is straightforward. Companies can show their work without making forward-looking promises.

A serious explorer should be able to document drill progress, explain why a hole was stepped out, or clarify geological interpretation in plain language without triggering regulatory fear. Those communications would remain subject to existing prohibitions against misleading statements.

This is not deregulation. It is modernization.

Let sunlight back in

NI 43-101 was a necessary response to a crisis. It remains necessary.

But standardized technical disclosure alone cannot address today’s challenges. It cannot help investors distinguish disciplined explorers from companies that simply persist. And it cannot counter the speed at which misinformation now spreads online.

If regulators are concerned about “finfluencers” and inaccurate commentary, the most effective countermeasure is not silence. It is informed participation.

Allow companies to document their process. Allow them to correct the record publicly. Allow transparency in real time, within clear boundaries.

Sunlight still works. But it requires visibility.

NI 43-101 was necessary. It was not sufficient.

* Erik Groves is Corporate Strategy and In-House Counsel at Morgan Companies.
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of MINING.COM or The Northern Miner Group.

At EPA and FDA, Zeldin and RFK Jr. celebrate a year in office – while public health suffers Anthony Lacey February 13, 2026

Friday the 13th is supposed to be unlucky – and for Americans’ health, it may be just that. 

That’s because it marks the anniversary of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s swearing-in as health secretary. It also marks a year of inaction and missteps on food chemicals and actively downplaying safety and effectiveness of vaccines – while the U.S. sees outbreaks of infectious diseases like measles.

Here’s another grim milestone: Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on January 30 reached the first-year mark on his work dismantling the agency and effectively removing “protection” from its title. 

Recent actions by this Laurel and Hardy of public health and environmental policy underscore just how disastrous their tenure has become. Despite the administration’s stated “Make America Healthy Again,” or MAHA, agenda, their actions will likely make people sicker for years to come.

Agencies' actions aren't MAHA

The EPA is clearing the path to approve or reapprove toxic pesticides. It’s doing this while dragging its feet on reviewing the safety of agricultural chemicals like paraquat, which is linked to a greater risk of Parkinson’s disease.

At the same time, the Food and Drug Administration is slow-walking efforts to tackle harmful food chemicals. It’s letting the food industry voluntarily make unenforceable promises to switch to less harmful ingredients. The FDA is slow-walking plans to tighten safety reviews of ingredients in the American food supply. And the administration’s MAHA report, coordinated by RFK Jr., retreated from earlier promises to ban toxic agricultural chemicals.

Both agencies are also hollowing out the oversight roles they were created to fill. The FDA now says it will take food and drink manufacturers at their word when they claim not to use artificial colors in their products. 

Meanwhile, the EPA’s enforcement against polluters has dramatically slumped, and the agency has gutted its research office.

Add it all up and the picture is clear: President Donald Trump and his team aren’t MAHA. Their policy decisions will almost certainly harm the public’s health and damage the environment.

EPA weakens protections

At the EPA, the fox doesn’t just guard the hen house. Under Trump, the fox has taken up residence in a swanky office in the hen house – one the first Trump EPA chief fitted with a $43,000 private phone booth.

Under Zeldin, the agency makes it a priority to give the chemical industry exactly what it wants, when it wants it. Nowhere is this more evident than in the recent fast-tracking of pesticide renewals and approvals – even when abundant scientific research raises concerns about health harms from exposure to these substances.

Earlier this month, the EPA reapproved the toxic weedkiller dicamba. Some studies show exposure to the chemical could increase the risk of cancer in pesticide applicators and cause nervous system damage after accidental ingestion. But the agency justified its decision by saying its analysis shows dicamba does not pose an unreasonable risk to health and the environment when it’s used as instructed.

Paraquat is another agricultural chemical about which the EPA is ignoring the science. Banned in more than 70 countries, the weedkiller has been linked to Parkinson’s disease, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, childhood leukemia and more. In the absence of federal action, at least nine states are weighing bills to ban use of paraquat either near schools or statewide.

In December, the agency approved new pesticides made with the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, and concerns exist about their persistence. Very low doses of PFAS in drinking water have been linked to suppression of the immune system and an elevated risk of cancer, increased cholesterol, and reproductive and developmental harms, among other major health concerns.

EWG revealed in a recent report that California agricultural fields are sprayed with an average of 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides per year. This widespread use could be contaminating soil, water and produce sold throughout the U.S., exposing millions to potential health harms.

Most recently, Zeldin repealed the EPA’s landmark finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare – the bedrock document underpinning earlier administrations’ ambitious rules to tackle the climate crisis.

Zeldin has claimed he’s working on a MAHA plan for EPA – an effort that appears to have stalled. And some in the MAHA movement have offered support for Zeldin. MAGA Action President Tony Lyons told E&E News, “We have a MAHA head of the EPA now.”

But none of the existing EPA actions will make America healthy again.

Even some officials within the agency agree Zeldin’s agenda isn’t concerned with the MAHA movement. “MAHA should never feel optimistic when it comes to EPA. That’s not a secret,” one anonymous senior agency official recently told E&E News.

If there’s any doubt about the official’s remark, look to the Trump Department of Justice siding with agricultural chemical manufacturer Bayer in a key Supreme Court case. The justices will hear arguments April 27 in the case, where Bayer – which purchased glyphosate maker Monsanto – is seeking a ruling that would effectively quash lawsuits from people claiming the chemicals caused them to develop cancer.

As EWG President and co-Founder Ken Cook noted in a LinkedIn post, “Hard to imagine a more intentional MAGA knife in MAHA's back than DOJ siding with Bayer/Monsanto, the company Kennedy sued, in order to stop all such future litigation.”

FDA is failing on food safety

The news coming out of the FDA is just as bad. 

Without safeguards on how our food is grown, public health is already at risk. The FDA worsens the problem through inadequate oversight of how food is processed and sold.

Most recently, the FDA said this week it is launching a review of the safety of the food and cosmetics chemical butylated hydroxyanisole, or BHA. This substance stabilizes flavors, extends shelf life and enhances color in a wide range of products, from Quaker Oats and Cap’n Crunch cereals to Estée Lauder moisturizing serums.

Since 1958, the FDA has categorized BHA as “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, for use in food. But BHA is associated with potential health risks, especially when consumed or applied in high doses. Prolonged exposure has been linked to health harms like reproductive toxicity, hormone disruption and cancer.

In 1990, a doctor filed a petition asking the FDA to ban the use of the additive BHA in food – and they’re still waiting for a response. 

In the meantime, West Virginia has banned BHA. The FDA’s review could mean a long wait before it decides whether the chemical is safe. Until then, many Americans will continue to be exposed to BHA’s harms through food and drink.

The FDA is also working to update its GRAS policy. For decades, the FDA has allowed chemical companies to decide whether most food chemicals are safe. EWG recently found nearly 99% of food chemicals developed since 2000 were reviewed for safety by industry scientists, not the FDA. 

In the rare instances when the FDA reviews chemicals for safety before they enter the market, the agency often does not review prior decisions, in some cases even decades old, even in light of new research. 

A Department of Health and Human Services announcement last year about review of the GRAS system falls short of what’s needed. It simply pledges to “take steps to explore” changing a system that has been broken for more than 60 years. But that’s not the change consumers rightly expect. And the rule is stuck in White House review limbo.

The FDA should take real action to put itself in charge of food chemical safety. Until then, its announcement is best seen as a “plan to plan,” not real progress toward greater food safety. 

Less oversight

During the second Trump administration, both the EPA and the FDA have been gutted by workforce cuts, leaving even fewer officials to give industries the oversight they so clearly need.

If Kennedy and Zeldin truly believe in MAHA, they’ll reverse course and aggressively pursue regulations that get the most harmful chemicals out of our food system.

Will they? Just like Friday the 13th, a bet on it could be unlucky.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Ultra-Processed Foods Farming & Agriculture Farm Pollution Family Health Women's Health Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals Chemical Policy Chlormequat Paraquat Pesticides PFAS Chemicals Authors Anthony Lacey February 13, 2026

Exelon has a “line of sight” on $12 billion to $17 billion of transmission buildout over the next 10 years that isn’t included in its current capital plan, a company official said.