News Feeds

Poemas de Bandung: Voces y versos Manali Divecha y Lebohang Liepollo Pheko Estos poemas surgieron de los encuentros, las emociones y las conversaciones vividas en Bandung. Y me quedé, de Manali Divecha Corrí tan rápido como pude, hacia lo más profundo del bosque,

Aprender a quedarnos, aprender y construir juntos Pankati Jain El agobio, la ansiedad y la soledad se han vuelto algo habitual en nuestras vidas. Los efectos del cambio climático, la concentración de poder y la desigualdad económica ya son visibles y nos afectan en nuestro día a día.

Llegar. Conectarse. Escuchar. Madhuresh Kumar Introducción El territorio es fundamental para el tejido y ocupa un lugar especial en muchas de las cosas que hacemos en el TGA. A menudo hablamos de movimientos, comunidades y alternativas, pero estos nunca existen de manera aislada. Surgen de algún lugar. Están moldeados por los ríos y los bosques, por las montañas y los campos, por los recuerdos transmitidos de generación en generación, por los idiomas que habla la gente y las historias que h…

Anwar «sastro» Ma'ruf es el secretario general de la Confederación del Movimiento Popular de Indonesia (KPRI), miembro del Movimiento por las Alternativas y la Solidaridad en el Sudeste Asiático (MASSA

Weaving Mutual Rearing Mexico By Crianza Mutua México The Assembly in Indonesia confirmed that we are not alone! In Bandung, we wove together with collectives, organizations, and communities from different parts of the world amid rituals, cultures, food, group reflections, shared struggles, territorial journeys, and local alternativesCMMCMMGTATapestryAlternatives

As we move into the next phase of the summer season, things have started to slow down. Birds are beginning to molt their feathers, juveniles are practicing their flying skills, and many species are...

On Wednesday, Free Press called out Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr for engaging in a political crusade against broadcaster ABC that not only violates free speech rights but distorts and weaponizes existing agency rules and procedures in service of a censorial president.

In a filing in the FCC docket regarding early license reviews of eight ABC affiliated and owned stations, Free Press called the proceeding “an arbitrary and capricious abuse of power, ordered by Brendan Carr to exact the revenge Donald Trump demands against ABC for exercising its First Amendment rights.”

In June, Free Press stated in a similar filing on the contents of the show The View that the agency’s proceeding against ABC stations “never should have been opened.” It condemned the politicized campaign from the White House and FCC to silence the voices of people who disagree with or challenge the president and his views.

Chairman Carr has insisted that this bogus proceeding is an investigation into allegations that Disney engaged in “invidious discrimination.” But the agency has not identified any specific allegations of discrimination by Disney, ABC or its local stations, reads Free Press latest filing. “That Chairman Carr is willing to place Disney’s entire local broadcasting operation in jeopardy without a single specific allegation of unlawful behavior is further evidence of the corruption that undergirds this proceeding and Carr’s reign at the Commission,” Free Press adds.

Matt Wood, Free Press’ vice president of policy and coauthor of the filing, said:

“The only just ending to Carr’s circus, and the only way for him to stop trampling the First Amendment freedoms he swore to uphold, is to to close this proceeding now and rescind the trumped-up charges that started it.

“The ridiculous notion expressed by the Trump FCC is that this extraordinary proceeding allows the FCC to conduct an ongoing investigation into Disney’s supposed violations of agency rules. But there’s absolutely nothing about the process of early renewal that would aid that supposed investigation. That inquiry is just a rotten fig leaf to provide cover for Brendan Carr using the FCC’s investigatory powers to harass, intimidate, and punish ABC for its speech.

“If the FCC were acting in good faith, it would have conducted and completed a full and fair investigation of Disney’s compliance with existing rules and the law first. But giving Disney due process under the law and respecting its First Amendment rights would not deliver Donald Trump the revenge he seeks, hence the existence of this corrupt, arbitrary and capricious early renewal proceeding.

“Even if Disney had engaged in some kind of discrimination, there’s no reason and no precedent for threatening its broadcast licenses over such behavior. The partisan nature of this whole endeavor couldn’t be clearer. Brendan Carr says not a word about a conservative broadcaster like Sinclair, approving its acquisition of more stations even as that company settles employment discrimination suits with the Trump EEOC. Yet for ABC, Carr’s embarrassing himself again by concocting this utterly shameful censorship campaign on behalf of a petty president.

“This kind of capricious law enforcement has no place in a legitimate democracy. The law and U.S. Constitution do not permit Brendan Carr and the FCC to violate Disney’s and the public’s rights because the President’s ego demands it. In its haste to please Trump, the agency has chilled the speech of every licensee, and placed Disney in a lose-lose situation. Even if the FCC does nothing following this pleading cycle, the order for an early license renewal will continue to be a threat to Disney’s licenses, and will undoubtedly alter how broadcasters exercise their First Amendment-protected right to free speech and freedom of the press.

“At some level, Carr must know that his claims against ABC are bogus. But legal and statutory integrity aren’t the point with this chairman. Carr is more than happy to browbeat and jawbone broadcasters into silence though his claims have zero legal merit.”

In response to the Senate Judiciary Committee postponing its vote on Trump's unqualified personal lawyer Todd Blanche’s nomination for attorney general, MoveOn Political Action Chief Communications Officer Joel Payne released the following statement:

“Todd Blanche’s nomination is stalled because his record is corrupt and indefensible. He has spent his career proving that there is no legal principle he will not bend and no institution he will not compromise in service of Donald Trump. His blind loyalty, willingness to use the justice system to protect the president, and role in a sweetheart settlement benefiting Trump make him completely unfit to serve as attorney general.

“Senate Republicans may be trying to put some distance between themselves and this toxic nomination, but moving the vote does not change the facts. Blanche is still Trump’s fixer, still disqualified, and still a threat to the rule of law. The Senate should stop dragging this out and kill the nomination.”

MoveOn continues to mobilize its millions of members and run digital ads to put pressure on Congress to reject Blanche’s nomination.

Five nonprofit organizations working to build a more just food system filed suit today in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to challenge unlawful terms and conditions that USDA is imposing on new grants. These terms and conditions substantially restrict grantees’ speech and programming in support of diversity and equity, bar using grant funding on whatever the administration says is “promoting gender ideology,” and limit grantees’ work in support of immigrants.

The plaintiffs - Agroecology Commons, Oregon Farm Corps, Syracuse-Onondaga Food Systems Alliance (SOFSA), Third Sector New England, and the Washington Farmland Trust - are represented by Public Citizen Litigation Group, Earthjustice, and FarmSTAND.

The new terms and conditions require USDA grantees to agree that they will not promote “unlawful DEI” or “gender ideology,” or use grant funding to create “incentives for illegal immigration by demonstrating the availability of public benefits.” The terms even attempt to control the grantees’ work and speech unrelated to the grant, demanding they not “operate any programs that advance or promote Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.”

These terms put the plaintiffs in this case in a high-stakes bind: They either must agree to substantial restrictions on their speech and programing, or they must give up on the critical federal funding that has allowed them to effectively serve their communities. If the Trump Administration deems them to have violated the terms and conditions – despite the vagueness and otherwise unlawfulness of the terms – they will lose future payments of the grant. The new terms threaten civil and criminal liability for making supposed false claims.

These terms have already forced the plaintiff organizations to substantially reorient their work. Two of the plaintiffs have decided that they cannot accept any funds from USDA unless the court blocks these terms and conditions from being applied to them, as they fear serious consequences if the Trump Administration decides that they are not complying with grant terms. The effects of that decision are substantial: Plaintiff Washington Farmland Trust, for instance, will have to decline $676,000 in funding that could be going to critical support for farmers unless the court blocks these terms and conditions from being applied to them.

“Farmers need land in order to grow and raise our food. Washington Farmland Trust's Farm to Farmer program helps farmers access the land, resources, and capital they need to be successful,” said Melissa Campbell, Executive Director of Washington Farmland Trust. “This grant would have allowed us to grow the infrastructure of this critical program to serve more farmers. Instead, we’re faced with the impossible choice of pulling back from our mission-critical work or losing out on catalytic funding that would help us better serve our communities. If the court blocks the USDA's problematic terms, farmers will be able to receive the essential support they need to continue to grow food for us all.”

“Organizations like the plaintiffs do essential work to fight hunger, protect the environment, and ensure that communities across the country have access to healthy, local food,” said Stephanie Garlock, attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group and lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “They should not have to choose between continuing that work and submitting to the Trump Administration's ideological speech code on issues of public policy."

“The First Amendment rights of these plaintiffs are at stake in this case, and so is the future of critical work to build a fair food system that works for everyone,” said David Muraskin, Managing Director of Litigation at FarmSTAND. “The court must block these unlawful, unprecedented terms and conditions. If it doesn’t, the Trump Administration’s enforcement of them will force USDA grantees to abandon important work in support of the next generation of farmers, for fear of serious consequences for violating the new terms.”

“USDA’s new terms and conditions for grants are yet another example of this administration’s unlawful politicization of programs designed by Congress to support farmers and rural communities,” said Carrie Apfel, Deputy Managing Attorney of the Sustainable Food and Farming Program at Earthjustice. “USDA should stop claiming to help farmers when instead it is undermining the very food and farming communities these programs were created to serve. This sort of illegal gamesmanship should not be tolerated.”

Article written by Montezuma Audubon Center intern Ay-Zoh Shaw.From observing ugly-cute hatchlings to helping band scraggly, incessantly-chirping fledglings, monitoring and caring for Purple Martin...

California could soon force diaper makers to reveal what’s in their products Monica Amarelo July 30, 2026

Lawmakers in California are on the verge of forcing diaper manufacturers to strip away the secrecy over what goes into one of the products babies use most.

Assembly Bill 1901, by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), would require manufacturers of children’s diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in California to fully disclose all intentionally added ingredients, both on product packaging and online. It would empower parents and caregivers in making safer diaper shopping decisions.

EWG is co-sponsoring the bill, along with Consumer Reports, the Center for Environmental Health and Children Now.

AB 1901 already passed the California Assembly and Senate Environmental Quality Committee with bipartisan votes. It’s now in the Senate Appropriations Committee awaiting a vote that could send it to the Senate floor.

Today, manufacturers can hide dozens of chemicals behind umbrella terms like “fragrance” or “colors. These are potentially toxic mystery cocktails that prevent parents from knowing what’s in the products they use on their children every day. 

The bill would, if enacted, give parents meaningful and easily accessible ingredient transparency. It would also replace catch-all labels with specific ingredient names.

AB 1901 would not require diaper makers to disclose other information about how they create their products, so they can still protect other details that make their products unique.

Why transparency matters

Babies spend much of the first two to three years of their lives in diapers. Yet unlike many other consumer products, disposable diapers are exempt by the federal government from carrying ingredient labels of any kind. And diaper manufacturers do not have to inform regulators about the chemicals they use to create the products.

That means parents often have no way of knowing what chemicals their baby’s skin is swaddled in day after day.

Babies’ skin is thinner, more permeable and still developing, making them more vulnerable to chemical exposures than adults. Without full ingredient disclosure, families are left to trust manufacturers without having the information they need to make informed choices.

EWG created the Guide to Safer Diapers to help fill that information gap. It explains common diaper materials, identifying chemicals of concern and highlighting products that meet higher standards for health and transparency.

Diaper chemicals parents should know about

Phthalates

Studies have detected phthalates in some disposable diapers, and research has linked certain phthalates to hormone disruption, as well as reproductive and developmental harms. Because phthalates are only loosely bound to plastics, they can migrate out of products over time. 

Fragrances

Many diapers contain added fragrance, but the only way to confirm it is if manufacturers disclose ingredients on the packaging or online. The term ”fragrance” can represent hundreds – or even thousands – of different chemicals. 

Undisclosed fragrances can also contain phthalates as a solvent or stabilizer in the mixture, but lack of regulation doesn't require them to be disclosed.

Some fragrance ingredients have been linked to allergies and skin irritation, but parents have no way of knowing which chemicals are present in the products they buy. 

AB 1901 would give families the ingredient information they need to make informed decisions based on their child's individual needs and sensitivities.

Quaternary ammonium compounds, or quats

Quats are antimicrobial chemicals commonly used in disinfectants and other consumer products. Some quats are used in diapers to indicate wetness. 

Research has linked certain quats to reproductive and developmental effects, skin irritation and respiratory problems, including asthma.

Dyes and bleaching chemicals

Colorful prints and decorative designs on diapers mean added dyes and inks, which may cause allergic reactions or be contaminated with heavy metals. Some diapers also use chlorine-based bleaching processes with unwanted byproducts.

Choosing plain, undyed diapers made with unbleached or totally chlorine-free pulp can help reduce unnecessary exposure to harmful chemicals.

How to choose a safer diaper

While California lawmakers work to improve transparency, parents can take steps today to reduce their family's exposure to potentially harmful chemicals.

Consider diapers that have earned the EWG Verified® mark, which certifies products meeting EWG's strict standards for ingredient transparency and health. 

Parents have a right to know

AB 1901 would give families accessible information they deserve, whether in buying diapers at a store or letting them compare ingredient details online.

California has an opportunity to set a new standard for transparency and empower parents to make informed decisions for their families.

If you live in California, contact your state senator, assemblymember and Gov. Gavin Newsom and urge them to support Assembly Bill 1901.

Areas of Focus Household & Consumer Products Family Health Children’s Health Phthalates California Guest Authors Luz Fontana-Mansilla, Communications intern July 30, 2026