Antibiotic-resistant E. albertii on the rise in Bangladeshi chicken shops

Widespread contamination by emerging foodborne pathogen detected in retail chicken meat

Osaka Metropolitan University

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Researchers analyzed meat, worker hand swabs, and processing tools to track E. albertii contamination.

view more 

Credit: Osaka Metropolitan University

If you have ever chickened out of eating chicken, your unease may not have been unreasonable.

Osaka Metropolitan University researchers have detected alarming rates of Escherichia albertii, an emerging foodborne pathogen, in retail chicken meat in Bangladesh. Their findings show extensive contamination and significant antimicrobial resistance, underscoring the potential risks to public health.

E. albertii is a less known but probably not less dangerous relative of E. coli. First described in Bangladesh in 2003, this bacterium causes gastrointestinal illnesses, including diarrhea, vomiting and fever. In Japan, E. albertii has been linked to multiple mass food poisoning outbreaks affecting over 100 people at a time. Despite its medical significance, however, this bacterium is often misidentified and not wholly understood.

“While undercooked chicken has been suspected as a transmission route, much remains unknown about the sources and spread of E. albertii, especially in developing countries,” said Atsushi Hinenoya, an associate professor at Osaka Metropolitan University’s Graduate School of Veterinary Science and lead author of the study.

Tracking this evasive pathogen back to its original source, the researchers collected samples from 17 poultry retail shops across four districts (upazilas) in Bangladesh. They tested chicken meat, internal organs, cloacal swabs, worker hand swabs and processing utensils for contamination and antimicrobial resistance.

Their PCR analysis revealed striking contamination rates: E. albertii was present in 63.9% of chicken meat samples and 71.4% of cloacal swabs. It was also found on human hands (45.5%), processing blades (10%) and bleeding cones (13.3%). Genetic similarities among isolates from the same shop from meat, cloacal swabs and worker hands suggest cross-contamination during processing.

“Alarmingly, 94.4% of E. albertii isolates exhibited resistance to at least one antibiotic, and 50% were multidrug-resistant, showing resistance to critical drugs such as tetracycline, ampicillin, gentamicin, kanamycin, nalidixic acid and ciprofloxacin,” Hinenoya said.

Whole genome sequencing further confirmed the presence of antimicrobial resistance genes and virulence factors, which contribute to the pathogen’s ability to cause disease.

“Our study highlights the urgent need for better hygiene measures in poultry processing, stricter antibiotic regulations, and enhanced monitoring to prevent foodborne infections,” Hinenoya said.

Addressing this potential public health risk, the researchers plan to investigate human infections, compare bacterial strains from poultry and patients, and map contamination pathways.

“With the global movement of food and people, tackling E. albertii requires international collaboration,” Hinenoya said. “We aim to expand molecular epidemiology studies and intervention strategies in Bangladesh to curb its spread.”

The study was published in the International Journal of Food Microbiology.

###

About OMU

Established in Osaka as one of the largest public universities in Japan, Osaka Metropolitan University is committed to shaping the future of society through the “Convergence of Knowledge” and the promotion of world-class research. For more research news, visit https://www.omu.ac.jp/en/ and follow us on social media: X, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn.

---

Journal

International Journal of Food Microbiology

DOI

10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2025.111081 

Method of Research

Experimental study

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Occurrence and cross contamination of Escherichia albertii in retail chicken outlets in Bangladesh

 

European potato genome decoded: Small gene pool with large differences

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

Facebook

XLinkedIn
MessageWhatsAppEmail

A research team has decoded the genome of historic potato cultivars and used this resource to develop an efficient method for analysis of hundreds of additional potato genomes.

Potatoes are a staple food for over 1.3 billion people. But despite their importance for global food security, breeding successes have been modest. Some of the most popular potato cultivars were bred many decades ago. The reason for this limited success is the complex genome of the potato: there are four copies of the genome in each cell instead of just two. This challenges traditional hybridization-based breeding. A team led by Professor Korbinian Schneeberger, head of the Genome Plasticity and Computational Genetics research group at LMU and the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, has now made an important breakthrough. As the researchers report in the renowned journal Nature, they were able to reconstruct the genome of ten historic potato cultivars. They then used this knowledge to develop a method that would make it much easier and faster to reconstruct further potato genomes.

In collaboration with researchers from Wageningen University, the Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) in Groß Lüsewitz, and the Xi’an Jiaotong University in China, the team selected historical varieties, some of which were already cultivated in the 18th century. “Since these potatoes come from a time when European breeding programs were beginning, we wanted to figure out how much diversity exists in these potatoes in order to understand the genetic potential of our potatoes,” says Schneeberger. The answer was: not very much. The genetic pool of the potato is extremely limited. The ten potato varieties covered around 85 percent of the genetic variability of all modern European potatoes.

Bottleneck effects after introduction from South America

The researchers attribute their findings to bottleneck effects. Potatoes were imported from South America from the 16th century onward. The number of different individuals was low and most were unable to cope with the European conditions. This reduced gene pool was then further reduced by diseases. The most famous example is the potato late blight outbreak of the 1840s, which caused harvests to collapse and led to catastrophic famines, most notably in Ireland but also in the rest of Europe.

At the same time, the study revealed – to the surprise of the researchers – that the differences between individual chromosome copies can be huge. “Because the gene pool is so limited, there aren't many different chromosomes, but when the chromosomes do differ, they diverge to an extent never before observed in domesticated plants,” explains Schneeberger. “The differences are about twenty times greater than in humans.” These differences presumably arose before the arrival of the potato in Europe. The indigenous peoples of South America started to domesticate potatoes about 10,000 years ago, and the differences are likely the result of crossing between wild species.

Finally, the researchers developed a novel approach that can be used to analyze the genomes of the around 2,000 potatoes registered with the European Union. Instead of laboriously generating the data needed to reconstruct a genome, easily generated data are compared with the currently known genomes to determine which of the known chromosomes are present in a cultivar. The researchers showed that their approach works with the Russet Burbank cultivar, which has existed since 1908 and is still the standard variety for French fries to day. “Knowledge of genome sequences forms the basis for many approaches in plant breeding, from traditional breeding to the latest methods of genome engineering,” says Schneeberger. “In future, we won’t have to work without this information anymore.”

---

Journal

Nature

Article Title

The phased pan-genome of tetraploid European potato

Article Publication Date

16-Apr-2025

 

What’s the benefit of opening for Taylor Swift?

Drexel research examines how opening for an established headliner can impact the trajectory of emerging artists

Drexel University

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

Months after its last notes, the residual economic impacts of Taylor Swift’s record-setting Eras Tour are still coming into focus. While reports suggest that small businesses, tourism and hospitality and even the National Football League experienced a boost — dubbed “The Taylor Swift Effect” — from the tour, new research from Drexel University looking at how opening for an established headliner can affect the career trajectory of an emerging artist indicates that the Eras Tour might also have helped its opening acts grow their fan bases.

Recently published in the Journal of the Music and Entertainment Industry Educators Association, the study looked broadly at the impact for emerging artists of serving as opening acts for larger tours and how that exposure affects their streaming numbers and audience growth. It also takes a closer look at the trajectory of artists who were openers for the Eras Tour, finding that while being an opener doesn’t always translate into sustained success, the boost that emerging artists received from touring with Taylor Swift appears to have translated into sustained audience growth.

“There’s often a perception that opening for a major headliner is a guaranteed career boost for emerging artists—but the reality is far more complex,” said Jeff Apruzzese, an assistant professor in Drexel’s Antoinette Westphal College of Media Arts & Design, who conducted the study. “There hasn’t been much research into how accurate that conventional wisdom really is. This research aims to unpack some of the less visible dynamics in the music industry—especially those that shape the career paths of rising artists.”

Apruzzese, who is the director of Drexel’s Music Industry program, drew on his experiences as a founding member of the band Passion Pit — which rose to commercial success in the late 2000s and 2010s with top 10 records, appearances on Saturday Night Live and The Late Show with David Letterman and playing sold-out arenas, including Madison Square Garden — to guide his inquiry into the economic and career impacts of being an opener.

Opening on Tour

Apruzzese sought to quantify the impact of being an opener on tour by examining their streaming metrics and ticket sales before and after the tour. The study looked at 57 artists — ranging from those early in their career to well-established acts — who served as openers for the top 10 grossing tours of 2022 and 2023, based on data from the music industry site Pollstar. To measure the impact of the exposure they gained on tour, the study compared the artists’ Spotify monthly listenership from four weeks before the start of the tour to the same measure four weeks after the tour had ended.

The study found that “developing” artists — a classification established by the industry website Chartmetric for artists early in their career — saw an 18% increase in streaming prior to the tour, followed by a 6% decrease after the tour. “Mainstream” artists, like MUNA, Beabadoobee, and Role Model, experienced smaller increases and decreases, suggesting a more stable audience engagement; and “superstar” artists – such as Phoebe Bridgers, Paramore, and Steve Lacy – increased their numbers and, in some cases, maintained those increases following the tour.

Breaking this down by genre, pop/rock, country and hip-hop artists saw the most significant increase in streaming numbers. Of those, pop/rock artists also experienced the largest declines in streaming post-tour, according to the study.

Opening for Taylor

Apruzzese conducted a focused analysis of Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour, comparing his overall findings to the metrics for Swift’s openers to discern whether a strong fanbase for a headliner could substantially elevate the profile of their opening acts. The tour also lent itself to comparison in the study because it included a variety of openers, both in genre and prominence.

“Swift’s previous tours helped elevate artists like Ed Sheeran, Shawn Mendes, Justin Bieber and Florida Georgia Line early in their careers,” Apruzzese said. “This study offered a chance to dig into that perception—what some might call part of ‘The Taylor Swift Effect’—and explore whether those associations with superstar headliners translate into lasting career growth for emerging artists.”

The study revealed that genre alignment or compatibility — how closely the act’s style hewed to Swift’s own — likely played an important role in sustained popularity for the openers. For example, Gracie Abrams, whose songs are similar to Swift’s indie pop and introspective ballads, experienced a sustained streaming increase following the tour; while Owenn, whose music is more closely aligned with R&B and dance, saw a 188% increase in streaming during the tour but a precipitous 75% decline after it ended.

Paramore, a well-established act, saw a 1% decrease in streaming during the tour with no change after, which according to Apruzzese could be due to the group’s existing popularity or a perceived mismatch in the audience’s expectations. By contrast, Phoebe Bridgers, also an established artist whose music more closely aligns with Swift’s recent albums “Folklore” and “Evermore,” experienced as 6% increase in streaming during the tour and only a slight decrease after it. The study notes that Bridgers’ continued touring with her group, boygenius, also likely contributed to her sustained post-tour popularity.

Similarly, MUNA, a mainstream synth-pop and indie artist, also sustained interest following the tour by appearing with boygenius and releasing new music, suggesting these continued activities immediately following a prominent tour play a role in sustaining the momentum it provided.

“These findings challenge the simplistic assumption that exposure through association with leading artists is uniformly beneficial,” Apruzzese wrote. “Instead, they reveal a complex interplay of factors — such as genre compatibility, external activities and audience alignment — that contribute to an artist’s streaming trajectory post-tour, highlighting the multifaceted nature of career development in the music industry.”

View from the Audience

To better understand the consumer behavior behind these observations, Apruzzese surveyed 525 people, ages 18-55, about how their perception of opening acts and how their consumption of their music might have changed after seeing them perform.

What he found was that while prior knowledge of the opener generally did not influence ticket purchases, 68% reported discovering new bands as openers and 50% said they purchased tickets to see the opener perform as a headliner the next time they appeared in town. The survey also confirmed the initial boost observed when openers are announced for a tour: 73% indicated they actively seek more information about opening acts after purchasing a concert ticket and 67% said they stream music of opening acts.

“These findings illuminate the complex dynamics of concert attendance and the discovery of new music, highlighting that while consumers may not prioritize opening acts when making ticket purchases, the live concert experience significantly influences their subsequent music choices and spending behaviors,” Apruzzese wrote.

View from the Stage

From an artist’s perspective, the experience of being an opener is more of a mixed bag. Apruzzese surveyed 47 artists with varying levels of stature and experience, 38 of which had experienced opening for an established act. Of that group, 63% experienced noticeable social media activity and growth in followership after opening.

But nearly 40% of surveyed artists reported a financial loss as a result of choosing to open for a larger act. While these opportunities can offer valuable exposure, they often come with substantial costs that smaller artists are expected to shoulder. Travel, lodging, food, crew salaries and gear transportation are rarely covered by the headliner or promoter, meaning opening acts must fund their participation out of pocket. Additionally, many support artists are restricted by radius clauses or exclusivity terms, which prohibit them from booking additional shows in the surrounding area—eliminating opportunities to supplement their income during the tour.

In addition, the lion’s share of revenue from live shows typically goes to the headliner, who is responsible for driving ticket sales. Unless an opener is added specifically to help sell tickets, they are not factored into the financial upside of the show. In these cases, Apruzzese noted, the opportunity cost of participating is exposure — and that exposure often comes with a very low performance guarantee, particularly when compared to what the artist might earn from headlining their own smaller shows.

In some cases, the economics are even more skewed. There are instances — particularly on major arena and stadium tours — where emerging artists “buy on” to a tour, meaning they pay the headliner or promoter for the opportunity to open. While this practice is rarely discussed publicly, it is more common than many realize, and underscores how high the barrier to entry can be for artists trying to break through via traditional touring channels.

“Overall, while the role of opening acts in career development is undeniable, it must be viewed as part of a broader strategic framework aimed at cultivating and sustaining an artist’s presence in the competitive landscape of the music industry,” Apruzzese’s study concluded.

He suggests that future research should look more granularly into a variety of genres over a longer period of time and seek to examine the compounding effects of performances at high-profile festivals, new music releases and viral social media activities on the career trajectory of these artists.

---

Journal

Journal of the Music and Entertainment Industry Educators Association

DOI

10.2478/meiea-2024-0001 

Method of Research

Survey

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Did You Catch The Opener?…Exploring the Transformative Dynamics of Opening Performances: A Quantitative Analysis on Streaming for Emerging Artists

 

Extreme drought contributed to barbarian invasion of late Roman Britain, tree-ring study reveals

University of Cambridge

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChat
WhatsAppEmail

Three consecutive years of drought contributed to the ‘Barbarian Conspiracy’, a pivotal moment in the history of Roman Britain, a new Cambridge-led study reveals. Researchers argue that Picts, Scotti and Saxons took advantage of famine and societal breakdown caused by an extreme period of drought to inflict crushing blows on weakened Roman defences in 367 CE. While Rome eventually restored order, some historians argue that the province never fully recovered.

 

The ‘Barbarian Conspiracy’ of 367 CE was one of the most severe threats to Rome’s hold on Britain since the Boudiccan revolt three centuries earlier. Contemporary sources indicate that components of the garrison on Hadrian’s wall rebelled and allowed the Picts to attack the Roman province by land and sea. Simultaneously, the Scotti from modern-day Ireland invaded broadly in the west, and Saxons from the continent landed in the south.

Senior Roman commanders were captured or killed, and some soldiers reportedly deserted and joined the invaders. Throughout the spring and summer, small groups roamed and plundered the countryside. Britain’s descent into anarchy was disastrous for Rome and it took two years for generals dispatched by Valentian I, Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, to restore order. The final remnants of official Roman administration left Britain some 40 years later around 410 CE.

The University of Cambridge-led study, published in Climatic Change, used oak tree-ring records to reconstruct temperature and precipitation levels in southern Britain during and after the ‘Barbarian Conspiracy’ in 367 CE. Combining this data with surviving Roman accounts, the researchers argue that severe summer droughts in 364, 365 and 366 CE were a driving force in these pivotal events.

First author Charles Norman, from Cambridge’s Department of Geography, said: “We don’t have much archaeological evidence for the ‘Barbarian Conspiracy’. Written accounts from the period give some background, but our findings provide an explanation for the catalyst of this major event.” 

The researchers found that southern Britain experienced an exceptional sequence of remarkably dry summers from 364 to 366 CE. In the period 350–500 CE, average monthly reconstructed rainfall in the main growing season (April–July) was 51 mm. But in 364 CE, it fell to just 29mm. 365 CE was even worse with 28mm, and 37mm the following year kept the area in crisis.

Professor Ulf Büntgen, from Cambridge’s Department of Geography, said: “Three consecutive droughts would have had a devastating impact on the productivity of Roman Britain’s most important agricultural region. As Roman writers tell us, this resulted in food shortages with all of the destabilizing societal effects this brings.”

Between 1836–2024 CE, southern Britain only experienced droughts of a similar magnitude seven times – mostly in recent decades, and none of these were consecutive, emphasising how exceptional these droughts were in Roman times. The researchers identified no other major droughts in southern Britain in the period 350–500 CE and found that other parts of northwestern Europe escaped these conditions.

Roman Britain’s main produce were crops like spelt wheat and six-row barley. Because the province had a wet climate, sowing these crops in spring was more viable than in winter, but this made them vulnerable to late spring and early summer moisture deficits, and early summer droughts could lead to total crop failure.

The researchers point to surviving accounts written by Roman chroniclers to corroborate these drought-driven grain deficits. By 367 CE, Ammianus Marcellinus described the population of Britain as in the “utmost conditions of famine”.

“Drought from 364 to 366 CE would have impacted spring-sown crop growth substantially, triggering poor harvests,” Charles Norman said. “This would have reduced the grain supply to Hadrian’s Wall, providing a plausible motive for the rebellion there which allowed the Picts into northern Britain.”

The study suggests that given the crucial role of grain in the contract between soldiers and the army, grain deficits may have contributed to other desertions in this period, and therefore a general weakening of the Roman army in Britain. In addition, the geographic isolation of Roman Britain likely combined with the severity of the prolonged drought to reduce the ability of Rome to alleviate the deficits.

Ultimately the researchers argue that military and societal breakdown in Roman Britain provided an ideal opportunity for peripheral tribes, including the Picts, Scotti and Saxons, to invade the province en masse with the intention of raiding rather than conquest. Their finding that the most severe conditions were restricted to southern Britain undermines the idea that famines in other provinces might have forced these tribes to invade.

Andreas Rzepecki, from the Generaldirektion Kulturelles Erbe Rheinland-Pfalz, said: “Our findings align with the accounts of Roman chroniclers and the seemingly coordinated nature of the ‘Conspiracy’ suggests an organised movement of strong onto weak, rather than a more chaotic assault had the invaders been in a state of desperation.”

“The prolonged and extreme drought seems to have occurred during a particularly poor period for Roman Britain, in which food and military resources were being stripped for the Rhine frontier, while immigratory pressures increased.”

“These factors limited resilience, and meant a drought induced, partial-military rebellion and subsequent external invasion were able to overwhelm the weakened defences.”

The researchers expanded their climate-conflict analysis to the entire Roman Empire for the period 350–476 CE. They reconstructed the climate conditions immediately before and after 106 battles and found that a statistically significant number of battles were fought following dry years.

Tatiana Bebchuk, from Cambridge’s Department of Geography, said: “The relationship between climate and conflict is becoming increasingly clear in our own time so these findings aren’t just important for historians. Extreme climate conditions lead to hunger, which can lead to societal challenges, which eventually lead to outright conflict.”

Charles Norman, Ulf Büntgen, Paul Krusic and Tatiana Bebchuk are based at the Department of Geography, University of Cambridge; Lothar Schwinden and Andreas Rzepecki are from the Generaldirektion Kulturelles Erbe Rheinland-Pfalz in Trier. Ulf Büntgen is also affiliated with the Global Change Research Institute, Czech Academy of Sciences and the Department of Geography, Masaryk University in Brno.

 

Reference

C. Norman, L. Schwinden, P. Krusic, A. Rzepecki, T. Bebchuk, U. Büntgen, ‘Droughts and conflicts during the late Roman period’, Climatic Change (2025). DOI: 10.1007/s10584-025-03925-4

 

Funding

Charles Norman was supported by Wolfson College, University of Cambridge (John Hughes PhD Studentship). Ulf Büntgen received funding from the Czech Science Foundation (# 23-08049S; Hydro8), the ERC Advanced Grant (# 882727; Monostar), and the ERC Synergy Grant (# 101118880; Synergy-Plague).

 

Media contacts

Tom Almeroth-Williams, Communications Manager, University of Cambridge: researchcommunications@admin.cam.ac.uk

Charles Norman, University of Cambridge: capn2@cam.ac.uk

---

Journal

Climatic Change

DOI

10.1007/s10584-025-03925-4 

Article Title

Droughts and conflicts during the late Roman period

Article Publication Date

16-Apr-2025

Big Loss for the Public': Trump to End Free IRS Tax Filing Program

"Donald Trump and Elon Musk are going after Direct File because it stops giant tax prep companies from ripping taxpayers off for services that should be free."


A Direct File sign is held in front of the Internal Revenue Service building on April 5, 2024 in Washington, D.C.
(Photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for Economic Security Project)
'


Jessica Corbett
Apr 16, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

On the heels of Tax Day in the United States, The Associated Press reported Wednesday that the Trump administration plans to end Direct File, a free electronic program for filing tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service, citing two unnamed sources familiar with the decision.

The news drew swift outrage, including from U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who took aim at President Donald Trump and his adviser Elon Musk on the billionaire's social media platform X.

"Donald Trump and Elon Musk are going after Direct File because it stops giant tax prep companies from ripping taxpayers off for services that should be free," said Warren. "Americans want a free and easy way to file their taxes—Trump and Musk want to take that away."

According to the AP:
The program had been in limbo since the start of the Trump administration as Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency have slashed their way through the federal government. Musk posted in February on his social media site, X, that he had "deleted" 18F, a government agency that worked on technology projects such as Direct File.

There was some hope that Musk, with his DOGE team of computer programmers, could take over Direct File and improve it. But the two people familiar with the decision to end Direct File said its future became clear when the IRS staff assigned to the program were told in mid-March to stop working on its development for the 2026 tax filing season.

Concerns about the future of the program—rolled out under the Biden administration—predated Musk's post. Dozens of congressional Republicans urged Trump to scrap the program in December, and the following month, the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen revealed that throughout those 29 lawmakers' careers, they had taken more than $1.8 million in campaign contributions from "Big Tax Prep and their proxies."

Public Citizen was among the organizations that responded to the reporting on Wednesday by blasting the Trump administration for "taking money out of the pockets of working people and giving it away to their Big Business and tech bro buddies."

Yale Law School professor Natasha Sarin—who was previously an official at the U.S. Treasury Department—wrote on social media that "this is terrible, terrible, terrible news for the American people and the tax system. The only winners are high-cost tax preparers."


"President Trump has said tax filing should be so simple that you could file on a postcard!" she noted. "The IRS had built something even better... It's devastating to watch so much good work undone."

While many Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives pushed to kill Direct File, multiple Democrats from the chamber joined the chorus of condemnation in response to Wednesday's reporting.

"IRS Direct File gave people a simple and FREE way to file their taxes. Trump wants to get rid of it and allow tax preparation corporations to continue to rip taxpayers off with predatory fees," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). "So much for cutting costs for the American people."

Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) similarly said that "Trump's plan to kill Direct File is a gift to billion-dollar tax prep companies at the expense of American families. Once again, he's siding with profits over people."

Rohit Chopra, whose previous roles in government include directing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under former President Joe Biden, called out one company in particular, declaring the development "a big win for Intuit's profits on TurboTax, but a big loss for the public."

While Trump and Musk have framed their government-gutting work as an effort to make the federal bureaucracy more "efficient," their plans to destroy the program seem to accomplish the opposite. Before the news broke, Groundwork Collaborative senior fellow Kitty Richards said in a Tuesday statement that "Direct File is a crystal clear example of government efficiency at work."

"Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay exorbitant fees to predatory for-profit companies just to file their taxes," Richard asserteds. "As cost-of-living remains top of mind for so many Americans, the government should invest in and expand tools like Direct File that put money back into the pockets of working families."

"Unfortunately, the president is waging a war against the IRS—and hamstringing vital taxpayer services like Direct File in the process—so his wealthy donors can cheat on their taxes," she added. "The only people who benefit from a weakened IRS are billionaires like Donald Trump and Elon Musk."

'Catastrophic': Fast-Tracking of Line 5 Tunnel Under Great Lakes Denounced as Big Oil Gift From Trump

"This is a travesty and a danger to the Great Lakes," wrote one activist.


Environmental and Native American activists rally in Detroit, Michigan to shut down the Enbridge Line 5 oil pipeline, which runs under the Straits of Mackinac, on May 12, 2021.
(Photo: Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

Eloise Goldsmith
Apr 16, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Environmentalists warned Wednesday that the drinking water for over 40 million people is now at greater risk after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under U.S. President Donald Trump announced fast-track procedures for the controversial Line 5 oil and gas pipeline tunnel project in the nation's Great Lakes region.

The emergency declaration for the project stems from Trump's executive order declaring a national energy emergency on his first day back in the White House.

"The only energy 'emergency' the American people face is Trump's efforts to disregard clean air and water safeguards in order to rush through dirty, dangerous fossil fuel projects," said Mahyar Sorour, a director at the green group Sierra Club, in response to the news.

The Line 5 pipeline carries oil and gas for 645 miles from Superior, Wisconsin, to Sarnia, Ontario, crossing Michigan's two peninsulas, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

A section of the pipeline runs below the Straits of Mackinac, which connects Lake Huron and Lake Michigan. The pipeline is owned by the Canadian oil and gas transport company Enbridge, which has proposed relocating the section of the Line 5 pipeline that runs below the Straits of Macinack into a tunnel below the lakebed. The company claims this solution, its "Great Lakes Tunnel Project," will eliminate any chance of a "pipeline incident in the Straits."

Data compiled by a National Wildlife Federation researcher and released in 2017 found that Line 5 had spilled at least 1.13 million gallons of oil in 29 incidents between 1968 and 2017.

"Trump has proven yet again that he'll back Big Oil and corporate interests over the safety and well-being of real people," said Sierra Club Michigan chapter director Elayne Coleman. "Fast-tracking the Line 5 tunnel puts us at risk for catastrophic damage. An oil spill would contaminate the water for tens of millions, cost billions of taxpayer dollars to clean up, and destroy Michigan fishing and tourism."

Coleman also called on Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to step in and stop the project.

Oil and Water Don’t Mix, a Michigan group that opposes Line 5, wrote Wednesday that "Now would be a good time for Gov. Whitmer to stand up for the Great Lakes and oppose the Line 5 tunnel."

In a social media post, veteran water protection advocate and author Maude Barlow called the move by Trump a "travesty and a danger to the Great Lakes!"

The special designation for the Line 5 tunnel project comes on the heels of a Keystone oil pipeline spill earlier in April. On April 8, that pipeline was shut down after it ruptured, spilling an estimated 3,500 barrels of oil into an agricultural field in North Dakota.

Outrage as Trump Blows Up Endangered Species Act Protection by Redefining One Word


One conservation campaigner accused the president of "trying to drive a knife through the heart of the Endangered Species Act."

A pair of American bald eagles are seen perched on a nesting stand at the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in Cambridge, Maryland. The birds of prey—symbols of the United States—are among the many species saved by the Endangered Species Act.
(Photo: Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Apr 16, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

The Trump administration on Wednesday published an anticipated proposal that one green group warned "would rescind nearly all habitat protections for endangered species nationwide" by changing the regulatory definition of a single word in the country's cornerstone wildlife conservation law.

Two federal agencies published a proposed overhaul of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that would rescind the definition of "harm" to plants and animals protected under the landmark 1973 legislation, which according to the U.S. Department of the Interior has saved 99% of listed species from extinction.

Under the proposal from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), habitat destruction—the leading driver of extinction—would not be considered "harm." Opponents say the Trump administration is planning the redefinition in order to enable more destructive resource extraction like logging, mining, and fossil fuel expansion that would imperil ESA-protected species.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) warned that the proposal would open the door "for industries of all kinds to destroy the natural world and drive species to extinction in the process."



Noah Greenwald, CBD's co-director of endangered species, said Wednesday that U.S. President Donald Trump "is trying to drive a knife through the heart of the Endangered Species Act."

"We refuse to let him wipe out America's imperiled wildlife, and I believe the courts won't allow this radical assault on conservation," he continued. "There's just no way to protect animals and plants from extinction without protecting the places they live, yet the Trump administration is opening the flood gates to immeasurable habitat destruction."

"This administration's greed and contempt for imperiled wildlife know no bounds, but most Americans know that we destroy the natural world at our own peril," Greenwald added. "Nobody voted to drive spotted owls, Florida panthers, or grizzly bears to extinction."

CBD says the definition of harm has been "pivotal to protecting and recovering endangered species," noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that it includes habitat destruction.

Andrew Bowman, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, said Wednesday, "Despite the fact that the Endangered Species Act is America's single greatest tool to prevent species extinction, has a 99% success rate, and is supported across party lines and the country by 95% of the electorate, the Trump administration is hell-bent on destroying it to further line the pockets of industry."

"The vast majority of imperiled wildlife listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA are there because of loss of habitat," Bowman added. "This latest salvo to redefine 'harm' to eliminate protection for wildlife from habitat destruction, if successful, will further imperil threatened and endangered species. We will fight this action and continue to protect the wildlife and wild places we hold dear as a nation."

Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, on Wednesday accused the Trump administration of "trying to rewrite basic biology."

"Like all of us, endangered species need a safe place to live," Caputo said. "This misguided new proposal threatens a half-century of progress in protecting and restoring endangered species. We are prepared to go to court to ensure that America doesn't abandon its endangered wildlife."

Trump has already attacked the ESA during his current term by issuing an executive order declaring a "national energy emergency" meant to promote his "drill, baby, drill" fossil fuel policy. The order states that the ESA and Marine Mammal Protection Act will not be allowed stand in the way of fossil fuel development.

The proposed redefinition of "harm" in the ESA comes as the Trump administration, spearheaded by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, eviscerates federal agencies including the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA. As he did during his first term, Trump is pursuing a massive rollback of climate and environmental regulations and has appointed Cabinet secretaries whose backgrounds and beliefs are often inimical to their agencies' purposes.

These include Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, a staunch fossil fuel proponent; Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former CEO of a fracking company who has denied the existence of a climate emergency; and Environmental Protect Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, described by the Sunrise Movement as "a disaster for our planet and a win for Big Oil."

In response to the administration's proposal, Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous said that "in Donald Trump's world, future generations will know bald eagles, blue whales, grizzly bears, and other imperiled species only through photographs."

"A world with the ESA is a world where those species have a chance to thrive," he added. "We will do everything in our power to defend this law and save our wildlife for future generations."