Ex-Canadian foreign minister appointed economic advisor in Ukraine

By AFP
January 5, 2026


Chrystia Freeland is of Ukrainian origin and was the first woman to serve as Canada's finance minister - Copyright GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP/File Drew Angerer

Liberal politician Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s former minister of finance and foreign affairs, said Monday she will leave Parliament in Ottawa to work as an economic advisor to Ukraine.

Of Ukrainian origin, Freeland was appointed by President Volodymyr Zelensky while serving as the Canadian prime minister’s special representative for the reconstruction of Ukraine, after holding several political leadership roles in recent years.

“Ukraine is at the forefront of today’s global fight for democracy, and I welcome this chance to contribute on an unpaid basis as an economic advisor to President Zelensky,” Freeland wrote on X.

Freeland, 57, a former journalist, speaks Ukrainian, English, French, Italian and Russian fluently. She was the first woman to be finance minister in Canada and served as deputy prime minister.

Zelensky praised Freeland in a post announcing her appointment Monday, saying she “is highly skilled” and “has extensive experience in attracting investment and implementing economic transformations.”

“Right now, Ukraine needs to strengthen its internal resilience – both for the sake of Ukraine’s recovery if diplomacy delivers results as swiftly as possible, and to reinforce our defense if, because of delays by our partners, it takes longer to bring this war to an end,” Zelensky added.

A year ago, Freeland ran to replace Justin Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party and as prime minister after his dramatic resignation from government. She lost and ultimately agreed to join the government of her opponent, Prime Minister Mark Carney.

During US President Donald Trump’s first term, Freeland led trade negotiations for the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, known as the USMCA.

The reality of the front belies the Kremlin’s little music

Monday 5 January 2026, by Daniel Tanuro

‘Russia can only win the war’, ‘Russia has never been beaten’, ‘How naive to think that we could defeat a country that has atomic weapons’... etc etc.

This little (inaccurate) tune, which originated in the Kremlin, is emphatically disseminated by the right, the extreme right and a certain “radical” left.

This was recently illustrated in Belgium when all the parties represented in Parliament, from Vlaams Belang to the PTB, supported De Wever in the case of the Russian assets frozen at Euroclear.

Only a few courageous individuals, such as Cogolati, refused to join forces. The others should ask themselves serious questions: by their attitude, they have helped to strengthen the most right-wing, violently anti-social and anti-democratic coalition the country has seen since the 2nd World War. You only have to read the praise for the Prime Minister in the press to understand this. At a time when trade unions are mobilising against austerity, this support for De Wever-Bouchez is a nasty snub to the social movement.

What’s worse is that we’re hearing more and more of the same, even though it doesn’t correspond to the reality on the battlefield. Of course, Russia dominates (what a surprise, given that it is the second most powerful army in the world!). But it is only nibbling, not breaking through. And it is nibbling ever more slowly, at the cost of terrible losses in men (1.4 million!) and equipment. Whether in armoured columns or by small groups of infantrymen, the Russian attacks are decimated by the drones, which the Ukrainians manoeuvre brilliantly.

The Ukrainian resistance is truly admirable, despite the Western brakes. It is more than just resistance. In Kupiansk, the counter-offensive drove the Russians out of the town that Putin himself claimed to have definitively won. A real slap in the face for the Kremlin! In Pokrovsk, the Putin soldiers are still not in control (after 700 days of assaults!). North of Pokrovsk, the Ukrainian army has retaken 5 villages. In Ulaipole, the invaders boasted that they had won, and even occupied the territorial defence HQ. That’s true, but Ukrainian troops are counter-attacking and have regained a foothold in the town.

It’s a war of attrition. Russia is holding out mainly because its neo-fascist regime has completely atomised society, because it attracts goons with salaries several times higher than the average wage (thanks to oil revenues, etc.), because Trump and his henchmen support it and because Europe is relying on Putin to maintain order just in case. Ukraine is holding on because its people have enjoyed the freedoms won since 1991, after decades of colonial oppression (the Tsar, Stalin, Hitler, then Stalin again and his successors...). The vast majority of the population, despite the terrible difficulties, the bombing of their towns and the power cuts, do not want to be subjected to this neo-fascism, the effects of which they can see in the occupied territories... and on the tortured bodies of the prisoners of war exchanged from time to time with Moscow.

Which of the two will crack? Trump is clearly doing everything to ensure that it is Ukraine. The neo-fascist and extreme right-wing international supports him, as does China under a bureaucratic dictatorship. Nothing but normal. What is not “normal” is that most of this left that calls itself “radical” and “authentic”, or even “Leninist”, led by the PTB, is in practice on the same line as the worst enemies of the working class: against the right of peoples to self-determination! A right which Lenin, to remind the Marxist-Leninists, considered to be an ‘absolute principle’, without which ‘there is no internationalism’...

Which of the two will crack? It is quite possible that it will be Russia. Behind all the talk of Russia being ‘invincible’, things are indeed going badly for Putin. Very bad indeed. Oil refineries are burning, ghost oil tankers are sinking and the war industry can no longer compensate for the losses in tanks, radars and other equipment. That’s why the music is getting louder and louder. This is also why there is no question of the Kremlin agreeing to a ceasefire, let alone a territorial compromise on the basis of what it has acquired by totally destroying it.

Why is there no question of this? Because, if Putin doesn’t get at least the whole of Donbass, people in Russia - the crippled veterans and their families in particular - will rise up and demand an accounting: 1.4 million dead and crippled for that? The news from the front shows that Putin is a long, long way from getting the Donbass. Trump, Witkoff and Kushner wanted to force Zelensky to hand it over, but it won’t work. Zelensky is a liberal, but not a puppet. He is not prepared to commit hara-kiri so that Trump and his gang can do juicy business with the Kremlin. Ukraine cannot agree to give Putin what he has been unable to conquer, despite all his cruelty. And the EU cannot afford to ignore Ukraine’s refusal.

‘You have no cards’, Trump told Zelensky last February. In reality, it is Putin who is holding fewer and fewer cards in this game. Putin, and consequently also Trump, his accomplice.

So, is Ukraine an impossible victory? In the 20th century, at least two small countries - Vietnam and Afghanistan - won against superpowers with nuclear weapons. Quite apart from the obvious differences, these two countries won because their invaders, despite having enormous resources at their disposal, were unable to prevail. The political and economic cost of their gun-toting policies became unbearable. Who will be surprised if the extreme right tries to erase these historical facts from people’s minds? On the other hand, it is painful, and in fact shameful, to have to remind left-wing activists of them, especially when they claim to be anti-imperialists.

SLAVA UKRAINI! SOLIDARITY WITH THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE!

27 December 2025

Translated by International Viewpoint from Facebook.

Attached documents

the-reality-of-the-front-belies-the-kremlin-s-little-music_a9351.pdf (PDF - 908.9 KiB)

Extraction PDF [->article9351]

Daniel Tanuro

Daniel Tanuro, a certified agriculturalist and eco-socialist environmentalist, writes for “La gauche”, (the monthly of Gauche-Anticapitaliste-SAP, Belgian section of the Fourth International). He is also the author of The Impossibility of Green Capitallism, (Resistance Books, Merlin and IIRE, 2010) and Le moment Trump (Demopolis, 2018).

Nestle recalls infant formula in several European countries

JUST LIKE IN THE THIRD WORLD


By AFP
January 5, 2026


Nestle said it was in contact with authorities in the relevant countries - Copyright AFP/File Fabrice COFFRINI

Swiss food giant Nestle announced on Monday a recall of batches of infant formula in several European countries, notably France, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Italy and Sweden, as a precautionary measure.

On its website, the group said it had detected a “quality issue” in an ingredient sourced from one of its major suppliers.

“Nestle has undertaken testing of all arachidonic acid oil and corresponding oil mixes used in the production of potentially impacted infant nutrition products,” it said on its website.

“No illnesses have been confirmed in connection with the products involved to date.”

Nestle said it was in contact with authorities in the relevant countries “to ensure the necessary steps are taken”.

“Nestle assures parents and caregivers that it is implementing appropriate actions, including a product recall where necessary.”

Nestle France said it was carrying out a “preventive and voluntary recall” of certain batches of its Guigoz and Nidal infant formulas after new investigations showed the potential presence of cereulide, a toxin that can cause digestive issues.

The company posted pictures on local versions of its website showing the batch numbers of affected products, which are sold under different names. In Germany they are called Beba and Alfamino.

Nestle provided instructions for returning the products and obtaining a refund, as well as a phone number to answer consumer questions.

OUTLAW LANDMINES

Landmines destroy limbs and lives on Bangladesh-Myanmar border

ByAFP
January 5, 2026


In the dense hill forests along Bangladesh's border with war-torn Myanmar, villagers are losing limbs to landmines - Copyright AFP Munir UZ ZAMAN

Sheikh Sabiha ALAM

In the dense hill forests along Bangladesh’s border with war-torn Myanmar, villagers are losing limbs to landmines, casualties of a conflict not of their making.

Ali Hossain, 40, was collecting firewood in early 2025 when a blast shattered his life.

“I went into the jungle with fellow villagers. Suddenly, there was an explosion, and my leg was blown off,” he told AFP. “I screamed at the top of my voice.”

Neighbours rushed to stem the spurting blood.

“They picked me up, gathered my severed leg and took me to hospital”, he said.

In Ashartoli, a small settlement in Bandarban district — the village name translates as “haven of hope” — the weapons of a foreign war have turned forests, farms and footpaths deadly.

Bangladesh’s 271-kilometre (168-mile) eastern border with Myanmar cuts through forests, much of it unmarked, as well as rivers.

It is crossed daily by villagers, as their families have done for generations, for collecting firewood or smalltime trading.

Surgeons chopped Hossain’s leg off above the knee.

“My wife had to carry me on her back,” he said, gesturing towards the steep hillside around his home, as he recalled the months after the blast.

A year later, Hossain walks with an artificial leg and a crutch, but he cannot return to his job on a rubber plantation.

Needing 300 taka ($2.50) a day for medicine, his two young sons now take on his former dangerous task, collecting firewood after school.



– ‘My whole life’ –



Similar stories echo across the border region.

“My father and forefathers collected wood from the jungle,” said Mohammad Abu Taleb, 47. “I learned no other trade.”

He crossed unwittingly into Myanmar.

“I stepped on a pile of dry leaves, and there was an explosion,” he said, leaning on a crutch. “It took away my whole life.”

His 10-year-old son has since dropped out of school to help support the family.

Taleb said trips to repair his artificial leg and attend medical checkups cost around US$80 — an impossible burden for a family struggling to survive.

Nurul Amin, 23, lost his leg while attempting to bring a cow across the border, a memory blurred by pain.

“They carried me on their shoulders to the hospital,” he recalls, saying he was more worried that his monthly income had now fallen to around $25-$30.

“That’s not enough for a family,” he said. “I have no other way to survive.”



– ‘Cruelty’ –



Myanmar is the world’s most dangerous country for landmine casualties, according to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which has detailed the “massive” and growing use of the weapons, banned by many countries.

It recorded more than 2,000 casualties in Myanmar in 2024, the latest full statistics available — double the total reported the year before.

“The use of mines appeared to significantly increase in 2024–2025,” it said in its Landmine Monitor report, highlighting “an increase in the number of mine victims, particularly near the border” with Bangladesh.

Bangladesh accuses Myanmar’s military and rival armed forces of planting the mines.

Guerrilla Arakan Army fighters — one of the many factions challenging the junta’s rule — control swathes of jungle across the border with Myanmar.

More than a million Rohingya refugees who fled Myanmar also live in Bangladesh’s border regions — caught between the warring military and separatist groups.

Bangladesh police say that at least 28 people were injured by landmines in 2025.

In November, a Bangladesh border guard was killed when a landmine tore off both his legs.

“This cruelty cannot be legitimised,” said Lieutenant Colonel Kafil Uddin Kayes, a local Border Guard Bangladesh commander.

Bangladesh’s border force has put up warning signs and red flags, and conducts regular mine-sweeping operations.

But villagers say warnings offer little protection when survival depends on entering forests seeded with explosives, leaving communities in Bangladesh to pay the price of war.

“The population is increasing, and people are moving closer to the border, as we have farmlands there,” said 42-year-old farmer Dudu Mia.

“Planting landmines cannot be the solution. It can’t go on like this.”

Climate-driven tree deaths speeding up in Australia: study


By AFP
January 6, 2026


New research show tree mortality is rising across Australia's forest as the climate warms - Copyright AFP Ludovic MARIN

Australia’s forests are losing trees more rapidly as the climate warms, a new study examining decades of data said Tuesday, warning the trend was likely a “widespread phenomenon”.

The research used forest inventory data from 2,700 plots across the country, ranging from cool moist forests to dry savanna.

It excluded areas affected by logging, clearance or fires to examine how “background tree mortality” has changed in recent decades.

“What we found is that the mortality rate has consistently increased over time, in all of the different forest types,” said Belinda Medlyn, a professor at Western Sydney University’s Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment.

“And this increase is very likely caused by the increase in temperature,” she told AFP.

The world has warmed by an average of nearly 1.2 degrees Celsius since the pre-industrial era. Most of this warming has occurred in the last 50 years.

The rate at which trees die off in a forest can vary in response to different types of disturbances, or as forests grow thicker and there is greater competition for resources.

But the research, published in the Nature Plants journal, excluded areas affected by fires or clearing, and also examined the stand basal area — the sum of the cross-sectional areas of all trees in an area.

“The (mortality) trend over time remains even after we correct for basal area,” explained Medlyn, who led the research.

The scale of the increase varied across the four different biomes surveyed, with the sharpest rise in tropical savannas.

There, the number of trees dying on average increased by 3.2 percent a year, from close to 15 per 1,000 in 1996, to nearly double that number by 2017.

The research found that the deaths were not being matched by tree growth, so forest stock overall is declining.

That makes it “very likely that the overall carbon storage capacity in the forests is declining over time”, said Medlyn.

And given the trend was observed across four ecosystems — tropical savanna, cool temperate forest, warm temperate forest and tropical rainforest — it is likely to be “a widespread phenomenon, not just an Australian thing”, she added.

The rising mortality rate tracks warming and drying linked to climate change, and the study found the fastest rise in hotter, dryer regions.

The research comes months after a study found Australia’s tropical rainforests were among the first in the world to start emitting more carbon dioxide than they absorb.

Taken together, the findings paint a worrying picture of our continued ability to rely on forests to absorb our emissions.

“Forests globally currently sequester about one-third of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions,” said Medlyn.

“Our study suggests their capacity to act as buffer will decline over time.”

CDC urges ‘shared decision-making’ on some childhood vaccines; many unclear about what that means

Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

PHILADELPHIA – On Jan. 5, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) dramatically reduced the number of recommended childhood vaccinations from 17 to 11, citing practices in other wealthy nations, including Denmark, Germany, and Japan. The CDC said that parents could choose to have their children receive some previously recommended vaccines, including those for flu, rotavirus, Covid-19, meningitis, and hepatitis A and B, after “shared clinical decision-making.”

The CDC’s announcement followed other similar moves by federal health officials. In December, the CDC’s vaccination advisory committee, whose members were handpicked by longtime vaccine critic Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., voted to scrap the blanket recommendation of a birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine for all infants. Instead, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, replaced that guidance with the recommendation that the vaccine be given automatically only to infants whose mothers test positive for hepatitis B. Infants whose mothers do not test positive for hepatitis B could get vaccinated against it if their parents choose to do so after taking part in shared clinical decision-making.

Two months earlier, the CDC updated its immunization schedules to also recommend shared clinical decision-making for Covid-19 vaccination among everyone age 6 months and older. 

ACIP defines shared clinical decision-making vaccinations (on a web page dated Jan. 7, 2025) as “individually based and informed by a decision process between the health care provider and the patient or parent/guardian.” Health care providers to discuss vaccination with, according to the CDC, include primary care physicians, specialists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, and pharmacists.

Does the American public understand what shared decision-making means?

In a pair of nationally representative panel surveys of U.S. adults conducted in August and December, the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) asked Americans about their understanding of this new policy from federal health authorities. In an August 2025 survey of 1,699 U.S. adults, APPC asked about Americans’ understanding of “shared decision-making.” In a follow-up survey in December 2025, an APPC survey asked 1,637 respondents about their understanding of what a “health care provider” is in the context of shared decision-making.

The surveys find significant gaps in Americans’ understanding of shared decision-making when it comes to getting vaccinated and having their babies and children vaccinated against potentially deadly illnesses.

“Expecting parents to engage in shared decision-making with health care providers about routine, thoroughly studied childhood vaccinations suggests that the public health community has doubts about the safety and efficacy of these vaccines when it does not,” said Patrick E. Jamieson, director of APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute. “These vaccines have been part of the recommended childhood schedule because the benefits of taking them substantially outweigh the risks.”

An incomplete understanding of ‘shared decision-making’

The August 2025 survey asked what respondents thought shared decision-making means when the CDC recommends it in the context of whether to get a new vaccine. It also asked respondents about the meaning of shared decision-making specifically regarding vaccinating children against Covid-19. In both cases, respondents could select as many responses as apply. The survey found that:

• More than two-thirds (68%) know shared decision-making means they should review their or their child’s medical history with their health care provider before deciding whether the vaccine is right for them or their child. The same proportion (68%) say this regarding a Covid-19 vaccine for healthy children and teens.
• 1 in 5 people (22%) think shared decision-making also means that “taking the vaccine may not be a good idea for everyone but would benefit some.” One in 5 (20%) also chose this regarding vaccination of children against Covid-19. The ACIP web page notes that “Unlike routine, catch-up, and risk-based recommendations, shared clinical decision-making vaccinations are not recommended for everyone in a particular age group or everyone in an identifiable risk group.”
• However, more than 2 in 5 people incorrectly say shared decision-making means it’s up to an individual whether to consult with their health care provider before taking a vaccine about whether it would be a good idea. In the surveys, 42% say this about taking a new vaccine and 45% say this about having a child vaccinated against Covid-19.

In fact, ACIP’s shared clinical decision-making recommendations do not suggest that patients get vaccines without talking to their health care provider; they only state that clinicians can decide which patients to discuss particular vaccinations with. In addition, the surveys find that:

• About a quarter of those surveyed say shared decision-making means they should discuss the vaccination decision with their family (23% for any vaccine; 25% regarding children and the Covid-19 vaccine). However, discussing the decision with family is not a part of the ACIP shared clinical decision-making recommendations.
• Over 1 in 10 are not sure what shared decision-making means, either for a new vaccine (13%) or for vaccinating children against Covid-19 (12%).

Few know a pharmacist can be part of shared decision-making

When asked about “shared decision-making” with a “health care provider,” many Americans are not sure who would be included among that group. Survey respondents were provided with six options and asked to select as many as apply.

Predictably, the vast majority of U.S. adults (86%) choose a physician. Two-thirds (66%) choose a physician assistant or nurse practitioner.

But only half (50%) choose registered nurse, and just a third (33%) choose pharmacist.

“With many vaccines available at pharmacies without a prescription, it is important for Americans to know they can talk to their pharmacist directly about their vaccination decisions,” said Ken Winneg, APPC’s managing director of survey research.

Small groups of respondents selected other practitioners as health care providers, including clinical social worker (8%) and acupuncturist (3%). Neither of those professions is included in ACIP’s list of health care providers to share in clinical shared decision-making. A small proportion are not sure (7%) and just 1% choose none of the options as a “health care provider.”

Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) survey

The survey data come from the 25th and 26th waves of a nationally representative panel of U.S. adults conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by SSRS, an independent market research company. Wave 25 (n=1,699) of the Annenberg Science and Public Health Knowledge (ASAPH) survey was fielded Aug. 5-18, 2025. Wave 26 (n=1,637) was fielded Nov. 17-Dec. 1, 2025. The margin of sampling error (MOE) for both waves is ± 3.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole number and may not add to 100%. Combined subcategories may not add to totals in the topline and text due to rounding.

Download the topline and the methods reports.

The policy center has been tracking the American public’s knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding vaccination, Covid-19, flu, RSV, and other consequential health issues through this survey panel since April 2021. APPC’s ASAPH survey team includes research analyst Laura A. Gibson; Patrick E. Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute; and Ken Winneg, managing director of survey research.

See other recent Annenberg health survey news releases:

• MMR vaccine safety: As measles cases rise, views of MMR vaccine safety and effectiveness and willingness to recommend it drop (Dec. 22, 2025)
• Whooping cough: Cases of whooping cough remain high, but knowledge about the disease still low (Dec. 18, 2025)
• Hepatitis B vaccine: Although public overwhelmingly supports hepatitis B vaccine for a newborn, partisan differences exist (Dec. 5, 2025)
• Vaccine safety: Americans more likely to trust American Medical Association than CDC on vaccination safety (Dec. 3, 2025)
• Measles and the MMR vaccine: Public not highly knowledgeable about safety of MMR vaccine or risks of getting measles (Oct. 30, 2025)

The Annenberg Public Policy Center was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

US recommends fewer childhood vaccines in major shift


By AFP
January 5, 2026


The US will no longer recommend that every child receive immunizations against several diseases including rotavirus and influenza - Copyright AFP Annela NIAMOLO

The Trump administration on Monday overhauled the United States’ pediatric vaccine schedule, upending years of scientifically backed recommendations that reduced disease with routine shots.

The dramatic shift — announced by the US health department, which is led by long-time vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — means the country will no longer recommend that every child receive immunizations against several diseases including rotavirus and influenza.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention instead will recommend that shots preventing those illnesses as well as hepatitis A, hepatitis B and meningococcal disease be administered for select groups of high-risk individuals or when parents and a child’s doctor deem them warranted, rather than as standard practice.

The agency had already shifted to this recommendation model for Covid-19 shots in 2025.

At the end of 2024, the CDC was recommending 17 pediatric immunizations for all individuals, the agency said. Now that number is 11.

President Donald Trump praised the changes, noting that the “MAHA Moms” — a base of online influencers who ardently support Kennedy’s agenda — “have been praying for these common sense reforms for many years.”

Trump’s message heralding the schedule overhaul followed a TruthSocial post rife with false statements about vaccine safety and recommendations that contradict scientific consensus.

The decision follows Trump’s directive last month that health officials compare the US vaccine schedule to peer countries abroad.

They were notably focused on Denmark. The new US recommendations now more closely resemble that country’s schedule.

“After an exhaustive review of the evidence, we are aligning the US childhood vaccine schedule with international consensus while strengthening transparency and informed consent. This decision protects children, respects families, and rebuilds trust in public health,” Kennedy said in a statement.

But medical and public health experts slammed the overhaul.

Sean O’Leary, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases, said “the US child vaccine schedule is one of the most thoroughly researched tools we have to protect children from serious, sometimes deadly diseases.”

“It’s so important that any decision about the US childhood vaccination schedule should be grounded in evidence, transparency and established scientific processes, not comparisons that overlook critical differences between countries or health systems,” he told journalists.

Experts at the Vaccine Integrity Project, an initiative out of the University of Minnesota, recently noted that the US had already been in line with global consensus.

Denmark, project researchers said, represents more of an outlier among “peer countries” than a standard.

“Denmark’s schedule reflects a set of choices made in a small, highly homogeneous country with a centralized health care system that guarantees universal access to care, low baseline disease prevalence, and strong social infrastructure,” the group wrote.

“Those conditions do not apply to the United States, not even close.”



– ‘More confusing for parents’ –



Senator Bill Cassidy, whose deciding vote confirmed Kennedy’s controversial appointment as health chief last year, said that “changing the pediatric vaccine schedule based on no scientific input on safety risks and little transparency will cause unnecessary fear for patients and doctors.”

The Republican, himself a doctor, said doing so would “make America sicker.”

States have the authority to mandate vaccinations, but generally CDC recommendations wield significant influence over state policies.

US officials have said that access as well as insurance coverage of vaccines should remain in place, even for shots not broadly recommended by the federal government.

“All vaccines currently recommended by CDC will remain covered by insurance without cost sharing,” said Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the federal health insurance programs.

“No family will lose access. This framework empowers parents and physicians to make individualized decisions based on risk, while maintaining strong protection against serious disease.”

But public health authorities warned that the changes would only sow doubt and confusion, especially as vaccine skepticism has mushroomed in the wake of the pandemic.

O’Leary said the shift “just makes things more confusing for parents and clinicians.”

“Tragically, our federal government can no longer be trusted” to provide vaccine recommendations, he added.

 

New research finds that an ‘equal treatment’ approach to economic opportunity advertising can backfire

But with ‘equal exposure’ spending policy modifications, everyone benefits

Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

BALTIMORE, Jan. 6, 2026—A new study published in the INFORMS journal Marketing Science has found that some of the most widely considered online advertising safety and fairness policies may actually boost ad platform revenues while improving fairness outcomes. The policies at the center of the study are around ads that are designed to help ensure that women, minorities and other protected classes are not disproportionately excluded from job, education and financial opportunities.

The study, “Is Fair Advertising Good for Platforms?,” by Di Yuan of Auburn University, Manmohan Aseri of the University of Maryland and Tridas Mukhopadhyay of Carnegie Mellon University, investigated whether policies intended to equalize exposure to economic-opportunity advertisements help or hurt ad platforms financially.

Contrary to industry assumptions, the researchers found that when platforms implement an Equal Exposure with Equal Treatment (EET) policy that requires equal per-capita ad exposure across demographic groups, competition among advertisers intensifies, increasing the total number of dollars spent on advertising.

Empirical reporting has shown that protected groups such as women and minorities are less likely to encounter job, housing or financial opportunity ads online.

Case in point is the female demographic. Because women are a highly sought-after consumer marketing demographic, it costs more online to target them with consumer advertising. But when trying to target women as a demographic for economic-opportunity advertising, it is more expensive to reach them with economic opportunity ads, so as a result they are less likely to be as exposed to those kinds of ads.

Economic-opportunity advertisers (like employers or universities), by contrast to consumer marketing brands, value all users equally but cannot simply outbid specialized retailers to ensure that women see their ads.

“This asymmetric valuation creates a systematic disparity,” said co-author Aseri. “Retailers unintentionally crowd out opportunity-focused advertisers for certain demographics, resulting in fewer job or education ads reaching those protected groups.”

The researchers modeled advertiser competition under three policies: No Restriction (NR) – Advertisers can fully target based on demographics; Equal Treatment (ET) – Economic-opportunity advertisers cannot target by demographic group; and Equal Exposure with Equal Treatment (EET) – Platforms ensure equal exposure while also prohibiting demographic targeting.

While Equal Treatment is widely implemented by platforms as a result of regulatory pressure, the study showed this approach often fails to solve the problems associated with ads simply not reaching their target. In fact, the researchers found that in some cases “equal treatment” ads performed worse than if there were no restrictions at all.

“Equal treatment alone doesn’t fix the competitive imbalance,” said co-author Yuan. “Our analysis shows that it can even reduce platform profits and fail to close the exposure gap between protected and regular users.”

Under the EET policy, however, platforms that commit to boosting the effective ad budgets of economic-opportunity advertisers only when necessary to equalize exposure tend to do better. The study authors found that the mere existence of this rule changes advertiser behavior, reducing “market segmentation” that previously let advertisers avoid competing directly.

As a result, advertisers spend more aggressively, platforms earn more total advertising revenue, and protected class demographics equal and increased exposure to economic-opportunity ads.

“This is a rare case where fairness and profit objectives are aligned,” said Mukhopadhyay. “By removing the incentive to differentiate across demographic groups, competition itself provides the solution.”

About Marketing Science and INFORMS

Marketing Science is a premier peer-reviewed scholarly marketing journal focused on research using quantitative approaches to study all aspects of the interface between consumers and firms. It is published by INFORMS, the world’s largest association for professionals and students in operations research, AI, analytics, data science and related disciplines.

INFORMS serves as a global authority in advancing cutting-edge practices and fostering an interdisciplinary community of innovation. With a network of more than 12,000 members across academia, industry and government, INFORMS connects thought leaders and emerging professionals who apply science and technology to solve complex challenges and drive better decision-making.

Through its prestigious journals, world-class conferences, certification programs, and professional resources, INFORMS empowers its community to enhance operational efficiency, elevate organizational performance and promote smarter decisions for a better world.

Discover more at www.informs.org

# # #

---

Journal

Marketing Science

DOI

10.1287/mksc.2023.0201 

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Is Fair Advertising Good for Platforms?