Whole Foods staff protest against conditions as coronavirus cases rise

Workers say too little is being done to enforce social distancing in stores, and some are not given masks or training on cleaning
Michael Sainato Thu 16 Apr 2020 
 

‘The bottom line is we don’t think Whole Foods or Amazon is doing nearly enough as they could to protect both employees and customers at the store in terms of personal safety and public health.’ Photograph: Peter Foley/EPA

Whole Foods workers across the US are planning to hold another sickout protest on 1 May, as the number of confirmed cases of coronavirus infections at the supermarket chain continues to rise and workers charge the Amazon-owned company is doing too little to help them.


Workers complain too little is being done to enforce social distancing in stores; it is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to qualify for sick pay; and some are not given masks or training on cleaning. In the meantime, Whole Foods is reportedly recording record sales.

Dan Steinbrook, an employee at Whole Foods in Boston, said: “The bottom line is we don’t think Whole Foods or Amazon is doing nearly enough as they could be to protect both employees and customers at the store in terms of personal safety and public health.”

Steinbrook, who also participated in a sickout protest on 31 March organized by Whole Worker, a worker activism group said: “Grocery stores are one of the only places open to the public so they’ve become a significant public health concern in terms of stopping the spread of this disease. Any transmission we can stop at the grocery stores is extremely important for saving a lot of lives.”

Whole Foods workers have become increasingly concerned over the confirmed cases of coronavirus at Whole Foods stores. Employees have tested positive for coronavirus at Whole Foods locations across the country including West Orange, New Jersey; Sudbury, Massachusetts; Brookline, Massachusetts; Arlington, Massachusetts; Hingham, Massachusetts; Cambridge, Massachusetts; San Francisco, California; New York City, New York; Fort Lauderdale, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Allentown, Pennsylvania.

The Guardian spoke to several Whole Foods workers across the US about working conditions and the company’s policies. The workers requested to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation.

“I haven’t felt safe going into work because Whole Foods hasn’t really done anything to combat the amount of Amazon shoppers in the stores,” said a Whole Foods employee at Bowery Place in New York City, the center of the coronavirus pandemic in the US. “The store has been closing earlier, but they still want us to stay until 11pm to clean, and we aren’t trained to clean or given masks or anything.”

Whole Foods workers have noted some stores where a worker has tested positive for coronavirus have yet to be publicly reported in the media.

“Team members are being told there was a deep clean overnight and not to worry,” said a Whole Foods worker in West Bloomfield, Michigan. “I’m scared to work. I have three immune sensitive people living in my house and I don’t want to get them sick, but I can’t lose my only income.”

A worker at Whole Foods in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, said there have been two positive cases at their store. “It has been almost impossible to maintain basic social distancing practices. We’ve seen huge sales ever since the outbreak and it’s been all hands on deck. As of 1 April, there were no limits on the number of customers allowed in at a given time,” said the employee.

In Minnesota, a Whole Foods employee is currently on unpaid leave after experiencing coronavirus symptoms when their roommate was advised by their doctor to self-quarantine.

“When I talked to my HR department they told me I would need to take a two week leave as well, but unless I test positive for Covid-19, I do not qualify for the ‘guaranteed two weeks paid time off’ corporate is saying they are offering,” said the worker. “Everyone knows tests are limited and unavailable to most people unless they are showing severe symptoms, and as retail workers, many of us cannot afford to go to the doctor unless we’re in desperate need of medical attention.”

A Whole Foods employee in Massachusetts is also currently taking unpaid leave after experiencing coronavirus symptoms.

“I’m in a situation where I can’t get tested or afford a doctor. At first I was told I wouldn’t be eligible for sick pay without a positive test. Later I was told that I might qualify, that pay was being disbursed on a case by case basis. My case has been pending for over a week with no response and I ran out of paid time off,” said the worker.

“My parents lent me money, so I’ll be able to finish quarantine and still afford groceries. Money was tight before bills were due, and those fears kept me from reaching out to a doctor. My symptoms were mild, but I don’t know what I would have done if they got serious.”

A Whole Foods spokesperson told the Guardian: “The safety of our team members and customers is our top priority and we are diligently following all guidance from local health and food safety authorities. We’ve been working closely with our store Team Members, and are supporting the diagnosed Team Members, who are in quarantine.

“Out of an abundance of caution, each of these stores performed an additional deep cleaning and disinfection, on top of our current enhanced sanitation measures. As we prioritize the health and safety of our customers and Team Members, we will continue to do the following to help contain the spread of Covid-19.”

---30---

Exclusive: FDA may have dropped standards too far in hunt for chloroquine to fight coronavirus - sources

Katherine Eban

(Reuters) - On March 21, two days after President Donald Trump first touted chloroquine drugs as a “gamechanger” in the fight against COVID-19, administration officials privately described what they felt was a “win” in the president’s efforts to build an emergency stockpile of the drugs: a hefty donation of pills from Bayer AG. BayGn.DE


In an exchange of enthusiastic emails among federal health officials reviewed by Reuters, Keagan Lenihan, chief of staff of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), cautioned that “3-4 days” of testing would be needed.

“Potentially serious issues with product so let’s be careful when we take that win,” she wrote.

Bayer has since donated three million tablets of the drug, called Resochin, to the U.S. national stockpile for treatment of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. After a brief period of testing, its use in the United States was approved on an emergency basis.

But three U.S. government sources familiar with the matter told Reuters that there is reason to be concerned about the quality of Resochin and its makers, located in India and Pakistan.

Although some rules can be waived in an emergency, the FDA dropped its quality-control standards too far as it scoured the world for scarce supplies of chloroquine drugs, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The plants that make Resochin ingredients and finished doses in India and Pakistan have never been registered with, or inspected by, the FDA, according to the three government sources, as well as FDA documents compiled in the private online database FDAzilla.com. Some chloroquine drugs were already approved by the FDA before the pandemic as antimalarial medications, a process that required plant inspections. Resochin was not approved.

Pakistani regulators, who inspected Bayer’s Resochin plant in Karachi in 2015, found a “gross failure” in manufacturing processes there, according to documents from the Drugs Regulatory Authority of Pakistan, reviewed by Reuters. And though the FDA has never screened the Indore, India, plant that supplies ingredients for Resochin, the U.S. agency has inspected other Indian plants run by the same Indian supplier and found serious deficiencies, including falsification of records, inspection documents spanning 2014 through 2019 show.

Responding to questions from Reuters about Resochin, FDA spokesman Michael Felberbaum said that the agency “sampled and tested the donated drugs to evaluate acceptability for importation” and they met appropriate standards.

Asked about Lenihan’s March 21 email, the FDA spokesman said the agency “does not comment on alleged, leaked emails.”

In a statement to Reuters, Bayer said that the FDA had tested Resochin “and found it to be of appropriate quality for release to the (stockpile) for emergency use. We are proud to make this donation to the U.S. government in the fight against COVID-19.”

Resochin is part of a class of medications containing one of two active ingredients - chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine - that the Trump administration has praised as a potentially lifesaving treatment. But the effectiveness of chloroquine drugs against coronavirus has not been proven. Though in use for years in the United States as a treatment for malaria and autoimmune conditions such as lupus, the medicines can have serious side effects, including heart arrhythmias.


The three U.S. sources who spoke with Reuters, as well as an independent expert, said spot-testing is not always sufficient to ensure a drug’s safety and effectiveness, and plant inspections normally done by the FDA are crucial to ensuring overall quality.

“If you’re talking about millions of doses, you can’t test every product,” said Stephen Payne, who for years chaired a practice group specializing in the FDA and health care at a global law firm. “You have no idea what you don’t know.”
A PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

Trump first endorsed chloroquine drugs to treat COVID-19 from the White House podium on March 19, citing “very, very encouraging early results” and downplaying any risks. “If things don’t go as planned, it’s not going to kill anyone,” he said.

The statements came as the administration was being hammered for its slow response to the growing coronavirus crisis, which to date has infected more than 637,000 people in the United States, killing almost 31,000. His comments set high public expectations for the drugs, which are now being snapped up all over the globe.

In emails two days later, federal health officials greeted the Bayer donation of chloroquine phosphate, or Resochin, with eagerness.

Cicely Waters, director of external affairs for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), saw a media opportunity. A shipment of two million tablets was due to arrive at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City.

“I would like to get photos of the product coming off of the FedEx plane so we can be prepared to support the story with visuals if this turns out the way we hope,” wrote Waters.

Lenihan of the FDA told the group of health officials that “if it is the product we think it is and it is not toxic we will release it to ASPR” - the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, a division within HHS.

Reached by email, Lenihan referred Reuters back to the FDA press office. Waters did not respond to an email seeking comment.

One of the participants in the March 21 email discussion appeared to raise the issue of which agency should get credit for the deal. Joseph Hamel, ASPR’s manager of strategic innovation and emerging technology, asked in an email to the group: “How do you want to handle? FDA win? ASPR win? Happy either way, please let us know.”

Hamel did not return an email seeking comment.


Asked about the email exchanges, an HHS spokesman echoed the FDA’s statement, saying the agency would not comment on “alleged, leaked emails.”
‘GROSS FAILURE’

The pills and ingredients welcomed by the administration had origins that should have raised red flags and prompted greater scrutiny, said the three sources who spoke to Reuters.

In 2015, Bayer’s plant in Pakistan, Bayer Pakistan Private Ltd, was cited by that country’s regulators for making Resochin that was lower in potency than labeled, according to inspection documents reviewed by Reuters.

A whistleblower complaint led to the discovery of more than 21 million Resochin tablets that were too weak, more than 12% under the specified weight of 400 milligrams, according to the Pakistani regulatory records.

Officials blamed the problem on a “gross failure” of manufacturing operations, citing improperly calibrated machines, poorly trained workers and insufficient staffing. Weak medications can fail to treat the illness for which they’re prescribed and harm patients.

The investigation was ultimately resolved with Bayer’s agreement to destroy the 21 million doses.

Regarding the 2015 incident, the company told Reuters: “All batches produced with lower content due to an error in production were never released, the corresponding batches destroyed.”

According to FDA records reviewed by Reuters, the active ingredients for the drug are made at a plant in Indore, India, run by Ipca Laboratories Ltd, an Indian drug manufacturer and ingredient supplier that exports its products globally.

In 2016, the FDA issued a warning letter to Ipca regarding three of its plants in India that make chloroquine ingredients and finished pills for companies other than Bayer. The plants did not include the one making the active ingredient for Bayer’s Resochin. Nonetheless, the U.S. government sources said, Ipca’s troubled history calls into question its general practices.

The FDA found the company was deleting, manipulating and fabricating laboratory data, according to the agency’s records. The company vowed at the time to “resolve these issues at the earliest.”

In 2017, the agency restricted drugs and ingredients from those three plants from entering the U.S. market, a regulatory sanction called an import alert. Then in August 2019, the FDA accused one of the Ipca plants of a “cascade of failure” for not properly maintaining its quality data, agency records show.

Ipca did not respond to questions from Reuters about its track record with the FDA.


On March 20, a day after Trump praised the antimalarial drug from the podium, the FDA lifted its import alert for Ipca’s chloroquine ingredients and completed tablets from the three restricted plants, according to a March 21 statement filed by Ipca with the Indian stock exchange.

The company pledged in the statement to adhere to stringent manufacturing standards, “and thus help mankind in the best possible way in these testing times.”


Katherine Eban reported from New York; Editing by Elyse Tanouye and Julie Marquis
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust

Food Vs. Fuel: What Trump's Ethanol Policy Means For The Food System

Oct 25, 2018 Jenny Splitter 

Senior Contributor Food & Drink Forbes
I cover the intersection of technology, farming and food.

Corn is a complicated crop. It’s highly efficient, nutrient-packed and yet, on the other hand, the U.S. probably grows too much of it.

With corn’s high yields and caloric density, it serves as a far better food source than it does as a source for fuel

Corn sits on top of a combine after being harvested in Shelbyville, Kentucky, U.S.

 
The Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with President Trump’s directive to lift a federal ban on high ethanol blended gas during the summer months, though not quickly enough for Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who Reuters reports is urging the EPA to lift the ban on a much quicker timeline. Lifting the ban is a policy shift that’s being celebrated by large-scale corn growers and decried by biofuel opponents. But the policy has implications for the food system too, as many food system reformers say the last thing U.S. farmers should be growing is more corn.

Corn is a complicated crop. It’s highly efficient, nutrient-packed and yet, on the other hand, the U.S. probably grows too much of it. Corn has earned its fair share of criticism — it’s starchy, grown industrially and ubiquitous in ultra-processed food — but this leading cereal crop has also more than earned its place as an agricultural success story.

A beef cow eats grain-based rations at the Texana Feeders feedlot in Floresville, Texas, U.S.
Modern maize is descended from an ancient grass called teosinte. Corn’s ancient precursor was modified over the years by careful seed saving efforts, brought into the U.S. from Mexico by indigenous tribes where it was later introduced to early European settlers, eventually becoming a staple of colonial American cooking.

Synthetic fertilizer, advances in transportation and government subsidies all paved the way for corn to become the U.S.’s highest yielding crop. More corn meant more feed for cattle, which led to a boon in the production of beef and milk, plentiful protein sources for a growing American population.

Corn is nutritionally dense and genetically diverse. There are many, many different types of maize — including popcorn, corn with higher lysine and protein content, blue corn and corn with rainbow-colored gemstone-like kernels. But most of the corn grown in the U.S. doesn’t belong to any of these unique varieties because most of it isn’t actually grown for human consumption at all, and that’s the crux of the food system problem.

Process operator Dean Wingerter takes a corn oil sample, a product used in the production of Biofuels

More than 90 million acres of U.S. farmland is devoted to growing corn, but most of it goes to animal feed and ethanol production. Corn grown for ethanol fuels cars rather than people, and that’s a significant problem for the coming global food crisis, argues Tim Searchinger, Senior Fellow at the World Resources Institute.

Ethanol production began increasing in the 1990s (more than doubling between 1999 and 2004), thanks to a combination of federal and state policies favoring ethanol-blended fuel. Ethanol production surged even more dramatically after authorization of the renewal fuel standard in 2005, passed in part to reduce American reliance on foreign oil. Dependence on foreign oil did indeed decline over the years, but that doesn’t mean the U.S. is less reliant on oil as a fuel source. Americans are still pumping plenty of gas, with more now sourced from U.S.-based fracking operations.

An employee inspects freshly picked ears of bi-color sweet corn at the Scotlynn Sweet Pac Growers

That’s not the only problem with policies favoring ethanol production, however. The increasing reliance on ethanol, ethanol blends and biofuels isn’t actually better for the food system or the environment, argues Searchinger, and that’s because of what he describes as “basically a kind of math error.”

Biofuel advocates argue that even though burning biofuel emits at least as much if not a bit more carbon than regular gas, based on both tailpipe emissions as well as the emissions resulting from ethanol production, those carbon emissions are canceled out because similar levels of carbon are absorbed by the corn when it’s growing in the field.

That would be true, says Searchinger, if the land weren’t already in use as farmland prior to shifting to ethanol production. Since the crops grown on the land have been absorbing carbon all along, “you can't take credit for something that was already occurring.”

That calculus, along with increasing global demand for food, cuts against policies favoring crops for ethanol production, argues Searchinger. “We already have this huge challenge that we have to produce more or less 50% more food,” he says, so why use that farmland for what turns out to be an inefficient fuel source?

It takes a large amount of land to produce a relatively small amount of bioenergy, explains Searchinger, who argues in his working paper, Avoiding Bioenergy Competition For Food Crops and Land, that “[a]lthough photosynthesis is an effective means of producing food, wood products, and carbon stored in vegetation, it is an inefficient means of converting the energy in the sun’s rays into a form of non-food energy useable by people.” That’s because it takes a fair amount of energy to take these plants, in this case corn, and convert them into ethanol.

But the plants themselves are renewable, biofuel advocates argue, as more and more can be planted indefinitely. Not so fast, says Searchinger, who says these renewable crops are kind of like a monthly paycheck. Sure, next month there will be another paycheck, but it’s still important to spend that paycheck wisely. “That's the same for plant growth...we can use it for food...for wood products, we use it to store carbon, we use it actually to replenish carbon that microbes are putting back in the atmosphere [but] if we use it for energy, we lose the other uses.” The Renewable Fuels Association, leading trade association for the ethanol industry, rejects this argument, pointing to low food prices and food surpluses in support of continued ethanol production.

Chilled local sweet corn soup is arranged for a photo at Lever House in New York, U.S.

Corn might be an inefficient source of fuel, but it’s an incredibly efficient food crop — a high-yielding, whole grain nutritious option. One ear of corn contains 10% of an adult’s recommended daily fiber intake, with the high lysine varieties providing a fairly decent amount of protein to boot. Many different cuisines rely heavily on corn, which is part of why corn is the leading cereal crop grown throughout the world, followed by rice and wheat.

Corn may be starchy and industrially grown, but that’s exactly what makes it an abundant source of nutrition. With corn’s high yields and caloric density, it serves as a far better food source than it does as a source for fuel. That’s not to say the U.S. agricultural system couldn’t stand to boost other nutritionally dense crops like tubers and oats. Cover crops and new microbial solutions for reducing fertilizer use can aid soil health too. But policies that increase demand for ethanol mean more of the food system will continue to be devoted to corn grown for fuel, not food, which seems to be the opposite direction from where food system reform should be headed.



Jenny Splitter
I’m a food and agriculture writer whose work has appeared in The Washington Post, Popular Mechanics, OneZero, New York Magazine, Slate, Mental Floss and SELF. 

How leaders use emergency powers to target journalists, critics

From Hungary to Thailand, new emergency powers are helping leaders keep a tight lid on public dissent during the pandemic. Human rights advocates say some regimes are exploiting misinformation laws to target journalists and political critics.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights/AP
Danai Ussama stands inside a police station in Bangkok on March 24, 2020 after being arrested for posting a message on social media criticizing the lack of government measures in screening passengers when arriving at the airport.

April 16, 2020

By Grant Peck and Preeyapa T. Khunsong Associated Press
BANGKOK

Health concerns were on artist Danai Ussama’s mind when he returned to Thailand last month from a trip to Spain. He noticed that he and his fellow passengers did not go through medical checks after arriving at Bangkok’s airport, and thought it worth noting on his Facebook page.

The airport authorities denied it, lodged a complaint with police, and he was arrested at his gallery in Phuket for violating the Computer Crime Act by allegedly posting false information – an offense punishable by up to five years' imprisonment and a fine of $3,000.

Mr. Danai told The Associated Press that his Facebook post, though public, was really meant just for a small circle of 40 to 50 people. Instead it went viral.

He believes the government is afraid its opponents would use his observation as proof it was failing the fight against the coronavirus, and acted against him as a warning to others.

As governments across the world enact emergency measures to keep people at home and stave off the pandemic, some are unhappy about having their missteps publicized. Others are taking advantage of the crisis to silence critics and tighten control.

“COVID-19 poses significant threats to government and regime security as it has the potential to expose poor governance and lack of transparency on issues that affect every citizen in a given country,” said Aim Sinpeng, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Sydney.

“As the pandemic is a global issue and is constantly on the news around the world, governments have a harder time controlling messages to the public without exposing how little/how much they do in comparison to other countries around the world,” she said in an email interview.

In Cambodia, where Prime Minister Hun Sen has been in power for 35 years, human rights group LICADHO has documented 24 cases of people being detained for sharing information about the coronavirus.

They include four supporters of the dissolved opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party.

Human Rights Watch also reported the arrest and questioning of a 14-year-old who expressed fears on social media about rumors of positive COVID-19 cases at her school and in her province. The group withheld more details to safeguard the girl’s privacy.

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban may have been the most adroit at exploiting the health crisis.

His country’s Parliament granted him the power to rule indefinitely by decree, unencumbered by existing laws or judicial or parliamentary restraints. One aspect of the law ostensibly passed to cope with the coronavirus calls for prison terms of up to five years for those convicted of spreading falsehoods or distorted facts during the emergency.

“The global health problems caused by COVID-19 require effective measures to protect people’s health and lives,” acknowledged Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Dunja Mijatovic. “This includes combating disinformation that may cause panic and social unrest.”

But she said, "regrettably some governments are using this imperative as a pretext to introduce disproportionate restrictions to press freedom. This is a counterproductive approach that must stop. Particularly in times of crisis, we need to protect our precious liberties and rights.”

Lawmakers in the Philippines last month passed special legislation giving President Rodrigo Duterte emergency powers.

Mr. Duterte, already criticized for a brutal war on drugs that has left thousands dead, has been fiercely belligerent toward critics. The new law makes “spreading false information regarding the COVID-19 crisis on social media and other platforms” a criminal offense punishable by up to two months in jail and fines of up to $19,500.

At least two reporters have been charged by police with spreading false information about the crisis.

“It is feared that Duterte will use his increased authority to quell dissent and further pounce on [his] political enemies,” said Aries Arugay, associate professor of political science at the University of the Philippines.

Egypt expelled a correspondent for the British newspaper The Guardian over a report citing a study that challenged the official count of coronavirus cases. Iraq suspended the operations of the Reuters news agency for three months and imposed a fine of about $20,800 for reporting that the actual number of infections and deaths was vastly more than the government acknowledged. Reuters stood by its story.

In Serbia, police briefly detained journalist Ana Lalic, who wrote about a lack of protective equipment and “chaotic” conditions at a large hospital complex. The clinical center said her article “disturbed the public and hurt the image of the health organization.”

The government also closed its daily coronavirus news conferences for journalists, asking them to send their questions by email. It said it's meant to stop the spread of the virus but rights groups and independent media decried it as a form of censorship.

A state of emergency invoked in late March gives Thailand’s Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha extraordinary powers to fight COVID-19, including censoring the media.

More than a dozen people in Thailand are reported to have been arrested on charges related to spreading coronavirus misinformation.

Thailand’s top public health experts deserve credit for their sincere efforts to counter misinformation, said Joel Selway, an associate professor of political science at Brigham Young University, who has published a book on politics and health policy in developing countries.

“This doesn’t mean that the Prayuth-led government would not also take advantage of this to crush political opponents,” he added.

Artist Danai, who said he will contest the charge against him, admits to regrets over writing his Facebook post about his airport arrival.

“If I had known that I would be in so much trouble like this, I wouldn’t have written it.” he said. “I have never been arrested nor gone to court before. I was handcuffed and slept overnight in a police station cell. I was devastated, actually. It affects my family and myself.

“But deep down inside, I would have wanted to write it anyway.”

This story was reported by The Associated Press. AP correspondents Pablo Gorondi in Budapest, Hungary; Dusan Stojanovic in Belgrade, Serbia; Sopheng Cheang in Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Busaba Sivasomboon in Bangkok, and Jim Gomez in Manila, Philippines, contributed to this report.

Editor’s note: As a public service, the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage. It’s free.

Keystone XL pipeline loses its Clean Water Act permits

The disputed pipeline project faces "another significant hurdle" because a U.S. judge canceled a key permit over concerns for endangered species. Tribal leaders and residents are asking for a complete halt of the construction during the pandemic.

Nati Harnik/AP
A truck drives past a Keystone pipeline pumping station near Milford, Nebraska, Jan. 9, 2020. Judge Brian Morris cancelled a key permit for the pipeline on April 15, 2020. The cancellation could have broader implications, challenging the construction work of pipelines.


April 16, 2020

By Matthew Brown Associated Press
BILLINGS, MONT.

AU.S. judge canceled a key permit on Wednesday for the Keystone XL oil pipeline that's expected to stretch from Canada to Nebraska, another setback for the disputed project that got underway less than two weeks ago following years of delays.

Judge Brian Morris said the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to adequately consider effects on endangered species such as pallid sturgeon, a massive, dinosaur-like fish that lives in rivers the pipeline would cross.

The ruling, however, does not shut down work that has begun at the U.S.-Canada border crossing in Montana, according to attorneys in the case. Pipeline sponsor TC Energy will need the permit for future construction across hundreds of rivers and streams along Keystone's 1,200-mile route.


"It creates another significant hurdle for the project," said Anthony Swift with the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the groups that challenged the permit.

"Regardless of whether they have the cross border segment ... Keystone XL has basically lost all of its Clean Water Act permits for water crossings," he said.

TC Energy was reviewing the ruling but remained "committed to building this important energy infrastructure project," spokesman Terry Cunha said.

Officials with the Army Corps of Engineers did not have an immediate response to the ruling.

The Keystone authorization came under a so-called nationwide permit issued by the Corps in 2017, essentially giving blanket approval to pipeline or similar utility projects with minimal effects on waterways.

The cancellation could have broader implications because it appears to invalidate dredging work for any project authorized under the 2017 permit, said attorney Jared Margolis with the Center for Biological Diversity, another plaintiff in the case. It's unclear what projects would be included.

Mr. Morris is holding a court hearing on Thursday on two other lawsuits against the $8 billion pipeline. American Indian tribes and environmental groups want him to halt the construction at the border while a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's approval of the pipeline last year works its way through the courts.

The pipeline was proposed in 2008 and would carry up to 830,000 barrels (35 million gallons) of crude daily to Nebraska, where it would be transferred to another TC Energy pipeline for shipment to refineries and export terminals on the Gulf of Mexico.

It was rejected twice under the Obama administration because of concerns that it could worsen climate change, then Mr. Trump revived it.

TC Energy's surprise March 31 announcement that it intended to start construction amid a global economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic came after the provincial government in Alberta invested $1.1 billion to jump-start the work.

Tribal leaders and some residents of rural communities along the pipeline's route worry that thousands of workers needed for the project could spread the virus.

As many as 11 construction camps, some housing up to 1,000 people, were initially planned for the project. TC Energy says those are under review amid the pandemic and won't be needed until later in the summer.

Work on two camps, in Montana and South Dakota, could start as soon as this month, according to court documents filed by the company this week.

Do biofuels harm the planet more than gasoline?
A new study suggests that biofuels can mitigate only 37 percent of the CO2 released by burning the biofuel.

Janet S. Carter/AP/File

Corn kernels peer out from the husk of an ear of corn in a North 

Carolina cornfield. Biofuel is made from the stalks and leaves of corn.

August 27, 2016
By Rowena Lindsay Staff CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

Corn ethanol and biodiesel biofuels may be more environmentally damaging than petroleum gasoline, according to a new study from the University of Michigan Energy Institute (UMEI),

The surprising finding comes after the research team, led by UMEI researcher John DeCicco, analyzed the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbed as the crops grow and then released when they are burned as biofuel. They calculated that the aggregate US crop yield can remove only 37 percent of the CO2 that burning biofuel releases into the air.

“What we found is that when you actually look at how quickly crops like corn and soybeans pull CO2 from the air and compare that with the emissions that occur when the biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel are burned, you find out that they are not carbon neutral like everyone has been assuming,” Dr. DeCicco tells The Christian Science Monitor.




That's a flawed premise, argues Daniel Schrag, a geology professor at Harvard who advises the EPA on bioenergy climate impacts. He says that biofuels don't have to be carbon neutral to be an environmentally preferable alternative to petroleum gasoline.

“For about 10 years there have been very careful studies of corn ethanol and all of the fossil carbon that is used to make it ... and those studies have gotten a range of answers, but it is about a 20 percent reduction of net emissions relative to gasoline,” says Professor Schrag in an interview with the Monitor. “Nobody ever thought corn ethanol was carbon neutral, because there are lots and lots of fossil inputs to it.”

The biofuel debate has raged for years, with critics worried about the impact of the additional land deforested to convert to corn fields, and proponents arguing for biofuel as a green alternative to gasoline. Another group says that it is really too soon to tell.

The conversation has generally been dictated by the food vs. fuel debate. This focuses on the indirect consequences of biofuel crop production, such as land use and deforestation, which create a ripple effect felt by the entire global food market.

DeCicco decided to question the basic life cycle analysis model that previous studies relied on, some of which had assumed that biofuel is carbon neutral and that only production-related greenhouse gas emissions need to be taken into account when comparing biofuel to fossil fuels.


Whether you burn biofuel ethanol or petroleum gasoline, he argues, the same amount of CO2 is released into the atmosphere. So comparing the fuels' environmental impacts comes down to how efficiently that carbon can be removed from the air, he says – and forests are better at that than cornfields.

"The United States uses 40 percent of its corn harvest to make ethanol, but that does not mean mean we eat 40 percent less corn-based products," DeCicco tells the Monitor.

DeCicco explains that as cropland once used for food is transferred to fuel use, food must be produced elsewhere, meaning that more grasslands and forests are converted to production. However, grasslands and forests can neutralize more carbon dioxide than crops, he says.

Schrag says that this ignores the long-term perspective, when biofuels make up for carbon loss from forests.

“In their approach time scale does not come into it,” he tells the Monitor. “They are looking at crop yield data and assuming that you should balance the carbon cycle based on how much crops you produce.”

Michael Wang, a researcher at the Argonne National Laboratory, tells the Monitor that he also questions the study's carbon accounting, arguing that the study does not properly account for the carbon uptake or that corn production for both ethanol and for food increased over the period of the study.

“The carbon uptake by the US farming systems is calculated based only on grain harvest," Dr. Wang tells the Monitor. "Carbon uptake embedded in above- and below-ground biomass is ignored in the paper with a simple assumption that carbon in these biomass sources are oxidized back to the air."

Additionally, the research received funding from the American Petroleum Institute, which critics say is grounds for skepticism, but the UMEI researchers stated that “the analysis, results and conclusions presented [in their study] are those of the authors alone.”

Other experts have come out in support of the research. Tim Searchinger, a researcher at the Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy Program at Princeton University, said that the research was very narrow, but useful.

“This article is saying that if you think the reason biofuels are helping to solve climate change is because the US is increasing its production of crops and that increased production of crops offsets the carbon release from burning the biofuels, you’re wrong. That is not what is happening,” Mr. Searchinger tells the Monitor. “What reduces carbon in the atmosphere is not the biofuel, it is the plant growth.”

DeCicco says that the solution is not to make biofuel more efficient, but to invest in reforestation.

“We should not be trying to make biofuels at all, any time soon,” DeCicco tells the Monitor. “It is much better to reforest and restore ecosystems.... Reforestation is a much better way to remove CO2 than anything we can do with biofuels.”

Corn-based ethanol is environmentally damaging in the short run

Science Apr 21, 2014 3:40 PM EDT

It turns out production of corn-based ethanol has a tremendous environmental cost, according to a new $500,000 government-funded study released on Sunday.

While corn-based ethanol proves better in the long-run, the study, published in peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change, says the biofuel initially produces seven percent more greenhouse gases at first than conventional gasoline. This conclusion challenges the Obama administration’s stance for corn-ethanol policies — which calls cellulosic ethanol a better, low-polluting alternative to petroleum.

The Environmental Protection Agency passed the Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007 to include specific volume standards for renewable fuel as well as renewable fuel categories. It also specifies criteria for both renewable fuels and for the feed stocks used to produce them. The recent study basically argues that biofuels won’t meet the standards in this law to qualify as renewable fuel.

Administration officials and the EPA, however, criticized the study as flawed. In a statement, EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia argued that the study “does not provide enough information relevant to the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from corn stover ethanol.”

An EPA spokeswoman, Liz Purchia, said in a statement that the study “does not provide useful information relevant to the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from corn stover ethanol”

Coronavirus spurs new clash between Big Oil and Big Corn over U.S. biofuels
Stephanie Kelly

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A fuel demand meltdown caused by the coronavirus outbreak in the United States has started up a new fight between the oil and agriculture industries over the nation’s biofuel policy, this time over whether the policy should be suspended or expanded as a result of the crisis.

The issue once again places Republican President Donald Trump in a tough spot between two important constituencies, both of which have been pushed to the brink of collapse by the pandemic because of flagging consumption, disrupted supply chains and reduced workforces.

The oil refining industry and its backers have asked the Trump administration to help the industry weather the pandemic by suspending a regulatory requirement that they blend billions of gallons of corn-based ethanol into their gasoline each year, arguing it is a cost many facilities can not currently afford.

The corn lobby, meanwhile, has been pushing for the blending requirements, mandated under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard, to be expanded to help farmers who have seen demand for their crop drop swiftly as biofuel plants across the country go idle.

While the refining and corn industries have clashed for years over the biofuel blending requirements, the issue is now being framed as a matter of survival.

“We’re talking about a multi-billion dollar compliance cost that is going to impact whether some can continue operating the same way,” said Geoff Moody, senior director of government relations for the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers trade group, which represents refiners.

On Wednesday, the governors of Texas, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming asked the Trump administration for a nationwide waiver exempting the oil-refining industry from the blending laws to help it survive, adding heft to a similar request made by Louisiana the week before.

Biofuel and farm groups slammed the idea.

“We remind the Administration that oil refiners are not the only ones suffering from the economic fallout of the current situation,” said Brian Jennings, the head of the American Coalition for Ethanol, which had asked the administration earlier this month to expand ethanol blending requirements.

“Ethanol producers, and the farmers supplying them corn, are suffering a proportional economic disaster,” he said.


A spokesperson for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in charge of overseeing the RFS, said the agency is watching the situation closely and “will make the appropriate determination at the appropriate time.”

DEMAND MELTDOWN

U.S. demand for gasoline has fallen by about a third due to the coronavirus pandemic, which has roiled daily life and prompted residents to shelter at home, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

As a result, refiners have slashed output and seen gasoline profit margins fall to the lowest since 2008. [EIA/S]

While many refiners were in strong cash positions at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, others that have spent much of their cash acquiring new plants, such as PBF Energy Inc (PBF.N), are significantly more distressed.

Valero Energy Corp (VLO.N), one of the biggest refining companies in the United States, meanwhile, warned of an up to $2.1 billion first quarter loss due to the coronavirus pandemic, and plans to defer tax payments and certain planned expenses in its refining and ethanol businesses.

Top refiner Marathon Petroleum Corp , meanwhile, has idled a plant in New Mexico due to falling demand.


But the ethanol industry is being crushed too.

Nearly half of U.S. ethanol production capacity has been idled as a result of the falling fuel demand, according to Geoff Cooper, the head of the Renewable Fuels Association. Further, output cuts disrupt local demand for corn as producers buy less of the feedstock.

“A general waiver at this point would only serve to close more ethanol plants and kill more jobs across rural America,” Cooper said.

The refining and corn industries have long disagreed about U.S. biofuel policy, most recently clashing over the Trump administration’s use of exemptions for small refining facilities in financial distress.

A federal court in January ruled that Trump’s EPA had granted such exemptions inappropriately, a decision that is likely to dramatically reduce the number of such waivers issued in the future.

Coronavirus prompts Canada to roll out safe drugs for street users

Tessa Vikander

VANCOUVER (Reuters) - Canada’s Pacific province of British Columbia was already battling an opioid epidemic when the new coronavirus hit, compounding the threat to drug users, many of whom are homeless and particularly vulnerable during the pandemic.


FILE PHOTO: A fentanyl user displays a "safe supply" of opioid alternatives, including morphine pills, provided by the local health unit to combat overdoses due to poisonous additives and to support addicts and the homeless into practicing social distancing to help slow the spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada April 6, 2020. REUTERS/Jesse Winter
In March, the Canadian government urged provinces to lower barriers to prescription medications - allowing doctors to provide prescriptions for controlled substances by phone and pharmacists to deliver them - to better help citizens to practice physical distancing and self-isolation.

B.C. is the first province to apply those guidelines to support people who use street drugs. Healthcare providers are ramping up the supply of prescription drug replacements for those who live with addictions to drugs like heroin, and even dispensing some of them via unique vending machines.

“We’ve taken these exemptions and we’re running with them at break-neck speed,” said Judy Darcy, provincial Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. The goal is to “bring down the number of people who are dying of overdose,” she said.

The Downtown Eastside is where the majority of Vancouver’s homeless population resides. In 2019, the city had 2,223 homeless residents, about a third of whom live with opioid or methamphetamine addictions.

By providing a safe supply of legal drug alternatives, the province hopes to lower a sudden spike in drug overdose deaths that coincided with the coronavirus outbreak in Vancouver.

Overdose deaths in the city had been declining over the past year with implementation of safe consumption sites and availability of naloxone overdose reversal kits.

But between March 23 and 29, police in Vancouver responded to eight suspected overdose deaths, the most in a single week since August 2019. The following week, they attended eight more.

Cheyenne Johnson, co-interim executive director at the B.C. Centre on Substance Use, said the region’s illicit drug supply was already tainted. The coronavirus closure of the border with the United States has exacerbated the problem by stymying illegal drug supply routes, prompting dealers to increasingly make or cut their wares with dangerous ingredients.

“As the effects of the pandemic continue to unfold, the illicit drug supply is likely to become significantly more adulterated and toxic,” Johnson said.

‘A REAL KICK IN THE GUT’

Before the new guidelines came into place, some people were able to access prescription drug replacements through special programs. In most instances, they had to get the medication from a pharmacy every day.

For people using the highly potent opioid fentanyl or heroin on the street, doctors can provide the prescription opioid hydromorphone along with methadone. Dexedrine or Ritalin are available to people who would otherwise be using cocaine or crystal meth.

Days after the new guidelines were rolled out, Rupinder Brar, a physician at Vancouver’s Portland Hotel Society, said she has provided prescriptions for free drug replacements, which can be dispensed by the week.

This gives her patients “a fighting chance” as supplies of illicit street drugs dwindle, along with sharply reduced opportunities to make income at a time of coronavirus shutdowns and social distancing measures.

“I don’t want them to have to go to the pharmacy every day,” Brar said.

Another option are specialized vending machines called MySafe. Conceived in response to the opioid crisis, they dispense drug replacements with a prescription, bypassing the need for a face-to-face interaction with a pharmacist.

At the corner of Vancouver’s Main and Hastings streets, a typically busy intersection in a neighborhood where hawking pills is common, some sections of the sidewalk were virtually empty in early April.

Chrissy McMullin, a Downtown Eastside resident who uses drugs, already takes opioid replacements and said she had no trouble getting a hydromorphone prescription under the new guidelines.

McMullin, who lost her brother in October to an overdose, is upset it took a global pandemic to prompt access to safe drugs.

“It’s a real kick in the gut, to see how quickly and easily (it got put in place),” McMullin said. “Now all of a sudden what we’ve been trying to get for years is made available.”


Reporting by Tessa Vikander in Vancouver; Editing by Steve Scherer and Bill Berkrot

Senator Warren takes Treasury, Fed to task over 'little oversight' of stimulus programs

Pete Schroeder

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren chastised the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department on Thursday over their rollout of massive stimulus programs designed to help businesses weather the global coronavirus pandemic, saying they were failing to protect workers.

Warren, a former Democratic presidential candidate, raised her criticism in a pair of letters sent to Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

“The Federal Reserve is handing out billions of dollars with little oversight and failing to require basic protections that companies retain workers and maintain payroll, failing to include protections against outsourcing, and failing to retain basic protections for union workers,” she wrote in one letter. “Absent these protections, it is not clear how these bailouts will help American families and workers.”


Warren, who is expected to have a major voice in Washington, particularly if Democrats retake the White House, said the government should require any companies relying on those relief programs to take certain steps to protect workers and taxpayers, such as prohibiting layoffs and outsourcing, curbing executive pay, and prohibiting stock buybacks.

Earlier this month, the Fed announced a broad $2.3 trillion effort to bolster local governments and small and mid-size businesses, which built on previous Fed programs launched since the outbreak aimed at soothing financial markets and ensuring capital can continue to flow.

Before becoming a senator, Warren was a fierce watchdog on a government panel created to oversee the last significant bailout in response to the 2007-2009 financial crisis.


One of Warren’s former top aides, Bharat Ramamurti, is now serving as the only named member of a new congressional oversight panel of pandemic relief programs. Earlier Thursday, he wrote in a essay published in the New York Times that the programs raised similar concerns of being too generous to executives without protecting rank-and-file employees.

A Fed spokesperson said the central bank has received the letter and will respond. A Treasury spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

THIRD WORLD USA 

Court blocks Trump administration push to make school meals saltier and less healthy

American school meals have been allowed to roll-back standards since 2018, but now a Maryland court says changes ‘not logical’

Gino Spocchia, THE INDEPENDENT APRIL 15, 2020


Some US schools have have been distributing food to families during the pandemic ( AP )

A federal district judge has blocked the Trump administration’s proposals on lowering American school food standards after a decision was made against the US Department for Agriculture (USDA).

The Trump administration rolled-back National School Lunch Program nutrition guidelines in 2018, which reduced whole-grain requirements and sodium level restrictions on all school meals.

The District Court of Maryland ruled on Tuesday that the standards reductions were in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which regulates how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

According to the court, the agriculture secretary Sonny Perdue’s school meal regulation changes came without adequate public warning before it came into effect this school year.

“There is a fundamental difference between delaying compliance standards — which indicates that school meals will still eventually meet those standards — and eliminating those standards altogether,” it said.

The legal nonprofit, Democracy Forward, brought the case against the USDA on behalf of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and Healthy School Food Maryland.

In a statement, Democracy Forward’s executive director Anne Harkavy said in a statement that the court’s ruling was a victory for families. “The Trump administration’s unlawful rollback of important school meal nutrition standards jeopardised children’s access to the nutritious foods they need to stay healthy,” she added.

The court added that the USDA decision was “not a logical outgrowth”, but schools that are currently distributing meals during the pandemic are permitted to continue using the Trump administration guidelines until schools reopen.

“None of this applies under the current situation. This is for when we resume post-pandemic school operations,” said Laura MacCleery, senior policy director for CSPI.

The Maryland ruling is the latest change in US school meal standards, since Michelle Obama championed the gradual introduction of whole-grains and sodium reductions in 2012.

The USDA announced in late 2018 that schools would have more flexibility with the rollback in standards and elimination of a final sodium reduction target

However many US schools were reported to have stood-by the healthier measures amid the changes, whilst others did lower nutrition levels.

A USDA spokesperson told The Independent that they do not comment on ongoing litigation.

The Independent has asked the White House for comment.


Federal court strikes down Trump's school nutrition rollbacks

April 14 (UPI) -- A federal judge in Maryland on Tuesday ruled against the Trump administration's plans to roll back regulations on school lunch standards, citing a procedural error.

District Judge George Hazel said Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue violated the Administrative Procedure Act when the administration moved to weaken federal nutritional standards for breakfasts and lunches served to schoolchildren in 2018.

The rule change rolled back sodium limits and whole grain requirements.

The court said the rule ultimately ended up being different from the 2017 interim rule.

RELATED Fish, vegetables, whole grains in diet can reduce dementia risk by 45%

"The court concludes that the rule is not inconsistent with federal law, does not reflect unexplained and arbitrary decision making, it does not represent an unacknowledged and unexplained change in position, and the USDA appropriately responded to public comments. The court does find, however, that the final rule is not a logical outgrowth of the interim final rule, so it must be vacated and remanded to the administrative agency for further proceedings," the court wrote.

Democracy Forward, which filed the 2019 lawsuit against the Trump administration on behalf of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and Health School Food Maryland, hailed the ruling.

"This decision is a victory for children and families, for policymaking based on sound science, and for the rule of law. The Trump administration's unlawful rollback of important school meal nutrition standards jeopardized children's access to the nutritious foods they need to stay healthy," said Democracy Forward Executive Director Anne Harkavy.

RELATED Nutrition experts fear 'dirty dozen' produce list will put off consumers

"This victory shows, once again, that the Trump administration's pattern of unlawfully shutting the public out of policy changes that impact their health can't -- and won't -- stand."

The Trump administration proposed further rollbacks in January, giving schools a larger variety of vegetables to serve and making it easier for schools to serve entrees a la carte. The schools would also be allowed greater control in customizing meal patterns and meals. It also implements a performance-based review process to cut down on time spent on paperwork.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest said the new proposed rule changes will lead to more children choosing to foods higher in calories, such as pizza, hamburgers and french fries

TO SEE THE PDF OF THE COURT RULING CLICK HERE 

New Zealand activist flies flag of environmental revolution with election run

AUCKLAND (Reuters) - The growing green concerns that will be in the spotlight on Earth Day next week are mirrored in a call for an “environmental revolution” by an 18-year-old New Zealand activist looking to take on Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in an election this year.

Climate change is shaping up as a major issue in the general election after New Zealanders were shocked in recent months by ash from bushfires in neighbouring Australia that turned their skies red and glaciers brown.

The youthful challenger, climate activist Luke Wijohn of New Zealand’s Green Party, stands to become the country’s youngest lawmaker should he pull off an admittedly unlikely win to take Auckland’s Mount Albert seat from Ardern in the Sept. 19 poll.

Wijohn aims for “environmental revolution”, he told Reuters, as he prepared to host his first Green Party political meeting at his parents’ home in Auckland by painting signs with fellow party members.

“I’m going to run my campaign similar to a climate strike, similar to any grassroots protest, where it is about reaching the people,” added Wijohn, who gained prominence for organising last year’s “School Strike 4 Climate” marches in New Zealand.

“Especially in this modern era, when there’s lies online, we need to be able to fight that with real conversations about our values.”


Wijohn said he saw Ardern, herself the youngest elected head of government when she won office in 2017, as being in a “compromised position”.

“That is why we need the Green Party to be strong enough to pull them to go further and faster,” he said.

Now 39, Ardern is seen as a liberal, progressive and environment-friendly leader whose coalition, which includes the Green Party, has acted on issues of climate change, social justice, and equality.

But the Greens want more, Wijohn said.

“Our rules, our laws are so far behind what they could be,” he said.

“We can actually make laws that are further forward than the culture is ready for,” he added, saying a push for better culture and laws would provide a foundation for change.


“We can just build it up to get, the environmental revolution, basically.”

Earth Day is on April 22.

Australia High Court: Federal police unlawfully raided reporter's home

April 15 (UPI) -- Australia's Federal Police used an unlawful warrant to search a journalist's home last year, the country's high court unanimously ruled Wednesday.

Police raided the home of reporter Annika Smethurst last June trying to identify sources of a story in April 2018 that said the Australian government had plans to expand its spying powers on citizens.

The court said the police warrant "misstated" relevant criminal laws and was not specific enough about the offenses. Smethurst's attorneys wanted the police to destroy data they seized but the court declined.

The information taken, for now, remains in police hands but could face legal challenges if used since the court said it was obtained illegally.

Authorities have been trying to build a case against former intelligence employee Cameron Gill, who they believe was the source of the report.

Federal Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw said his office has taken steps to improve the warrant process, but said the court was not clear on whether information obtained can be used in future cases.

Exclusive: The Military Knew Years Ago That a Coronavirus Was Coming
The Pentagon warned the White House about a shortage of ventilators, face masks, and hospital beds in 2017—but the Trump administration did nothing.

By Ken Klippenstein,APRIL 1, 2020

 is The Nation’s DC Correspondent

US Air Force troops help build a makeshift morgue in New York City on

 March 27. (Noam Galai / Getty Images)

Despite President Trump’s repeated assertions that the Covid-19 epidemic was “unforeseen” and “came out of nowhere,” the Pentagon was not just well aware of the threat of a novel influenza but even anticipated the consequent scarcity of ventilators, face masks, and hospital beds, according to a 2017 Pentagon plan obtained by The Nation.

“The most likely and significant threat is a novel respiratory disease, particularly a novel influenza disease,” the military plan states. Covid-19 is a respiratory disease caused by the novel (meaning new to humans) coronavirus. The document specifically refers to coronaviruses on several occasions, in one instance saying, “Coronavirus infections [are] common around the world.”

The plan updates an earlier Department of Defense pandemic influenza response plan, noting that it “incorporates insights from several recent outbreaks including…2012 Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus.”



Titled “USNORTHCOM Branch Plan 3560: Pandemic Influenza and Infectious Disease Response,” the draft plan is marked for official use only and dated January 6, 2017. The plan was provided to The Nation by a Pentagon official who requested anonymity to avoid professional reprisal.

RELATED ARTICLE

THE CORONAVIRUS IS TRUMP’S LATEST EXCUSE TO MILITARIZE THE BORDER
Ken Klippenstein

Denis Kaufman, who served as head of the Infectious Diseases and Countermeasures Division at the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2014 to 2017, stressed that US intelligence had been well aware of the dangers of coronaviruses for years. (He retired from his decades-long career in the military in December 2017.)

“The intelligence community has warned about the threat from highly pathogenic influenza viruses for two decades, at least. They have warned about coronaviruses for at least five years,” Kaufman said in an interview.

“There have been recent pronouncements that the coronavirus pandemic represents an intelligence failure…. It’s letting people who ignored intelligence warnings off the hook.”

In addition to anticipating the coronavirus pandemic, the military plan predicted with uncanny accuracy many of the medical supply shortages that will now apparently soon cause untold deaths.

The plan states, “Competition for, and scarcity of resources will include…non-pharmaceutical MCM [medical countermeasures] (e.g., ventilators, devices, personal protective equipment such as face masks and gloves), medical equipment, and logistical support. This will have a significant impact on the availability of the global workforce.”




The 103-page response plan provides an overview of what might cause a pandemic, likely complications, and how the military might respond. The plan outlines conditions under which an infectious disease can become a pandemic, several of which were at play with Covid-19: crowded workplaces, proximity to international airports, unsanitary living conditions. It also contains references to classified annexes that go into further detail. (The Nation is not in possession of these annexes.)

Last week, Trump lashed out at General Motors and Ford on Twitter, demanding that they manufacture ventilators, a life-or-death appliance for many people with acute Covid-19 symptoms.

General Motors MUST immediately open their stupidly abandoned Lordstown plant in Ohio, or some other plant, and START MAKING VENTILATORS, NOW!!!!!! FORD, GET GOING ON VENTILATORS, FAST!!!!!! @GeneralMotors @Ford
—Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 27, 2020

The plan’s warning about face masks and ventilators was prescient: The US Strategic National Stockpile of medical equipment—including respirators, gloves, face masks, and gowns—is reportedly nearly depleted.

The military plan also correctly anticipates “insufficient hospital beds.” Indeed, hospitals are in critically short supply in Italy and are rapidly filling up across New York.



“Even the most industrialized countries will have insufficient hospital beds, specialized equipment such as mechanical ventilators, and pharmaceuticals readily available to adequately treat their populations during clinically severe pandemic,” the report goes on.

Another prediction in the report anticipates worldwide competition for and scarcity of Covid-19 vaccines. Trump has already reportedly offered German scientists large sums of money for exclusive rights to a vaccine, and efforts to develop drugs are underway in several countries.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

You can read the Pentagon’s full draft pandemic plan here