California’s legislature passed a bill last week banning ultraprocessed food (UPF) in schools—in seven years.<a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1264" id="">AB 1264</a>, a bipartisan bill that passed with only one no vote, would require schools to begin phasing out UPFs by July 2029, with junk food being completely banned by July 2032. The bill defines “ultraprocessed food” as any food or drink that contains chemicals such as coloring agents, artificial flavors, nonnutritive sweeteners, or high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar.Many UPF products contain a calculated blend of fat, sugar, and sodium referred to by researchers as a “bliss point.” This combination triggers a dopamine response similar to narcotics, causing cravings for more. UPF products often result in serious food addictions, particularly among children, which is why researchers like University of Michigan Associate Psychology Professor Ashley Gearhardt advocate for classifying UPF as a chemical substance.AB 1264 has been sent to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk for his signature. It was authored by Democratic Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, whose previous bill banning foods with certain dyes in schools by 2027 was signed into law last year.“You’ve seen a lot of folks in Washington D.C. talking about these issues, but we haven’t seen a lot of action,” <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/12/bill-ban-ultraprocessed-school-lunches-00562854" id="">said</a> Democratic Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, who authored the bill. “We’re actually going to move the needle on protecting kids and protecting families in California.”<h2 id="">Who stands in the way of banning junk food?</h2>But efforts in Washington to crack down on junk food have been met with resistance from Gabriel’s own party. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has faced criticism from Democrats and food industry lobbyists for trying to ban junk food from the taxpayer-funded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which the Left has framed as an assault on freedom of choice.Kennedy hit back at such criticism in August, saying, "We all believe in free choice. We live in a democracy. People can make their own choice about what they are going to buy and what they are not going to buy. If you want to buy a sugary soda, you should be able to do that, but the U.S. taxpayer should not pay for it.”Kennedy also revealed that food stamp recipients on SNAP are spending over $68 million on junk food each day."We are spending $405 million a day on SNAP,” Kennedy said. “Ten percent is going to sugary drinks. If you add candies to that, it's about 13 to 17%."Kennedy made the remarks at a joint press conference with Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, who announced that she has signed waivers for six more states banning junk food from SNAP purchases. Florida, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, and Colorado have joined Iowa, Indiana, and other states in excluding candies and sugary drinks from SNAP.<h2 id="">Texas leads the way on nutrition</h2>The most consequential bill on nutrition was signed into law by Texas Governor Greg Abbott in June. <a href="https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB25/2025" id="">SB 25</a> amends the Texas Education Code by requiring government-funded high schools to offer an elective course on nutrition and wellness. It also requires medical schools that receive government funding to make nutrition a mandatory part of the curriculum. This is in contrast to medical schools like the one at University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin), which <a href="https://speechfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/CRITICAL-CONDITION_Speech-First-Medical-Schools-Report.pdf" id="">warns</a> students against “fatphobia” and frames obesity as a benign lifestyle choice rather than a serious health risk.&nbsp;The legislation also requires the Texas Medical Board to include courses on nutrition and metabolic health among the continuing education requirements for physicians.&nbsp;These nutrition courses will be based on guidelines set by the Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee, a new health body established by the legislation. The committee will be composed of seven members, including at least a functional doctor, a member of the Texas Department of Agriculture, a representative of a rural community, a representative of an urban community, a pediatrician specializing in metabolic health, and another expert who specializes either in metabolic health, culinary medicine, lifestyle medicine, or integrative medicine. The committee members must not have any financial stake in food or pharmaceutical companies.As part of its overall focus on nutrition, the committee will specifically concentrate on the health impact of ultra-processed foods, particularly those containing additives and dyes, and how they contribute to chronic illness.The new law also requires food manufacturers to place the following warning on products containing bleached flour, seed oils, certain food dyes, or other chemicals:WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.Ingredients that require the above label also include food coloring certified by the FDA. The requirement will not, however, apply to medications, dietary supplements, products already containing a warning from the Surgeon General, or any product regulated by the US Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service.Sharyl Attkisson <a href="https://sharylattkisson.com/2025/06/texas-bill-targets-popular-snacks-with-not-fit-for-human-consumption-label/" id="">reported</a> that the bill originally included aspartame and high fructose corn syrup as ingredients that require a warning, but removed those two due to pressure from Big Food.‍

California passes bill banning junk food in schools—with a catch

'You’ve seen a lot of folks in Washington D.C. talking about these issues, but we haven’t seen a lot of action'

The Trump administration last week criticized Finland’s repeated prosecution of a politician for challenging LGBT orthodoxy.The Finnish Supreme Court will hear a complaint against Päivi Räsänen, a devout Christian MP who in 2004 published a pamphlet for her church titled “As Man and Woman He Created Them.” Citing the Bible, the pamphlet defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.&nbsp;Then, in a 2019 tweet, Räsänen criticized Finland’s Evangelical Lutheran Church for sponsoring a same-sex celebration event, questioning its consistency with the Bible. That year she also expressed the same sentiment in a radio debate.For those actions, Räsänen was charged with “ethnic agitation” which falls under “war crimes and crimes against humanity” in the Finnish criminal code. When she was first indicted in 2021, the mother of five and grandmother of ten was subjected to an estimated 13 hours in interrogation.Finnish Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola, who helped Räsänen write the 2004 pamphlet, was tried alongside her. They were acquitted in 2022 and again by the Helsinki Court of Appeals in 2023.&nbsp;<h2 id="">Trump admin: A ‘baseless’ case</h2>Prosecutors have now filed a complaint with the country’s Supreme Court, drawing criticism from the US State Department.“In a democracy, no one should face trial for peacefully sharing their beliefs,” said the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, &amp; Labor in a statement on September 10th. “The case against Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen, which accuses her of hate speech for simply posting a Bible verse, is baseless, as two courts have unanimously found.”&nbsp;The bureau added a passage from Matthew 5:11: “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.”<div data-rt-embed-type='true'><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">In a democracy, no one should face trial for peacefully sharing their beliefs. The case against Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen, which accuses her of hate speech for simply posting a Bible verse, is baseless, as two courts have unanimously found. Matthew 5:11: “Blessed are you when…&mdash; Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, &amp; Labor (DRL) (@StateDRL) <a href="https://twitter.com/StateDRL/status/1965822594168377565?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 10, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Räsänen expressed her gratitude to the Trump administration. “I’m thankful that the US State Department has taken note of my case and expressed its support,” she said in a statement published by ADF International, her legal defense team. “In a free society, it should never be a crime to share a Bible verse or express beliefs rooted in faith."Prosecutors are arguing that while quoting the Bible is permissible, Räsänen’s interpretations of the Bible are criminal. And even if her Biblical exegesis is correct, it is “offensive to certain people” and therefore should not have been said.“You can cite the Bible, but it is Räsänen’s interpretation and opinion about the Bible verses that are criminal,” said Finnish State Prosecutor Anu Mantila.&nbsp;‍

Trump admin weighs in as Finland targets politician for opposing gender ideology

'The case . . . is baseless,' said the State Department

The BBC has censured staff members who referred to Hamas as a “terror group” in a June 15th broadcast.The network’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) insists it avoids labeling organizations as “terrorists” in the name of “accuracy and impartiality.” The corporation still refuses to call Hamas a terror group—even though it is officially designated as such by the UK, the US, the European Union, and nearly every major Western government.<a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/11/bbc-censures-staff-for-calling-hamas-a-terror-group/" id="">According</a> to The Telegraph, former British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and former Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron pressed the BBC to “call [Hamas] what it is” after the October 7th massacre.“Maybe it’s a moment actually for the BBC to ask itself again, shall we describe these people as terrorists? They are terrorists,” said Cameron.Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick has also criticized the BBC for repeatedly referring to Islamic terrorists as “militants,” “fighters,” or members of a “political resistance.”<h2 id="">Alignment with Hamas</h2>The BBC’s soft stance on Hamas may be because the network is closely aligned with the terror group.&nbsp; The outlet has been so dedicated to Hamas’ messaging, in fact, that former BBC Television Director Danny Cohen recently called the BBC’s Arabic channel “the media wing of Hamas.”The outlet has also closely collaborated with Hamas. The BBC’s film “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone” paints Hamas and its supporters as victims of Israel, which is portrayed as a genocidal aggressor. It is narrated by a 13-year-old boy who has since been revealed to be the son of senior Hamas member Ayman Alyazouri.In addition to shielding Hamas from terror references, the BBC also uses sleights of hand to depict Gazans—who overwhelmingly support Hamas and even participate in attacks—in a favorable light. When including quotes from Gazans, for example, the network deliberately mistranslates the Arabic word al-yahud, which means “the Jews”, to “the Israelis” in an effort to gloss over Islamic antisemitism.Studies show the network also disproportionately criticizes Israel. Terms like “genocide,” “war crimes,” and “breach of international law” are applied to Israel up to 15 times more than Hamas.In August, The Spectator <a href="https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-leaked-email-that-blows-apart-the-bbcs-impartiality-claims-over-gaza/" id="">reported</a> that a leaked internal BBC memo ordered staff to adopt Hamas’ narrative when reporting on humanitarian aid to Gaza.Hamas launched an aggressive disinformation campaign against the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), an organization established by the Trump administration in May to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza. The GHF, which has so far distributed well over 100 million meals to Gazans, has proven more effective than UN-led operations. Aid distributed by the UN, which maintains <a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/more-un-employees-outed-as-terrorists" id="">close ties</a> with Hamas, often finds itself in the hands of the terror group instead of civilians. It was also recently discovered that the UN is <a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/un-withholding-aid-to-gaza-to-fuel-famine-narrative" id="">withholding</a> 950 trucks containing roughly 2,400 tons of food in Gaza while accusing Israel of starving Gazans.Hamas, in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/well-break-your-legs-un-accused-of-mafia-type-response-to-u-s-led-gaza-relief-efforts" id="">coordination</a> with the UN, has launched a smear campaign against the GHF that involves publishing false reports, such as mass killings at aid sites carried out by the IDF in coordination with the GHF. American and European media, including the BBC, are quick to report these stories as fact without waiting for verification.BBC editors distributed a memo titled “Covering the food crisis in Gaza,” outlining how staff should frame the “famine in Gaza” narrative. The memo declared that “the argument over how much aid has crossed into Gaza is irrelevant” and that reporters should say the current distribution system—in other words, the GHF— “doesn’t work.”“The BBC – which declined to comment on the email – appears content to accept casualty figures and starvation claims from Hamas-linked bodies or sympathetic NGOs as definitive, while dismissing or omitting Israeli data and counterclaims,” wrote Jonathan Sacerdoti for The Spectator. “The email directs staff to reference ‘mounting evidence’ of starvation and deaths around aid centres, yet makes no mention of Hamas operatives looting convoys, obstructing access, or even firing on civilians attempting to collect food – allegations which have been made publicly by Israel and backed at times by video and eyewitness testimony.”In its memo, the BBC also ordered staff to frame Israel as the “occupying power” in Gaza, despite the IDF’s complete disengagement from the territory in 2005. Israel had no military presence in Gaza until October 7, 2023. Hamas remains the official ruling power in the Gaza Strip.‍

BBC censures employees for calling Hamas a terror group

While the network claims 'impartiality,' it is closely aligned with the terror organization

A new poll from Napolitan News Service has found that one in four young voters think America is better off now that Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk has been assassinated.Voters aged 18 to 34 were asked, “While it is always difficult to wish ill of another human being, is America better off now that Charlie Kirk has been killed?” Twenty-six percent responded “yes,” including 24% of Democrats. The number jumped to 31% among voters who agree with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) policies, the Daily Caller <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2025/09/15/quarter-of-young-voters-think-america-better-off-after-kirk-assassination-poll/" id="">reported</a>.The survey also found that 36% of Democrats say Republicans are responsible for Kirk’s assassination, with 31% blaming Republicans for political violence in America. Twenty-nine percent said that anti-Trump rhetoric led to Kirk’s murder. Forty-two percent of Republicans blame the media, compared with just 24% of Democrats.Seventy-five percent of Republicans and 55% of overall respondents said they prayed for Kirk and his family after he was shot, while just 38% of Democrats said the same.<h2 id="">Democrats are more likely to celebrate the deaths of political opponents</h2>A recent <a href="https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52960-charlie-kirk-americans-political-violence-poll" id="">YouGov poll</a> found that Democrats are more likely to celebrate the deaths of public figures they oppose.While 77% of Republicans said it is always unacceptable to be happy about a political opponent’s death, just 38% of Democrats said the same. Thirty-three percent of Democrats said it is “usually unacceptable,” and 11% said it is either always acceptable (4%) or usually acceptable (7%). Eighteen percent of Democrats said they were not sure whether it is acceptable to celebrate the death of a public figure they oppose, while just 5% of Republicans said the same.Overall, 56% of respondents—just over half—said it is always unacceptable to be happy about the death of a public figure they oppose.Leftists are also more likely to justify domestic terrorism. Asked whether “it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals,” 25% of those who identified as “very liberal” said it is sometimes justified, and 17% of those who identified as “liberal” agreed. Just 6% of conservatives and 3% of those who identify as “very conservative” say it is sometimes justified.But while Leftists may justify violence for political ends, they are not more likely to justify violence for self-defense.<h2 id="">Left-wing assassination culture</h2>The poll was conducted after Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA and father of two, was murdered on Wednesday in a political assassination, the latest victim of what researchers call the Left’s “assassination culture.”Kirk, 31, was shot in the neck while peacefully debating college students at Utah Valley University. The suspected killer, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was “deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology,” Utah Governor Spencer Cox confirmed.Immediately following the murder, social media was awash with Leftists celebrating Kirk’s death. MSNBC contributor Matthew Dowd said Kirk had it coming because he voiced “awful” opinions. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) blamed the assassination on President Trump’s “rhetoric.”The reaction shocked and angered the Right, but some shared an April tweet from Kirk himself warning about the Left’s assassination culture.“Assassination culture is spreading on the left,” Kirk wrote. “Forty-eight percent of liberals say it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk. Fifty-five percent said the same about Donald Trump.“In California, activists are naming ballot measures after Luigi Mangione.“The left is being whipped into a violent frenzy. Any setback, whether losing an election or losing a court case, justifies a maximally violent response.“This is the natural outgrowth of left-wing protest culture tolerating violence and mayhem for years on end. The cowardice of local prosecutors and school officials have turned the left into a ticking time bomb.”<div data-rt-embed-type='true'><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Assassination culture is spreading on the left. Forty-eight percent of liberals say it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk. Fifty-five percent said the same about Donald Trump. In California, activists are naming ballot measures after Luigi Mangione. The… <a href="https://t.co/xiGAAvoPHy">pic.twitter.com/xiGAAvoPHy</a>&mdash; Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) <a href="https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1909391943802703899?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 7, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Kirk was referring to a survey <a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/most-leftists-support-assassination-culture-says-survey" id="">reported</a> by The Gold Report in April, which found that as much as 55% of those who self-identify as Leftists said it would at least be somewhat justified to assassinate President Donald Trump or billionaire Elon Musk. These findings correlate with the Left’s celebration of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson’s assassination in December by Mangione, as well as the attempt on Trump’s life on July 13, 2024.Respondents were also asked whether violent attacks on Tesla dealerships are justified to protest Elon Musk. Forty percent said such attacks are at least somewhat acceptable.“These attitudes are not fringe — they reflect an emergent assassination culture, grounded in far-left authoritarianism and increasingly normalized in digital discourse,” said the report. “The reports found widespread justification for lethal violence — including assassination — among younger, highly online, and ideologically left-aligned users,” the report added.‍‍

Protecting your
Medical Freedom
and Civil Liberties

Stream What is a Doctor? Today!

The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - A Good Doctor Speaks with Dr. Gold

Latest Work

California passes bill banning junk food in schools—with a catch

Trump admin weighs in as Finland targets politician for opposing gender ideology

BBC censures employees for calling Hamas a terror group

1 in 4 young voters say America is ‘better off’ after Charlie Kirk assassination

Latest Videos

How Much IsYour Freedom Worth?