After screwworm scare, US-Mexico border set to reopen for cattle imports
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said via X that 'key progress' had been made. She noted that more than 100 million sterile flies were being dispersed weekly and there had been no northward spread in eight weeks.
The U.S. restricted Mexican cattle shipments in late November following the detection of the pest, but lifted the ban in February after protocols were put in place to evaluate the animals prior to entry into the country. But after an 'unacceptable northward advancement' of the screwworm, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in a statement it was suspending them again in May.
Mexico Agriculture and Rural Development Secretary Julio Berdegué said he participated in a virtual meeting with Rollins Monday and that the border opening would begin July 7.
Rollins and Berdegué applauded the close cooperation between both governments.
The screwworm is a larva of the Cochliomyia hominivorax fly that can invade the tissues of any warm-blooded animal, including humans. The parasite enters the skin, causing serious and life-threatening damage and lesions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lawmakers move forward on bill banning common grocery store item: 'They add unnecessary costs'
Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek signed a bill into law banning thick, reusable plastic bags from being used at grocery stores, restaurants, and retail outlets, The Oregonian reported. State Sen. Janeen Sollman, a Democrat from Hillsboro and the bill's chief sponsor, explained that "wasteful disposable plastics like thick plastic checkout bags aren't just annoying for consumers, they add unnecessary costs to our Oregon businesses, and are contributing to an ever increasing pile of plastic trash that is harming the environment and public health." Plastic bags are, indeed, harmful to the environment. After typically being used just once, they end up in landfills, where they can take up to 1,000 years to break down. The intention behind the thicker reusable bags was to steer consumers toward using them multiple times, thus eliminating more single-use plastic bags, but few people reuse them. Critics of plastic bag bans are concerned that they may lead to an increase in the purchase and usage of other types of plastic bags, but studies have shown that bans are effective in cutting down the overall usage of plastic bags. The manufacturing of plastic bags contributes to planet-warming pollution, so demand for them increases the problem that bans are trying to solve. When plastic bags are not disposed of properly, they often end up in bodies of water or caught in tree branches, posing a threat to wildlife and causing additional harm to the environment. The Ocean Conservancy reported that plastic bags are the most common form of single-use plastics found by International Coastal Cleanup volunteers. In addition to the plastic bags harming marine life, microplastics that result from the bags breaking down can be ingested by marine animals, compounding the threat. The Oregon ban is part of efforts by individual states to reduce the environmental impact of plastic bags. California has banned all plastic grocery bags to encourage the use of paper bags or reusable bags. Twelve states have some form of statewide ban on plastic bags. Charging money for them is one deterrent that has reduced usage in the United Kingdom. The growing awareness of the negative effects of plastic bags on ecosystems has inspired individuals and governments to take action. By opting for reusable bags when we shop and helping spread the word about the harm single-use plastic bags bring to the environment, we can be part of the solution. Should the government ban gas stoves? Yes Only in new buildings Only in restaurants No way Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump slams Elon Musk as megabill drops AI protections and hits snags in Senate
President Trump slammed Elon Musk's subsidies, and Republican senators struck down a plan to shield artificial intelligence from state regulations. These two middle-of-the-night developments on Tuesday reinforced a growing schism between Trump and Silicon Valley supporters over his "big, beautiful bill." The first development came at 12:44 a.m. ET, when Trump responded to Tesla (TSLA) CEO Musk's ongoing critiques of the package, focusing on the government grants that Musk's companies receive. "Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa," wrote the president in a Truth Social post, adding, "perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this?" The president was referring to the government efficiency group that Musk ran until recently. The president's missive came after Trump's signature legislation underwent key changes in recent days that set off many in the tech industry, Musk most of all, with new measures to tax green energy companies and further support for fossil fuels, as well as a growing price tag. The divide between many in Silicon Valley and the "big, beautiful bill" has been evident for over a month. It appeared set to deepen further when, a few hours later, a closely watched artificial intelligence provision was stripped from the bill itself. This plan, which had many Silicon Valley supporters, was meant to shield the quickly growing AI industry from state and local regulations. But the idea now appears to be dead after Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee turned against a compromise plan Monday evening and stripped it from the bill. It wasn't close in the end, with the Senate voting 99-1 to adopt Blackburn's subsequent amendment in a count that wrapped up a little after 4:00 a.m. ET. Trump's overall package also appears to be teetering Tuesday morning after a series of overnight developments saw two key Republican senators — Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine — uncommitted to vote yes. Those two senators could join two Republicans already committed to voting no, which would be enough to sink the package. The drama between the president and the world's richest man has been up and down for weeks, but it escalated Monday afternoon when Musk offered new electoral threats against Republicans. Musk had already amplified Democrats' critiques and talked about the need for a new political party. He offered a striking promise Monday afternoon that lawmakers who vote for the bill "will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth." Musk, of course, was the biggest donor during the 2024 campaign, spending at least $288 million, most of which was offered in support of Trump. Trump reiterated his critiques of Musk Tuesday morning, speaking to reporters and saying of Musk's objection to losing EV subsidies, "Elon can lose a lot more than that." The president also called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) a "monster that might have to go back and eat Elon." And when asked by a reporter if he would consider deporting Musk, he demurred: "We'll have to take a look." What is unclear for the days ahead is how much the Trump-Musk fight will impact the actual chances of the bill's passage, with Senate amendment votes ongoing. Musk is clearly focused on a debate likely coming later this week, when the House is set to take up the amended measure if it passes. The House is where a vocal bloc of fiscal conservatives — who often vote as part of the "Freedom Caucus" — warily supported a previous version of the bill, saying a previous smaller price tag was too big. Musk even tagged some of these House Republican lawmakers in some of his latest posts, which continued throughout the night with dozens of messages. Musk also responded to Trump's comments about his subsidies by saying his companies like Tesla and SpaceX ( would be fine and that oil and gas subsidies should be removed as well. The back-and-forth over AI also came to a head overnight after the House passed a plan in May that included a complete ban on state regulations of AI for a decade. The little-noticed measure gained wider attention in the weeks that followed, with many of Trump's most loyal supporters opposing it. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene even admitted that she hadn't been aware of the provision when she voted yes. The Georgia lawmaker then announced her opposition and plans to vote no if this "violation of state rights" stayed in the bill. Trump himself doesn't appear to have taken a position on the measure, but it had the backing of his Silicon Valley-aligned aides, most notably the vocal support of AI and crypto czar (and longtime venture capitalist) David Sacks. But Republican opposition grew, and Sen. Blackburn of Tennessee became a leading voice of opposition in the Senate. She entered into negotiations over the issue and appeared to have found a compromise in recent days around the idea that instead of a decade-long ban, the provision would be amended to be a "temporary pause" of five years. States would be strongly discouraged from regulating AI, as lawmakers linked it to access to millions of dollars in AI infrastructure and deployment funding. But even that wasn't enough. Blackburn renounced the compromise, said a moratorium "could allow Big Tech to continue to exploit kids, creators, and conservatives," and teamed with a top Democrat to strike the provision entirely. Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (a former Trump press secretary) congratulated Blackburn on the move in a post the senator quickly reposted. "This is how you take on big tech!" Sanders wrote. This story has been updated with additional developments. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
CNN, New York Times Reject Trump's Demands to Retract ‘False' and ‘Unpatriotic' Stories About Iran Bombing Raids: ‘No Apology Will Be Forthcoming'
President Trump threatened to sue CNN and the New York Times over their reports about his government's early assessment that U.S. bombing raids on Iran had set the regime's nuclear program back by a few months — contrary to Trump's claim that Iran's capabilities were 'totally obliterated.' Trump's personal lawyer on June 25 sent letters to the news outlets demanding they issue retractions and apologies. Both CNN and the Times said they responded to the letters by rejecting the claims. According to the Times, Trump's attorney claimed the stories were defamatory, 'false' and 'unpatriotic.' Trump has railed against CNN, the Times and other news organizations that have reported on intelligence, alleging the outlets 'want to try and demean me.' More from Variety Trump Angrily Calls for CNN to Fire Reporter Over Story on Iran Nuclear Strikes: She Should Be 'Thrown Out Like a Dog' Bernie Sanders Spars With Joe Rogan Over Trump's '60 Minutes' Lawsuit: 'The Impact Is Clearly Intimidation,' Senator Says CBS Reiterates Claim That Trump's '60 Minutes' Lawsuit Is 'Meritless,' Refutes President's Assertion Edited Interview Was 'Commercial Speech' David McCraw, SVP and deputy general counsel for the New York Times Co., wrote in a reply to Trump's lawyer dated June 26, 'No retraction is needed. No apology will be forthcoming. We told the truth to the best of our ability. We will continue to do so.' In the letter, McCraw wrote, 'I must admit I was surprised by your letter's unwavering certainty that the U.S. air strike 'unequivocally eliminated Iran's nuclear capabilities.' That was at odds not just with the preliminary assessments of the U.S. intelligence services that we quoted, but — of more direct relevance to this letter — at odds with what your client said following the publication of the Article.' McCraw then quoted Trump's comments at the NATO summit saying, 'The intelligence was very inconclusive. The intelligence says, 'We don't know, it could have been very severe' — that's what the intelligence says.' The Times' story 'that the President may have overstated the case when he said the Iranian sites had been 'obliterated,' that the impact of the bombing raid was uncertain, that the attack did not eliminate the threat posed by Iran,' McCraw wrote, 'is not false and does not defame the President.' The Times posted a copy of McCraw's letter at this link. A CNN rep confirmed the network received a similar letter from Trump's lawyer and responded to it, 'rejecting the claims in the letter.' The spokesperson declined to comment further. On Tuesday, CNN was first to report that the U.S. military strikes on three Iran nuclear facilities over the weekend 'did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear program and likely only set it back by months,' citing 'an early US intelligence assessment' by the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency. The New York Times, along with other news outlets including the Associated Press and ABC News, shortly thereafter matched CNN's reporting. Separately Wednesday, Trump on social media attacked Natasha Bertrand, one of CNN reporters on the Iran story, whom he said should be fired by the network and 'thrown out 'like a dog.'' In a statement about Trump's attack on its employee, CNN said, 'We stand 100% behind Natasha Bertrand's journalism and specifically her and her colleagues' reporting of the early intelligence assessment of the U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. CNN's reporting made clear that this was an initial finding that could change with additional intelligence. We have extensively covered President Trump's own deep skepticism about it. However, we do not believe it is reasonable to criticize CNN reporters for accurately reporting the existence of the assessment and accurately characterizing its findings, which are in the public interest.' Also Wednesday, Trump had lashed out at CNN and the Times, writing on his Truth Social platform that the reporters for the outlets' stories about the DIA report 'are just BAD AND SICK PEOPLE. You would think they would be proud of the great success we had, instead of trying to always make our Country look bad.' Best of Variety New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week 'Harry Potter' TV Show Cast Guide: Who's Who in Hogwarts? 25 Hollywood Legends Who Deserve an Honorary Oscar
