Category: Politics and American Democracy

Eating Highly Processed Foods Linked to Increased Cancer Risk

EcoWatch – Food

Environmental Working Group

Study: Eating Highly Processed Foods Linked to Increased Cancer Risk

By Dawn Undurraga     March 12, 2018

The more highly processed foods you eat, the higher your risk of cancer.

That’s the takeaway from a new study that followed more than 100,000 French adults for eight years. It found that a 10 percent increase in consumption of foods like soda, sugary snack cakes, processed meats and breakfast cereals corresponded with a 10 percent increase in cancer risk.

The study, published last month in the London-based medical journal BMJ, is the first of its kind to link increased cancer risk to all “ultra-processed” foods, not just processed meats. Ultra-processed foods are defined as foods that undergo multiple physical, biological and mechanical processes to be highly palatable, affordable and shelf stable.

According to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, cancer is estimated to affect more than 1.6 million Americans each year, causing nearly 600,000 deaths. Dietary links to cancer have long been established, with about a third of cancer cases estimated to be preventable through more healthful diet and lifestyle choices.

Diets high in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts and legumes are known to reduce the risk of cancer, while those high in processed meats increase cancer risk. Learn about EWG’s Cancer Defense Diet here.

According to the study, ultra-processed foods make up a significant part of modern diets, contributing one-fourth to one-half of the calories of an average diet. Ultra-processed are often high in chemical additives and preservatives, and low in fiber, beneficial vitamins and minerals, and cancer-preventative plant compounds called phytonutrients.

In a podcast discussion of the study, the researchers said they really don’t know the full impact of ultra-processed products on health. They hypothesized that these foods’ low nutritional quality, coupled with the high calorie, sodium and sugar content, could contribute to the increased risk of cancer.

But those factors alone didn’t account for the entire cancer burden. The researchers said that other contributing factors could be the prevalence of food additives in ultra-processed foods and the presence of other compounds created during food processing.

See EWG’s Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Additives to learn which ones to avoid.

The science on the health effects of ultra-processed foods is just beginning to emerge. In the meantime, EWG’s Food Scores can help you to steer clear of ultra-processed foods by revealing the degree of processing for more than 80,000 food products.

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Judge Says Public Doesn’t Need Cancer Warning Label ›

EWG’s Healthy Living Tips | EWG ›

EPA Considers Allowing Bee-Killing Pesticide to Be Sprayed on 165 Million Acres of U.S. Farmland

EcoWatch -GMO-

EPA Considers Allowing Bee-Killing Pesticide to Be Sprayed on 165 Million Acres of U.S. Farmland

Center for Biological Diversity       December 19, 2018

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will consider allowing the bee-killing pesticide thiamethoxam to be sprayed on the most widely grown crops in the U.S. The application, if approved, would allow the highly toxic pesticide to be sprayed directly on 165 million acres of wheat, barley, corn, sorghum, alfalfa, rice and potato.

The proposal by the agrochemical giant Syngenta to dramatically escalate use of the harmful neonicotinoid pesticide came last Friday, on the same day the EPA released new assessments of the extensive dangers posed by neonicotinoids, including thiamethoxam.

“If the EPA grants Syngenta’s wish, it will spur catastrophic declines of aquatic invertebrates and pollinator populations that are already in serious trouble,” said Lori Ann Burd, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health program. “You know the pesticide-approval process is broken when the EPA announces it will consider expanding the use of this dangerous pesticide on the same day its own scientists reveal that the chemical kills birds and aquatic invertebrates.”

Neonicotinoids have long been known to pose serious harm to bee populations. But the new EPA assessments found the commonly used pesticides can kill and harm birds of all sizes and pose significant dangers to aquatic invertebrates.

Western bumblebee by Steve Amus, USDA.

Thiamethoxam is currently widely used as a seed coating for these crops. This application would allow it to be sprayed directly on the crops, greatly increasing the amount of pesticide that could be used.

The just-released aquatic and non-pollinator risk assessment found that the majority of uses of the neonicotinoid on currently registered crops resulted in risks to freshwater invertebrates that exceeded levels of concern—the threshold at which harm is known to occur.

The EPA did not assess risks associated with spraying the pesticides on the crops it announced it was considering expanding use to on Friday. But it is likely that increasing the number of crops approved for spraying would dramatically increase that risk.

In January the EPA released a preliminary assessment of on-field exposures to thiamethoxam that found all uses of the pesticide—on foliar, soil and seeds—result in exposures that exceed the level of concern for acute and chronic risk to adult bees. But the agency has taken no steps to restrict use of these products and is now considering expanding their use.

The EPA will review a proposal to spray a bee-killing pesticide that works by attacking the bee’s central nervous system. NICOLAS TUCAT/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Despite growing scientific and public concern about neonicotinoids, the application for expanded use of thiamethoxam was not announced by the EPA but quietly posted in the Federal Register.

“For years the EPA and pesticide companies bragged that by using treated seeds they were avoiding spraying insecticides, and despite the science showing that these treated seeds were deadly to birds, claimed that they were environmentally beneficial,” said Burd. “But we can expect the Trump EPA to now ignore the risks to birds and bees and approve these ultra-toxic pesticides to be sprayed across hundreds of millions of U.S. acres.”

Neonicotinoids are a class of pesticides known to have both acute and chronic effects on aquatic invertebrates, honeybees, birds, butterflies and other pollinator species; they are a major factor in overall pollinator declines. These systemic insecticides cause entire plants, including pollen and fruit, to become toxic to pollinators; they are also slow to break down and therefore build up in the environment.

A large and growing body of independent science links neonicotinoids to catastrophic bee declines. Twenty-nine independent scientists who conducted a global review of more than 1,000 independent studies on neonicotinoids found overwhelming evidence linking the pesticides to declines in populations of bees, birds, earthworms, butterflies and other wildlife.

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

The evidence points in one direction – we must ban neonicotinoids … ›

EPA: Neonicotinoid Pesticides Pose Serious Risks to Birds, Aquatic … ›

Anti-Opioid Protest

CNN
March 12, 2018

These anti-opioid protesters gathered to throw pill bottles in a pool at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Their goal was to call attention to the link between the donors of the museum’s Sackler Wing and the ongoing opioid crisis in America. http://cnn.it/2tBYxI8

Anti-opioid protesters throw pill bottles in pool at New York museum

These anti-opioid protesters gathered to throw pill bottles in a pool at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Their goal was to call attention to the link between the donors of the museum's Sackler Wing and the ongoing opioid crisis in America. http://cnn.it/2tBYxI8

Posted by CNN on Monday, March 12, 2018

This gel is as flexible as jello, but stronger than steel.

CNN

March 10, 2018

This gel is as flexible as jello, but stronger than steel. It might be the future of joint replacements. http://cnn.it/2Fg8ssh

This gel is stronger than steel

This gel is as flexible as jello, but stronger than steel. It might be the future of joint replacements. http://cnn.it/2Fg8ssh

Posted by CNN on Friday, March 9, 2018

WTF Happened to the NRA?

MoveOn.org
March 12, 2018

Did you know the NRA used to work with the federal government to limit gun traffic and regulate machine guns? So how did they turn into the gun lobby they are today? (via act.tv)

How Did The NRA Turn Into The Gun Lobby They Are Today?

Did you know the NRA used to work with the federal government to limit gun traffic and regulate machine guns? So how did they turn into the gun lobby they are today? (via act.tv)

Posted by MoveOn.org on Monday, March 12, 2018

How Betsy DeVos Faceplanted on 60 Minutes

Esquire

How Betsy DeVos Faceplanted on 60 Minutes

From guns to race to school choice, Trump’s Secretary of Education failed on national television.

By Jack Holmes      March 12, 2018

Getty Images

Betsy DeVos was referred to as “the most hated cabinet secretary” by Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes Sunday night. That was based on the Secretary of Education’s rough-and-tumble confirmation hearings—Vice President Mike Pence’s vote was required to break a Senate tie—and the constant protests that follow her on her visits around the country.

“Most hated” is quite an honor in this administration, which also features the climate-denying Scott Pruitt as EPA administrator. But DeVos is emblematic of Trumpism in its governing form: a member of the plutocratic class with limited expertise but unlimited, entrenched ideology, who attracts the suspicion that she simply bought her influence. At least, that was the opinion of Parkland survivor-turned-activist David Hogg on CNN yesterday.

Stahl’s questioning on 60 Minutes was an effective proving ground for DeVos. On a number of issues, but most prominently school choice, the secretary failed to convince the country of her qualifications. Often, it seemed like she’d just never thought about this before.

Stahl and DeVos started with guns, an issue that still enjoys a sense of urgency despite the NRA and its Republican allies running their post-massacre playbook. DeVos was asked to weigh in on her boss’ plan to arm teachers, which she first grappled with in her confirmation hearings. Back then, she suggested there would be a gun in a school in Wyoming “to protect from potential grizzlies,” which doesn’t seem like a universal issue facing America’s schools. This time was little better:

STAHL: They want gun control.

DEVOS: They want a variety of things. They want solutions.

STAHL: Do you think that teachers should have guns in the classroom?

DEVOS: That should be an option for states and communities to consider. And I hesitate to think of, like, my first-grade teacher, Mrs. Zorhoff, I couldn’t ever imagine her having a gun and being trained in that way. But for those who are—who are capable, this is one solution that can and should be considered. But no one size fits all. Every state and every community is going to address this issue in a different way.

STAHL: Do you see yourself as a leader in this—in this subject? And what kind of ideas will you be promoting?

DEVOS: I have actually asked to head up a task force that will really look at what states are doing. See there are a lot of states that are addressing these issues in very cohesive and coherent ways.

That “task force” is a commission established by President Trump. As an activist with Everytown USA, a gun-violence prevention group, illustrated on Twitter, the commission is probably not an honest attempt to find solutions to the gun violence epidemic in this country:

Trump yesterday at a rally in Pennsylvania: “We can’t just keep setting up blue-ribbon committees. They do nothing but talk, talk, talk.”

Trump today: A new commission run by Betsy DeVos will look into raising age limit to buy long guns. There is no set timeline for findings.

But DeVos’ most glaring professional shortcomings were laid bare on more traditional issues facing the education system. DeVos is unshakably committed to the concept of “school choice,” which involves using public, taxpayer money to get public-school students into private charter or parochial schools. When asked her basis for that ideology, DeVos seemed to be short on the facts:

DEVOS: We have invested billions and billions and billions of dollars from the federal level, and we have seen zero results.

STAHL: But that really isn’t true. Test scores have gone up over the last 25 years.

Things got significantly worse when Stahl asked about DeVos’ home state of Michigan. She and her family have spent huge sums of money to lobby for school choice in Michigan, but DeVos claimed not to know how the state’s public school system was doing.

STAHL: Now, has that happened in Michigan? We’re in Michigan. This is your home state.

DEVOS: Michi—Yes, well, there’s lots of great options and choices for students here.

STAHL: Have the public schools in Michigan gotten better?

DEVOS: I don’t know. Overall, I—I can’t say overall that they have all gotten better.

STAHL: The whole state is not doing well.

DEVOS: Well, there are certainly lots of pockets where this– the students are doing well and–

Getty Images

STAHL: No, but your argument that if you take funds away that the schools will get better, is not working in Michigan where you had a huge impact and influence over the direction of the school system here.

DEVOS: I hesitate to talk about all schools in general because schools are made up of individual students attending them.

STAHL: The public schools here are doing worse than they did.

DEVOS: Michigan schools need to do better. There is no doubt about it.

STAHL: Have you seen the really bad schools? Maybe try to figure out what they’re doing?

DEVOS: I have not—I have not—I have not intentionally visited schools that are underperforming.

STAHL: Maybe you should.

DEVOS: Maybe I should. Yes.

That’s right: when asked if she visits underperforming schools, the U.S. Secretary of Education’s answer was: never on purpose. This is an advertisement for what the Trump administration is all about. The data, the studies, even in-person observation—any way that we have of verifying whether a policy has worked or will work—are all irrelevant.

DeVos believes, deeply, that privatizing public education is the solution to all our problems. That she believes this, and is rich and influential enough to put her ideas into practice, is all that matters. The president’s thought processes are frequently an inversion of the scientific method, where his staff’s resources must be marshaled to find evidence to justify his ideology. It appears that ethos extends to his cabinet. DeVos championed school choice for years in her home state, and public schools there are now doing worse, but that has not impacted her calculus at all. The solution remains more school choice, just as the solution to gun violence is more guns.

The interview also exposed further downsides to having a (white) billionaire who never visits poorly performing schools as Education Secretary. One is that DeVos seems almost completely oblivious to the fact that whites and students of color are disciplined differently in schools—particularly, that misbehavior from black students is more frequently met with punishment that’s escalated to suspensions or even the criminal level, which then serves as a blemish on their record as they seek higher education or employment.

STAHL: That’s the issue: who and how the kids who disrupt are being punished.

DEVOS: Arguably, all of these issues or all of this issue comes down to individual kids. And—

STAHL: Well, no. That– it’s not.

DEVOS: —it does come down to individual kids. And—often comes down to—I am committed to making sure that students have the opportunity to learn in an environment that is conducive to their learning.

STAHL: Do you see this disproportion in discipline for the same infraction as institutional racism?

DEVOS: We’re studying it carefully. And are committed to making sure students have opportunity to learn in safe and nurturing environments.

This idea that racism is about individual interactions is foundational to modern conservative thought. It is also wrong. As Stahl points out, institutional racism is the more pressing issue in our society, as it is responsible for unequal treatment by law enforcement, the courts–and yes, schools. It’s not about an individual teacher’s prejudice, it’s about training and social conditioning that leads to subconscious bias. And it’s not about an individual kid’s behavior—as Stahl mentioned, this is about different punishments for the same offense. Like it or not, the color of the misbehaving kid’s skin matters. This might be lost on someone like Devos, who in a speech called historically black colleges “pioneers” of “school choice.” Historically black colleges were established because black students were shut out of other schools because of their race. There wasn’t much choice involved.

Devos never attended nor worked in any public school herself, and the evidence is fairly conclusive that she does not even believe in the concept of public education. In fact, she once called public education “a dead end.” Why else would she propose massive cuts to her own department? One answer, of course, is that she is a member of Donald Trump’s cabinet—which does not necessarily involve making sure your department is delivering better services to the public. But it does involve putting your pet ideology into practice, consequences be damned—if they’re even acknowledged at all. Long live the kakistocrats.

RELATED STORY
It’s the Golden Age of Climate Denial

Related:

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos doesn’t know a whole lot about schools

Fusion is with Splinter.

March 12, 2018

This is PAINFUL.

Turns out, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos doesn’t know a whole lot about schools—or anything else having to do with her job.

Betsy DeVos Is a Piping Hot Mess

This is PAINFUL.Turns out, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos doesn’t know a whole lot about schools—or anything else having to do with her job.

Posted by Fusion on Monday, March 12, 2018

The government is close to finishing a climate change report. President Trump won’t like it

The Mercury News

The government is close to finishing a climate change report. President Trump won’t like it

By Chris Mooney, Washington Post March 12, 2018

A traffic jam fills Interstate 880 in Milpitas in November. A new report says there is “no convincing alternative explanation” for climate change other than human activities such as fossil fuel burning. Dai Sugano/Bay Area News Group

The country’s top independent scientific advisory body has largely approved a major climate report being prepared by scientists within the Trump administration — suggesting that another key government document could soon emerge that contradicts President Donald Trump’s skepticism about climate change and humans’ role in driving it.

The U.S. National Academies on Monday released a public peer review of a draft document called the U.S. National Climate Assessment, a legally required report that is being produced by the federal Global Change Research Program. The document, which is in its fourth installment, closely surveys how a changing climate is affecting individual U.S. states, regions, and economic and industrial sectors. The final version is expected later this year; the last version came out in 2014 during the Obama administration.

The process highlights how despite the changing political context — and even hints that the Trump administration may try to subject federal climate science to additional, adversarial reviews — technical government studies of climate science continue.

The report, 1,506 pages long in draft form, says U.S. temperatures will rise markedly in coming decades, accompanied by many other attendant effects. It predicts that Northeastern fisheries will be stressed by warmer ocean waters, that the Southeast will suffer from worsening water shortages, that worse extreme-weather events will tax water and other types of infrastructure, and far more.

For the most part, all of this has received a check mark from a panel of scientific referees at the National Academies.

“We had 16 experts review it, go through it in detail, see if it meets the congressionally mandated requirements, and we agree that it did,” said Robin Bell of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, head of the committee that reviewed the report.

The draft document lays out the current and future effects on the United States at a higher level of resolution than before, Bell said, focusing closely on the Caribbean, looking separately at the northern and southern Great Plains, examining air pollution, and more.

“Coastal ecosystems are being transformed, degraded, or lost due to climate change impacts, particularly sea level rise and higher numbers of extreme weather events,” the document states.

“As the pace of coastal flooding and erosion accelerates, climate impacts along our coasts are exacerbating preexisting social inequities as communities face difficult questions on determining who will pay for current impacts and future adaptation strategies and if, how, or when to relocate vulnerable communities,” it continues.

Regarding agricultural communities, the draft states that “reduced crop yields, intensifying wildfire on rangelands, depletion of surface water supplies, and acceleration of aquifer depletion are anticipated with increased frequency and duration of drought.”

When it comes to the fundamental science of climate change, the National Climate Assessment is based, in significant part, on another report, dubbed the Climate Science Special Report, that was finalized and released by the Global Change Research Program late last year.

That document found that there was “no convincing alternative explanation” for climate change other than human activities such as fossil fuel burning. It also said a sea-level rise as high as eight feet is “physically possible” as an extreme by the year 2100, though there was no way to say how probable that is.

Many scientists initially feared that the Trump administration would in some way suppress or otherwise interfere with the release of the Climate Science Special Report, given that it so thoroughly appeared to undermine the president’s personally expressed skepticism of climate change and his decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate change agreement. But the report was released as expected, and there were no significant cries of censorship or political meddling.

Now, the question is whether the same will occur with the longer National Climate Assessment, which goes beyond the Climate Science Special Report to locate the climate problem within specific U.S. communities and industries, describing both how they will suffer and how they are coping. The National Climate Assessment arguably has more potential for political ramifications, in that it exhaustively describes effects in specific places in the country.

“There are many stories about the change, and that’s the beauty of this, you can go to the document and find stories in your community no matter where you live in the U.S.,” Bell said.

Granted, the current review is not a 100 percent endorsement — for instance, it states that when it comes to discussing different types of scientific uncertainty, “improved differentiation and more standardized treatment is needed across the draft report.” The document also contains more than 40 pages of line edits to the longer report.

But this is not a fundamental undermining of the document — it just means more work has to be done for it to be improved before publication.

“They are meant to provide clarification and ease of use by the readers but not direction-changing sorts of recommendations,” said Daniel Cayan, a professor at UC San Diego and one of the peer reviewers.

Like our Facebook page for more conversation and news coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.

The report will be revised in light of these critiques by its federal authors — and move toward anticipated final-form publication later this year.

Related Articles

It’s not just that the water is rising — the land is sinking, too

Why the stock market’s good fortune may not be great for society

Letter: Trump’s tariffs on solar cells are not the answer

Letter: Courts alone can’t solve the climate change issue

Editorial: Liccardo’s ambitious climate plan is right move for San Jose

“There’s a tremendous interest and demand for updated information and also examples of how various communities are approaching climate issues,” Cayan said. “So, I believe that there’s a community of consumers that really are depending on the National Climate Assessment, and I would be very surprised if it does not continue and it is not sustained.”

20% of the Worlds Fresh Water!! Michigan’s deal with Enbridge isn’t end of Line 5 discussion

Detroit Free Press

DNR chief: Michigan’s deal with Enbridge isn’t end of Line 5 discussion

 Keith Creagh     March 12, 2018

             (Photo: Neil Blake, AP)

Michiganders are passionate about the Great Lakes, understandably so. More than any other natural resource the lakes define who we are – geographically, culturally and historically. There is no more important task than properly protecting and managing the lakes for the benefit of future generations.

The shared passion for the Great Lakes has surfaced in public concern over Line 5, the 645-mile-long pipeline owned and operated by Enbridge Energy, Inc., that passes beneath the Straits of Mackinac. Along with the Michigan Attorney General, state agencies – the Michigan Agency for Energy and the Michigan departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality – have undertaken an analysis of Line 5 to determine its future. Hundreds of comments at public feedback sessions, and thousands of comments submitted electronically, will help the state formulate a final decision on the line.

                                                                                                             Keith Creagh , director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Photo: David Kenyon)

Even as that process unfolded, however, we recognized that we could not wait for that analysis to be complete before compelling Enbridge to provide additional protections for the Great Lakes. So on Nov. 27 of last year, Gov. Rick Snyder signed an agreement that provides those protections.

There has been some confusion about what the agreement does and does not do. Let me be clear: The agreement does not represent the state’s final decision regarding Line 5. The process of determining the best future for Line 5 continues with public meetings of the Pipeline Safety Advisory Board and with an in-process risk analysis led by Guy Meadows of Michigan Technological University.

Opinion: Enbridge Line 5 problems draw strong words from state officials. Again.
More: Enbridge oil pipelines in Straits, St. Clair River could go in tunnels under new pact

The state has already commissioned an alternatives analysis that reviews alternatives to Line 5 beneath the Straits. In other words, the agreement with Enbridge is not final, but it is an important interim step to protect our natural resource treasures, especially the Great Lakes.

Just as important as what the agreement does not do is what it does. The agreement:

Leaves all options on the table, including the possibility of closing down Line 5 in the Straits.

Provides a deadline — set by the governor as September of this year — for  further consideration of what should happen to Line 5 beneath the Straits of Mackinac and requires Enbridge to complete a study of the feasibility of tunneling beneath the Straits of Mackinac and other options to the current line.

Provides for additional transparency and truthfulness, including state-hired contractors who are working alongside Enbridge employees to verify the company’s data and due diligence.

Replaces the portion of Line 5 that crosses beneath the St. Clair River, a site where this action can be quickly accomplished. The St. Clair River is a primary source of drinking water for southeast Michigan and an environmentally sensitive location along the pipeline.

Temporarily shuts down operation of Line 5 in the Straits during periods of sustained adverse weather conditions, because those conditions do not allow for an adequate response to potential oil spills. This provision was already put to use in December.

Requires Enbridge, in partnership with the state, to evaluate other Line 5 water crossings in Michigan to identify additional measures to minimize the likelihood and consequences of an oil spill at these locations, and implement measures where appropriate. This provision extends the rightful concern and focus on the Straits to  other water crossings along the entire length of Line  5 in Michigan.

To date there is no indication that Line 5 presents an immediate safety hazard. Nevertheless, all pipelines have a life-span. Our task as a state is to determine what the lifespan of Line 5 ought to be, and what, if anything, should replace Line 5 when that lifespan is complete. The state has a process for making that decision. There is no reason to wait for that process to play out to provide needed safeguards for the Great Lakes. Our children and grandchildren deserve no less.

Keith Creagh is director of the Department of Natural Resources and co-chair of the Michigan Pipeline Safety Advisory Board.

Trump’s hastily passed tax law is error-riddled

ThinkProgress

Trump’s hastily passed tax law is error-riddled

After rushing through the bill, Congressional Republicans may have to re-write parts of it

Josh Israel      March 11, 2018

President Trump signed his tax bill in December 2017. Credit: Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images

After years of dishonestly whining that the Affordable Care Act was written in secret and rushed through Congress with insufficient debate, Congressional Republicans and the Trump administration cobbled together their tax legislation in December and rushed it through Congress. Now, it appears, America is paying the price for their shoddy work.

Desperate to pass the bill — which contained massive tax cuts for President Trump and the very rich, and tax increases for many poor and middle class families — with only Republican votes, the GOP majority was forced to make deals and amendments on the fly. Indeed, USA Today reported in December that the Senate actually passed its version of the bill with last-minute alterations that were “handwritten into the margins.”

Senator Dick Durbin: UPDATE: Senate Republicans are so desperate to pass their tax bill tonight that they’re now making handwritten changes to their already handwritten changes…

Now, the error-riddled legislation President Trump signed into law may be so problematic that it may need to be re-written, the New York Times reported on Sunday. “Companies and trade groups are pushing the Treasury Department and Congress to fix the law’s consequences some intended and some not, including provisions that disadvantage certain farmers, hurt restaurateurs and retailers and could balloon the tax bills of large multinational corporations,” the paper reported. Even the pro-GOP U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote to the Treasury Department on Thursday raising concerns about ambiguities in the legislation.

One problem, known as the “grain glitch,” is that the bill contained a massive deduction for farmers who sell to cooperatives, but offers no such deduction if they sell their crops to independent agribusinesses.  Another drafting error in the bill means that restaurants and retailers who do renovations will have to deduct their costs over 39 years, instead of the intended 15 year period.

Unlike the legislation itself — which was rammed through under the budget reconciliation so as to require only 51 votes in the Senate — any legislative fixes will require some Democratic support. But Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) told The Times that his party will demand substantive changes as well: “We’re not just going to sit down and fix the things they did badly because they did it in the dead of night with lobbyists at the table.”

As recently as last summer, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) published a “flashback” document listing a series of out-of-context newspaper quotes to demonstrate that Obamacare was the result of a “‘secret’ closed door” process. And McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) have steadfastly blocked even bipartisan efforts to make technical fixes to that legislation.