The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's global food-commodity index climbed in August to its highest level since 2022, with the index now gaining momentum to the upside. The upside reinforces warnings from several major Wall Street desks, which we have covered extensively, that global food shortages could materialize next year.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) Food Price Index, which tracks monthly changes in the international prices of a basket of globally traded food commodities, averaged 133.3 in August, up 1.9% from July, with every major category advancing. Sugar prices surged 11.9%, while wheat gained 2.6% and now stands 15% above year-ago levels.
The surge in global food prices comes as a perfect storm of factors emerges, from El Niño and higher fertilizer and diesel prices to disruptions in the Black Sea and the Strait of Hormuz, all of which could push the global food system toward another crisis.
Earlier this week, the Bloomberg Agriculture Spot Index (BCOMAGSP) posted its largest monthly gain since the chaotic days of the Arab Spring riots and is nearing a breakout above its 2023 highs, signaling a broad-based acceleration in agricultural commodity prices.
Latest coverage:
With diesel at record highs to end the week, agricultural markets tightening, and global food prices accelerating, another inflationary impulse is quickly moving through global supply chains just as central banks decide whether interest rates are restrictive enough.
Tyler Durden Sat, 09/05/2026 - 08:45Update (1505ET): The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court denied an emergency stay Friday afternoon in the Lindsay Clancy case, after which the judge formally declared a mistrial.
JUST IN - Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt is hearing Lindsay Clancy's defense appeal to stay the mistrial judgement. pic.twitter.com/zOiGYlY9gv
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) September 4, 2026Clancy, a former labor-and-delivery nurse, is charged with first-degree murder in the January 2023 strangling deaths of her three children (ages 5, 3, and 8 months) in Duxbury. The defense argued she was not criminally responsible due to postpartum psychosis.
🚨 JUST IN: The Lindsay Clancy prosecution has ALREADY told the court they WILL be re-trying this case
Lindsay WILL NOT walk free (or walk at all). It's looking like it'll occur later in the fall.
Clancy remains in custody, and the next hearing is Sept. 29th. pic.twitter.com/58aPmVJyie
* * *
Update (1226ET): After the jury remained deadlocked following 36 hours of deliberations over seven days, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy murder case - however he's given the defense one hour to seek a stay from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Judge says he will give Reddington one hour to get a stay from the Supreme Judicial Court.
MISTRIAL ON HOLD in Lindsay Clancy case.
Why would the defense want a stay of a mistrial? Because if they can instead force the holdout juror to be removed, they avoid a brand new trial and Clancy will go free.
"This is really intense. Reddington asked for emergency Supreme Judicial Court intervention moments before the jury walked back in," reports NewsNation's Brian Entin.
Developing...
* * *
Update (1135ET): A mistrial was declared in the Lindsay Clancy case on Friday, after a holdout juror refused to bend the knee and let her off, Fox News' Bill Melugin reports.
BREAKING: Judge declares mistrial in Lindsay Clancy murder case after hung jury.
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) September 4, 2026* * *
Lindsay Clancy's defense team is absolutely melting down after Judge William Sullivan refused to remove a holdout juror in Clancy's triple-murder trial, in which the jury must decide whether Clancy is criminally responsible for strangling her three children, Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months. Her defense claims that she was suffering from hallucinations amid postpartum psychosis. The prosecution claims she was not in psychosis when she sent her husband out of the house on long errands, before she murdered her children and then tried to make it appear as though she attempted suicide.
ReutersOn Thursday, the jury foreperson sent a note indicating one juror was refusing to apply the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt. Judge William Sullivan questioned each juror individually at sidebar, then gave the full panel what defense attorney Kevin Reddington later called a "soft" reminder of the law and sent them back to deliberate.
"They’ve said at this point that they can," Sullivan said. "That was specifically addressed towards the specific question, and that’s what I’m doing."
Reddington demanded that the holdout to be removed, and requested a more pointed inquiry - which Sullivan declined.
JUST IN: Lindsay Clancy stares at the jury as Judge William Sullivan sends them home for the day.
The moment came shortly after Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, fumed and called on Sullivan to remove one of the jurors. https://t.co/r7g6JPmXyM pic.twitter.com/32z5efMIKP
According to Clancy's defense team, the holdout juror is a man.
"Clearly, we have a person who, under their oath, stood in front of you yesterday … under oath looked you in the eye and lied," said Reddington. "That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked him."
ReutersWhen court resumed Friday, Reddington hammered Sullivan, arguing that the prior instruction was inadequate, and pressed again for removal or further questioning of the juror (whom he accused of having lied under oath). Sullivan refused additional inquiry, stating he had considered the issue at length and would not remove the juror. Redding responded by calling Sullivan 'soft' - to which Sullivan replied: "What do you want me to do?! Get a brass band? I read the instruction as written by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The fact I perhaps did not give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that, I'm not an actor - I'm giving instruction.
🚨 BREAKING: Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney is MELTING DOWN in court and DIRECTLY SPARRING with the judge, calling the judge "SOFT"
DEFENSE: Stop being soft with jury instructions!
JUDGE: What do you want me to do?! Get a BRASS BAND?! I read the instruction as written by the… pic.twitter.com/dijDZAdqzG
Following the spat, Clancy's defense team filed a motion to Sullivan asking that there be no more sidebars for the remainder of the trial - and that all further proceedings be handled in open court. The prosecution, meanwhile, suggested that there be no further questioning of the jury, and asked that Sullivan send them to continue deliberations, arguing that the holdout juror has "no indication of lack of impartiality or bias or extraneous influence, and no indication of inability to deliberate."
Reddington disagreed - arguing that the juror appears to have a personal issue getting in the way of him being able to deliberate fairly, and demanded that he be replaced with an alternate.
According to Massachusetts law, a judge can only send a jury back for deliberations twice before declaring a mistrial - which looks like where we're headed.
//--> //--> //--> Lindsay Clancy convicted of murder?Authored by RFE/RL staff via OilPrice.com,
Ukraine's top sanctions official says he remains optimistic about prospects for a sweeping Russia sanctions bill in the US Congress despite growing uncertainty over when the House of Representatives will take it up, as lawmakers face a sharply shortened legislative calendar ahead of the November elections.
Vladyslav Vlasiuk, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's sanctions commissioner, spent this week in Washington meeting lawmakers and congressional staff as Kyiv presses Congress to advance the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026.
The legislation passed the Senate on August 7 by an overwhelming 86-11 vote, reflecting rare bipartisan agreement. The bill would give the president additional authority to impose punitive tariffs on countries that continue buying Russian fossil fuels. It also includes provisions targeting Iran, which Vlasiuk said is engaged in close military-industrial cooperation with Moscow.
But the measure faces a more complicated path in the House, where some Democrats have expressed reservations about provisions that would give President Donald Trump additional authority to impose tariffs.
Republican leaders announced on September 3 that the final two weeks of the pre-election House session are canceled, severely curtailing what had been a full legislative calendar for September.
House members are expected to leave Washington no later than September 17 and not return until mid-November. The House will reconvene for one additional week of business after next week's Labor Day break.
The compressed calendar has increased pressure on supporters of the sanctions legislation. Senior Republican aides told RFE/RL that the bill remains a GOP priority, provided Democrats "get their ducks in a row."
Democratic aides, in response to RFE/RL inquiries, expressed cautious optimism about the measure, underscoring uncertainty over whether Speaker Mike Johnson will bring it to the floor.
Vlasiuk: 'Good Chance'Vlasiuk said he held roughly 20 meetings with lawmakers and congressional staff during his Washington visit, including discussions with members of both parties.
He said the Ukrainian delegation encountered broad support for increasing pressure on Russia and that no lawmaker told him outright that they would oppose the legislation.
"Everyone agreed that it was necessary to increase pressure on Russia," Vlasiuk said at a briefing at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington. "No one said that he definitely would not support this bill."
He described Ukraine as "quite optimistic" about the level of support for the legislation, including among Democrats.
One potentially important route would be for the House to consider the bill under suspension of the rules, a fast-track procedure generally used for legislation expected to command broad support. Vlasiuk said that was among the realistic scenarios for moving the bill forward.
"I think that there is really good chance that this bill will be brought onto the floor," he said.
Vlasiuk has previously identified the week after next as Kyiv's preferred window for a House vote. With the House calendar now compressed, that period could provide one of the last opportunities for a vote before lawmakers leave Washington.
Asked by RFE/RL whether the momentum surrounding the bill was still there, Vlasiuk pointed to what he characterized as continued bipartisan backing for Ukraine.
"There is a lot of support for Ukraine on the Hill," he said, adding that Kyiv has been "very vocal" in stressing the urgency of passing the bill. "At the same time, well, I mean, let's wait and see," Vlasiuk said.
Democrats Wary Of Trump PowersThe principal obstacle is not broad disagreement over confronting Russia, according to Thomas Melia, a former senior State Department official and Senate Foreign Relations Committee deputy staff director who is currently with the Free Russia Foundation.
In an interview with RFE/RL, Melia explained that Democratic leaders have several reasons for hesitating. One is that the legislation is not strictly necessary for the administration to impose sanctions, he said. Trump already possesses significant authority to sanction Russian individuals and entities.
The bill's principal value, in Melia's assessment, is therefore partly political and symbolic: Its bipartisan backing would demonstrate congressional resolve to increase pressure on Moscow.
But Melia said the House Democratic leadership was not sufficiently involved in negotiating the version that ultimately emerged from the Senate.
That concern is particularly relevant to Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who has expressed general support for tougher pressure on Russia but has raised concerns about provisions of the legislation.
There is also a substantive concern: The final version of the legislation gives the president additional tariff authority. Melia said that has created hesitation among Democrats who are wary of giving Trump another instrument that could be used broadly against US trading partners.
Melia also emphasized another change from the bill's earlier form: The final version makes the sanctions optional rather than mandatory.
That distinction matters, he said, because the original legislation's political force came in part from its mandatory sanctions provisions and overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate.
After the death of Senator Lindsey Graham, the administration backed a version of the legislation but sought changes that made sanctions nonmandatory and added tariff authority, Melia said.
The result, in his view, is a weaker measure than the original. Melia said the final version nevertheless retains substantial political significance because of the broad bipartisan support that surrounded the tougher proposal.
Kyiv Backs TariffsVlasiuk defended the tariff provisions, arguing that they could make sanctions substantially more effective. "This is a powerful instrument which will allow to amplify the effect of the sanctions," he said.
He argued that tariffs and sanctions can have similar economic effects but differ in their ability to be circumvented.
"Sanctions can be adapted, sanctions can be evaded, tariffs cannot be adapted or evaded," Vlasiuk said.
He also rejected concerns that countries could be arbitrarily targeted under the bill, saying the legislation establishes criteria based on purchases of Russian fossil fuels.
In particular, he pointed to China and India, which Ukraine considers central to Russia's continued ability to sell its energy exports.
Vlasiuk said the pressure could represent "a huge blow" to Russia's ability to finance its war against Ukraine.
Ukraine also supports the bill's inclusion of Iran, he said, citing Tehran's close military cooperation with Moscow.
"Everyone understands how close cooperation is between the military-industrial complex of these countries," Vlasiuk said. "Therefore, Iran is very well-deserved."
House Vote Window NarrowsThe political stakes are heightened by the House's decision to cancel its final two weeks of pre-election legislative work.
The chamber is expected to depart Washington no later than September 17, although Republican leaders have said members could be recalled if the Senate advances a party-line budget reconciliation package. That scenario is not currently expected.
Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, a Republican who has supported the sanctions effort, described the lack of congressional action as a serious failure.
"This is a real shame. It passed 86-11 in the Senate," Bacon said. "Congressional inaction on Russia's invasion of Ukraine and on Putin's crimes is a real failure. The history books will not be kind."
For Kyiv, the urgency is not simply legislative.
Vlasiuk warned that Ukraine faces another difficult winter after months of Russian missile and drone attacks. He said 160 people had been killed in missile and drone strikes in recent months.
"We have to increase the pressure over Russia to make them change their plans, to make them really negotiate," he said.
He argued that passing the sanctions bill now would have two effects: It could eventually increase economic pressure on Russia, while immediately sending a political signal to both Ukraine and the Russian government.
There is, he said, an element of inertia in sanctions policy. Even after legislation passes, implementing measures can take days, and producing a significant effect on Russia's economy can take weeks.
"But at the same time, the very fact of passing this sanction bill," Vlasiuk said, would send a "strong signal of support to Ukrainian people" and a "really strong signal to Russian government."
Tyler Durden Sat, 09/05/2026 - 08:10