Evidentiary hearings are underway in a Washington, D.C., courtroom this week, to decide if a massive lawsuit against the cellphone industry will be allowed to go to trial.

Multiple families are suing most of the major wireless companies and their trade association, asking for hundreds of millions in damages, claiming cellphone use causes brain tumors.

Monique Solomon Martinazzi, a plaintiff whose husband Andy passed away at age 43, said he had a brain tumor which developed right where he used to hold his cellphone.

"When cellphones first came out he got one of the original battery-held Motorolas," Solomon Martinazzi recounted. "And it was held to his ear 6-7 hours a day. He was in commercial real estate. And we just felt so strongly that was the reason the brain tumor developed where it did."

The industry trade association and Motorola did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but they have said their products are safe and comply with all government standards.

The lawsuit claims the Federal Communications Commission standards are outdated and pointed to a government study showing exposure to cellphone radiation can cause brain and heart tumors in rats.

Industry lawyers argued in court if cellphones caused cancer, we'd be seeing an epidemic of tumors.

Ellie Marks, founder of the California Brain Tumor Association and another plaintiff whose husband Allan has had two brain surgeries so far, said the industry and the government are ignoring the evidence.

"There is a rise in primary brain tumors, especially gliomas, especially in the younger population," Marks pointed out. "These tumors used to only be seen in those over 65. Now we're seeing people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, perishing from this."

The families are claiming wrongful death, personal injury and loss of consortium.

Dr. Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California-Berkeley, said if a U.S. court rules cellphone use leads to brain cancer, the implications are huge.

"It probably would lead to many additional cases being filed by brain cancer victims," Moskowitz explained. "It also may force our government to finally take this issue seriously."

In related news, a judge in Canada recently ruled a class-action lawsuit can go forward against Apple and Samsung. The plaintiffs claimed cellphones emit more than the allowable levels of radiation, and the defendants knowingly harmed users.

A South Dakota legislative committee has begun discussions on a plan to repeal the state's grocery tax.

It has been a politically divisive issue amid calls to help residents still reeling from inflation. Nearly a dozen states impose sales taxes on food sold in supermarkets. Some have taken steps to pause or reduce taxes after major spikes in consumer prices.

Erik Nelson, associate state director of advocacy for AARP South Dakota, said the state should take similar action by eliminating its grocery tax. He pointed out there are many people out there, including older residents, who are still feeling the squeeze.

"Many times, South Dakota's low-income seniors may be having to choose between purchasing food and other vital necessities such as prescription drugs or heat," Nelson observed.

Republican Gov. Kristi Noem also supports the idea, but some members of her party plan to oppose the move when it comes up for votes. They, along with groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, argued the move could place pressure on the state budget because a key revenue source would be lost.

But Nelson suggested lawmakers need to take the long view, noting not being able to shop for enough food could be detrimental to the health outcomes of older South Dakotans.

"Seniors that have difficulty accessing and maintaining an adequate and nutritious diet," Nelson emphasized. "We of course recognize that access to healthy food is important to keeping us healthy."

South Dakota's tax on groceries is 4.5%. It is one of only three states to tax groceries at the full sales-tax rate. While concerns about the impact on revenue have been raised, Noem argued the state would still have enough available money in the general fund.

The health risks associated with gas-burning stoves have caused a recent stir and fears of a government ban on the appliances, but a Michigan lawmaker said it would be going too far.

Gas stoves are known to emit nitrogen dioxide, and without proper ventilation, studies have shown indoor air pollution can worsen, causing respiratory illnesses.

A recent study found 13% of childhood asthma cases are attributable to gas stove emissions.

Dr. John Levy, professor and chair of the Department of Environmental Health at Boston University, said the structure of a home can determine the risks.

"For many people, things like gas stoves could actually be their highest source of air pollution exposure," Levy pointed out. "That itself is important."

Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich., said a prohibition on gas appliances would prevent Americans from choosing the oven which works best for them. His bill, The S.T.O.V.E. Act, or "Stop Trying to Obsessively Vilify Energy," would bar the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission from banning gas stoves.

Natural gas is used in more than a third of homes nationwide, but not every household can easily swap out their appliances, especially renters and low-income households, where the majority of asthmatic children live.

Levy pointed out studies have shown improved ventilation in these homes pays for itself when it comes to asthma-related health care costs.

"If we're thinking about folks who maybe are on Medicaid, this actually could be a wise government investment to try to reduce health care costs and health burdens," Levy contended.

The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, offers homeowners tax incentives for swapping out gas stoves for electric induction versions, as well as other energy-efficient appliances.

Levy added he would like to see a renewed focus on gas stoves to improve building codes, especially in low-income housing and disadvantaged neighborhoods.

The proposed merger between supermarket giants Albertsons and Kroger is raising alarm bells in rural communities worried about the impact on consumers, farmers, and workers. Together, the companies own 734 Albertsons, Safeway, Vons and Ralphs stores in the state, and have indicated that between 100 and 350 could be sold off.

Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the nonprofit Institute for Local Self-Reliance, said consolidation among grocery chains allows them to squeeze more profit on both ends - by lowballing farmers and raising prices for customers.

"We've seen food-production workers and farmers getting paid less, and we see consumers paying more for groceries," Mitchell said. "You've got the middlemen, including the supermarket chains, who are becoming incredibly profitable."

Albertsons and Kroger have assured workers the new owners of any stores they sell will honor union agreements.

But Chris Tilly, professor of urban planning and at UCLA, and an expert on economics said there is no guarantee.

"Workers are rightly skeptical of that, particularly because when Albertsons and Safeway merged, they spun off 168 stores, and quite soon, a lot of those stores closed," Tilly said.

Congress recently passed two bills to improve oversight of large mergers. Mitchell said the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act will allow federal agencies to charge the companies more to review mega-transactions - so they can hire enough staff to conduct a proper review.

"The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice are woefully underfunded in terms of their antitrust activities. The size of those agencies really has not kept pace with the growth in the economy," he said. "And we have a significant monopoly problem. "

The new State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act will help state attorneys general keep the case in their selected courts - and prevent large companies from venue shopping to find a judge the company thinks could be sympathetic.