Israeli fire kills at least 18 in Gaza, and US envoy visits hostage family protest
The episode came a day after U.S. officials visited one site and U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee called the distribution 'an incredible feat.' International outrage has mounted as the group's efforts to deliver aid to hunger-stricken Gaza have been marred by violence and controversy.
'We weren't close to them (the troops) and there was no threat,' Abed Salah, a man in his 30s who was among the crowds close to the GHF site near Netzarim corridor, said. 'I escaped death miraculously.'
The danger facing aid seekers in Gaza has compounded what international hunger experts this week called a 'worst-case scenario of famine' in the besieged enclave. Israel's nearly 22-month military offensive against Hamas has shattered security in the territory of some 2 million Palestinians and made it nearly impossible to deliver food safely to starving people.
Seven Palestinians died of malnutrition-related causes in the Gaza Strip over the past 24 hours, the territory's health ministry said on Saturday.
They include a child, it said in a statement, bringing total deaths among children from causes related to malnutrition in Gaza to 93 since the war began. The ministry said 76 adults in Gaza have died of malnutrition-related causes since late June, when it started counting deaths among adults.
From May 27 to July 31, 859 people were killed near GHF sites, according to a United Nations report published Thursday. Hundreds more have been killed along the routes of food convoys.
GHF says its armed contractors have only used pepper spray or fired warning shots to prevent deadly crowding. Israel's military has said it has only fired warning shots at people who approach its forces, though on Friday said it was working to make the routes under its control safer. Israel and GHF have said that the toll has been exaggerated.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Food companies make promises while MAHA looks for more
Coca-Cola, Steak 'n Shake, Mars and other food companies earned valuable exposure for pledging to remove certain ingredients and align themselves with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s bid to clean up what America eats. But some of Kennedy's "Make America Healthy Again" base question if the companies deserve a celebration. Why it matters: The commitments aren't enforceable. And nutritionists and influencers say they largely don't address the primary drivers of chronic diseases that Kennedy has made his cause. State of play: Companies including General Mills, PepsiCo, Conagra, Nestle, Hershey and Kraft Heinz have said they'll remove artificial dyes from their products within the next two years. Coca-Cola pledged to roll out a product that uses cane sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup. Starbucks is looking to remove canola oil from products on its menu. Steak 'n Shake was among the earliest to get on board, agreeing to cook its fries in beef tallow instead of seed oils. "Secretary Kennedy has consistently emphasized that the Department's top priority is ensuring the health and transparency that American families deserve," a Health and Human Services spokesperson said in an email to Axios. "Recent food industry commitments to remove artificial dyes, seed oils, and high fructose corn syrup are a positive step." Some MAHA faithful question whether the resulting fanfare amounts to a free pass, akin to a dubious healthy food claim. "They are not big MAHA wins," said Rob Houton, founder of the MAHA Coalition, an advocacy group that builds support for the MAHA agenda. "Those companies want to trumpet that, right? [It's] very clever of them to say, 'Oh, we're in agreement.' But what they are trumpeting as a big deal is not transformative." "The analogy I would make is it's like you have a dilapidated house, the foundation is crumbling and you think that you can correct everything by just putting a new coat of paint on it all," said Arden Anderson, a physician, agriculture consultant and MAHA supporter. As for the two-year window some companies have to make good on their commitments, "what I want to see is that they are doing it," said Ana-Maria Temple, a holistic pediatrician and an influencer aligned with MAHA. Between the lines: Some activists say the most substantive changes would be in regulating agriculture — a touchy proposition for an administration eager not to alienate farm interests. MAHA discontent is building around the House Interior spending bill, which includes language that would offer liability protections for the makers of pesticides. There's also frustration with agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, which removed regulations against pesticides and "forever chemicals." "We are extremely disappointed with some of the actions taken by this administration to protect the polluters and the pesticide companies," Zen Honeycutt, the founder of Moms Across America, told Vox. What to watch: Kennedy is set to release a blueprint within days for how the administration intends to address issues raised in a MAHA Commission report that was released in May. Supporters say it will be a test of the administration's willingness to impose new standards on food ingredients, as well as transparency requirements about what's in their products. "Under the MAHA agenda, HHS supports real accountability and science-based standards to ensure that any promised changes are both transparent and truly meaningful for consumers," the HHS spokesperson said in the emailed statement. The bottom line: These moves are creating awareness and pressure that the food industry has never had to respond to before, and that's important, Temple said. "Is it the final answer? Of course not," Temple said of the commitments the administration has extracted from industry. "More people are going to be asking questions. That's a huge win." "The small changes that have been made ... you might think, 'Well, that's not making that big of a difference,'" said Hilda Labrada Gore, a health coach, podcast host and MAHA supporter. "But it's a start."
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
NFL players can still use smelling salts as long as not provided by teams
NFL players will be allowed to use 'smelling salts' during games after all. The NFLPA sent a memo to players on Wednesday saying that the ban that the league informed teams about on Tuesday only prohibits team employees from distributing smelling salts and any other ammonia inhalant during pregame activities, games and halftime on the sideline or locker rooms. 'The NFL Players Association is aware of the memo issued by the league Tuesday regarding the use of smelling salts and ammonia capsules,' said the memo to players, which was obtained by The Associated Press. 'We were not notified of this club policy change before the memo was sent out. To clarify, this policy does not prohibit player use of these substances, but rather it restricts clubs from providing or supplying them in any form. The NFL has confirmed this to us.' The memo from the league prohibited any club personnel from providing or supplying products such as ammonia capsules, inhalers, ammonia in a cup, and any form of 'smelling salts.' The league cited a warning issued from the Food and Drug Administration in 2024 that there was no evidence citing the 'safety or efficacy' of the products and that they have the potential to mask symptoms of concussions. Smelling salts and other similar products have been a staple on NFL sidelines for years with many players believing they can provide a sudden jolt of energy or alertness.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Two Words: Plastics Treaty
What is plastic? The question isn't as silly as it sounds. The miraculous substances that suffuse our daily lives are not one material but many, differing wildly in look, feel and function, from the materials in Saran wrap to your kid's Legos to airplanes. Even two seemingly identical plastics are rarely the same because manufacturers add any number of additives, such as phthalates, flame retardants, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, to imbue their products with additional flexibility, say, or heat resistance. By one estimate, there are at least 16,000 known chemical additives used by the plastics industry, of which at least 4,200 are known to be toxic. And because plastics inevitably break down into microplastics and then nanoplastics, eventually making their way into our lungs, guts, brains and even our unborn children, whatever is in our plastic is in us, too. This is a high-stakes moment for anyone invested in what plastics might be doing to our health. Beginning this week, representatives from more than 170 countries involved in a United Nations plastics treaty process are gathering in Geneva to try, for the sixth time, to negotiate the first global agreement to regulate the production, consumption and disposal of plastics. A previous meeting, held in South Korea in December, failed because of disagreements between countries pushing for an ambitious treaty and a group of fossil-fuel-producing nations, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the United States. Among the causes for discord has been the question of plastics' impact on human health. This issue should concern all Americans, given the findings of the so-called Make America Healthy Again Commission, which highlighted the potential risks of microplastics, phthalates, PFAS and other plastics additives for children's health. Dozens of countries and an independent coalition of scientists want to ban plastics and chemical additives that are known or suspected to harm human health. But Saudi Arabia, the world's largest crude oil exporter, has argued that including language on the health impacts of plastics would distract from the treaty's core focus on pollution. The Trump administration has suggested that it would support only a treaty that protects American business interests. Exactly what, if anything, plastics are doing to our health remains hotly contested. But the signs aren't good. Researchers have linked microplastics consumption to an increased risk of cancer, respiratory disorders, bowel disease and male and female infertility. They are also known to trigger inflammation — a precondition for cancer — and possibly interfere with antibiotics. Researchers writing in the British medical journal The Lancet recently declared plastics 'a grave, growing and underrecognized danger to human and planetary health.' That might sound pretty damning, but proving whether microplastics are causing any specific disease is surprisingly hard. For one thing, much of the science on microplastics is relatively new and based on studies of animal or human cells in a lab. As Nicholas Chartres, a senior research fellow who studies microplastics at the University of Sydney Pharmacy School, told me, 'You can't ethically randomize people to be exposed to these chemicals.' Several long-term observational studies are ongoing, but conclusive results may be years away. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
