18 people sick after mini pastries sold in Florida recalled for salmonella outbreak
The Sweet Cream-brand mini pastries with best-by dates from June 17 through Nov. 15, 2025, have been recalled.
These mini pastries were distributed in Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Pennslyvania to food service locations like hotel cafes, bakeries, institutions, and restaurants.
Supreme Court sides with ex-Chicago alderman in corruption conviction appeal
LIVE: Tampa leaders announce millions in hurricane relief
Northern California explored in 'Off Road Confidential'
According to the FDA, as of March 14, 18 people were infected with the salmonella outbreak from seven states.
One person has been hospitalized, and no deaths have been reported.
Salmonella symptoms usually occur within 12 to 72 hours after eating food that has been contaminated and the symptoms usually last four to seven days, the FDA said.
Symptoms include diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps.
Customers who have received the recalled product have been notified, according to the FDA.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Supreme Court lets Trump admin cut off health grants it says advance DEI or ‘gender ideology extremism'
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's liberals in dissent from the court's decision to permit the funding halt. The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to cut off health research grants it contends advance diversity, equity and inclusion efforts or promote 'gender ideology extremism.' By a 5-4 vote, the justices lifted an order a federal court judge in Boston issued forcing the National Institutes of Health to restore funding for more than 1,700 grants focused on heart disease, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, alcohol and substance abuse and mental health issues. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's liberals in dissent from the court's decision to permit the funding halt.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court clears way for Trump admin. to cancel NIH diversity, gender identity-related grants
Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the Trump administration to proceed with the cancellation of National Institutes of Health research grants tied to issues like gender identity and diversity, equity and inclusion. In a 5-4 decision, in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided in part with the majority, and Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the minority, the high court lifted a lower court order that required the NIH to restore hundreds of research grants that had been canceled because they were tied to these issues. The legal challenge from over a dozen states and a coalition of research groups will continue to play out in the lower court. The divided decision from the high court enables the administration to pull back awards that it says do not align with its policy objectives. Since returning to the White House for a second term, President Trump has directed federal agencies to cancel DEI-related grants or contracts and ensure federal funds do not go toward initiatives involving gender identity. The dispute before the Supreme Court arose after the Department of Health and Human Services and the head of NIH issued a series of directives in February that led to the cancellation of grant awards that were connected to DEI or gender identity, as well as research topics including vaccine hesitancy, COVID and climate change. NIH has a $47 billion budget and is considered the world's largest funder of biomedical research. More than 1,700 grants were canceled nationwide, including more than 800 awarded to public universities, state instrumentalities and local governments in 16 states that challenged the move. Lawyers for the Democratic state attorneys general told the Supreme Court in a filing that the sudden cancellation of the grants forced their universities to lay off or furlough employees, cut student enrollment and withdraw admissions offers. The states and research groups challenged the grant terminations in April, arguing the move violated the Constitution and a federal law governing the agency rulemaking process. The plaintiffs sought to block NIH from ending grants and to have funding that had already been axed restored. A federal judge in Massachusetts held a bench trial and ruled in June that the grant terminations were unlawful. The judge, William Young, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, ordered that the directives from the Trump administration and resulting grant terminations be set aside. Young found that NIH engaged in "no reasoned decision-making" in rolling out the grant terminations, and wrote there was "not a shred of evidence" to back up the administration's claims that DEI studies are used to support discrimination on the basis of race and other protected characteristics. The Trump administration asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit to pause the district court's decision, which it declined to do. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the high court for emergency relief last month. In his emergency appeal, the solicitor general argued that the Supreme Court had a chance to "stop errant district courts from continuing to disregard" its decisions. Sauer pointed to an April order from the justices that cleared the way for the Department of Education to halt millions of dollars in teacher-training grants that it said funded programs that involve DEI initiatives. The high court said in that case that the Trump administration was likely to succeed in showing that the federal district court that oversaw the dispute lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under federal law. The solicitor general said the judicial system does not rest on a "lower-court free-for-all where individual district judges feel free to elevate their own policy judgments over those of the Executive Branch, and their own legal judgments over those of this Court." But the public health groups warned that even a brief stay of the district court's decision reinstating the grants would invalidate crucial multiyear projects that have already been paid for by Congress, "inflicting incalculable losses in public health and human life because of delays in bringing the fruits of plaintiffs' research to Americans who desperately await clinical advancements." They warned that pulling the grants would do irreversible harm to public health, halting biomedical research that Congress directed NIH to fund. "That, and the obvious harm to those who suffer from chronic or life-threatening diseases and their loved ones, must be balanced against NIH's ill-defined monetary interests and any asserted incursion on its policymaking latitude," the research organizations wrote in a filing. This is a breaking story and will be updated.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court lets Trump admin cut off health grants it says advance DEI or ‘gender ideology extremism'
The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to cut off health research grants it contends advance diversity, equity and inclusion efforts or promote 'gender ideology extremism.' By a 5-4 vote, the justices lifted an order a federal court judge in Boston issued forcing the National Institutes of Health to restore funding for more than 1,700 grants focused on heart disease, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, alcohol and substance abuse and mental health issues. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's liberals in dissent from the court's decision to permit the funding halt. While Barrett voted with most of the court's conservatives to let the administration stop the grant funding, she sided with Roberts and the liberals to form a majority that left in place the lower judge's order voiding several NIH policies aimed at enforcing Trump's anti-DEI edicts. Since the ruling leaves the grant recipients without federal funds for now, the Trump administration seems certain to claim it as yet another in a flurry of wins in emergency appeals it has filed with the Supreme Court. In a solo concurring opinion, Barrett indicated that the court's ruling Thursday signaled that the grant recipients should have brought their claims for lost funding not to a district judge in Boston but to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, which hears disputes over federal contracts. U.S. District Judge William Young ordered the health-related grants restored in June, following lawsuits filed by impacted grant recipients and 16 Democratic-led states complaining of cuts to programs at their state universities. Young, a Reagan appointee, used unusually strident language to condemn the targeted cuts, many of which ended grants studying the impacts of disease on specific minority groups. 'This represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community,' the judge said of the cuts. 'I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out.' However, in Thursday's ruling, Justice Neil Gorsuch accused Young of defying the Supreme Court by not abiding by an emergency ruling it issued in April, allowing the Trump administration to cancel $64 million in teaching-related grants. (That 5-4 ruling also found Roberts in dissent along with the three liberal justices.) 'When this Court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts,' Gorsuch declared, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned a blistering 21-page solo opinion calling the court's latest ruling 'bizarre' and complaining in particular about her colleagues 'sending plaintiffs on a likely futile, multivenue quest for complete relief.' She even declared that the court's decision will result in animals used in medical experiments being 'euthanized.' Jackson also repeated her past assertions that the high court is bending over backward to favor the Trump administration. 'Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins,' she wrote. In filings with the high court over the NIH funding, the Trump administration complained that Young's order required the agency to 'pay out over $783 million in grants,' but grant recipients argued that 'figure appears to be invented out of whole cloth.' Solicitor General John Sauer ridiculed some of the grants shut down by the administration, pointing to funding for programs exploring 'intersectional, multilevel and multidimensional structural racism for English- and Spanish-speaking populations' and 'anti-racist healing in nature.' Sauer told the justices that a 'comprehensive internal review' found the grants ran afoul of one or more of three executive orders President Donald Trump issued shortly after he returned to office in January. Two of the directives targeted DEI-related programs and grants, while the third sought to affirm 'the immutable biological reality of sex' by ending policies and programs accommodating or benefiting transgender people. Sauer also put forward the argument that appeared to carry the day Thursday: Congress has mandated legal disputes over federal government grants and contracts be pursued only in the Court of Federal Claims. That court could eventually award financial damages to grantees if it determines their grants were illegally terminated, but is unlikely to provide immediate relief, according to legal experts. The Supreme Court's ruling on the NIH grants is not a final decision on the legality of the grant terminations. But it means the administration can withhold the funding while the legal fight plays out. The Trump administration has appealed Young's ruling to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month declined the administration's request to put his decision on hold as the appeal proceeds.
