Nestle Vows To Remove Artificial Colours From US Foods By 2026
Nestle said Wednesday it will eliminate artificial colours from its US food and beverages by the middle of 2026. It's the latest big food company making that pledge. Last week, Kraft Heinz and General Mills said they would remove artificial dyes from their US products by 2027. General Mills also said it plans to remove artificial dyes from its US cereals and from all foods served in K-12 schools by the middle of 2026.
The move has broad support. About two-thirds of Americans favour restricting or reformulating processed foods to remove ingredients like added sugar or dyes, according to an AP-NORC poll. Both California and West Virginia have recently banned artificial dyes in foods served in schools.
On Sunday, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas signed a bill requiring foods made with artificial dyes or additives to contain a new safety label starting in 2027. The label would say they contain ingredients "not recommended for human consumption" in Australia, Canada, the European Union or the U.K.
The federal government is also stepping up its scrutiny of artificial colours. In January, days before President Donald Trump took office, the US regulators banned the dye called Red 3 from the nation's food supply, nearly 35 years after it was barred from cosmetics because of potential cancer risk.
In April, Trump's Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said the agency would take steps to eliminate synthetic dyes by the end of 2026, largely by relying on voluntary efforts from the food industry.
Nestle has pledged to remove artificial dyes before. Early in 2015, the company said it would remove artificial flavours and colours from its products by the end of that year. But the promise didn't hold.
Nestle said Wednesday it's been removing synthetic dyes from its products over the last decade, and 90% of its US portfolio doesn't contain them. Among those that do is Nesquik Banana Strawberry milk, which is made with Red 3.
Nestle said Wednesday it wants to evolve with its US customers' changing nutritional needs and preferences. "Serving and delighting people is at the heart of everything we do and every decision that we make," Nestle's U.S. CEO Marty Thompson said in a statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
33 minutes ago
- NDTV
How Much NATO Countries Spend On Defence: A Breakdown After 5% Hike
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has announced an increase in its defence spending target, with member countries now expected to allocate 5 per cent of their GDP to defence by 2035. The agreement, reached at a summit in the Netherlands on Wednesday, is nearly double the alliance's long-standing 2 per cent benchmark and comes amid renewed pressure from US President Donald Trump for allies to boost their military contributions, The Washington Post reported. NATO is a military alliance of 32 member countries across North America and Europe. They include the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, and most European Union nations. How Much Do NATO Countries Currently Spend On Defence? As of 2024, NATO countries spent an average of 2.61 per cent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defence. But this average masks wide disparities in individual national contributions. According to NATO's estimates: Poland spent the highest proportion of its GDP on defence, over 4 per cent, making it the only country to exceed that threshold. Estonia and Latvia each spent about 3.4 per cent. The US, with the largest GDP among NATO members, spent approximately 3.2 per cent. Spain spent 1.2 per cent of its GDP on defence, the smallest share in the alliance. Canada, Portugal, and Italy each spent around 1.5 per cent. Slovenia, Belgium, and Luxembourg fell slightly below those levels. Who Met The 2% Target? At least 22 of NATO's 32 members met or exceeded the original 2 per cent spending target set in 2014. The remaining nine countries did not. Iceland is excluded from these estimates, as it does not maintain a standing military. This target, while influential, has never been legally binding. Even so, average defence spending among NATO members has risen significantly, from 1.4 per cent of GDP in 2014 to over 2 per cent in 2024. A New 5% Benchmark While the new 5 per cent goal is intended to signal stronger collective defence, its implementation is far from guaranteed. At the summit, Donald Trump singled out Spain, accusing it of " wanting a free ride" and threatening to penalise the country in future trade negotiations if it did not increase its defence budget. In response, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said Spain had no plans to meet the 5 per cent goal. He called the previous 2 per cent target "sufficient" and "realistic" for Spain's economy. Rachel Rizzo, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Europe Center, said that the wording of the agreement may offer flexibility. "The language of the 5 per cent agreement may leave just enough wiggle room for some allies, such as Spain, to opt-out," she said as per CBS News. What Counts As NATO's Defence Spending? NATO calculates defence spending to include weapons and equipment, personnel costs, operational readiness, infrastructure, and other military capabilities.
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
Why are 24% of Americans still 'Functionally Unemployed' in a growing economy?
Caption: (Gemini) Amid headlines touting low unemployment and strong hiring numbers, a deeper, more troubling narrative is taking root across the American workforce. According to a report by the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity (LISEP), 24.3% of working-age Americans are "functionally unemployed"—a term that recasts the traditional definition of joblessness to reflect a far grimmer reality (LISEP, 2024). Unlike the official unemployment rate reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)—which stood at 4.2% as of May 2025—LISEP's metric includes individuals who are technically employed but still unable to secure full-time, living-wage work. That's more than 66 million Americans trapped in jobs that do not cover even the most basic cost of living. Redefining unemployment: What the numbers miss The federal government considers anyone who worked at least one hour in the past two weeks to be employed (BLS, May 2025 Report). But this narrow framework fails to capture underemployment and wage insufficiency. LISEP's True Rate of Unemployment (TRU) seeks to fill that blind spot by counting individuals as fully employed only if they work full-time (at least 35 hours per week) and earn at least $20,000 annually, adjusted for inflation, or are voluntarily in part-time roles and content with their hours. More than just a statistical tweak, this reframing exposes the widening chasm between having a job and making a living. A crisis in plain sight: The toll of functional unemployment The 24.3% 'functionally unemployed' rate represents workers in three key categories: The unemployed and actively seeking work Part-time workers who want full-time employment Full-time workers earning below $25,000 per year before taxes, below the federal poverty threshold for many households according to LISEP, 2024. Not just a number: Disparities across race and gender The crisis does not strike equally. Women experience a functional unemployment rate of 29.9%, compared to 19.3% for men, according to LISEP's latest analysis. The racial breakdown is equally stark: Black and Hispanic Americans consistently face higher rates of functional unemployment than their white counterparts. These disparities point to deep-seated structural inequalities, from occupational segregation and pay gaps to reduced access to education, transportation, and caregiving support. The traditional employment metrics gloss over this hidden labor divide. TRU, in contrast, brings these injustices to the surface. A shrinking job market or skills mismatch? Much of the national discourse has fixated on the so-called skills gap—the idea that workers lack the training needed to compete in a modern economy. But that explanation oversimplifies the problem. Many Americans are skilled but remain locked out of sectors where automation, outsourcing, and wage compression have reduced the availability of viable work. The bigger question: What counts as work in America today? At its core, the issue of functional unemployment is about more than data; it's about how we value labour and human dignity in a 21st-century economy. LISEP's findings force policymakers to confront the uncomfortable truth: Tens of millions of Americans are technically employed, yet economically invisible. It's not just a matter of training workers better. It's about rebuilding pathways to meaningful, sustainable employment, jobs that pay living wages, provide benefits, and allow for upward mobility. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
After Kaitlan Collins, CNN's Natasha Bertrand, gets on Trump's nerves - he says thrown her out like a dog
Donald Trump is fighting CNN again , and this time it's reporter Natasha Bertrand who is in the line of fire. Trump went off on social media after she shared information about a leaked intelligence report about Iran. The president did not hold back, resulting in yet another confrontation between the White House and CNN. What did Trump say about Natasha Bertrand? Donald Trump has unleashed a nasty attack against CNN reporter Natasha Bertrand, calling for her to be 'thrown out like a dog' over leaked intelligence on Iran The president also disclosed that he has been watching CNN reporter Natasha Bertrand for days, in his most recent outburst since the leak made headlines, as per a report by the Daily Beast. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Ontdek je slimheid met 22 vragen en zie je IQ. WW IQ Test BEGIN NU Undo ALSO READ: Fito captured: The shocking crimes and net worth of Ecuador's most wanted man, José Adolfo Macias 'Natasha Bertrand should be FIRED from CNN! I watched her for three days doing Fake News.' He wrote on his Truth Social platform that she should be chastised IMMEDIATELY and then discarded "like a dog." Live Events The meltdown was Donald Trump's most recent attack on the media, which he has used frequently since it started to wonder if the US strikes on Iran's three main nuclear enrichment facilities had been "obliterated." 'She should not be allowed to work at Fake News CNN. It's people like her who destroyed the reputation of a once great Network. Her slant was so obviously negative, besides, she doesn't have what it takes to be an on camera correspondent, not even close. FIRE NATASHA!', Trump stated in yet another post. The president personally attacked Bertrand, calling for her dismissal and accusing her of "trying to ruin our Patriot Pilots by harming their reputation when, in reality, they performed a GREAT job and hit "pay dirt" — TOTAL OBLITERATION!" Did CNN defend Bertrand? On Wednesday, CNN responded by asserting in a statement that the organization fully supports Bertrand's journalism and that of her colleagues. CNN backed up Bertrand's reporting, saying it was true and good for the public, as tensions rose between Trump and the media. CNN admitted that the results were preliminary. 'We do not believe it reasonable to criticize CNN reporters for accurately reporting the existence of the assessment and accurately characterizing its findings, which are in the public interest,' stated CNN's communications section, reported the Daily Beast. — CNN Communications (@CNNPR) June 25, 2025 In recent years, President Donald Trump has compared other perceived adversaries to dogs, including former FBI Director James B. Comey, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, and even his own Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was formerly a competitor for the GOP's 2016 presidential candidacy. What leaked report angered Donald Trump? The Pentagon's intelligence branch, the Defense Intelligence Agency, provided the preliminary analysis, which also purportedly discovered that while the attack did not destroy Iran's underground structures, it did block access to two of its three primary nuclear sites. The news was first rejected by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who said it was leaked by a "low level loser" to discredit the president. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has opened a probe into the leak, claimed it denigrated the efforts of US military combatants, while Rubio also voiced his opinion, calling it the work of "professional stabbers." Meanwhile, Trump claimed that the report's conclusions were "not complete" and that additional data will provide a more accurate picture of the battle damage sustained over the weekend. FAQs Why did Donald Trump criticize CNN's Natasha Bertrand ? He was outraged by her coverage of a leaked intelligence assessment about Iran and demanded her dismissal. What did CNN say? CNN defended Bertrand, stating that her reporting was accurate and in the public interest.
