Latest news with #China-produced
The National
8 hours ago
- The National
Fears US-UK trade deal 'may open door to food made with slave labour'
Under terms reaffirmed by the UK and US governments on Tuesday, up to 13,000 metric tonnes of American beef can be imported into Britain tariff-free each year. Though the Labour Government has said this US beef will meet current UK food safety standards – so it will not be hormone-treated – it will not take an active hand in ensuring that goods produced with forced labour do not enter the UK, instead leaving it up to individual companies. However, Justine Carter, the director of strategy at the influential anti-slavery charity Unseen, said that although there were provisions in place to compel companies to comply with UK modern slavery regulations, punishments had 'never' been levied. READ MORE: Record high modern slavery referrals 'shows shocking scale' of issue in UK Last year in the US, AP published a two-year investigation which found that food produced with prison labour was "on the shelves of virtually every supermarket in the country' and had also been exported abroad – including to 'countries that have had products blocked from entering the US for using forced or prison labour'. According to conventions from the United Nations' International Labour Organization (ILO), forced labour is all work extracted under a threat of penalty and not undertaken voluntarily. While there is an exemption for labour imposed as a penalty following a court conviction, using that labour for economic benefit is prohibited. Prisoners at sites including Angola, the Louisiana State Penitentiary on the site of a former slave plantation, reported being beaten if they refused to work the fields, or being given toilet paper and menstrual pads in lieu of pay. AP further reported that forced-labour goods entered 'intricate, invisible webs' of supply chains which made it near-impossible to trace them back to their prison origin. The outlet had to resort to literally following trucks of cows from prisons in order to establish where their meat ended up. Beef produced with forced or prison labour was found to be widespread in the US supply chainThe lack of transparency in the US supply chain, and poor enforcement of anti-slavery regulations in the UK, raise fears that meat produced using forced labour could enter British supermarkets – as was recently found to have happened with China-produced tomatoes. Carter – who led the development of the Modern Slavery Act during her time working as a policy advisor in the Home Office – said that prison labour 'can tip into modern slavery, where inmates really have no choice around doing the work and there's no means for them to refuse to do the work without receiving some kind of penalty'. 'It's dependent on the context, on the conditions that they're working in, and really on the kind of legal framework,' she added, suggesting that such legal complexities mean it may be possible for prison-produced beef to enter the UK legally. Her charity Unseen notes that the 2015 UK Modern Slavery Act places 'obligations on companies with a turnover of £36 million or more to publish what they are doing to ensure their business and supply chains are free from slavery'. However, as of July 2022, some 5551 UK companies had failed to do so without any consequence. READ MORE: Labour set to bin anti-slavery policy in GB Energy Bill Carter said that while the exact figure 'goes up and down' and was likely now closer to 4000, that is 'the sad reality'. 'The penalty is a bit convoluted,' she went on. 'The Home Secretary has to take an injunction out on a business that's failed to comply, and if they then continue to fail to comply, the court could award a fine, an unlimited fine, but that process has never been gone through. 'So although we know there are all these cases – and we've raised these with the Home Office – no action has been taken.' Carter pointed to legislation developments abroad, including in Canada, Australia, France, and the EU's 2024 Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. She said these laws were 'very much looking at financial penalties as a percentage of global turnover etc', adding: 'There's a real push for the UK to follow suit.' The Home Office has never fined a company for failing its modern slavery obligations (Image: Alamy/PA) 'At the moment, [in the UK] we've got businesses who are ticking boxes, who are putting out statements – even if they do put out a statement – and it's just been tweaked from the year before. It's not a real effort to make sure that their supply chains are free from slavery.' Sian Lea, the head of UK and European advocacy at Anti-Slavery International, urged the UK Government to bring in more robust anti-slavery regulations. 'We must all be able to purchase food without fear that they have been sourced and produced with forced labour,' she told the Sunday National. 'While the UK Government expects UK companies to do everything in their power to remove forced labour from their supply chains, there are no laws that compel them to do that. 'Through this trade deal [with the US], the UK Government has the opportunity to drive better business practices and more adequately address forced labour risks. READ MORE: Commissioner: Modern slavery no longer Home Office priority 'With import controls, the UK could ensure that products being imported from anywhere are not reliant on forced labour. And this should be complemented by a due diligence law which requires UK companies to prevent harm in their supply chains.' Carter said that a drive to push down costs could lead to forced labour entering the supply chain, and urged companies to be diligent. 'If you're pressing down on cost, time, quality, to the extent that you know it's going to have some implication down the supply chain, then you can only expect to be called out on that when forced labour is found,' she said. 'I've always talked about legislation being a bit of a blunt instrument because it does provide the framework, but the framework has to be strong, it has to be resilient, it has to be robust – and then there has to be also an enforcement of that.' READ MORE: MP hits outs at supermarkets selling products linked to slave labour 'Unfortunately, when you're in these times of austerity when people are struggling, high interest rates, high costs of food, etc, you know people cut corners, consumers are less interested in where it's come from and how it's arrived on the shelf and more interested in the price. 'This is why maybe the onus is put on businesses a bit. There's almost an expectation that as a consumer, I'm expecting that business to have done its due diligence.' A UK Government spokesperson said: 'No company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chain and we expect UK businesses to do everything in their power to remove any instances of forced labour from their supply chains. Any evidence of businesses not doing so is highly concerning. "British farmers produce some of the best food in the world and this is a great deal as we have opened up access to a huge American market, but without any weakening of UK food standards on imports."
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Apple to report second quarter earnings as tariff uncertainty clouds Big Tech outlook
Apple (AAPL) will report its second quarter earnings after the bell on Thursday as Wall Street looks for early signs of the impacts of President Trump's tariffs on the iPhone maker. The company is expected to report higher earnings but may be wary of its prospects for the rest of the year. The second quarter wrapped up in late March, and because Trump held his tariff announcement on April 2, the full breadth of the duties' effects may not come into view until Apple's third quarter. Still, Q2 could provide a hint at what to expect in the coming quarters. Apple stock is down 16% year to date but up 23% over the past 12 months. Trump initially slapped China-produced goods with a 145% tariff, which could have sent Apple iPhone prices soaring. But Trump has since exempted devices like smartphones and computers from the duties. Read more about Apple's stock moves and today's market action. According to Reuters, Apple worked to get ahead of the tariffs by shipping 600 tons of iPhones from India to the US. The company is also leaning more heavily on its India operations for devices destined for America because that country faces a lower 26% reciprocal tariff versus China. According to the Financial Times, Apple hopes to eventually source all US iPhones from India. But the Trump administration hasn't ruled out the potential for future tariffs on those goods. The White House is currently working on a plan for duties on semiconductors and has said those could also apply to things like smartphones and computers. Read more: The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs "We don't think Apple is 'out-of-the-woods' yet," KeyBanc analyst Brandon Nispel wrote in an investor note. "We continue to see consensus expectations as too high for [Apple], particularly looking out to FY26, which calls for an accelerating growth profile." For the first quarter, Apple is expected to report earnings per share of $1.62 on revenue of $94.2 billion, according to Bloomberg consensus estimates. That would be an increase from the same period last year, when Apple saw EPS of $1.53 on revenue of $90.7 billion. But Apple's iPhone revenue is expected to decline to $45.6 billion in Q2 from $45.9 billion in Q2 last year. Wall Street anticipates the company will make up for the drop with improvements in Mac, iPad, wearables, and services revenue. For the quarter, the company is expected to see Mac and iPad revenue of $7.7 billion and $6.1 billion, respectively. That's up from $7.4 billion and $5.5 billion in Q2 2024. Wearables will bring in $8 billion, compared to $7.9 billion last year. Apple's services revenue is set to come in at $26.7 billion, compared to $23.8 billion in Q2 2024. Wall Street will be looking to see whether Apple will provide forward guidance for the coming quarters. While Big Tech peer Google (GOOG, GOOGL) offered a relatively positive outlook for its current quarter during its earnings report last week, Intel (INTC), citing trade issues, posted worse-than-expected guidance, sending shares tumbling. Analysts will also be watching Apple's revenue out of China during its earnings announcement. Sales in the region have fallen in recent quarters, but analysts expect the trend to flip in Q2, with sales set to improve to $16.8 billion from $16.3 billion. Analysts have pinned the decline in China revenue on everything from Chinese consumers opting for homegrown devices from the likes of Xiaomi and Huawei to Apple's struggles to get its Apple Intelligence platform off the ground in the country. Apple is also dealing with AI delays in the US. The company was expected to launch a generative AI-powered version of its Siri personal assistant before its upcoming WWDC event in June but has pushed that back due to delays in getting the software together. Email Daniel Howley at dhowley@ Follow him on Twitter at @DanielHowley. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
27-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
If You Invested $10K In Apple Stock 10 Years Ago, How Much Would You Have Now?
Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL), the world's largest company with a $3.04 trillion market capitalization, designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables, and accessories worldwide. It is set to report its Q2 2025 earnings on May 1, after the market close. Wall Street analysts expect the company to post EPS of $1.61, up from $1.53 in the prior-year period. According to Benzinga Pro, quarterly revenue is expected to reach $94.07 billion, up from $90.75 billion a year earlier. Don't Miss: Deloitte's fastest-growing software company partners with Amazon, Walmart & Target – Many are using retirement income calculators to check if they're on pace — The company's stock traded at approximately $32.15 per share 10 years ago. If you had invested $10,000, you could have bought roughly 311 shares. Currently, shares trade at $199.74, meaning your investment's value could have grown to $62,128 from stock price appreciation alone. However, Apple also paid dividends during these 10 years. Apple's dividend yield is currently 0.52%. Over the last 10 years, it has paid about $19.77 in dividends per share, which means you could have made $6,149 from dividends alone. Summing up $62,128 and $6,149, we end up with the final value of your investment, which is $68,277. This is how much you could have made if you had invested $10,000 in Apple stock 10 years ago. This means a total return of 582.77%. In comparison, S&P 500 total return for the same period is 200.20%. Trending: The secret weapon in billionaire investor portfolios that you almost certainly don't own yet. Apple has a consensus rating of "Buy" and a price target of $236.43 based on the ratings of 29 analysts. The price target implies more than 18% potential upside from the current stock price. On Jan. 30, the company announced its Q1 2025 earnings, posting revenues of $124.3 billion, beating analyst estimates of $124.13 billion, as reported by Benzinga. The iPhone maker reported adjusted EPS of $2.40, beating analyst estimates of $2.36. The past week has been turbulent for Apple. Despite a temporary tariff exemption, concerns over chip tariffs have raised fears of supply chain disruptions. Apple's stock has plunged 23% since April 2, amid escalating U.S.-China tensions. CEO Tim Cook reportedly secured the exemption of Apple's China-produced electronic products from import duties through talks with U.S. officials. Meanwhile, rumors about a foldable iPhone are gaining momentum. Check out this article by Benzinga for a full recap of Apple's recent key developments. Given the historical stock price appreciation and expected upside potential, growth-focused investors may find Apple stock attractive. Furthermore, they can benefit from the company's solid dividend yield of 0.52% and consistent hikes. Apple has raised its dividend consecutively for the last 13 years. Read Next: Hasbro, MGM, and Skechers trust this AI marketing firm — .Image: Shutterstock Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article If You Invested $10K In Apple Stock 10 Years Ago, How Much Would You Have Now? originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
27-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
If You Invested $10K In Apple Stock 10 Years Ago, How Much Would You Have Now?
Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL), the world's largest company with a $3.04 trillion market capitalization, designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables, and accessories worldwide. It is set to report its Q2 2025 earnings on May 1, after the market close. Wall Street analysts expect the company to post EPS of $1.61, up from $1.53 in the prior-year period. According to Benzinga Pro, quarterly revenue is expected to reach $94.07 billion, up from $90.75 billion a year earlier. Don't Miss: Deloitte's fastest-growing software company partners with Amazon, Walmart & Target – Many are using retirement income calculators to check if they're on pace — The company's stock traded at approximately $32.15 per share 10 years ago. If you had invested $10,000, you could have bought roughly 311 shares. Currently, shares trade at $199.74, meaning your investment's value could have grown to $62,128 from stock price appreciation alone. However, Apple also paid dividends during these 10 years. Apple's dividend yield is currently 0.52%. Over the last 10 years, it has paid about $19.77 in dividends per share, which means you could have made $6,149 from dividends alone. Summing up $62,128 and $6,149, we end up with the final value of your investment, which is $68,277. This is how much you could have made if you had invested $10,000 in Apple stock 10 years ago. This means a total return of 582.77%. In comparison, S&P 500 total return for the same period is 200.20%. Trending: The secret weapon in billionaire investor portfolios that you almost certainly don't own yet. Apple has a consensus rating of "Buy" and a price target of $236.43 based on the ratings of 29 analysts. The price target implies more than 18% potential upside from the current stock price. On Jan. 30, the company announced its Q1 2025 earnings, posting revenues of $124.3 billion, beating analyst estimates of $124.13 billion, as reported by Benzinga. The iPhone maker reported adjusted EPS of $2.40, beating analyst estimates of $2.36. The past week has been turbulent for Apple. Despite a temporary tariff exemption, concerns over chip tariffs have raised fears of supply chain disruptions. Apple's stock has plunged 23% since April 2, amid escalating U.S.-China tensions. CEO Tim Cook reportedly secured the exemption of Apple's China-produced electronic products from import duties through talks with U.S. officials. Meanwhile, rumors about a foldable iPhone are gaining momentum. Check out this article by Benzinga for a full recap of Apple's recent key developments. Given the historical stock price appreciation and expected upside potential, growth-focused investors may find Apple stock attractive. Furthermore, they can benefit from the company's solid dividend yield of 0.52% and consistent hikes. Apple has raised its dividend consecutively for the last 13 years. Read Next: Hasbro, MGM, and Skechers trust this AI marketing firm — .Image: Shutterstock Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article If You Invested $10K In Apple Stock 10 Years Ago, How Much Would You Have Now? originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump to announce ‘major' Chinese pharmaceutical tariffs
April 9 (UPI) -- Pharmaceuticals produced in China could become costlier after President Donald Trump announced his intention to impose a "major tariff on pharmaceuticals." Trump said he would announce a major tariff on pharmaceuticals "very shortly" while addressing the National Republican Congressional Committee dinner Tuesday evening at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C., The Hill reported. "When they hear that, they will leave China," Trump said of pharmaceutical companies. "Most of their product is sold here, and they're going to be opening up their plants all over the place in our country." China-based pharmaceutical companies became a significant supplier of drugs to the United States during the Biden administration. Chinese-made pharmaceuticals accounted for $2.1 billion in U.S. domestic sales in 2020 but increased by nearly five times that amount to $10.3 billion in 2022, accordingto the Atlantic Council. China's share of the U.S. drug market grew from less than 2.5% in 2020 to more than 6% two years later and ranks as the nation's fourth-largest foreign supplier of drugs behind Ireland, 19.8%; Germany, 10.8%; and Switzerland, 10.7%. The Atlantic Council reported the top five types of drugs manufactured in China and sold in the United States in 2022 were: Cancer treatments and immunosuppressives valued at $266.26 million. Cardiovascular medicine valued at $209.81 million. Pain relievers, fever reducers and anti-inflammatory medicines valued at $193.62 million. Antibiotics valued at $146.88 million. Cardiovascular medicine containing alkaloids and valued at $45 million. Trump's pending announcement on China-produced drugs is intended to encourage drugmakers to move their operations to the United States. The announcement also would occur after Trump announced a 90-day pause of recently implemented tariffs, except those in China. Trump instead announced he would increase to 125% the tariffs on Chinese goods imported and sold in the United States after earlier announcing a 104% tariff on Chinese goods. Some business analysts say it won't be easy for drugmakers to close shop in China and other nations and relocate to the United States, CNBC reported. They say such a move also could disrupt the supply chain for drugs needed by medical patients.
