Latest news with #Choice
12 hours ago
- Business
Southwest begins booking assigned seats for future flights: What to know
What to know about new fare bundles and boarding. 0:53 For the first time in 53 years, Southwest Airlines is officially selling assigned seats to passengers with a variety of new seat preferences for flights, starting in January 2026. The new assigned seating options, which the Dallas-based carrier first announced last summer, is Southwest's attempt to offer customers more flexibility when flying with options including extra legroom seats, preferred seats and standard seats, while helping bolster the business' bottom line and stay competitive across the industry. What to know about Southwest Airlines assigned seat bookings, new fare types In a departure from the iconic open seating policy, as well as its two free checked bags offer and unique boarding process, Southwest opened its bookings on Tuesday for assigned seats. Now, at the time of booking, Southwest customers can choose from fare bundles, some of which offer seat selection, as well as access to the different seat types. Here's a snapshot of what's new. The new fare products include Choice Extra, Choice Preferred and Choice -- formerly called Business Select, Anytime and Wanna Get Away Plus -- along with the previously announced, Wanna Get Away fare class that's now called Basic. Choice Extra, the top fare bundle, includes an extra legroom seat, Choice Preferred includes a new preferred seat, and Choice includes a standard seat to be selected while booking. See the full chart of fare comparisons from Southwest here. Customers can also opt to purchase a seat upgrade to elevate their travel experience. Rapid Rewards Credit Card members, depending on which card they hold, can select a seat at booking or within 48 hours of departure, regardless of which fare they purchase, including Basic fares. A-List and A-List Preferred Customers will have access to select a seat at booking regardless of the fare they purchase, including Basic fares. How will Southwest board flights with new assigned seats The airline will also start a new group-based boarding process on Jan. 27, 2026, which Southwest said is "optimized for assigned seating and will prioritize Customers into groups based on seat location, beginning with Extra Legroom seats in boarding Groups 1-2." Premium fares, Tier Members and Credit Cardmembers will board earlier in the process.
ABC News
5 days ago
- General
- ABC News
What to look for when choosing or replacing cooking utensils at home
Have you considered replacing your plastic spatula after seeing a much-shared study that found black plastic kitchen utensils were unsafe? The study was corrected in early 2025 due to a major miscalculation that impacted the results. So what should you be looking out for when choosing or replacing cooking utensils at home and weighing up their functionality, durability and your health? Fiona Mair, a home economist and kitchen expert with consumer group Choice, says it's important to think about your kitchen as a whole before you buy something new or rush to replace an item. "Think about what you're cooking at home and what cookware you have," she says. For instance, "if you have a lot of non-stick cookware, then you're not going to want to buy stainless steel [utensils] because it's just going to scratch". Space is precious in most kitchens and she recommends looking for versatile utensils to reduce your spending. She also says price does not necessarily equate to quality. The best vegetable peeler she has found comes from the supermarket. The chef and owner of Indian restaurant Enter Via Laundry in Naarm/Melbourne, Helly Raichura, says she opts for metal spoons, whisks and spatulas. Unlike with plastic alternatives, she says there's no risk of stainless steel tools accidentally melting in a busy kitchen. Raichura says some types of stainless steel will last forever and others will turn grey and show signs of wear and tear over time. It can be helpful to keep note of what grade of stainless steel you're using, she says. Ms Mair says she's had some wooden spoons for more than 20 years. They're very versatile, durable and can be kinder on the surfaces of your cookware, she says. Ms Mair says they need to be handwashed well in hot, soapy water and then dried completely, and there are also products to help prolong the life of wooden items. For example, food-grade beeswax can be rubbed into the wood to help it last longer. Wooden spoons are also a staple in Ms Raichura's utensil drawer, but "don't put them in the dishwasher," she urges. This can cause them to dry out, warp, crack and for splinters to form. Oliver Jones, a professor of chemistry at RMIT in Naarm/Melbourne, says cookware and kitchen utensils sold in Australia are "quite strictly regulated", with manufacturers required to demonstrate they're safe. Professor Jones says the quality will vary among plastic and silicone cooking utensils, and more expensive products can often withstand higher temperatures. "Usually, [plastic utensils are] designed for particular use and they're very safe for that use." If you have a damaged plastic utensil, Professor Jones says to replace it if you want to. "If you're not comfortable it's probably safer to get a new one, but it's not actually a very high risk," he says. Professor Jones also says: "There's a lot of concern about microplastics. A lot of it, I think, is not data driven … but that's not to negate the real concerns that people have about it." He says microplastics are usually produced "when you get something grinding against something else". Something like a plastic salt grinder is likely to create some microplastics, he says, but "you wouldn't be rubbing two [plastic] ladles together, for example". For anyone who prefers to do their washing up with the help of a dishwasher, Ms Mair has this advice. While the manufacturers of some stainless steel and plastic products will mark products as dishwasher friendly, she says they may "deteriorate over time and become brittle depending on the type of material that's used". Look for things that seem hardy and well made, paying special attention to handles, if you're a dishwasher devotee, she says. If you can, Ms Raichura suggests looking at what's on offer in hospitality stockists, especially if durability and quality are priorities. "They almost always have a retail outlet open for everyone," she says. She also recommends visiting Asian or Indian specialty stores for a variety of kitchen tools. You can find better quality items at a lower price point, she says.
Business Standard
22-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Choice Intl Q1 PAT jumps 50% YoY to Rs 48 cr
Choice International reported consolidated net profit jumped 49.83% to Rs 47.96 crore on a 15.55% increase in total revenue from operations to Rs 237.96 crore in Q1 FY26 over Q1 FY25, supported by broad-based growth and operational efficiency. Profit before tax for the quarter stood at Rs 62.89 crore, marking a year-on-year growth of 44.91%. EBITDA stood at Rs 86.80 crore, registering a growth of 49.06% in Q1 FY26, compared with Rs 58.23 crore in Q1 FY25. EBITDA margin was at 36.48% in Q1 FY26 as against 28.28% in Q1 FY25. The company said that its total revenue for the quarter rose by 15.55% year-on-year to Rs 237.96 crore, with stockbroking contributing 60%, followed by advisory at 24% and the NBFC segment at 16%. In the companys broking business, the number of demat accounts stood at 11.50 lakh in Q1 FY26, up 29% year-on-year. Client assets under stockbroking stood at Rs 47,800 crore, registering a 16% YoY growth, while AUM for wealth products surged 443% YoY to Rs 4,769 crore. Under the companys insurance broking business, insurance premium generated stood at Rs 76 crore, registering the growth of 62% YoY. The number of policies sold stood at 39,182 in Q1 FY26, up 46% YoY. In Q1 FY26, the company's NBFC segment reported a total loan book of Rs 745 crore, of which retail loans stood at Rs 596 crore. Net Non-Performing Assets (NNPA) stood at 2.25% as of 30 June 2025. In the advisory business, the order book stood at Rs 586 crore in Q1 FY26. Kamal Poddar, managing director, Choice International, said, Choice has commenced FY26 on a strong footing, building upon the solid momentum of the previous year. This quarter witnessed encouraging progress across all business segments, driven by our focus on operational excellence and a customer-first approach. Notably, our branch footprint expanded to 208 locations from 149 a year ago, underscoring our commitment to strengthening our presence and enhancing accessibility across India. We also secured government advisory mandates worth Rs 130 Cr during the quarter, reaffirming our position as a trusted partner in public sector transformation and strengthening our future pipeline. Looking ahead, we see strong potential in Corporate Insurance, backed by a sharper focus and a strengthened team across priority clusters In Wealth, our strategic thrust on UHNI and corporate clients is expected to drive steady onboarding through the year. On the lending front, we are actively pursuing green finance opportunitiesparticularly rooftop solar fundingalongside our MSME offerings. With this steady start, we remain optimistic about the remainder of FY26 and committed to delivering consistent, long-term value for all our stakeholders. Choice International provides services like Broking & Distribution, Investment Banking, Financial services, etc. Shares of Choice International rose 0.21% to Rs 763.05 on the BSE.
The Guardian
13-07-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Can I trust my sunscreen? Choice test results have created uncertainty over SPF claims and lab testing process
Sunscreen has been in the spotlight this winter, after testing by the consumer advocacy organisation Choice found 16 of 20 brands failed to provide the level of skin protection advertised on their bottles. With Australia having one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, the Choice report left many worried and wondering: can I trust my sunscreen to protect me? Even four Cancer Council branded sunscreens were flagged in the report: its Ultra Sunscreen SPF 50+ was found by Choice to have a sun protection factor of 24. The worst result, though, belonged to Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+, which Choice's testing found had an SPF of just 4. While some brands have fiercely disputed the findings, the investigation has prompted debate over the reliability of sunscreen testing, as well as questions over the way these products are regulated. What's going on? Australians love spending time in the sun and sun safety is instilled in people from a young age. So the Choice investigation, with its results published in June, created a storm. Choice tested 20 popular SPF 50 or 50+ sunscreens from a range of retailers and prices in a specialised, accredited laboratory and found 16 of them did not meet their SPF claims. No surprise, the Choice results have been contentious. Choice has said it handed over its findings to the companies before they were released publicly. Some have produced test certificates showing that their product met the claimed SPF using the same testing method that Choice used. When contacted by Guardian Australia, the brands stood firmly by their SPF claims and said they test their products in accordance with the regulations. The Cancer Council said it stood by its previous results but, out of an abundance of caution, has submitted their four products that Choice reviewed for additional testing. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Ultra Violette, the sunscreen brand that had by far the worst-performing product according to Choice's testing, has fiercely disputed the findings. The Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50 plus Mattifying Zinc Skin Screen, a higher-end product that retails for upwards of $50, returned a result of just 4 in Choice's test. A second test returned a result of 5, Choice said. Ultra Violette has disputed Choice's findings very strongly and very publicly. It has taken the step of speaking directly to consumers via social media. One of the brand's co-founders, Ava Chandler-Matthews, posted a video on Instagram in which she strongly disputed Choice's methodology. In response, Choice has defended the rigour of its testing. The SPF or sun protection factor rating of a sunscreen measures how well it protects the skin from sunburn by indicating how much ultraviolet radiation can still penetrate the skin through the product when applied properly. For example, SPF 30 is estimated to filter 96.7% of UVB radiation, whereas SPF 50 is estimated to filter 98%. Dr DJ Kim, a senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales' school of chemistry, says the difference between SPF 30 and SPF 50 is actually 'very marginal'. Kim says SPF ratings are given by timing how long it takes skin to burn with and without the sunscreen. 'Let's say that you took 300 seconds for your skin to burn with sunscreen, and then if … it took 10 seconds to burn without the sunscreen, then 300 divided by 10, that becomes SPF 30,' he says. 'So, it's not the most scientific method to measure the SPF factor, honestly.' SPF claims in Australia are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Sunscreen brands must get approval from the TGA to sell their products to Australian consumers. To do this, they undertake SPF testing in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand standard in an approved laboratory. The accepted method is to test sunscreen on human skin. The methodology involves putting the sunscreen on 10 volunteers who are exposed to artificial solar UV radiation. This is the method Choice says it used, working with an accredited laboratory that specialises in sunscreen testing. Sunscreen brands submit their results to the TGA for approval to 'self-certify' that they have tested their SPF claims and that they stack up. The TGA does not usually do its own testing. Dr Michelle Wong, a cosmetic chemist, says she doubts the TGA would have the resources to do all of the testing itself. 'And so, in terms of the regulations, most of the time, in this sort of situation where it's a public body, there is always going to be some level of an honour system,' she says. There are potential inconsistencies in sunscreen testing. SPF effectiveness is measured by essentially getting people to put sunscreens in patches on their skin and measuring how 'red' they get over time. A TGA spokesperson says it is a known issue that there is variability in SPF testing results across laboratories because testing on humans can be highly subjective and the response to a test can differ dramatically from one individual to another. 'While progress is being made internationally toward in-vitro sunscreen testing (for example, not on human subjects), which will improve consistency of results, these methods are not yet in place,' they said. Wong, who is known for her work on social media and her blog Lab Muffin, says in-vitro testing would be easier for the TGA to run in-house, which would limit the variability of the results and stop the potential for fraud at labs seeking to make a profit. She also suggests having a limited number of designated labs that are accepted by the TGA for sunscreen testing. Wong says although sunscreen is complicated and there are 'technicalities' in the testing and regulation process, the most common problem is 'user error' in that people aren't applying enough product often enough. 'Sunscreens, in general, they work very well, and they are very effective at protecting your skin against sun exposure,' she says, noting that a sunscreen with an SPF of, say, 24 still offers very good protection. Not long after Choice published its findings, sunscreen was back in the news for different reasons. Last week, the TGA said it would begin consultation on additional controls for some sunscreen ingredients, including the controversial oxybenzone. The medicines regulator says it has conducted a review of sunscreen ingredients used in Australia and is recommending additional safeguards for three chemical compounds. The review proposes that some sunscreen products containing homosalate, oxybenzone and benzophenone be reformulated to ensure sunscreens meet what the TGA considers 'the highest standards of safety for prolonged and frequent use'. Homosalate and oxybenzone are active ingredients in sunscreen, while benzophenone arises from another ingredient called octocrylene, either as an impurity during the manufacturing process or from degradation as the product ages. The TGA has begun a consultation process to help determine the level in sunscreens at which these ingredients remain suitable for use. A week before that, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission launched legal action against the maker of two popular sunscreens over allegations it had misled consumers by falsely claiming its products are 'reef-friendly'. The consumerregulator alleges Edgewell Personal Care engaged in greenwashing. While these sunscreens do not contain oxybenzone or octinoxate, another chemical linked to coral damage, the ACCC alleges that they contain other ingredients that risk causing harm to coral and marine life. Edgewell is contesting the proceedings.
The Guardian
12-07-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Can I trust my sunscreen? Choice test results have created uncertainty over SPF claims and lab testing process
Sunscreen has been in the spotlight this winter, after testing by the consumer advocacy organisation Choice found 16 of 20 brands failed to provide the level of skin protection advertised on their bottles. With Australia having one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, the Choice report left many worried and wondering: can I trust my sunscreen to protect me? Even four Cancer Council branded sunscreens were flagged in the report: its Ultra Sunscreen SPF 50+ was found by Choice to have a sun protection factor of 24. The worst result, though, belonged to Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+, which Choice's testing found had an SPF of just 4. While some brands have fiercely disputed the findings, the investigation has prompted debate over the reliability of sunscreen testing, as well as questions over the way these products are regulated. What's going on? Australians love spending time in the sun and sun safety is instilled in people from a young age. So the Choice investigation, with its results published in June, created a storm. Choice tested 20 popular SPF 50 or 50+ sunscreens from a range of retailers and prices in a specialised, accredited laboratory and found 16 of them did not meet their SPF claims. No surprise, the Choice results have been contentious. Choice has said it handed over its findings to the companies before they were released publicly. Some have produced test certificates showing that their product met the claimed SPF using the same testing method that Choice used. When contacted by Guardian Australia, the brands stood firmly by their SPF claims and said they test their products in accordance with the regulations. The Cancer Council said it stood by its previous results but, out of an abundance of caution, has submitted their four products that Choice reviewed for additional testing. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Ultra Violette, the sunscreen brand that had by far the worst-performing product according to Choice's testing, has fiercely disputed the findings. The Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50 plus Mattifying Zinc Skin Screen, a higher-end product that retails for upwards of $50, returned a result of just 4 in Choice's test. A second test returned a result of 5, Choice said. Ultra Violette has disputed Choice's findings very strongly and very publicly. It has taken the step of speaking directly to consumers via social media. One of the brand's co-founders, Ava Chandler-Matthews, posted a video on Instagram in which she strongly disputed Choice's methodology. In response, Choice has defended the rigour of its testing. The SPF or sun protection factor rating of a sunscreen measures how well it protects the skin from sunburn by indicating how much ultraviolet radiation can still penetrate the skin through the product when applied properly. For example, SPF 30 is estimated to filter 96.7% of UVB radiation, whereas SPF 50 is estimated to filter 98%. Dr DJ Kim, a senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales' school of chemistry, says the difference between SPF 30 and SPF 50 is actually 'very marginal'. Kim says SPF ratings are given by timing how long it takes skin to burn with and without the sunscreen. 'Let's say that you took 300 seconds for your skin to burn with sunscreen, and then if … it took 10 seconds to burn without the sunscreen, then 300 divided by 10, that becomes SPF 30,' he says. 'So, it's not the most scientific method to measure the SPF factor, honestly.' SPF claims in Australia are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Sunscreen brands must get approval from the TGA to sell their products to Australian consumers. To do this, they undertake SPF testing in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand standard in an approved laboratory. The accepted method is to test sunscreen on human skin. The methodology involves putting the sunscreen on 10 volunteers who are exposed to artificial solar UV radiation. This is the method Choice says it used, working with an accredited laboratory that specialises in sunscreen testing. Sunscreen brands submit their results to the TGA for approval to 'self-certify' that they have tested their SPF claims and that they stack up. The TGA does not usually do its own testing. Dr Michelle Wong, a cosmetic chemist, says she doubts the TGA would have the resources to do all of the testing itself. 'And so, in terms of the regulations, most of the time, in this sort of situation where it's a public body, there is always going to be some level of an honour system,' she says. There are potential inconsistencies in sunscreen testing. SPF effectiveness is measured by essentially getting people to put sunscreens in patches on their skin and measuring how 'red' they get over time. A TGA spokesperson says it is a known issue that there is variability in SPF testing results across laboratories because testing on humans can be highly subjective and the response to a test can differ dramatically from one individual to another. 'While progress is being made internationally toward in-vitro sunscreen testing (for example, not on human subjects), which will improve consistency of results, these methods are not yet in place,' they said. Wong, who is known for her work on social media and her blog Lab Muffin, says in-vitro testing would be easier for the TGA to run in-house, which would limit the variability of the results and stop the potential for fraud at labs seeking to make a profit. She also suggests having a limited number of designated labs that are accepted by the TGA for sunscreen testing. Wong says although sunscreen is complicated and there are 'technicalities' in the testing and regulation process, the most common problem is 'user error' in that people aren't applying enough product often enough. 'Sunscreens, in general, they work very well, and they are very effective at protecting your skin against sun exposure,' she says, noting that a sunscreen with an SPF of, say, 24 still offers very good protection. Not long after Choice published its findings, sunscreen was back in the news for different reasons. Last week, the TGA said it would begin consultation on additional controls for some sunscreen ingredients, including the controversial oxybenzone. The medicines regulator says it has conducted a review of sunscreen ingredients used in Australia and is recommending additional safeguards for three chemical compounds. The review proposes that some sunscreen products containing homosalate, oxybenzone and benzophenone be reformulated to ensure sunscreens meet what the TGA considers 'the highest standards of safety for prolonged and frequent use'. Homosalate and oxybenzone are active ingredients in sunscreen, while benzophenone arises from another ingredient called octocrylene, either as an impurity during the manufacturing process or from degradation as the product ages. The TGA has begun a consultation process to help determine the level in sunscreens at which these ingredients remain suitable for use. A week before that, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission launched legal action against the maker of two popular sunscreens over allegations it had misled consumers by falsely claiming its products are 'reef-friendly'. The consumerregulator alleges Edgewell Personal Care engaged in greenwashing. While these sunscreens do not contain oxybenzone or octinoxate, another chemical linked to coral damage, the ACCC alleges that they contain other ingredients that risk causing harm to coral and marine life. Edgewell is contesting the proceedings.
