Mars Inc. Says It Removed Additive Targeted by RFK Jr. From Skittles
Skittles no longer contains titanium dioxide, a chemical identified as potentially problematic by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's commission in a recent report, the candy's manufacturer said on May 27.
'Our commitment to quality is what has enabled Mars to be enjoyed by consumers for over a century, and nothing is more important than the safety of our products,' a spokesperson for Mars Inc. told news outlets this week. 'All our products are safe to enjoy and meet the high standards and applicable regulations set by food safety authorities around the world, and that's something we will never compromise on.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
7 days ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: Government's reversal on COVID-19 shots for pregnant women is alarming
Illinois has been a leader in identifying the causes of maternal mortality and creating solutions that would address the causes. Last year, the University of Illinois at Chicago was designated a Maternal Health Research Center of Excellence by the National Institutes of Health, building on the state's successes and allowing us to invest in the next generation of researchers, connect community members with research and investigate the impact of stress on birth outcomes. We understand our efforts can be upended by an emerging crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic is a key example. According to the Illinois Department of Public Health's most recent Maternal Morbidity and Mortality Report (2023), the number of women who died during or within a year of pregnancy from 2020 to 2022 was well above the average of deaths during the five years prior to the pandemic. While we anticipate that the next report will detail how COVID-19 impacted pregnant women in Illinois, we already know from national data that maternal deaths increased by 33% after March 2020 and that the mortality risk of pregnant patients with COVID-19 infection at delivery was approximately 14 times higher compared with those without. As a physician researcher, I have seen the importance of gaining the trust of patients and the public. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's announcement that COVID-19 vaccine boosters will not be recommended to pregnant women, which was done without consulting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, left clinicians to navigate a situation in which research is being actively disregarded by those setting federal policy. Not recommending this vaccine jeopardizes insurance coverage of the vaccine and clinicians' ability to gain the trust of pregnant women for vaccines at a time when they are at risk for adverse outcomes. How can we expect pregnant women to trust clinicians if we recommend vaccines that they may not be allowed to access? Are we to advise patients to disregard CDC recommendations? How do we train future researchers and clinicians if epidemiologic data is ignored? We need to listen to research and learn from data. Barring pregnant women from accessing the COVID-19 vaccine is not clinically sound and will negate our collective efforts to improve maternal health in Illinois and nationally. This will have a chilling effect on efforts to investigate and address causes of maternal morbidity and Father's Day here, I am once again reminded of the father I was blessed with. My mom and dad had five girls. Sadly, their first baby was stillborn, and at the ages of 19 and 26, my parents had to bury their little girl, marking her grave with a small headstone for little 'Linda Jean.' They then had four more girls — I was the second of the four, born in 1950. My dad was a mail carrier all of his working days and oftentimes found it hard to make ends meet. We didn't have the best of everything, but we had all we needed — most importantly, his devotion, his time and his unending love. As kids, we didn't realize that times were so tough. The one story that I remember most vividly was when Dad drove me to my piano lesson. At the time, the lesson was $2 for 45 minutes. I happened to look over when he was getting the $2 out of his wallet one week and saw him pull it out — all folded up in a neat little square in the corner of his wallet. The rest of his wallet was empty. You see, Dad got paid only every other week. It was many years later that I realized on the off days of the month, his wallet was empty — except for the $2 that he had set aside so I could take piano lessons. How blessed I was!I started teaching in 1975 and walked away from the classroom this year. After 36 years of teaching high school and 25 years as a college adjunct, I have some unsolicited observations and advice for the fathers out there. In all my 50 years involved with teenagers, I have never met a messed-up kid who had a good relationship with his or her father. Granted, I have met some problem children with wonderful moms, but then I met the dads, and the source of the kid's anger and unhappiness became clear. I also should point out that not all of the kids who had terrible fathers had difficulties, but those kids with bad fathers who turned out OK usually had a positive father figure there for them — a grandfather, an uncle, an older sibling, a stepdad. Over the years, I've heard all of the excuses for fathers not being involved with their children: 'The ex is difficult,' 'I have to work too much,' 'I have a second family to raise now,' 'My kid doesn't respect me,' 'My kid is angry.' But all of the excuses fall before this one simple truth: That child is a part of you walking around out there, and he or she needs you to assist him or her on the way to a healthy adulthood. Another truth I've learned is that, despite acting like their intent is to spend all of their parents' money, the thing that most kids really want is time. No one really has enough time or money, and how we spend our time and our money is a pretty good indicator of what we value. Instinctively, kids know this. So, this Father's Day, if you are a father and your relationship with your child is not the best, vow to work this year to improve that relationship. Don't blame the ex or the child or the circumstances. Just be a better dad. Be there for looking at the footage of President Donald Trump recently speaking to the German chancellor regarding D-Day, nothing these last few months surprises me except the behaviors coming from the White House. I am the proud daughter of my late dad, who was a bombardier with the 8th Army Air Corps who flew 35 missions over Germany in a B-17 bomber. My late father-in-law fought at the Battle of the Bulge in late 1944, my late uncle was wounded at the Battle of Iwo Jima in 1945, and my husband's great uncle was a sailor whose warship was sunk by the Japanese in 1942 and whose headstone may be found in Manila. My friend's father-in-law was the groom in a wartime wedding in which my mom was the maid of honor. This man was an Army paratrooper who was later killed on Omaha Beach and never met his child. The point is that these brave men fought and many died in defense of our nation and the world. The president spoke as if a war between nations was similar to a fight between brawling children. For all of those involved, the remembrance of D-Day was not a great what I needed, a huge belly laugh while reading the Tuesday Tribune article ('Judge denies Madigan's motion for new trial') about former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan's approaching sentencing. Through his defense attorneys, he stated that he amassed a personal fortune of $40 million by choosing 'frugality over extravagance, remaining in the same modest home for more than fifty years while making prudent savings and investment choices.' Hey, that's the same lifestyle my husband and I have chosen over our 38-year marriage! Living that lifestyle has not brought our personal fortune anywhere near $40 million. Maybe Madigan can busy himself during his retirement teaching all of the hardworking, frugal, living-below-their-means folks his personal tricks to growing our income to be multimillionaires. Let us in on the little secrets of the good old politician's club for growing your own personal Pope Leo XIV in that White Sox cap leads me to believe that someday he'll replace St. Jude as the patron saint of lost causes.
Miami Herald
13-06-2025
- Miami Herald
More states sign up for SNAP waivers
Dive Brief: Arkansas, Idaho and Utah have received waivers allowing them to amend the statutory definition of eligible food under SNAP and thus expand the list of products excluded from the program, the USDA announced waivers for Utah and Idaho will take effect Jan. 1, 2026, while Arkansas' is set to go into effect on July 1, three states join the growing list of Republican states that have received SNAP waivers under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's "Make America Healthy Again" agenda. Dive Insight: This latest batch of waivers marks six Republican states that have signed on to the Trump administration's push to allow states the ability to limit what consumers can spend their SNAP funds on. In mid-May, Nebraska became the first state to receive a SNAP waiver, which will no longer allow people to use SNAP funds to purchase soda and energy drinks. A few days later, the USDA announced that Iowa and Indiana received SNAP waivers. Prior to these waivers, SNAP participants were restricted from using their SNAP funds to buy alcohol, tobacco, hot and prepared foods, and personal care products. With the waivers, states are excluding additional items like candy, soda and energy drinks from SNAP eligibility. Supporters of the SNAP waivers say they incentivize consumers to buy healthier foods with their SNAP dollars and strengthen the Make America Healthy Again agenda, which looks to crack down on ultra-processed foods and ingredients to address chronic disease and obesity. In the Tuesday announcement, Kennedy urged all state governors to seek SNAP waivers "to eliminate sugary drinks-taxpayer dollars should never bankroll products that fuel the chronic disease epidemic." Industry groups representing grocers have pushed back. FMI-The Food Industry Association and the National Grocers Association have both raised concerns that SNAP waivers could cause confusion among SNAP consumers and retailers, and potentially lead to reduced SNAP spending. "While pilots and waivers may have an important role, it is critical not to create chaos and confusion both in individual stores and through a jumbled mixture of varying state requirements – creating new program inefficiencies, longer grocery store lines and customer frustration," FMI President and CEO Leslie G. Sarasin said in a statement. The NGA said earlier this year that the "impacts of all waivers should also be thoroughly evaluated during and after implementation to determine whether their goals are being met without negatively affecting access to nutritious food." Copyright 2025 Industry Dive. All rights reserved.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
The FDA Wants AI To Speed Up Health Care Decisions — Here's Why Experts Are Concerned
Read on Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy's war on health care in the U.S. Earlier this week, Dr. Marty Makary, the commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Association and Dr. Vinay Prasad, the director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, published an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association about the FDA's plans to use artificial intelligence to accelerate decision-making in a realm of health-related fields. Exactly what AI use at the FDA will look like is still to be determined, but the article stated that AI could be used to: accelerate the approval of drugs and devices reduce animal testing address 'concerning' ingredients in food. Many people within the health and science world (and beyond) are concerned by this move, including Elisabeth Marnik, a scientist and science communicator based in Maine, who is particularly worried about the shift to AI after fake citations made their way into a Make America Healthy Again report just a few weeks ago, likely due to unsystematic AI use. There are other concerns, too. 'The FDA's move to explore AI for accelerating drug and device approvals and for food ingredient oversight marks a critical inflection point in regulatory innovation, but it also introduces a series of legal, ethical and structural tensions that can't be glossed over,' Stacey B. Lee, a professor of law and ethics at Johns Hopkins Carey Business School and Bloomberg School of Public Health, told HuffPost via email. The Department of Health and Human Services didn't immediately respond to HuffPost's request for comment. Below, experts share more thoughts on the FDA's AI implementation. 'It's a bit disorienting because it feels like they are doing the thing that they are also criticizing in that they're on this big agenda of almost re-litigating all processes established by our public health agencies to ensure 'safety and efficacy' and yet they're also wanting to expedite things,' said Jessica Malaty Rivera, an infectious disease epidemiologist. Moving quickly through processes while guaranteeing 'safety and efficacy' generally don't go hand-in-hand. 'That feels like you can't have both things at the same time,' she added. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said he wants to put many vaccines through longer trials, and while the FDA's AI use hasn't been pegged for vaccine trials, 'they are still saying that they want to shorten review times and speed up the delivery of treatments to people who need them,' Malaty Rivera said. Kennedy also repeatedly promises 'radical transparency' in health care, yet AI threatens that transparency, experts say. 'I haven't been able to find great, transparent information about exactly where and how they're using AI. They talk about using it for review, but in what way?' said Marnik. 'The law doesn't prohibit innovation, but it does demand accountability,' said Lee. 'Any AI implementation must be subject to clear statutory authority, rigorous oversight and published methodologies to preserve public trust,' she added. This goes back to transparency. 'The core concern is opacity. AI tools, especially proprietary or black-box models, can obscure how decisions are made. If a drug is greenlit or a food ingredient is flagged based on an algorithm that the public can't scrutinize, it erodes due process and patient safety,' Lee said. 'This move also raises critical structural questions: If an AI system contributes to a faulty approval or missed red flag, who's accountable? The software developer? The FDA staffer who relied on the tool?' There is currently a large liability gap, she noted — 'and the regulatory framework hasn't caught up.' When it comes to using AI to look at the 'concerning' ingredients in food in the U.S., Malaty Rivera has concerns. 'MAHA and Marty Makary, in particular, continue to spread misinformation about the safety of food,' she said. 'They continue to malign things that are not harmful to people, like seed oils, they continue to misrepresent even the ingredients of baby formula.' Many of the words used to vilify certain foods and certain ingredients are wellness marketing gimmicks, 'things like non-GMO and organic and pushing things like beef tallow and raw milk,' she added. She also voiced concerns about the data and language that could be used to inform the AI systems when it comes to food regulations. 'I don't trust the people that are in charge of these decisions to make evidence-based decisions on food ingredients. I really don't,' she said. 'We also need to consider bias in training data. If the AI is trained on historically biased data — say, clinical trials that underrepresent women or communities of color, we risk automating disparities in approvals or warnings,' Lee said. Research shows that AI itself is biased and even is known to prop up racist stereotypes. More, how would AI handle the so-called 'DEI-related' words that are currently banned from science research by the Trump administration? 'I don't even know if, because of all these banned words, if applications that even have words that have been considered banned would even pass through these AI models designed by people creating the word bans,' added Malaty Rivera, who added that she wants to know how equity and unbiased review will be ensured in the AI process. 'I would love to see the methodology. I would love to see the ways in which it's not going to cause further harm,' she said. Many people are leery of AI, and for good reason. It's taking jobs, has plagiarism issues, is linked to privacy concerns and, as mentioned above, it's known to be biased. But, when used properly, there are pros to AI both at the FDA and in everyday life. 'In food regulation, especially, this could be a breakthrough. AI can scan molecular structures and evaluate safety profiles at a scale no human team could match,' said Lee. 'But the system has to be designed to prioritize health, not convenience,' 'I do think eventually AI will be a useful tool in helping streamline things and potentially even helping analyze big data sets,' Marnik said, 'but I think that there's a lot of steps we have to go through to make sure that's actually happening correctly before it's used on such a federal level. Malaty Rivera noted that AI isn't going anywhere and while it could be useful to review thousands of pages of information, it would be a mistake to completely remove humans from the process. No matter what AI is used for at the FDA, processes must be in place to ensure fairness and accuracy, experts say. 'If this is going to be what you want to eventually use, there should be essentially a scientific process to establish that the system is actually working as well as you think it's working and is actually working as well as a human review process,' Marnik said, adding that without systems (and people) to make sure AI is functioning properly, there can be major issues. Lee noted informed decisions need to be reviewed, explained and equitable for patients, researchers and policy makers. 'AI in health care is not just a tech issue; it's a trust issue,' Lee said. Otherwise, more people could be led to distrust the medical system. And levels of distrust are already high, with roughly two-thirds of Americans expressing a lack of faith in the medical establishment. 'The FDA's AI pilot comes at a moment when public trust in health institutions is already fragile. Getting this right means building the right guardrails now, not after the first high-profile failure,' Lee said. 'That includes independent audits, transparent reporting, human oversight and clear legal responsibility.' Malaty Rivera said if she believed in the scientific rigor and integrity of the people at the helm of the FDA, the use of AI in health and science would be one thing. 'But I don't. And so I don't trust these decision makers to be designing and/or navigating these tools,' she said. Malaty Rivera also added that the people appointed under the MAHA regime have an agenda that isn't evidence-based science. 'The agenda is this alternative, contrarian version of health and wellness that is often spreading a lot of harmful misinformation,' she said. Marnik added that she doesn't think AI is currently able to do rigorous scientific reviews or find limitations associated with scientific data, which is crucial for the FDA when it comes to medical approvals. 'AI is only as good as the prompts and the directions that you give it, and what it's been trained on,' Marnik said. 'So, ultimately, I think this is too soon, and I would like to know more about exactly how they plan to use it.' RFK Jr. Went Swimming In Sewage Water — Health Experts Beg You Not To Do That. If RFK Jr. Actually Gave An F About Health, Here's What He'd Focus On Instead RFK Jr.'s Stunning Claim About Black People And Vaccines Sparks Concern From Medical Experts
