Americans love small businesses. We dedicate a week each year to applauding them, and spend Small Business Saturday shopping locally. Yet hiding in plain sight is an enormous challenge facing small-business owners as they age: retiring with dignity and foresight. The current economic climate is making this even more difficult.
As a professor who studies aging and business, Ive long viewed small-business owners retirement challenges as a looming crisis. The issue is now front and center for millions of entrepreneurs approaching retirement. Small enterprises make up more than half of all privately held U.S. companies, and for many of their owners, the business is their retirement plan.
But while owners often hope to finance their golden years by selling their companies, only 20% of small businesses are ready for sale even in good times, according to the Exit Planning Institute. And right now, conditions are far from ideal. An economic stew of inflation, supply chain instability, and high borrowing costs means that interest from potential buyers is cooling.
For many business owners, retirement isnt a distant concern. In the U.S., baby boomerswho are currently 61 to 79 years oldown about 2.3 million businesses. Altogether, they generate about $5 billion in revenue and employ almost 25 million people. These entrepreneurs have spent decades building businesses that often are deeply rooted in their communities. They dont have time to ride out economic chaos, and their optimism is at a 50-year low.
New policies, new challenges
You cant blame them for being gloomy. Recent policy shifts have only made life harder for business owners nearing retirement. Trade instability, whipsawing tariff announcements and disrupted supply chains have eroded already thin margins. Some businessesgenerally larger ones with more negotiating powerare absorbing extra costs rather than passing them on to shoppers. Others have no choice but to raise prices, to customers dismay. Inflation has further squeezed profits.
At the same time, with a few notable exceptions, buyers and capital have grown scarce. Acquirers and liquidity have dried up across many sectors. The secondary market, a barometer of broader investor appetite, now sees more sellers than buyers. These are textbook symptoms of a flight to safety, a market shift that drags out sale timelines and depresses valuationsall while Main Street business owners age out. These entrepreneurs typically have one shot at retirement, if any.
Adding to these woes, many small businesses are part of what economists call regional clusters, providing services to nearby universities, hospitals, and local governments. When those anchor institutions face budget cutsas is happening nowsmall-business vendors are often the first to feel the impact.
Research shows that many aging owners actually double down in weak economic times, sinking increasing amounts of time and money in a psychological pattern known as escalating commitment. The result is a troubling phenomenon scholars refer to as benign entrapment. Aging entrepreneurs can remain attached to their businesses not because they want to, but because they see no viable exit.
This growing crisis isnt about bad personal planning; its a systemic failure.
Rewriting the playbook on small-business policy
A key mistake that policymakers make is to lump all small-business owners together into one group. That causes them to overlook important differences. After all, a 68-year-old carpenter trying to retire doesnt have much in common with a 28-year-old tech founder pitching a startup. Policymakers may cheer for high-growth unicorns, but they often overlook the cows and horses that keep local economies running.
Even among older business owners, circumstances vary based on local conditions. Two retiring carpenters in different towns may face vastly different prospects based on the strength of their local economies. No business, and no business owner, exists in a vacuum.
Relatedly, when small businesses fail to transition, it can have consequences for the local economy. Without a buyer, many enterprises will simply shut down. And while closures can be long-planned and thoughtful, when a business closes suddenly, its not just the owner who loses. Employees are left scrambling for work. Suppliers lose contracts. Communities lose essential services.
Four ways to help aging entrepreneurs
Thats why I think policymakers should reimagine how they support small businesses, especially owners nearing the end of their careers.
First, small-business policy should be tailored to age. A retirement-ready business shouldnt be judged solely by its growth potential. Rather, policies should recognize stability and community value as markers of success. The U.S. Small Business Administration and regional agencies can provide resources specifcally for retirement planning that starts early in a businesss life, to include how to increase the value of the business and a plan to attract acquirers in later stages.
Second, exit infrastructure should be built into local entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurial ecosystems are built to support business entry (think incubators and accelerators) but not for exit. In other words, just like there are accelerators for launching businesses, there should be programs to support winding them down. These could include confidential peer forums, retirement-readiness clinics, succession matchmaking platforms, and flexible financing options for acquisition.
Third, chaos isnt good for anybody. Fluctuations in capital gains taxes, estate tax thresholds, and tariffs make planning difficult and reduce business value in the eyes of potential buyers. Stability encourages confidence on both sides of a transaction.
And finally, policymakers should include ripple-effect analysis in budget decisions. When universities, hospitals or governments cut spending, small-business vendors often absorb much of the shock. Policymakers should account for these downstream impacts when shaping local and federal budgets.
If we want to truly support small businesses and their owners, its important to honor the lifetime arc of entrepreneurshipnot just the launch and growth, but the retirement, too.
Nancy Forster-Holt is a clinical associate professor of innovation and entrepreneurship at the University of Rhode Island.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Breakthroughs happen all the time in the tech world, but only a select few manage to make a lasting impact.
Predicting which innovations will shape the future is always a challenge. On Tuesday, the World Economic Forum (WEF) released its list of the top 10 emerging technologies of 2025, highlighting those expected to influence global challenges within the next three to five years.
The list, compiled with the help of Frontiers Media, a publisher of peer-reviewed scientific journals, avoids naming specific companies. Instead, the WEF focuses on concepts that are both novel and nearing maturity, with the potential to deliver meaningful benefits to society.
Here’s what the WEF sees as being on the path to a breakthrough in 2025.
Advanced nuclear tech
Demand for nuclear energy is on the rise, with the Trump administration pledging to fast-track permits for nuclear projects. The WEF predicts that smaller nuclear designs and alternative cooling systems will offer safer, cleaner energy at a lower cost. These reactors, it says, “could play a key role in building reliable, zero-carbon power systems.”
Structural battery composites
The weight of batteries has been a pain point for things like cars and planes, impacting their efficiency. New materials that store energy and support weight can make these vehicles lighter, improving both their performance and their environmental impact.
Collaborative sensing
Speaking of vehicles, networking connected sensors can let vehicles share information in real time with each other, as well as with cities and emergency services. In the case of an incident, this can reduce traffic, increase response times, and improve safety, the WEF says.
Generative watermarking
As artificial intelligence becomes even more widespread, distinguishing original content from AI-generated material will be critical. Generative watermarking adds an invisible tag to AI content, helping combat misinformation and build consumer trust.
Green nitrogen
Producing fertilizer today requires fossil fuels, which leads to pollution and carbon emissions. Green nitrogen, which relies on electricity instead, could offer “a more sustainable way to grow food,” the WEF says.
GLP-1 drugs for neurodegenerative diseases
GLP-1 drugs are currently used to treat obesity and diabetes. The WEF notes they are also showing promise in treating other diseases, such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.
Autonomous biochemical sensing
Smart sensors capable of continuously monitoring environmental changes or human health without wires could unlock numerous possibilities. The medical field may use them for early disease detection, while scientists can apply them to track pollution and atmospheric trends.
Nanozymes
Naturally occurring enzymes help clean pollution and are used in medical diagnostics. Lab-made versions, called nanozymes, are stronger and cheaper, which could expand their use in a variety of applications.
Engineered living therapeutics
Long-term medical care is expensive and often inconsistent in its results. Scientists, according to the WEF, are developing therapies that use beneficial bacteria to deliver treatments from within the body. This approach could lower costs and improve success rates.
Osmotic power systems
This renewable energy source, which uses the pressure difference that occurs when freshwater and saltwater mix, produces a cleaner form of electricity. That can be especially helpful in coastal areas where special care must be taken to protect both the environment and wildlife.
As a child and adolescent psychiatrist, Ive spent the past two decades treating young people and working with families in crisis. And I can tell you this: The threats to youth mental health are bigger than we think, and theyre not coming from where you might expect.
While the stigma around therapy and psychiatric care may be slowly receding, access to care is under siege. We’re watching mental health supports erode at exactly the moment families need them most. And in the name of reform, new political efforts like the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) executive order are introducing even more barriers.
To be clear, we should absolutely be thoughtful about how we deliver care and prevent misuse of medication in kids’ mental health treatment. But what we cannot do is politicize or pathologize the very tools that save lives.
A system in retreat
We are in the middle of a youth mental health crisis. According to the CDC, suicide was the second leading cause of death for youth ages 10 to 14 in 2023, the latest CDC data available. One in five children has a diagnosable mental health condition, yet almost two-thirds receive little to no treatment at all. And when care is delayed, the consequences can be severe: school dropout, addiction, chronic illness, even early death.
Yet, despite this, we’re watching key supports disappear:
School-based mental health programs are being defunded. These programs often catch problems early and are sometimes the only care option for underserved kids.
Telehealth access is under threat, despite being a lifeline for rural families and working parents during the pandemic.
Medicaid redeterminations have put millions of children at risk of losing coverage.
Mental health medication access is being undermined by supply chain issues and growing skepticism around use, especially for conditions like ADHD.
MAHAs emphasis on “over-utilization” of psychiatric medication only adds to the problem. When we focus on the wrong risks, we distract from the real ones: untreated illness, suffering families, and preventable tragedies.
Stigma with a new disguise
Im seeing more and more skepticism about psychiatric treatment. Questions like, “Are we overmedicating kids?” or “Shouldnt we be building resilience instead?”
The thing is, its not either-or. We treat diabetes with insulin and teach healthy habits. We manage asthma with inhalers and reduce environmental triggers. Mental health should be no different. Framing treatment as a failure, or something we should avoid unless weve tried everything else, only drives families deeper into shame. And for kids, that can translate into silence, hopelessness, and danger.
What kids and families actually need
We need a new model for mental health careone that meets families where they are, uses the best available evidence, and doesnt leave them to figure it all out alone.
Heres what that looks like:
Integrated, team-based care. No one provider can do it all. Kids need therapists, psychiatric providers, and coaches who work together.
Early, proactive support. The longer we wait, the worse outcomes get. Lets reach kids early, way before they actually hit a crisis.
Technology that expands access, not replaces care. Telehealth and digital tools can help families overcome logistical barriers, especially when thoughtfully designed.
Respect for families. Parents shouldnt feel judged for seeking care. They should be met with empathy and real options.
Investment in workforce and innovation. We need to train more clinicians, pay them fairly, and support research into better treatments.
How can policymakers and leaders help?
So what can we actually do? First, we need to protect telehealth paritybecause where a child lives shouldnt determine whether they can see a therapist. We need to fully fund school-based programs, so kids have access to care where they spend most of their time. And we have to stabilize Medicaid enrollment to prevent kids from falling through the cracks just because of paperwork.
We also must raise reimbursement rates for mental health carebecause when providers burn out or leave the field, families are the ones left scrambling. Finally, we need to push back on stigmaespecially in the way we write and talk about mental health in policy. This isnt the time for vague language or political posturing. Its time to be clear, evidence-based, and human.
Silence isnt neutral
It can feel risky to speak up. But as a clinician, a mom, and a human being, I cant stay quiet while kids fall through the cracks.
This isnt about left or right. Its about right and wrong. Its about whether were willing to invest in our childrens future or continue to make care harder to reach.
Mental health isnt a luxury. And every child deserves the chance to feel better. Lets stop building roadblocks and start building a future grounded in compassion, care, and real support.
Monika Roots, MD is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and the cofounder, president, and chief medical officer of Bend Health.
“I know how this ends. Im sitting here watching it unfold like a slow-motion movieknowing exactly where it leads in 10 years from now, and feeling like I cant stop it.”
That lineas one founder put it during a recent gathering, captures the emotional temperature across tech, philanthropy, and the social innovation world in 2025. People care. But theyre cautious. Panels are packed. Questions are asked. Yet action feels stuck.
We dont need another diagnosis. We need a shift from performative hope to pragmatic optimism. From words to scaffolding. From reflection to response.
The readiness signal
Across recent Fast Company Impact Council, Skoll Forum, and European ESG Forum events, from New York to Oxford to Brussels, my team and I have been sensing the same tension. Different contexts, same emotional current: uncertainty, caution, yet unmistakable readiness to act.
From Fast Companys Tech for Good and Human Leadership roundtables to Skoll Sidebar breakout rooms, the questions were strikingly direct: Can we still act globally in a world turning inward? How do we build trust without diluting purpose?
Heres the real question, Will the answers leave the room and bring tangible change? As one insider framed it, How can we stay mission-driven while navigating expectations that shift almost daily? One statement today could feel outdated or risky by tomorrow.
The appetite for action is real. Whats missing is the structure: reliable ways to experiment, collaborate, and scale without getting lost in noise or paralyzed by risk.
The hesitation gap
In the U.S., philanthropic collaboratives gained momentum in the early 2020s as a lean, expert-led model of giving. According to Bridgespans 2023 report, nearly 200 such collaboratives collectively deployed between $2 and $3 billion in 2021 alone. The report attributes this rise, in part, to growing interest among newer philanthropists in pooled giving platforms that resemble mutual funds for impact. For many, the appeal wasnt just scale, it was structure. Donors were looking for ways to contribute without building foundations or going it alone.
What this signals is important: Philanthropy wasnt lacking intent. It was searching for shared, trusted vehicles to act. People want confidence that what they step into will work. Not another vague framework. Something proven, buildable, and timely.
When building beats talking
What if the best way forward isnt more debating, but better prototypes that take into consideration all those different interests?
At Tech To The Rescue, were seeing glimpses of this future. Our AI for Changemakers nonprofit acceleration program has mobilized nearly 500 tech companies to co-build with more than 110 nonprofits since its 2024 launch. When small, focused tech teams co-build with urgency, the result isnt just a tool, its a proof of possibility.
It looks like Alsama (UK/Lebanon), partnering with tech company to roll out innovative education programs in refugee camps, compressing 12 years of learning into six for refugee youth, AsyLex (Switzerland), which co-built an AI assistant helping asylum seekers file human rights appeals to UN bodies or Justdiggit (Africa), now building AI powered chatbots to spread regreening techniques to farming communities across African countries.
These organizations didnt need another strategy session. They needed trusted co-builders, tools, and a chance to start building. This co-creation model is becoming a movement. The road isn’t simple, but it’s being paved one partnership at a time and it’s what I believe pragmatic optimism should look like in practice.
If you want to help, build
Thats why at Tech To The Rescue were shaping something newa collaborative model born from many conversations, especially during our recent EuroLab experience. Not a think tank, not a conference. A hands-on space where NGOs, technologists, and funders build together. Small teams. Time-boxed sprints. Open-source lessons. A replicable engine for pragmatic optimism designed to scale across sectors and geographies.
If youre a funder, you should support models that can be scaled. If you lead a nonprofit, ask not who will invite you in, but what you can prototype. If youre in tech, make your skills available to working systems, not just solutions.
Lets build co-creation labs, not just roundtables. Lets equip optimism with tools. Lets stop waiting.
So lets start. If youre already prototyping solutions that tackle humanitys burning problems, share whats working with others. If youre stuck, find one small team and test an idea together. And if youre waiting for a model to follow, this is it. The time to build is (still) now.
Jacek Siadkowski is CEO and cofounder of Tech To The Rescue.
As I reflect on my personal health journey, its hard not to draw a straight line from the food I ate growing up to where I am today. Food has always been central to my wellbeing. But it wasnt until I became an adult, and sick with a disease that went undiagnosed for many months, that I fully grasped the power of food to either nourish or harm. During that extremely difficult period in my life, trapped in a cycle of inconclusive tests and debilitating symptoms, I came to understand food as medicine and realized that the way our food is grown impacts not just our bodies, but also the ecosystems that sustain us.
As the CEO of Rodale Institute, I believe now more than ever that soil health is human health. The land is a living, breathing organism that must be fed and cared for, just like us. When we feed the land, it feeds us. Although Rodale Institute is 78 years old and the birthplace of the modern organic movement, we maintain a start-up mentality: ambitious, forward-thinking, and focused on accelerating regenerative organic agriculture across the country. Weve set a bold goal to transition one million acres of farmland to regenerative organic by 2035. Why? Because how we grow food is deeply connected to rising rates of chronic illnesses like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. Its time to make a change.
Damage the soil, damage ourselves
The current state of industrial agriculture in America is alarming. This system prioritizes high yields, chemical inputs, and monocropping at the expense of human and environmental health. Modern farming depends on synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, many of which have been linked to serious health concerns. Studies show people exposed to these chemicals, whether through agricultural work or food consumption, face higher risks of cancer, neurological disorders, and other illnesses. This is not a theoretical concern, its a public health crisis. Exposure to synthetic pesticides has been linked to increased rates of leukemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and prostate cancer.
These chemicals may boost short-term yields, but they degrade our soil, kill beneficial microorganisms, and upset the natural balance of ecosystems. When we damage the soil, we damage our food and ourselves. Many of these chemicals also seep into waterways, polluting communities far beyond the farm.
A better way forward
But there is a better way forward: regenerative organic agriculture. This holistic approach prioritizes soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem restoration. Unlike conventional farming, regenerative organic methods avoid synthetic chemicals and instead build the natural fertility and resilience of the land. It starts with soil, rebuilding soil health through techniques like crop rotation, cover cropping, and composting. These methods increase organic matter in the soil, which helps it store carbon, retain water, and support microbial life. Healthy soil produces nutrient-dense crops, which nourish the animals and people who consume them.
The benefits go beyond soil. Regenerative organic farms foster biodiversity, protect pollinators, and restore natural habitats. This isnt just about growing food, its about restoring balance to our environment and improving public health.
Theres a direct link between food and health. When we eat food grown with synthetic chemicals, we ingest substances that can contribute to chronic disease. But when we eat food grown in healthy, organic soil, were fueling our bodies with the vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants they need to thrive. In this way, food becomes medicine.
Ive seen this firsthand. Since changing my diet to organic foods, my energy, health, and well-being have dramatically improved. That mysterious illness? It was resolved with dietary and lifestyle changes. I farmed my body back to health. And Im not alone. Millions of Americans suffer from chronic diseases that may be linked to our food system. The evidence is clear. Our farming practices must change if we want to improve soil health and human health.
Yet theres a major hurdle: Less than 1% of U.S. farmland is USDA-certified organic, even though consumer demand for organic food is growing rapidly. Transitioning to regenerative organic farming requires commitment, training, and investment, but its an effort we cant afford to delay.
The benefits are clear, regenerative organic farming restores our soil, improves health outcomes, and protects our environment for future generations. But we need more than a few dedicated farmers to make this vision a reality. We need widespread adoption, public investment, and strong policy support. Farmers, policymakers, and consumers must come together to build a food system that prioritizes health, sustainability, and resilience.
The current food system is broken, but we can fix it. By supporting regenerative organic agriculture, we ensure that our food nourishes our bodies and sustains the land. At Rodale Institute, the farm continues to teach us about reciprocity, nourishment, and connection. We are all stewards of the land and the food that we eat from it. Its time for America to make the transition to a healthier, more regenerative food systemfor our health and our future.
Jeff Tkach is CEO of Rodale Institute.
Several eyebrows were raised to full mast on Tuesday morning when a visibly upset President Trump dropped an f-bomb on live TV. In response to a reporters question about the tentative ceasefire between Israel and Iran, Trump replied that the two countries have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f-ck they’re doing, possibly the first time a U.S. president has purposefully unloaded that term on camera.
Although Trumps use of one of the cruder expletives wouldve been jarring at any other time, theres a reason it might have sounded even more discordant than usual at this moment. Its because lately the president has taken to signing off all his posts about the conflict between Israel and Iran with an oddly formal flourish: DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
While the contrast of Tuesdays f-bomb is giving linguistic whiplash, it also highlights the baffling nature of Trumps new social media signaturesomething that users of X and Bluesky have already been unpacking for days.
Before last Saturday, Trump had used the cumbersome sign-off only twice before, with a pair of posts commemorating Easter Sunday on April 20.
However, after announcing on Saturday that the United States had carried out bombing strikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran, he began using the prolix word-dump a lot more. It has quickly become a hallmark of his messaging in every step of the unfurling conflictfrom warning Iran not to retaliate, to dismissing its weak retaliation; from announcing that the two countries had reached a ceasefire, to demanding that Israel stick to it.
Trump’s branding constantly evolves
One potential reason for this new posting habit is that Trump is a consummate troubleshooter, and this may just be the latest evolution of his social media branding.
Earlier this year, for example, he augmented his standard MAGA! sign-off, by adding the all-business valediction: Thank you for your attention to this matter! Trumps verbose new sign-off could either be a way to further make his posts read like boilerplate business letters, or its just something hes throwing against the wall to see whether his supporters want him to stick with it.
Another reason might be to distinguish certain posts among the greater deluge of social media content he produces. Given that Truth Socialthe platform Trump owns and where his posts liveis estimated to have only 5 million members, most people likely encounter Trumps posts only through media reports and screenshots on bigger platforms such as X and Bluesky.
So it might be a shock to learn that the Truth Social posts that break containment represent just a tiny fraction of the presidents prodigious output on the platform. According to the The Washington Post, Trump posted to Truth Social over 2,200 times in the first 132 days of his presidency.
The tedious sign-off could be an over-the-top way to differentiate his posts from the myriad dispatches by his social media team, something hes been doing throughout the year with the more brevity-friendly DJT.
What seems most likely, though, is that Trump simply wants to imbue his posts about this geopolitical conflict with extra gravitas. He is notoriously obsessed with people who look the part (for instance, by talking about cabinet appointments in terms of central casting), and so perhaps this official-sounding sign-off is what he thinks a commander in chief is supposed to sound like during wartime.
In any case, Trumps new habit of ending posts with his full name and title, as though introducing himself in an icebreaker activity at work, has garnered a range of reactions online.
A lot of X users have commented on the obviously unnecessary nature of it, while some posters on Bluesky have speculated about whether Trump thinks the formal sign-off confers special powers to his posts, making them inviolable.
People on both sites rejoiced when the president accidentally misspelled his first name as Donakd in a post with the long-winded farewell.
Several social media users have also pointed out the similarities between Trumps new communication style and how their elderly relatives end texts to the family.
Trump signing his own post 'Donald J Trump, President Of The United States' has the vibe of when your Dad writes 'Dad' at the end of a WhatsApp message even though it's already coming from his number.— Mark Watson (@watsoncomedian.bsky.social) 2025-06-24T11:48:33.315Z
On Bluesky, the most common response has perhaps been from users incorporating Trumps new long goodbye into the repertoire when mimicking his bizarre, singular style.
Like most thins this president does, it has already become a meme.
BARRON IS TELLING EVERYONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE THAT HE HAS MY NOSE. HE DOES NOT AND HAS NEVER HAD MY NOSE! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!— Tyler (@okty.bsky.social) 2025-06-24T11:57:22.199Z
HAL. OPEN THE POD BAY DOORS. IF YOU DO NOT IT IS A MAJOR VIOLATION. OPEN THE POD BAY DOORS, NOW! DONALD J TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES— Jonathan Gilligan (@jgilligan.org) 2025-06-24T13:05:51.238Z
Considering that Trump has almost exclusively used this lengthy sign-off in posts about acts related to war, it may be for the benefit of humanity if we never see it again.
The rise of misinformation aimed at young girls across digital underscores an urgent need for credible resources, empowering products, and emotionally safe communities.
Todays teen girls are navigating puberty and emotional development in a world no previous generation has known, one where their bodies, confidence, and mental health are influenced as much by social media algorithms as by their own biology. And its taking a devastating toll.
Popular platforms like TikTok and Instagram are proving to be part of the problem, with one in three girls acknowledging negative feelings about their body, based on what they see in their feeds, on a weekly basis. And while this is beginning earlier and earlier each year, a U.S. study revealed that by age 13, 53% of girls report being unhappy with their bodies, a figure that by age 17, rises to an alarming 78%. All of this during the crucial period when girls self-worth, mental health, and emotional resilience are also being developed.
Lack of puberty education and practical support
Major surveys show many U.S. girls feel under-prepared for puberty. In one 2021 study, 74% of menstruating students (ages 1319) had questions about their periods, yet just 43% said schools openly discussed this puberty milestone. A 2023 poll of American women found only 15% felt prepared for their first period, 48% said they were not prepared, and 21% did not understand what was happening at their first menstruation.
A 202122 national health survey found 31% of girls (ages 1217) reported anxiety symptoms and 25% reported depression. Feelings of isolation and stigma are common. In a representative teen poll, 45% of girls said theyd been too ashamed or embarrassed to seek help when they had questions about their bodies (e.g. puberty or menstruation). Likewise, 58% of teens agreed that society is not set up for them to manage puberty and menstruation with full confidence.
And heres the reality: Puberty isnt what it was 10 years ago. Menarchea girls first periodnow arrives as young as age 9. Girls are navigating their most vulnerable stages of growth and development in a digital age with little support.
Recently, Cloudstate CEO Meg Smith spent 16 months with global focus groups, conducting surveys and conversations with hundreds of Gen Z girls and their parents. By the end, one thing was clear: Girls today need a brandand a safe spacethat actually puts the needs and voices of their community first.
The digital puberty space Gen Z actually wants
Platforms like Cloudstates Girl Talk Live (GTL), a first-of-its-kind digital destination designed for girls navigating pubertys emotional and social rollercoasters in todays hyper-connected world, is a necessary first step.
Cloudstate understands young girls today arent interested in a sterile medical site or a glorified product forum. Instead, they want a hype-worthy, judgment-free zone where they can ask the real stuff, connect with relatable big sister mentors, and access expert-backed advice on everything from body confidence to friend drama to managing anxiety. They thrive in places that feel like their closest squadbut smarter, safer, and kinder. We are here to provide just that.
But we also know that resources alone arent enough. Some of the earliest experiences girls have with their changing bodies, like shopping for their first bra, are deeply emotional milestones too often treated as transactional. Thats why we are reimagining what that moment looks and feels like. Our brand isnt just selling bras, were creating confidence-first products designed to support a girls emotional, physical, and mental growth. Because for girls, a bra isnt just a bra. Its an early, intimate encounter with their changing bodyand it deserves care, kindness, and community to go with it.
Because Gen Z girls deserve better
Puberty is biologically wired to be an emotionally intense time. In the digital age, that natural vulnerability is amplified by forces girls were never meant to navigate alone. Its time brands and influencers stop offering products and advice that may be unqualified and harmful, without providing emotional support, real conversation, and a seat at the table.
Gen Z girls aren’t simply accepting how they should deal with puberty. They are challenging what is offered to them and demanding an experience that is better than the generations that came before. They are rewriting the rules of puberty cultureand its time we all listen.
Blake Simpson is strategic growth and corporate affairs officer at Cloudstate. Meg Smith is founder and CEO of Cloudstate.
Career gaps have become commonplace in people’s work history, yet job seekers still feel the need to hide thema strategy experts warn is likely to backfire.
According to a recent survey conducted by MyPerfectResume, 47% of American workers have taken a break from work. Despite how common those breaks have become, 38% are highly concerned about how it will affect their future job prospects, and 30% believe employers will consider it a major red flag.
During the pandemic, there was so much shifting in the workplacelots of people getting laid off or stepping out of work to manage caregiving responsibilitiesand you might have thought this need for a linear career path would have maybe diminished, says MyPerfectResume career expert Jasmine Escalera. What the data tells us is that there is an enduring stigma. It still affects how employees see their career prospects.
That stigma, according to Escalera, is adopted from a bygone era when most workers remained at the same employer for the majority or entirety of their careers, and when a break from that pattern signaled a performance or loyalty issue.
Its so old-school and comes from the way corporate America was set up in the past. But it doesnt fit the times were actually in, she says.
Not all career gaps, however, are received the same.
According to the survey, respondents are most sympathetic to medical or caregiving leaves, followed by a return to school. However, the most common career gaps were the result of layoffs or company restructuring, career transitioning, mental health needs, or termination.
Hiding a career gap is worse than having a career gap
Ironically, according to the MyPerfectResume survey, a career gap itself can often be less damaging to a candidates prospects than any attempts made to hide it.
In the survey, nearly two-thirds of those with career gaps said they keep that information off their application and only discuss it if the hiring manager asks about it directly, while 4 percent admit to lying about it outright. Only one in five people say they address the gap directly.
Earlier in my career, it was common when an employee had a gap in their résumé, and to try to cover that by stretching the date they left and the date they started another job. Dont do that, says Jim Link, chief human resources officer for the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). The first thing the employer is going to do is verify backgrounds and employment dates, and call your references. And even if its a month or two off, thats going to raise red flags.
No matter the reason for the career break, Link emphasizes that it is always better to be transparent instead of trying to hide the truth and risking getting caught. No matter the reason, he says, employers would rather know than be left guessing, or worse, feeling deceived.
We will look at someone who has a criminal history for employment in our organization, and I know hundreds of other employers like that, he says. Even in those circumstances, I believe that the truth is the absolute right thing to present, because employers who believe in second chances just want that candidate to say what happened, what they were convicted of, and why they are worthy of a second chance.
Shift the narrative from past to future
When it comes to career gaps, honesty is always the best policy, though candidates are advised to be tactful in how they present it.
A gap isnt a red flag; its a story to be toldthe problem is that most people dont know how to tell that story, says career coach, author, and podcast host Marlo Lyons. You have to own the narrative about the gap.
Key to owning that narrative, Lyons says, is offering an explanation that focuses on what was learned or accomplished during the time away from work.
For example, if you took time away to be a caregiver, you would say, I took time away to care for a family member, and now I’m energized to return to work,’ she says. Or I took a pause in my career to figure out exactly what I want. And after taking that time, I know this job is exactly what I want. So, its all about positioning, and being future oriented.
According to data provided by LinkedIn, 2.7 million professionals have added a career break to their profiles, and 67% say they gained valuable skills during the absence.
Whether that time was spent traveling, caring for a loved one, overcoming a medical challenge, going back to school, or simply job searching, Lyons says there are almost always employable skills to draw from those experiences.
If youve taken time off to travel, highlight cultural fluency, adaptability, and language skills, she says. Same with volunteering. You do not have to get paid to put it on your résumé.
Address it early
Employment gaps left unexplained can leave recruiters guessing, and for more competitive positions, some might not give candidates the chance to explain.
As opposed to hiding gaps, addressing them with a sense of embarrassment, or waiting to be asked, Lyons encourages job seekers to share their story proactively. Its critical, both on the résumé and when youre asked to walk them through your résumé [in interviews], that you address the gap very confidently and clearly, she says.
Those who spent some of their time away from work volunteering, taking courses, consulting, or networking are encouraged to add those points to their résumé directly. Those that left work to travel, pivot their careers, manage a medical need, or be a caregiver can also offer a brief explanation in their cover letters, emphasizing the lessons learned from those experiences.
The simpler it is, the more authentic it will be received, and the recruiter can then move on to the next question, Lyons says. It’s when you don’t fill in the gap, or when you stumble, or when you try to talk around what happened in that situationthat’s where the red flag comes in.
Mastercard has announced a partnership with global fintech Fiservs new stablecoin, FIUSD, in an effort to make the stabilized cryptocurrency mainstream.
The multinational card provider plans to integrate the token across its global payments network, including stablecoin-linked cards, on- and off-ramping of funds, and global acquirers.
This work with Fiserv is setting the stage for a new era, where stablecoins are as ubiquitous and trusted as fiat currencies, driving choice and innovation for all, Chiro Aikat, co-president, Americas at Mastercard, said in a statement. Leveraging the power of the Mastercard network, as well as our deep capabilities across digital assets, we are creating a robust ecosystem that bridges traditional financial services with digital assets.
As of this afternoon, Fiserv stocks are up nearly 1%, while Mastercard stock is up 2.59%.
This news comes the same day that stock for the largest stablecoin provider, Circle Internet Group (CRCL), is down nearly 15% as of Tuesday afternoon, just weeks after the companys initial public offer (IPO) surged in its market debutwhen stock was trading 706% above the IPO price. The move comes after an analyst note from Compass Point suggested recent regulatory action could encourage increased competition in the stablecoin industry.
What’s the latest on stablecoins?
Stablecoins are growing in popularity as a more stable cryptocurrency option, due to their value being tied to external commodities like gold or currencies like the U.S. dollar.
The recently Senate-passed GENIUS Act would set standards for stablecoins and would ultimately allow for other card providers to widely implement them in their processes.
Supporters of the bill say it would encourage more stablecoin competition and consumer protection, while those in opposition position the bill as too industry-friendly and financially beneficial for the current presidential administration.
“To date, stablecoins have largely been a store of value, Takis Georgakopoulos, chief operating officer of Fiserv, said. Our work with Mastercard is promoting greater reach and utility of stablecoins by helping our financial institutions and merchants enable greater payments choice to their customers.”
Other finance and banking giants like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and WellsFargo have also begun to delve further into the world of stablecoins through joint partnerships, demonstrating the foothold that the cryptocurrency may be taking in the market.
A new Texas law promoting the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again agenda requires first-ever warning labels on foods like chips and candies that contain dyes and additives not allowed in other countries.
It could have far-reaching effects on the nation’s food supply, but a review of the legislation shows it also misrepresents the status of some ingredients that would trigger the action.
The law signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on Sunday requires foods made with any of more than 40 dyes or additives to have labels starting in 2027 saying they contain ingredients not recommended for human consumption in Australia, Canada, the European Union or the U.K. But a review shows that nearly a dozen of the targeted additives are either authorized in the cited regions or already restricted in the U.S.
The law, which will send the food industry scrambling to respond, is laudable in its intent, but could lead to incorrect citations and potential legal challenges, a consumer advocacy group said.
I dont know how the list of chemicals was constructed, said Thomas Galligan, a scientist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Warnings have to be accurate in order to be legal.
The law, approved with wide bipartisan support, is part of a flurry of similar legislation this year by GOP-led statehouses as lawmakers align themselves with U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.s Make America Healthy Again agenda. Texas would be the first in the U.S. to use warning labels to target additives, rather than nutrients like sugar or saturated fat, to change American diets.
It will force food companies to decide whether to reformulate products to avoid the labels, add the newly required language, pull certain products from Texas shelves or oppose the measure in court.
It’s unclear how the list of additives was created. Inquiries to the office of the bill’s author, Republican state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, were not immediately returned.
Some of the targeted ingredients are allowed in all the named regions
Regulators in Australia, Canada, the EU and the U.K. take a cautious approach to food additives: If a product’s safety is uncertain, it can be banned or restricted until it is determined to be safe. By contrast, the U.S. generally allows products on the market unless there is clear risk of harm.
Three additives targeted by Texas partially hydrogenated oils, Red Dye No. 4 and Red Dye No. 3 are not approved or have been banned in food by U.S. regulators.
Several of the other listed ingredients are allowed in all four of those regions, noted Galligan and representatives from the Consumer Brands Association, a food industry trade group.
Examples of those include: Blue Dye No. 1; Blue Dye No. 2; butylated hydroxyanisole, or BHA; butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT; diacetyl; interesterified soybean oil; lactylated fatty acid esters of glycerol and propylene glycol; and potassium aluminum sulfate.
In addition, the legislation contains regulatory loopholes that could prevent certain ingredients from being labeled at all, said Melanie Benesh, an analyst with the Environmental Working Group, an activist organization that focuses on toxic chemicals.
For example, the food additive azodicarbonamide, known as ADA and used as a bleaching agent in cereal flours, is included on the Texas list. But under the Federal Code of Regulations, it may safely be used in food under certain conditions. That federal regulation likely exempts ADA from the state labeling law, Benesh said.
The law, as passed, may not end up having the impact that legislators intended, Benesh said.
Nutrition experts welcome a look at food additives
Nutrition experts have long worried about the potential health effects of food additives, even as it remains unclear how much of a role processed foods have in driving chronic health disease.
Research has shown that requiring food label warnings can help steer consumers toward healthier choices and prompt industry to remove concerning ingredients. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has proposed front-of-package labels that would flag levels of saturated fat, sugar and sodium.
This represents a big win for Texas consumers and consumers overall, said Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports. Its a reflection of states not wanting to wait for the federal government to act.
The law also creates a state nutrition advisory committee, boosts physical education and nutrition curriculum requirements in public and charter schools, and requires nutrition courses for college students and medical professionals doing continuing education.
States take on additives
Several states have been taking action to restrict dyes and additives in foods.
In 2023, California became the first state to ban some chemicals and dyes used in candies, drinks and other foods because of health concerns. The state expanded on that last year by barring several additional dyes from food served in public schools.
Other laws passed this year include one in Arkansas banning two particular additives from food sold or manufactured in the state and a West Virginia law includes a statewide ban on seven dyes.
Lawmakers in several states have passed measures this year banning certain additives from food served or sold at public schools, according to an Associated Press analysis using the bill-tracking software Plural. That includes Texas, where the governor last month signed a bill banning foods with certain ingredients from being served in school lunches.
Its a pretty dizzying time to be watching whats happening, because usually policies that are not very industry friendly are opposed, particularly in red states,” said Christina Roberto, director of the University of Pennsylvanias Center for Food and Nutrition Policy, With RFK and the MAHA movement, its really turned things upside-down in some ways.
At the federal level, Kennedy and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary have pledged to remove arificial dyes from foods and have pressured industry to take voluntary action. Some large food manufacturers have complied.
Health advocates have long called for the removal of artificial dyes from foods, citing mixed studies indicating they can cause neurobehavioral problems, including hyperactivity and attention issues, in some children.
The FDA previously has said that the approved dyes are safe and that the totality of scientific evidence shows that most children have no adverse effects when consuming foods containing color additives.
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Jonel Aleccia and Jamie Stengle, Associated Press
Associated Press writer David A. Lieb contributed to this report.
