On Wednesday, AI chip designer Nvidia Corporation made Wall Street history as the first company to hit a $4 trillion market capitalization milestone, beating out tech giants like Microsoft and Apple.
The leading designer and supplier of AI chips has benefited from the market’s demand for generative artificial intelligence and its enormous computing needs, despite several tumblings earlier this year.
At the time of publishing on Wednesday morning, Nvidia’s stock price (Nasdaq: NVDA) was up another 2%, at just over $163 per share. The stock is up almost 15% in the last month.
Milestone after milestone
Founded in 1993, the company initially focused on graphic processing units, with its technology set apart from competitors due to its higher ability to render images and visuals. Now, Nvidia’s chips have become a staple for companies’s AI efforts.
Nvidia made its initial public offering (IPO) in January 1999 for $12 a share. Its market cap hit the $1 trillion mark in June 2023. Following the milestone, Nvidia’s stock continued to rise, with its market cap tripling to $3 trillion and catching up to those of Apple and Microsoft.
A speedy recovery
Nvidia’s stock suffered earlier this year due to economic uncertainty and unprecedented advancements in AI technology.
In January, Chinese AI company DeepSeek gained notoriety with a model that required fewer resources than those needed by its American counterparts, causing a slump on Nvidia’s stock.
In April, five days after President Trump’s Liberation Day announcement, Nvidia’s stock fell to $86.62, due to boiling concerns over the uncertainty caused by worldwide tariffs.
On Wednesday, AI chip designer Nvidia Corporation made Wall Street history as the first company to hit a $4 trillion market capitalization milestone, beating out tech giants like Microsoft and Apple.
The leading designer and supplier of AI chips has benefited from the market’s demand for generative artificial intelligence and its enormous computing needs, despite several tumblings earlier this year.
At the time of publishing on Wednesday morning, Nvidia’s stock price (Nasdaq: NVDA) was up another 2%, at just over $163 per share. The stock is up almost 15% in the last month.
Milestone after milestone
Founded in 1993, the company initially focused on graphic processing units, with its technology set apart from competitors due to its higher ability to render images and visuals. Now, Nvidia’s chips have become a staple for companies’s AI efforts.
Nvidia made its initial public offering (IPO) in January 1999 for $12 a share. Its market cap hit the $1 trillion mark in June 2023. Following the milestone, Nvidia’s stock continued to rise, with its market cap tripling to $3 trillion and catching up to those of Apple and Microsoft.
A speedy recovery
Nvidia’s stock suffered earlier this year due to economic uncertainty and unprecedented advancements in AI technology.
In January, Chinese AI company DeepSeek gained notoriety with a model that required fewer resources than those needed by its American counterparts, causing a slump on Nvidia’s stock.
In April, five days after President Trump’s Liberation Day announcement, Nvidia’s stock fell to $86.62, due to boiling concerns over the uncertainty caused by worldwide tariffs.
As commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick oversees the U.S. government’s vast efforts to monitor and predict the weather.The billionaire also ran a financial firm, which he recently left in the control of his adult sons, that stands to benefit if President Donald Trump’s administration follows through on a decade-long Republican effort to privatize government weather forecasting.Deadly weekend flooding in central Texas has drawn a spotlight to budget cuts and staff reductions at the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, two agencies housed within the Commerce Department that provide the public with free climate and weather data that can be crucial during natural disasters.What’s drawn less attention is how the downsizing appears to be part of an effort to privatize the work of such agencies. In several instances, the companies poised to step into the void have deep ties to people tapped by Trump to run weather-related agencies.Privatization would diminish a central role the federal government has played in weather forecasting since the 1800s, which experts say poses a particular harm for those facing financial strain who may not be able to afford commercial weather data.The effort also reveals the difficulty that uber wealthy members of Trump’s Cabinet have in freeing themselves from conflicts, even if they have met the letter of federal ethics law.“It’s the most insidious aspect of this: Are we really talking about making weather products available only to those who can afford it?” said Rick Spinrad, who served as NOAA administrator under President Joe Biden, a Democrat. “Basically turning the weather service into a subscription streaming service? As a taxpayer, I don’t want to be in the position of saying, ‘I get a better weather forecast because I’m willing to pay for it.'”The White House referred requests for comment to the Commerce Department, which said in a statement that Lutnick has “fully complied with the terms of his ethics agreement with respect to divesture and recusals and will continue to do so.”
Trump nominees have ties to weather-related industries
Privatizing weather agencies has long been an aim of Republicans. During Trump’s first presidency, he signed a bill that utilized more private weather data. And Project 2025, a proposed blueprint for Trump’s second presidency that was co-authored by his budget director, calls for the NOAA to be broken up and for the weather service to “fully commercialize its forecasting operations.”Lutnick is not the only one Trump nominated for a key post with close relationships to companies involved in the gathering of vital weather data.Trump’s pick to lead the NOAA, Neil Jacobs, was chief atmospheric scientist for Panasonic Weather Solutions and has been a vocal proponent of privatization. The president’s nominee for another top NOAA post, Taylor Jordan, is a lobbyist with a roster of weather-related clients.“If confirmed, Dr. Jacobs and Mr. Jordan will follow the law and rely on the advice of the Department’s ethics counsel in addressing matters involving former clients,” the Commerce Department said in its statement.Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, who spent more than $250 million to help elect Trump, owns a controlling interest in SpaceX and its satellite subsidiary Starlink. Both are regulated by the NOAA’s Office of Space Commerce, which lost about one-third of its staff in February layoffs facilitated by the Department of Government Efficiency, which Musk helped create.SpaceX also stands to gain through a new generation of private and federally funded weather satellites that would be carried into orbit on its rockets.Though Musk has now departed Washington and had a very public falling out with Trump, the DOGE staffers he hired and the cuts he pushed for have largely remained in place.Emails seeking comment sent to a lawyer who has represented Musk, as well as to media contacts at his companies X and SpaceX, received no response.While Musk is focusing on his companies, others with potential conflicts remain immersed in government work.
Lutnick ran Cantor Fitzgerald
Lutnick resigned as CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, an investing behemoth, upon taking office and began the arduous task of divesting his interests, as required by law.His two 20-something sons were given the reins of his financial empire. Brandon Lutnick was named chairman of Cantor, while Kyle Lutnick was tapped to be executive vice chairman. But his most recent ethics filing from June 19 stated that he was still selling his holdings in the firm.An ethics plan submitted in February states Lutnick would request a waiver allowing him to participate in matters that would have a “direct and predictable effect” on his family’s business while he was still divesting. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, meanwhile, show Lutnick has agreements to transfer his shares in the Cantor companies and a family trust to his son Brandon.The Department of Commerce referred questions about Lutnick’s ties to Satellogic, a satellite company that offers natural disaster imagery, to his former firm.Cantor spokesperson Erica Chase said that since Lutnick’s resignation from the company, he has not made any decisions with respect to the company’s investments or customer positions, or other operational matters.“Cantor and its subsidiaries operate in heavily regulated industries, and maintain robust compliance programs to ensure compliance with all applicable laws,” Chase said.Federal officials are barred from making decisions that benefit the business holdings of themselves or their spouses, but that prohibition does not extend to assets held by their adult children, according to Richard Painter, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer during Republican George W. Bush’s administration.Among its legion of disparate businesses, Cantor has interests in weather and climate. It owns a controlling interest in BGC Group, which operates a weather derivatives marketplace that essentially allows investors to bet on climate risk and where hurricanes will make landfall.Lutnick also played a pivotal role in cultivating Satellogic. He helped raise the capital to take the company public and held a seat on its board until Trump nominated him. Cantor holds a roughly 13% stake in Satellogic, according to a March SEC filing.The company now bills itself as an emerging federal contractor that can offer crisp images of natural disasters and weather events in real time, which in 2021 Lutnick said makes it “uniquely positioned to dominate the Earth Observation industry.”While Lutnick was still in charge of Cantor, it paid a $6.75 million fine to the SEC after it was accused of making misleading statements to investors about Satellogic and another company. The White House’s 2026 spending plan, developed by Trump’s budget director and primary Project 2025 architect Russell Vought, proposes $8 billion in cuts for future NOAA satellites, which capture imagery of the planet provided to the public.Satellogic stands to benefit if the government retreats from operating climate-monitoring satellites.
2 Trump nominees have ties to weather companies
Jacobs, Trump’s pick to lead the NOAA, led the same agency on an acting basis during Trump’s first term.He is scheduled to appear Wednesday before a Senate committee weighing his nomination. Jacobs has long advocated for a greater role for the private sector in government weather forecasting. During a 2023 hearing focused on the future of the NOAA, he argued that the agency needed to be “relying more heavily on the commercial sector.”He also has expressed concerns about what happens to commercial data purchased by the government. “They give it away to the rest of the planet for free,” he testified before Congress in 2023.He was a consultant at the time for Spire Global and Lynker, both of which have millions of dollars in weather data contracts with the NOAA, according to records including his most recent financial disclosure.Jordan, Trump’s pick for another top NOAA post, has similarly close relationships. His financial disclosure lists more than a dozen weather-related lobbying clients, including Spire and Lynker. He also represented AccuWeather, a commercial forecast provider, before Congress and in meetings with the Commerce Department on “issues related to private sector weather forecast improvement,” according to lobbying disclosures.Though his nomination is pending before the Republican-controlled Senate, disclosure reports show he still represents weather and space companies and is still listed as a principal employee at a Washington lobbying firm.
Contact the AP’s global investigative team at Investigative@ap.org or https://www.ap.org/tips/.
Brian Slodysko and Michael Biesecker, Associated Press
A “click-to-cancel” rule, which would have required businesses to make it easy for consumers to cancel unwanted subscriptions and memberships, has been blocked by a federal appeals court just days before it was set to go into effect.The Federal Trade Commission’s proposed changes, adopted in October, required businesses to obtain a customer’s consent before charging for memberships, auto-renewals, and programs linked to free trial offers.The FTC said at the time that businesses must also disclose when free trials or other promotional offers will end and let customers cancel recurring subscriptions as easily as they started them.The administration of President Joe Biden included the FTC’s proposal as part of its “Time is Money” initiative, a governmentwide initiative that was announced last year with the aim of cracking down on consumer-related hassles.The FTC rule was set to go into effect on Monday, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said this week that the FTC made a procedural error by failing to come up with a preliminary regulatory analysis, which is required for rules whose annual impact on the U.S. economy is more than $100 million.The FTC claimed that it did not have to come up with a preliminary regulatory analysis because it initially determined that the rule’s impact on the national economy would be less than $100 million. An administrative law judge decided that the economic impact would be more than the $100 million threshold.The court decided to vacate the rule.“While we certainly do not endorse the use of unfair and deceptive practices in negative option marketing, the procedural deficiencies of the Commission’s rulemaking process are fatal here,” the court wrote.The FTC declined to comment on Wednesday.The agency is currently moving forward with its preparations for a trial involving Amazon’s Prime program. The trial stems from a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit that accused Amazon of enrolling consumers in its Prime program without their consent and making it difficult for them to cancel their subscriptions.The trial is expected to take place next year.
Michelle Chapman, AP Business Writer
Just over a month ago, Samsung did something strange to start hyping up its next foldable phone announcements.
Those phones, which Samsung revealed today, are officially called the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 and Flip7, but in a blog post from early June, the company teased the news as “the Next Chapter of Ultra.” Bestowing its flagship branding on new foldables would have been a big show of confidence, especially amid reports that Samsung is scaling back foldable phone production this year.
But that didnt actually happen. While Samsung says the Fold7 and Flip7 address a lot of the complaints people have about foldable phones, don’t expect any kind of major rebranding or strategic pivot. As before, the phones will have to speak for themselves.
A thinner Fold with better cameras
Samsung is at least being honest now about the reasons people have avoided foldable phones until now, because it claims to have addressed them.
The Galaxy Z Fold7, for instance, is only about 9% thicker than a Galaxy S25 Ultra or iPhone 16 Pro Max when folded shut, and at 215 grams it’s even a little lighter than those phones.
The camera system is also closer to flagship quality now, with a 200 megapixel wide-angle lens and a 44% larger image sensor, though its 10 megapixel telephoto and 12 megapixel ultrawide lenses still lag behind the Ultra’s 50 megapixel versions. Samsung’s also giving up on hiding a front camera behind the inner display, and will instead use a camera cutout with a higher-quality 10 megapixel version.
[Photo: Samsung]
The Galaxy Z Fold7 looks more like a normal phone when it’s folded shut as well, with a 6.5-inch outer screen that’s wider than previous models. The inner screen now stretches to 8 inches as a result, and Samsung says it’s improved the hinge so the crease on the inner screen isn’t as noticeable.
“We’re really excited about this device,” says Blake Gaiser, head of mobile phone management for Samsung Electronics America. “We think that a lot of those barriers that have kept customers from choosing a foldable over a traditional bar-type phone are continuing to be eliminated or minimized.”
Better and cheaper Flips
Samsung’s smaller foldables had their own set of compromises, which the company’s trying to address with the Galaxy Z Flip7.
The phone is wider now, giving the inner screen a 21:9 aspect ratio that matches most regular phones. The outer screen also has smaller bezels and matches the smooth 120 Hz refresh rate and brightness of the inner screen. Because the 4,300 mAh battery is larger and the processor is more efficient, Samsung says the Flip 7 lasts eight hours longer in video playback tests on a single charge.
The Flip7 is also about 8% thinner than the Fold 6 when folded shut, and it’s about 12% thinner than a Galaxy S25+ when unfolded. The camera system is the same, with 50 megapixel wide and 12 megapixel ultrawide lenses, though it’ll be aided by a new image processing system.
“We had to make some sacrifices with that compact form factor, but I think that’s something we’ve addressed in the last generations, and something we’ll continue to address with Flip7,” says Peter Park, Samsung Electronics America’s senior product manager for foldables.
The pricing problem
Even as Samsung chips away at what bothered people about foldable phones, price might still be the biggest barrier.
“Consumers who were interested in trying a foldable, especially a Flip, for them budget or price was the number one reason why they were not able to make that leap,” Park says.
[Photo: Samsung]
Samsung doesn’t really have an answer for that yet. It’s releasing a $900 Flip7 FE, which is largely just a rebrand of last year’s Flip6 with the same smaller outer screen and weaker battery life. The Flip7 will still cost $1,100, leaving it on the higher end of flagship phone pricing.
The Galaxy Z Fold7, meanwhile, is moving in the wrong direction with a starting price of $2,000. That’s $100 more than the Fold6 and $200 more than the Fold5. For now, it seems that Samsung would rather not release an “FE” variant with last year’s compromises.
“We just haven’t seen at this point a dramatic market for the trade-offs we would need to take in order to decrease the price,” Gaiser says.
Making the case
In lieu of lower pricing, Samsung will have to make the case for its foldables in other ways.
Gaiser hopes that simply seeing the phones in all their glory will be enough. To that end, Samsung has been working with wireless carriers on adhesive-mounted security mechanisms instead of bulky claw grips so shoppers can get a better feel for the phones. It’s also leaning on carriers for subsidies in exchange for long-term service plans, though it’s unclear if those will be much different from the discounts they offer on other phones.
“At the end of the day, foldable awareness is still far below that of a traditional bar-type phone,” Gaiser says. “One of the things that really excites us about Fold 7 is that, even when I showed it around to people for the first time here in the office, they didn’t realize that it was a foldable.”
But what about that whole “Next Chapter of Ultra” business? Is there another phone forthcoming? Did Samsung have a bigger rebrand in mind and get cold feet?
Gaiser says the goal was merely to “allow people to understand that this is more like an Ultra that unfoldsÝ and acknowledged the potential for confusion. But when asked about reports of Samsung cutting production plans for this year’s foldables, and rival OnePlus’ decision not to ship a foldable in 2025, Gaiser says Samsung still believes in the category. The evidence is in what Samsung’s announcing this week.
“We think that the future of foldables is bright, and we’re uniquely positioned to bring forth the innovation necessary to get more and more people excited about foldables,” he says. “If others don’t see it that way, we’re happy to fill the void.”
Since Michael Jordan and Nike changed the rules of sports marketing, signature shoes ranging from LeBrons to Currys have defined basketball footwear.
With few exceptions, its only in the last few years that WNBA players have been given similar opportunities. And now, amid a surge of interest in the league, the WNBAs most glamorous player, Angel Reese, has revealed her first shoe with Reebok, called the Angel Reese 1.
The mainstay brands of athletic shoesNike and Adidashave been struggling, as a combination of scale and brand fatigue have left windows for smaller competition to grow, and new tariffs threaten the bottom line of the industry. Adidas actually sold off Reebok in 2021 to Authentic Brands Group for $2.5 billion. Authentic Brands manages a variety of recognizable names, including Champion, Eddie Bauer, Brooks Brothers, and Frye.
[Photo: Reebok]
Since the sell-off, Reeboks profits are up. Focused less on marketing and product innovation than licensing the known name, the companys revenue jumped from $196 million in 2022 to $276 million in 2023. But Reebok, like its larger peers, is focused on rekindling its cultural relevance to establish its next act. The company has declared that its cultural comeback begins with basketballa strategy revealed in late 2024 by Shaquille ONeal, president of the companys basketball division. In his pocket was his very first recruit at Reebok: The 2024 first-round draft pick and Bayou Barbie, Reese.
In the two seasons since, Reese has been a force, bringing a new sense of competition and fashion to the WNBAwhile solidifying herself as a two-time All-Star in the process.
For her first shoe at Reebok, the Angel Reese 1 in the Diamond Dust colorway, Reese says she wanted a shoe that you couldnt ignore.
I wanted something that was really bold to go with my identity, she says, noting that the shoes subtle iridescent finish is meant to capture how she became a star despite coming from nothing in Baltimore. You could be a diamond that shines anywhere.
The silhouette itself features an almost old-school layering of textures, reminiscent of vintage Reebok (or, dare I say, dad shoes). However, its low-cut white profile also looks like it could tag in for the ever-popular court shoe in some contexts. Reese herself says she wanted it to cross seamlessly between basketball and street wear, teasing that many more colorways are on the way.
As of now, theres no price or release date for the Angel Reese 1. But Reebok says the launch is coming soon.
As recent graduates proudly showcase their use of ChatGPT for final projects, some may wonder: What kind of person turns to AI to cheat on college assignments? A new study may shed some light.
The paper, published in the journal BMC Psychology by Jinyi Song of South Korea’s Chodang University and Shuyan Liu of Baekseok University, surveyed 504 college-level Chinese art students. Researchers assessed traits like narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, all of which are collectively known as the Dark Triad. They found that students who scored highly on these traits were significantly more likely to use AI tools like ChatGPT and Midjourney to complete their assignments.
Why? According to PsyPost, narcissists may cheat to bolster their self-image or gain recognition, while those high in Machiavellianism may view AI as a way to gain an edge over their peers. Psychopathy, meanwhile, is associated with impulsivity and a lack of remorse.
The study also found that students with higher dark trait scores were more likely to pass off AI-generated work as their own. These same students were more anxious about academic performance and more prone to procrastinationfactors that made them more likely to rely on AI to finish their assignments.
Researchers also examined materialism. Students who scored higher in materialistic values, or who were driven by external rewards and praise, were similarly more likely to misuse AI.
While those surveyed face a perfect storm of competition, pressure to produce original creative work, and the increasing presence of generative AI in their field, the ChatGPT dilemma now extends across creative industries, academia, and beyond.
Thanks to artificial intelligence, the temptation to turn to AIwhether for homework or even just writing a texthas never been more pervasive. Next time you reach for ChatGPT, consider what it might reveal about you.
Mattel has released its latest Barbie doll, and its a win for better representation.
The new Barbie doll visibly lives with type 1 diabetes, wearing an insulin pump and all. Along with the insulin pump around her waist, the doll has a Continuous Glucose Monitor on her armheld in place with Barbie pink tapeand a phone displaying her blood sugar statistics.
The Barbie team worked with Breakthrough T1D, a research and advocacy organization, to design accurate-looking medical equipment. They also collaborated on the dolls blue polka dot dressa blue circle is the global symbol for diabetes awareness.
“More kids can see themselves”
Introducing a Barbie doll with type 1 diabetes marks an important step in our commitment to inclusivity and representation, Krista Berger, senior vice president of Barbie and global head of dolls, said in a statement. Barbie helps shape childrens early perceptions of the world, and by reflecting medical conditions like T1D, we ensure more kids can see themselves in the stories they imagine and the dolls they love.
The announcement coincided with Breakthrough T1Ds 2025 Childrens Congress from July 7 to 9, which featured a donation of Barbie dolls.
The Washington, D.C.-based event brings together over 170 children living with type 1 diabetes and gives them face time with members of the U.S. Congress. The event aims to garner ongoing funding for type 1 diabetes research.
Condition affects hundreds of thousands of U.S. children
Diabetes is a chronic condition in which a persons body doesnt produce enough insulin, causing their blood sugar levels to spike, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Individuals living with type 1 diabetes require insulin therapy and typically wear a pump attached to their skin at all times. The CDC reports that about 352,000 children live with diabetes in the United Statesa majority of whom experience type 1 diabetes.
This number jumps to about 1.7 million when looking at individuals 20 or older who live with type 1 diabetes and use insulin.
Mattel has introduced other Barbies living with medical conditions in recent years. In 2019, the company released a Barbie who had a prosthetic leg and another who used a wheelchair. More recently, 2023 saw Mattel launch a Barbie living with Down syndrome.
In October 2024, Mattel reported a 17% dip in Barbies gross billingsdespite the enormous success of the Oscar-winning Barbie movie the prior year. The company had hoped for a 3% increase in sales this year, but it pulled that guidance in May after uncertainty around tariffs.
Shares in Mattel Inc (NASDAQ: MAT) are up roughly 13% in 2025 so far.
Mondelz Global LLC, a subsidiary of snack foods giant Mondelez International (Nasdaq: MDLZ), which owns brands including Cadbury, Chips Ahoy!, Honey Maid, Oreo, Sour Patch Kids, and Toblerone, has announced a recall of some of its most popular Ritz cracker products.
The products may pose the risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction, according to the company, due to their packaging being mislabeled. Heres what you need to know about this latest food recall.
Whats happened?
On July 8, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a recall notice from Mondelz Global LLC. That recall notice covered four Ritz cracker sandwich products sold in multipack cartons.
While there is nothing wrong with the cracker sandwiches themselves, Mondelz Global discovered that some of the individual cracker sandwich packages inside the carton may be mislabeled as being a cracker sandwich of the cheese variety instead of a cracker sandwich of the peanut butter variety.
This mislabeling poses a risk to the millions of children and adults in America who have a peanut allergy. Those with peanut allergies who consume even trace amounts of peanuts are at risk of anaphylaxis, a life-threatening medical emergency that requires immediate medical attention.
Upon becoming aware of the mislabeled products, Mondelz Global issued the recall.
What items are being recalled?
According to the recall notice, four individual products are being recalled.
These four products are various-sized cartons containing Ritz cracker sandwiches. Three of the recalled products contain Ritz Peanut Butter Cracker Sandwiches, and one of the recalled products contains a variety of Ritz Filled Cracker Sandwiches, including peanut butter ones.
The recalled products are as follows:
Product DescriptionRetail UPCBest When Used By DatesProduct Images11.4 oz. RITZ Peanut Butter Cracker Sandwiches– 8 Count (8 x 1.38-oz. 6-pack carton)0 44000 88210 51 NOV 25 – 9 NOV 25AE Plant Code Only (located on top of package)See Image Below27.6 oz. RITZ Peanut Butter Cracker Sandwiches– 20 Count (20 x 1.38-oz. 6-pack carton)0 44000 07584 21 NOV 25 – 9 NOV 252 JAN 26 – 22 JAN 26AE Plant Code Only (located on top of package)See Image Below55.2 oz. RITZ Peanut Butter Cracker Sandwiches 40 Count (40 x 1.38-oz. 6-pack carton)0 44000 07819 51 NOV 25 – 9 NOV 252 JAN 26 – 22 JAN 26AM Plant Code Only (located on top of package)See Image Below27.3 oz. RITZ Filled Cracker Sandwich20-Count Variety Pack(20 packs of 10 Cheese 1.38-oz. packsand 10 Peanut Butter 1.38-oz. packs)0 44000 08095 22 NOV 25 9 NOV 25RJ Plant Code Only (located on top of package)See Image Below
While the outer cartons of the products correctly state that the crackers inside contains peanuts, the crackers inside are also wrapped in individual packs and these are the packs that may be mislabeled.
Mondelz Global says that the individually wrapped packages inside the cartons are labeled as a Cheese variety.
Those mislabeled wrapped packages state that the crackers are Ritz Cheese Cracker Sandwiches (1.38oz. pack), with a retail UPC of 0 44000 00211 4, and Best When Used By Dates of 1 NOV 25 9 NOV 25 and 2 JAN 26 22 JAN 26 AE Plant Code Only.
Images of the recalled products and the mislabeled packaging can be found here.
Where were the recalled items sold?
The notice states that the recalled products were manufactured in the United States and were sold nationwide. The recall notice does not state at which retailers the recalled products were sold.
Have the recalled items harmed anyone?
Thankfully, Mondelz Global says that there have been no reports of injury or illness related to these recalled products that the company is aware of.
Mondelz says the recall is being initiated as a precautionary measure after it discovered that film packaging rolls used to individually wrap peanut butter products may contain defects due to a supplier error.
Mondelz says it is taking steps to make sure this error does not happen again.
What are the symptoms of a peanut allergy?
A peanut allergy can manifest itself in many ways. According to the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, peanut allergy symptoms may include:
Vomiting
Stomach cramps
Indigestion
Diarrhea
Wheezing
Shortness of breath, difficulty breathing
Repetitive cough
Tightness in throat, hoarse voice
Weak pulse
Pale or blue coloring of the skin
Hives
Swelling, can affect the tongue and/or lips
Dizziness
Confusion
People allergic to peanuts also risk anaphylaxis after consuming them. This is a life-threatening reaction, which can include impaired breathing, swelling in the throat, a sudden drop in blood pressure, pale skin or blue lips, fainting and dizziness.
Anaphylaxis requires immediate emergency medical attention.
What should I do if I have the recalled items?
Mondelz Global says that anyone who has a peanut allergy should not eat the recalled products. Instead, the recalled products should be disposed of.
You can read the full recall notice here.
As Congress moves to make massive cuts to public broadcasting this week, Paula Kerger, president and CEO of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), gives an unflinching look at the organizations financial reality if its federal funding is stripped, and how shes battling to protect the networks iconic programmingfrom Frontline to Sesame Street. Kerger shares the role of corporate philanthropy in PBSs future, its relationship with streamers like Netflix, and how she handles allegations of public media bias. Whether or not you’re an avid Nova or Ken Burns viewer, PBS’s challenge captures critical lessons about focus, mission, and the need to evolve or die trying.
This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode.
A lot of people, I guess, misunderstand what PBS is. You mentioned these 300-some local member stations that control their own programming. So what’s the role of PBS in that system?
Since I’ve been in this job, I’ve spent a lot of time on the road visiting stations. I came into it from our station in New York. I was the station manager there, and I knew a lot about public broadcasting from the lens of WNET. I worked on an island off of the coast of North America, and so when I first took this job, I went on the road. I went to every state across the country, and I wanted to see what public broadcasting really looked like at the ground level because people do misunderstand. We’re not a network. We’re not like CBS or NBC. We don’t control any of these stations. We were built by the stations themselves to be able to deliver at scale the things that individual stations wouldn’t be able to do by themselves.
Even my old station in New York would not have been able to produce a NewsHour and a Sesame Street and a Masterpiece and a Great Performances and a Nature and a Nova. But if you put all of the resources together and people sort of shared in program acquisition and also shared in an ability to move content in between stations, you actually have something that is. Actually, the S in PBS represents the service that we provide for our public broadcasting system. And so, each station is independent. They make the decision what they air. I always say if you want a lesson in humility, run a federated organization because you have a lot of responsibility, but you absolutely don’t have ultimate authority over a whole series of things that people assume you do.
Federal funding accounts for a portion of your budget, right?
Yes.
There are legislative challenges to that underway. There’s an executive order that you’ve sued to block. I know you’re hoping none of this comes to pass, but do you have to prepare now in case the funding goes away?
So in aggregate, the amount of federal money that comes into public broadcasting is about 15%. The federal money that we’re talking about, that’s under debate in Congress, 70% of that actually goes directly to stations, and then a little bit of it comes to us. So 15%, someone just said to me a little while ago, well, that doesn’t sound like a lot. Maybe you could make that up. For us, the amount of money that we would lose would be significant, but if you’re sitting in a small community and 40% of your budget is the federal support, you probably can’t make that up. And this is actually why we fight so hard to try to hold onto that funding.
You mentioned the name of that hearing, and the impression is like, oh, PBS and this funding is a conduit for a certain kind of content to be infiltrated into some of these smaller communities as well as larger ones. Do you think there’s anything you could do to sort of change the impression of PBS from this administration, change the programming, change the talent, anything? Do you think about that?
We’ve always had really passionate supporters all across the political spectrum. . . . I think in some ways, perhaps we’re a talking point. I don’t know. During the hearing, some of the programs I was asked about are more than 10 years old, and I think someone just looked through a list and pulled some titles rather than actually understanding what it is that we have on the air. And I’ll tell you, Bob, I actually just got a note from someone over the weekend that said, “I think there may be some bias in what you do.” And I said, “Well, can you give me an example of what you’re talking about?” And many times they can’t.
Usually I think at that point they’re talking about news, which is a piece of what we do. It’s an important piece. We do the news every night. And then, we also have Frontline, which I often say is the most important series we have on our air. So few media organizations are doing investigative journalism anymore, and I know those programs have been heavily used by legislators and policy makers as well as the general public. So to me, all of this feels not exactly what people have represented. I don’t know.
The brand of PBS, you mentioned the historical bipartisan support, and it’s almost like the brand has been turned into meaning something different than it meant in a very short period of time.
Well, we’ve done a lot of surveys, and we do all the time. I take to heart our obligations to serve all of America. And I feel in this moment, people have put themselves into these little bubbles where they’re only getting information or interested in information that reflects back their own perspectives. And I think the role of any media organization should be to challenge people to understand that people have different perspectives. We can agree that we may not agree with someone’s point of view, but we can accept the fact that that’s a legitimate point of view. We seem to have lost all of that. Everything has devolved into “I’m right and you’re wrong.” But at our heart, I think we agree with a lot of key ideas and principles. And so, how do we get back to that again? How do we get back to helping people understand information that is going to be important for them for their lives? And that’s what we do.
And when you choose to take legal action against the Trump administration, against the executive order, how much do you worry that there’s a certain part of the country that’s just going to say, yep, that confirms that they’re against our president? I mean, those are tough decisions, right?
Yeah. This was a really tough decision, and I had people that were very anxious that we file immediately, “Why haven’t you filed yet?” And I had others that said, “Just make sure that you really have looked at this carefully.” I mean, the decision to file was not one that we took lightly, and frankly, we filed with a great amount of sadness. And it was sobering to look at the first draft of ourcomplaint that begins PBS v. Donald J. Trump, to the fact that we would ever be in a position where we would be involved in legal action against the president of the United States is nothing that I ever thought we would be in, but the executive order was one we had to respond to. It made it illegal for any federal money to come into public broadcasting. This executive order would’ve restricted any of our stations from using any money that they received from the government. I mean, it would basically unwind our system. So we then made the decision that we were going to go forward, but it is not anything that I wanted to do.
