Consumer News: Red meat increases risk of dementia, new study finds

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will usher in some big benefits for some

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Federal tax code overhaul under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act delivers sweeping changes for individuals and businesses, including expanded deductions and extended lower rates.

• Inflation adjustments shift tax brackets and deductions upward, helping taxpayers keep more of their income while many existing credits are recalibrated.

• Targeted deductions and credits reshape planning, including limits on charitable gifts, expanded SALT deductions, and new age-based relief.

Taxpayers are no doubt working to get ready to file their 2025 tax returns, but its not too early to review some of the tax changes taking place in the 2026 tax year. With the turn of the calendar and a landmark tax overhaul now in effect, millions of Americans are poised for one of the most consequential shifts in federal taxation in years.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed into law in 2025, combined with routine IRS inflation adjustments, has reshaped the federal tax code for tax year 2026 the year taxpayers will file returns in 2027.

For most taxpayers, the first noticeable changes will be the higher standard deduction and adjusted tax brackets. The IRS has raised income thresholds across all filing statuses to account for inflation, meaning more income is shielded from higher marginal tax rates.

For example:

• Standard deductions have increased offering broader tax relief to families and individuals compared with prior years.

• Seven tax rates remain for 2026, from 10% to 37%, but the income ranges attached to them have shifted upward.

New and expanded breaks

The OBBBA doesnt stop at inflation tweaksit restructures many substantive elements of federal taxes:

• Expanded SALT deduction: Taxpayers in high-tax states now have a much larger cap on state and local taxes that can be deducted, boosting breaks for homeowners and high earners.

• Targeted personal deductions: New limits and credits aim to benefit workers, seniors, and families including a deduction for older Americans and breaks tied to specific income sources like tips and overtime.

• Charitable giving recalibrated: For the first time in years, standard deduction filers can claim small charitable gifts, but itemizers face a new floor and cap on larger donations.

Together, these structural changes represent some of the most wide-ranging tax reforms since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 a change that will require many taxpayers to reassess year-end planning and withholding strategies.

New rules for business owners

Its not just individuals who are affected. Small businesses and corporations will navigate a mix of permanent and temporary incentives:

• Extended business provisions: Certain write-offs for capital purchases and research expenditures remain, and some interest expense deductions have broader eligibility.

• Pass-through deductions: Owners of pass-through entities, such as partnerships and S-corporations, will continue to benefit from longstanding preferences aimed at reducing their tax burden.

These provisions are designed to promote growth and investment, though analysts caution that effective planning will be more complex amid overlapping rule changes.

Planning ahead

Tax professionals emphasize that 2026 wont look like any typical tax year. Beyond inflation indexing and new deductions, taxpayers will encounter targeted policy effects, such as:

• Sunsetting clean energy credits and EV incentives, adjusting opportunities for taxpayers claiming energy-related benefits.

• Retirement account and AMT adjustments, recalibrated for inflation and updated statutory limits.

As taxpayers prepare for filing season in early 2027, experts recommend checking withholding allowances, planning charitable gifts strategically, and consulting professionals to take full advantage of the new rules.

Tax software and preparers have already updated forms to reflect these changes but understanding the why and how behind the updates could make a real difference to refunds and tax bills alike.

Economists see limited economic upside, modest risks from Trumps Venezuela action

• Economists say President Trumps move against Venezuela is unlikely to deliver meaningful near-term economic gains, particularly in global oil supply.

• Most expect only modest, short-lived pressure on oil prices, with broader inflation effects limited but not zero.

• Longer-term outcomes hinge on political stability and investment factors analysts say remain highly uncertain.

President Trumps aggressive action against Venezuela has injected fresh geopolitical risk into global markets, but economists and energy analysts say the economic consequences are likely to be more muted and more complicated than the administrations rhetoric suggests.

The immediate focus has been on oil. Venezuela holds the worlds largest proven crude reserves, and the U.S. move has raised questions about whether Washington could ultimately unlock new supply or reshape global energy flows. Most economists, however, caution that Venezuelas current production is too low and its infrastructure too degraded to materially alter markets anytime soon.

In any case, any short-term disruption to Venezuelan output can easily be offset by increased production elsewhere, Neil Shearing, group chief economist at Capital Economics, said in a research note cited by Reuters. Any medium-term recovery in Venezuelan supply would be dwarfed by shifts among the major producers.

Oil prices could rise modestly on heightened geopolitical tension alone, analysts say, but global supply conditions are likely to cap gains. OPEC+ spare capacity, strong U.S. production, and slowing demand growth in parts of the world all act as buffers against sustained price spikes.

Ole Hansen, head of commodities strategy at Saxo Bank, said markets may briefly price in a risk premium tied to uncertainty around Venezuela, but fundamentals still dominate.

Prices may see modest upside on heightened geopolitical tensions and disruption risks linked to Venezuela, Hansen said, but ample global supply should continue to cap those risks for now.

Little immediate impact

For U.S. consumers, economists generally expect little immediate impact on gasoline prices. Any inflationary effects would more likely show up indirectly, particularly in diesel markets. Venezuelan crude is heavy and sulfur-rich, the kind favored by some U.S. Gulf Coast refineries for diesel production.

If heavy crude supplies tighten, diesel prices tend to feel it first, said Patrick De Haan, a petroleum analyst at GasBuddy. That can ripple through freight, agriculture, and shipping, even if gasoline prices dont surge.

De Haan and others emphasize that Venezuelas oil sector has been deteriorating for years, long before the latest U.S. action.

Venezuelas oil infrastructure wasnt suddenly damaged its been decaying for many, many years, De Haan said. Rebuilding it would take time, stability, and massive investment.

That reality undercuts the idea that U.S. involvement could quickly bring large volumes of Venezuelan oil back onto the market. Analysts at major banks and research firms say restoring production to levels that would matter globally would likely take years, not months, and would require legal clarity and political legitimacy that investors currently lack.

Theres a tendency to confuse control with capacity, said one energy economist who tracks Latin America. Even if the U.S. gains leverage over Venezuelas oil sector, barrels dont magically reappear.

Geopolitical effects more likely

Some strategists argue the real economic impact may be geopolitical rather than immediate. By weakening Venezuelas ties to China and Russia two major buyers of Venezuelan crude in recent years the U.S. could alter longer-term energy alliances. But economists stress that such outcomes are speculative and highly contingent.

Marko Papic of BCA Research has described the situation as one where markets may price in uncertainty even without concrete supply changes a kind of geopolitical risk premium that reflects fear more than fundamentals.

Still, many economists warn that prolonged instability or expanded sanctions could carry broader economic costs. Historical research on sanctions suggests they tend to deepen economic contraction in targeted countries without reliably producing political change, often worsening humanitarian conditions and accelerating migration.

Increased economic pressure typically reduces government revenue, but it also raises the likelihood of emigration and regional spillovers, said one sanctions researcher. Those effects dont stay neatly contained.

For the U.S. economy, however, most economists agree the stakes are relatively limited. Growth effects are expected to be negligible, inflation risks modest, and energy markets resilient.

The global oil market is far less vulnerable to single-country shocks than it once was, Shearing said.

In short, economists see Trumps Venezuela action as a geopolitical gamble with uncertain long-term implications but few expect it to meaningfully reshape oil markets or deliver quick economic wins.

Congress dithered and did nothing with the time it had to fix the problem

• Enhanced Obamacare subsidies used by more than 20 million Americans expired Thursday, driving up monthly insurance premiums for millions of households.

• Democrats are moving quickly to make the lapse a central issue in the midterm elections, arguing voters will feel the impact immediately.

• Republicans say the subsidies were wasteful and are instead highlighting tax cuts passed last year, even as some in swing districts push for a late extension.

The enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that helped more than 20 million Americans afford health insurance expired Thursdayafter Congress failed to extend them, immediately raising premiums for many households and setting off a new political fight ahead of the midterm elections.

Many Americans are just starting to find out about the increases as they open their mail.

Premium notices sent to marketplace enrollees show monthly costs rising by hundreds of dollars in some cases, reflecting the end of temporary subsidies that were first expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic and extended through 2025. Without congressional action to renew them, the extra financial help disappears for the 2026 coverage year.

I thought it was a mistake, said one self-employed policyholder in Ohio who saw her premium jump from $120 a month to more than $400. Nothing about my income changed. The plan didnt change. The price just exploded.

The subsidies, first enacted in 2021 as a pandemic-era measure under President Joe Biden, expanded eligibility for premium tax credits and lowered monthly costs for people buying coverage through Obamacare marketplaces. With their expiration, some enrollees are expected to see premium increases of hundreds of dollars a month.

The enhanced subsidies significantly reduced premiums for ACA enrollees by increasing tax credits and eliminating the so-called subsidy cliff, which previously cut off assistance for households earning just over 400% of the federal poverty level.

Those enhancements made ACA plans more affordable for middle-income families, early retirees, gig workers, and small business owners many of whom had never qualified for help before.

With the subsidies now expired, the original ACA rules snap back into place. That means:

• Many enrollees will receivesmaller tax credits

• Some higher-income households will receiveno subsidy at all

• Net premiums will rise even if insurers base rates stay flat

Policy analysts estimate that millions of current enrollees will face premium increases of 25% to 100% or more, depending on income, age, and location.

Policyholders confused and angry

Consumer advocates say the timing and communication around the changes have left many policyholders confused and angry.

People budget around their monthly premium, said a health policy analyst with a nonprofit advocacy group. When the increase shows up without warning, it feels like the rug has been pulled out from under them.

Although the expiration date was known in policy circles, there was no large-scale federal outreach campaign warning consumers about the coming changes. Insurers typically explain premium adjustments in technical language, leaving many enrollees unclear about why costs are rising.

What happens next

Without renewed subsidies, experts warn that some consumers will drop coverage altogether, particularly healthier and younger enrollees who may decide the higher costs arent worth it.

That could have ripple effects across the insurance marketplaces, potentially leading to higher premiums in future years as risk pools shrink.

Congress could still act to restore or replace the enhanced subsidies, but any fix would require bipartisan agreement something that has proven difficult in a deeply divided political environment.

In the meantime, enrollment counselors urge consumers to shop carefully during open enrollment, compare plans, and check whether changes in income or household size might restore eligibility for assistance.

Democrats see it as a blunt weapon

Democrats say the timing gives them a powerful and tangible campaign issue, contrasting the immediate impact of higher premiums with other policy disputes that will not affect voters until after the midterms.

The public now gets that the subsidies are whats keeping health care costs down, said Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.), in a Politico report. I think the publics angry. So I think they will blame the party in charge.

Party leaders have been laying the groundwork for months, viewing health care as a proven motivator for voters after Republican efforts to roll back Obamacare helped fuel Democratic gains in the 2018 midterms. That strategy shaped last falls government funding showdown, which resulted in a record 43-day shutdown. While Senate Democrats ultimately agreed to reopen the government without securing an extension of the subsidies, many believe the standoff elevated the issue heading into an election year.

Democrats also plan to fold the subsidy lapse into a broader affordability message, attacking President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans over rising living costs, from groceries and gas to housing and energy.

Hot-button issue

Polling suggests the message could resonate. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey released in December found that large majorities of marketplace enrollees support continuing the subsidies, regardless of party affiliation. Roughly three-quarters said they would blame Trump or Republicans in Congress if the credits were allowed to lapse.

Republicans have struggled to settle on a unified response. Trump has questioned whether affordability is even a serious concern, calling the focus on rising costs a hoax promoted by Democrats and the media, while pointing instead to economic growth during his administration.

On Capitol Hill, GOP leaders have criticized the subsidies as inefficient and vulnerable to fraud, arguing they benefit some higher-income households. However, they have not rallied around an alternative plan that would provide immediate relief to marketplace consumers. A House-passed package of health care bills included conservative proposals to deregulate insurance markets, but those changes would have little short-term effect.

Republicans are instead betting that last years sweeping tax-and-spending bill, which included tax cuts that begin taking effect this year, will help them maintain their congressional majorities.

Democrats counter that no vote was ever held to extend the subsidies before they expired, and their campaign arm has already launched ads and billboards highlighting Republican opposition.

Retracted study rattles confidence in glyphosate science as EPA review looms

• A 25-year-old study long used to defend glyphosates safety was formally retracted last month

• Journal editors cited ethical concerns and undisclosed industry involvement

• The reversal comes as the EPA faces a 2026 deadline to reassess the widely used herbicide

A landmark scientific paper published in 2000 that helped cement glyphosates reputation as a safe herbicide has been formally retracted, reopening long-simmering questions about the science underpinning one of the most widely used weedkillers in American agriculture.

The study, which concluded that glyphosate the active ingredient in Roundup posed no meaningful risk to human health, was cited for decades by regulators and researchers as evidence that the chemical could be safely used on crops ranging from corn, soybeans and wheat to almonds and cotton. The Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly relied on that body of science in determining that glyphosate does not cause cancer.

Last month, the journalRegulatory Toxicology and Pharmacologywithdrew the paper, citing serious ethical concerns regarding the independence and accountability of the authors. The decision has intensified scrutiny of glyphosate just as the EPA faces a court-ordered deadline in 2026 to re-examine the herbicides safety, The New York Times reported.

A study that shaped regulation

The 2000 paper was a scientific review conducted by three researchers presented as independent experts. For years, it was widely referenced in regulatory assessments and academic literature, becoming a cornerstone of policies that deemed glyphosate safe for widespread use.

But emails disclosed through litigation against Monsanto, the herbicides original manufacturer, later revealed that company scientists played a significant role in shaping the study. The correspondence showed Monsanto employees discussing data collection, drafting, and revisions, and expressing hope that the paper would become the definitive reference on glyphosate safety.

Monsanto was acquired by Bayer in 2018 for $63 billion.

In retracting the study, the journals editor in chief, Martin van den Berg, said the paper relied heavily on unpublished Monsanto studies and failed to disclose apparent financial ties between the authors and the company. Beyond a brief acknowledgment that Monsanto provided scientific support, the article did not list conflicts of interest.

As a result, Dr. van den Berg said, I have lost confidence in the results and conclusions of this article.

Industry response and scientific backlash

Bayer disputed the journals findings, saying Monsantos role in the paper did not rise to the level of authorship and was properly disclosed. Brian Leake, a Bayer spokesman, said glyphosate is the most extensively studied herbicide over the past 50 years and that most published research involved no company participation.

The sole surviving author of the paper, Gary M. Williams of New York Medical College, did not respond to requests for comment.

Public health researchers said the retraction represents a major correction to the scientific record. Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, a pediatrician and epidemiologist at Boston College, called it a seismic, long-awaited correction.

It pulls the veil off decades of industry efforts to create a false narrative that glyphosate is safe, Dr. Landrigan said. He recently chaired an advisory committee for a global study that found low-dose exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides caused leukemia in rats.

Regulatory pressure builds

Glyphosate has long been controversial. In 2015, the World Health Organizations International Agency for Research on Cancer classified it as probably carcinogenic to humans. Traces of the chemical have been detected in foods such as bread and cereal and in the urine of adults and children, though residue levels in some foods have declined after companies stopped spraying glyphosate shortly before harvest.

Laboratory tests dating back to the 1980s raised early red flags, and studies of Midwestern farmers later found higher rates of certain cancers. Large-scale aerial spraying of glyphosate in Colombia during U.S.-backed coca eradication efforts also led to widespread reports of illness.

Critics say the retracted paper appears in bibliographies of past EPA risk assessments and should prompt immediate action. Dr. Bruce Lanphear, an expert in environmental neurotoxins, said the agency should reopen its decision and impose penalties reflecting medical costs and human suffering.

An EPA spokesman said the agency was aware of the retraction and emphasized that its assessments were not based on a single study. The agency does not intend to rely on the withdrawn paper going forward, he said.

Meanwhile, thousands of plaintiffs have sued Monsanto, alleging that Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer has paid more than $10 billion to settle roughly 100,000 claims, without admitting wrongdoing, and continues to sell the product as regulatory and legal scrutiny intensifies.

Dwayne The Rock Johnsons energy drink brand settles lawsuit

ZOA Energy agreed to pay $3 million to resolve deceptive marketing claims
The lawsuit alleges the drinks contained chemical preservatives despite label claims
Claims must be submitted by Feb. 20, 2026

ZOA Energy has agreed to pay $3 million to settle a class action lawsuit accusing the company of misleading consumers by marketing its drinks as having no preservatives when they allegedly contained chemical preservatives.

The company agreed to the settlement without admitting any wrongdoing. The lawsuit claims that ZOA Energy drinks contain citric acid and ascorbic acid, which plaintiffs argue function as chemical preservatives despite the products being labeled 0 Preservatives.

ZOA Energy, which was co-founded by actor and former professional wrestler Dwayne The Rock Johnson, sells a range of energy drinks in multiple flavors nationwide.

Who is eligible for the settlement

Consumers may qualify for compensation if they purchased any ZOA Energy drink labeled 0 Preservatives between March 1, 2021, and Nov. 21, 2025.

To be eligible, purchases must have been made from a released party, and consumers must attest to having bought the products during the covered period.

How much consumers can receive

Settlement payments depend on whether consumers can provide proof of purchase.

Consumerswithout proof of purchasemay receive:

• $1 per unit purchased

• Up to $10 per household

Consumerswith proof of purchase, such as receipts or purchase records, may receive:

• $1 per unit purchased

• Up to $150 per household

All payments are subject to the terms of the settlement and may be adjusted depending on the number of valid claims submitted.

Claim deadline and how to apply

To receive a payment, eligible consumers must submit a valid claim byFeb. 20, 2026.

Additional information about the settlement, including claim submission details, is available through the settlement administrators website. Consumers can also submit claims online through the official settlement page linked in the notice.

Settlement payments depend on whether consumers can provide proof of purchase.

Consumerswithout proof of purchasemay receive:

• $1 per unit purchased

• Up to $10 per household

Consumerswith proof of purchase, such as receipts or purchase records, may receive:

• $1 per unit purchased

• Up to $150 per household

All payments are subject to the terms of the settlement and may be adjusted depending on the number of valid claims submitted.