Consumer News: Amazon rebuts WSJ report alleging price hikes on essentials

Experts say policy changes could make healthier food choices easier for families

• Children in the U.S. consume far more added sugar than health experts recommend, according to a new policy brief.

• Researchers argue that reducing sugar intake will require changes to schools, food labeling, marketing, and the food industry not just individual family efforts.

• The roadmap outlines six policy recommendations designed to make lower-sugar choices more accessible and easier for parents and children.

Many parents know it's a challenge to limit the amount of added sugar their children eat. Sweeteners show up in obvious treats like cookies and candy, but they're also found in foods that many families buy every week, including yogurt, breakfast cereal, bread, and condiments.

A new policy brief from the Global Food Institute at George Washington University argues that helping children eat less added sugar will require more than encouraging healthier choices at home. The authors say today's food environment often makes high-sugar products the easiest option, leaving families to navigate a system where added sugars are widespread.

The report notes that American children consume roughly 60 to 70 grams of added sugar each day more than double the amount recommended by the American Heart Association for children ages 2 to 18. It also points to the 20252030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which recommend avoiding added sugars for children under age 11.

"The reality is that children are consuming added sugars in far greater amounts than health experts recommend, and parents cannot solve this challenge alone," Priya Fielding-Singh, Director of Policy and Programs at the Global Food Institute and lead author of the report, said in a news release.

"If we are serious about improving children's health, we need policies that make healthier choices easier, more accessible, and more affordable."

How the roadmap was developed

The policy brief reviews existing dietary recommendations and public health evidence before proposing strategies to reduce children's exposure to added sugars.

The authors organized their recommendations into three broad areas: raising nutrition standards where children learn and play, reshaping the supply and demand for added sugars, and giving families clearer nutrition information.

Within those categories, the brief presents six policy recommendations. These include:

• Strengthening nutrition standards for school meals and early childhood programs

• Encouraging food manufacturers to reduce added sugars in commonly purchased products

• Expanding taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages

• Limiting the marketing of unhealthy foods to children

• Requiring front-of-package labels that clearly identify foods high in added sugars

What the recommendations could mean for families

The report's central message is that reducing children's sugar intake should not fall entirely on parents. Instead, the authors argue that policy changes can help create an environment where healthier options are easier to find, easier to understand, and more affordable.

The brief also highlights equity concerns, noting that lower-income children and children of color are disproportionately affected by diet-related diseases and are more frequently exposed to marketing for high-sugar foods and beverages.

While the roadmap focuses on policy rather than immediate changes for consumers, it suggests that coordinated efforts involving government agencies, food manufacturers, educators, health professionals, community organizations, and families could make it easier for children to consume less added sugar over time.

"Policy has successfully tackled major public health challenges before, from tobacco use to vehicle safety," said Fielding-Singh. "The tools already exist to reduce children's exposure to excess added sugars. The next step is using them."

Rising home prices may continue outpacing incomes across much of America

• A new analysis projects home prices will rise faster than household incomes in every state by 2031.

• Several states could require households to dramatically increase their incomes to afford a median-priced home.

• The findings highlight where homeownership may remain attainable and where affordability is expected to worsen.

For many Americans, buying a home already feels like a stretch.

Now, a new analysis from HireAHelper suggests that challenges may continue to grow over the next five years if current trends persist. Rather than looking at today's housing market alone, researchers projected how home prices and household incomes could change through 2031 to estimate where homeownership may become more or less attainable.

According to the report, the median U.S. home price is projected to increase from about $390,300 today to roughly $527,500 by 2031, a jump of more than 35%.

During that same period, household incomes are not expected to keep pace with rising home values, widening the affordability gap nationwide. The researchers found that every state could see home prices outgrow income growth, although the size of that gap varies significantly depending on location.

How the researchers reached their conclusions

To estimate future affordability, HireAHelper analyzed historical home price data from Redfin and calculated each state's compound annual home price growth over the previous five years. Researchers then projected those growth rates forward to estimate median home prices in 2031.

The team also estimated the minimum household income needed to afford those projected homes using assumptions that included a 20% down payment, a 30-year mortgage, a 6.5% interest rate, property taxes, and the commonly used guideline that housing costs should consume no more than about one-third of household income.

Those projected income requirements were then compared with current median household income figures from the U.S. Census Bureau to calculate each state's affordability gap. The analysis did not include expenses such as homeowners insurance, HOA fees, or other household debts.

What the findings mean for buyers

The projections show that affordability pressures are expected to differ widely across the country.

Montana ranked as the state with the largest projected affordability gap by 2030, followed by California and New York. In contrast, states including North Dakota, Louisiana, and Iowa were projected to remain among the most affordable relative to current household incomes.

The report also identified large differences at the city level. Several California cities, including Irvine, Fremont, and San Jose, were projected to have some of the nation's widest affordability gaps by 2030, while many lower-cost markets appeared more accessible under the study's assumptions.

While these findings are projections rather than predictions, they illustrate how continued home price growth could affect future buyers if incomes fail to rise at a similar pace. For consumers, the report underscores the importance of considering long-term affordability not just current home prices when planning for homeownership.

If you like your steak medium-rare, read this first

• Check the label. Many Costco steaks are blade tenderized and recommend cooking to 145F with a 3-minute rest.

• There's a reason. Blade tenderizing can move bacteria inside the meat, so these steaks have different cooking guidance than intact cuts.

• Cook smart. Use a meat thermometer and don't assume every steak is safe to eat rare or medium-rare.

If you've ever picked up a package of steaks at Costco, there's a good chance you've overlooked one important line on the label.

Many of Costco's pre-cut steaks are labeled as blade tenderized, along with a recommendation to cook them to an internal temperature of 145 degrees Fahrenheit. A recent Instagram video highlighting the label has sparked plenty of discussion among home cooks who prefer their steaks rare or medium-rare.

Here's what you should know before firing up the grill this summer.

Why Costco recommends 145 degrees

Normally, harmful bacteria on a whole steak are found primarily on the surface. When you sear the outside, those bacteria are destroyed, allowing many people to safely enjoy steaks cooked below 145 degrees.

Blade tenderization changes that equation.

The process uses dozens of tiny blades or needles to break up tough muscle fibers, creating a more tender steak. But those blades can also push any surface bacteria into the center of the meat, where lower cooking temperatures may not kill them.

That's why Costco labels these steaks as blade tenderized and recommends cooking them to 145F, followed by a three-minute rest, which matches current guidance from the USDA for mechanically tenderized beef steaks.

Does this mean Costco meat isn't safe?

Not at all.

Blade tenderization is a common practice throughout the beef industry, especially for certain cuts. Costco is simply being transparent by clearly labeling the product and providing cooking instructions.

The key is knowing what you're buying.

Many shoppers assume every steak is an intact cut of beef that can safely be cooked rare. That's not always the case.

Actionable tips for shoppers

• Read the label carefully. Look for terms like "blade tenderized" or "mechanically tenderized."

• Use a meat thermometer. Instead of guessing the internal temperature of your steak, use a thermometer so you know exactly what doneness youve got.

• Want a rare steak? Ask the butcher for a whole, untenderized cut if available, or purchase whole primal cuts and cut them yourself.

• Don't skip the rest. The USDA recommends letting steaks rest for at least three minutes after reaching 145F. This allows the temperature to stabilize while the juices head back to the center of the steak.

• Higher-risk consumers should be extra cautious. Older adults, pregnant women, young children, and anyone with a weakened immune system should follow the recommended cooking temperatures.

Pro tip: Costco's labels contain more useful information than many shoppers realize. Besides cooking instructions, they identify the USDA grade, whether the meat has been blade tenderized, the packed-on date, and the sell-by date. Taking a few extra seconds to read the label can help you cook your steak both safely and exactly the way you intended.

New research suggests physical activity can help reduce cravings and support quit attempts

• A large review found that exercise modestly improved smoking quit rates and reduced daily cigarette use.

• Even a single workout helped reduce cigarette cravings for up to 30 minutes afterward.

• Researchers say exercise works best as a complement to proven quit-smoking treatments, not a replacement.

Trying to quit smoking is rarely easy. Nicotine cravings, withdrawal symptoms, and long-standing habits can make it difficult to stick with a quit attempt, even when someone is highly motivated. While counseling, medications, and nicotine replacement therapies remain the standard approaches, researchers continue looking for additional strategies that may make the process a little easier.

A new review from researchers at Adelaide University suggests that exercise could be one of those tools.

According to the findings, adding physical activity to a quit-smoking plan may help reduce cravings, lower the number of cigarettes people smoke, and slightly improve the chances of successfully quitting. The researchers emphasize that exercise isn't meant to replace established smoking cessation treatments, but rather to work alongside them as an accessible, low-cost addition.

Quitting smoking is one of the best things a person can do for their health, but its also one of the hardest, Dr. Ben Singh said in a news release. Many smokers want to quit, but the current approaches dont work for everyone. Thats why we need more strategies that people can incorporate into their daily lives at little or no cost.

Something as simple as regular exercise can make a meaningful difference to people trying to quit, helping them manage cravings, smoke less, and improve their chances of quitting.

The study

The findings come from a systematic review and meta-analysis that combined results from 59 randomized controlled trials involving more than 9,000 participants.

Researchers searched 11 scientific databases and evaluated studies that looked at both short-term exercise sessions and longer-term exercise programs. The review included a wide range of activities, including aerobic exercise, resistance training, yoga, high-intensity interval training, and lifestyle-based physical activity.

The researchers examined several outcomes related to smoking cessation, including continuous abstinence, seven-day abstinence, cigarette consumption, cravings, withdrawal symptoms, and mood. By combining data from many different studies, they were able to evaluate whether exercise consistently influenced quitting success across different populations and exercise programs.

The study

Overall, the review found that people who participated in exercise programs were 15% more likely to achieve continuous abstinence from smoking than those in comparison groups. They were also 21% more likely to report not smoking during the previous seven days. On average, participants in exercise programs smoked about two fewer cigarettes per day.

One of the most immediate benefits appeared to be reduced cravings. A single bout of exercise lowered cigarette cravings right after activity, with the effect lasting for up to 30 minutes. Researchers suggest this could help people get through some of the most challenging moments during a quit attempt when the urge to smoke is strongest.

The authors caution that the improvements in long-term quitting were modest and that the overall quality of evidence for abstinence outcomes ranged from low to moderate. Still, they conclude that exercise may be a practical addition to evidence-based smoking cessation programs, giving people another tool to help manage cravings and support their efforts to quit.

Quitting smoking does not have to begin and end with willpower alone, Professor Carol Maher said in the release. Cravings can be difficult to manage, but they often pass. Our review found that even a single bout of exercise can reduce cravings for up to 30 minutes, which may help people get through some of the hardest moments of a quit attempt.

Exercise should not replace evidence-based quit supports such as counseling and smoking cessation medication, but it may be a practical, low-cost strategy that people can use alongside them.

A Tufts University analysis links some sweeteners to higher fasting insulin levels

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• A new Tufts University review finds growing evidence that artificial and other low-calorie sweeteners may disrupt gut bacteria and impair blood sugar control.

• Researchers say common sugar substitutes were linked to higher fasting insulin and HbA1c levels in an analysis of 21 randomized clinical trials.

• Experts stress the findings do not prove sugar substitutes are unsafe but suggest more research is needed into their long-term metabolic effects.

For decades, artificial sweeteners have been marketed as a healthier alternative to sugar, offering sweetness without the calories. But a growing body of research suggests those substitutes may not be as metabolically harmless as once believed.

A new review and meta-analysis by researchers at Tufts University's Food is Medicine Institute concludes that non-nutritive sweeteners including artificial and other low-calorie sugar substitutes may alter the gut microbiome in ways that negatively affect blood sugar regulation and metabolic health. The findings were published in the journal Current Atherosclerosis Reports.

The researchers analyzed data from 21 randomized clinical trials involving adults. Compared with participants who consumed water or a placebo, those who consumed non-caloric sweeteners had higher fasting insulin levels and higher HbA1c, a measure of long-term blood sugar control. The analysis also found a trend toward reduced insulin sensitivity, an early marker associated with type 2 diabetes.

Metabolic harms

"What makes our analysis notable is that by focusing on non-caloric comparators, we better isolated the direct physiological effects of the sweeteners themselves, not the calories they replace," said lead author Meng Wang, a research assistant professor at Tufts' Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. "When pooling findings from individual trials, we see signals that these compounds may have metabolic harms."

Researchers believe one possible explanation lies in the gut microbiome. Unlike sugar, many non-nutritive sweeteners pass through the digestive tract largely unchanged, coming into direct contact with the trillions of microbes that inhabit the intestine.

Laboratory and animal studies suggest some sweeteners can alter the composition and activity of these microbial communities, potentially affecting glucose metabolism and inflammation.

Not all sweeteners are the same

The review examined a variety of sweeteners, including saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, stevia, and sugar alcohols. However, the researchers said evidence varies by compound, and not all sweeteners appear to have identical effects. They also noted that people's responses may differ depending on the makeup of their individual gut microbiome.

Despite the findings, the authors cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions. Most sweeteners approved for use in the United States have been deemed safe by regulators when consumed within recommended daily intake levels, and the new review does not establish that sugar substitutes directly cause diabetes or other metabolic diseases.

Instead, the researchers say the evidence highlights the need for larger, longer-term human studies to determine which sweeteners may pose risks, who may be most susceptible, and how gut microbes influence those outcomes.

"Our findings don't suggest people should automatically abandon all non-nutritive sweeteners," Wang said. "But they do challenge the assumption that these compounds are biologically inert and underscore the importance of understanding how they interact with the gut microbiome and metabolism."