The company may split into two entities, one selling coffee and the other soft drinks

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Keurig Dr Pepper (KDP) will acquire JDE Peets for 15.7 billion in cash, creating a new global coffee giant.

• The company will later split into two independent, publicly traded firms: one focused on coffee and one on beverages.

• Consumers can expect more innovation and brand expansion, with Global Coffee Co. positioned as the worlds #1 pure-play coffee company.

In 2018, soft drink maker Dr Pepper pivoted into the world of coffee when it merged with Keurig, maker of the single-serve coffee maker. Keurig Dr Pepper is now moving deeper into the coffee world by acquiring JDE Peets in an all-cash transaction.

This move sets the stage for KDP to later split into two separate, U.S.-listed public companies:

• Global Coffee Co., a coffee-focused powerhouse with brands like Keurig, Jacobs, LOR and Peets.

• Beverage Co., a growth-oriented challenger in the North American refreshment beverage market, anchored by iconic names like Dr Pepper, Canada Dry and 7UP.

Once the acquisition closes and the spin-off is complete, Global Coffee Co. will become the worlds largest pure-play coffee company, boasting approximately $16 billion in annual net sales. The company will operate across more than 100 countries, holding the first or second market position in 40 of them.

With a portfolio spanning every coffee format, from pods to instant to specialty caf brands, company executives say Global Coffee Co. will be positioned to lead innovation in a $400 billion global coffee category. The combined business expects to unlock $400 million in cost synergies over three years and deliver earnings growth starting in year one.

The complementary combination of Keurig and JDE Peets creates a global coffee champion, said Tim Cofer, CEO of KDP. By building two focused companies, we are poised to deliver strong growth and shareholder value.

Meanwhile, Beverage Co. will emerge as a standalone player in the $300 billion North American beverage market, with more than $11 billion in annual net sales. Its portfolio includes Dr Pepper, Canada Dry, 7UP, and fast-growing energy and functional drinks.

What it means for consumers

For coffee lovers, this deal could mean faster rollout of new brewing systems, broader availability of international brands, and more choice across price points and formats. For soft drink fans, the separation gives Dr Pepper and its sister brands renewed focus in competing with Coke and Pepsi.

Industry analysts expect both new companies to invest heavily in innovation, whether its next-generation coffee machines or new ready-to-drink beverages.

More than half say their patients have expressed erroneous beliefs about health

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• 61% of physicians say patients have been influenced by medical misinformation or disinformation in the past year.

• Nearly 9 in 10 doctors report misinformation is on the rise, with half citing a significant increase.

• Rural physicians report higher rates of patients affected than their suburban or urban peers.

How many times have you heard You cant believe everything you see on the internet? Despite that warning, a lot of people apparently accept online medical information as gospel, and doctors are increasingly concerned.

A significant percentage of Americans, especially those in Generation Z, get health information from TikTok. Recent data show that about 56% of Gen Z use TikTok for health and wellness advice, with approximately one-third (34%) citing TikTok as their main source of health information.

For the broader U.S. adult population, surveys indicate that most TikTok users especially those aged 18-29 report encountering health information on the platform, with exposure rates as high as 91% among younger adults for certain health topics

A new survey from The Physicians Foundation reveals that American doctors are increasingly concerned that health misinformation and disinformation are undermining patient trust, straining the physician-patient relationship, and threatening the quality of medical care.

The study defines misinformation as false or inaccurate information shared without intent to deceive, while disinformation refers to false or misleading content deliberately spread to mislead. Physicians say both forms are prevalent in healthcare, where they can shape how patients view treatments, vaccines, and overall medical guidance.

The scope of the problem

More than six in 10 physicians (61%) reported that their patients were influenced by misinformation or disinformation at least a moderate amount in the past year. Rural doctors appear to feel the brunt of the problem: 38% said they encountered a great deal of misinformation among their patients, compared to 21% of suburban and 25% of urban physicians.

Physicians also agree the problem is worsening. Nearly nine in 10 (86%) said health misinformation has increased compared to five years ago, with half describing the rise as significant.

Impact on patient care

Doctors say misinformation doesnt just frustrate conversations, it affects care. More than half (57%) reported that false or misleading health claims have significantly impaired their ability to deliver quality treatment. The study shows how easily patient trust can be undermined, complicating medical decision-making.

Despite these challenges, many physicians believe they are capable of tackling misinformation during visits. About half (50%) expressed high confidence in identifying and correcting it, while 47% felt somewhat confident. Only 10% said they lacked the necessary tools or support to engage with skeptical patients.

While many doctors feel equipped to address falsehoods in clinical settings, they remain doubtful about patients ability to find trustworthy information on their own. Forty percent said they are not at all confident that patients know how to access reliable, evidence-based resources online.

Rural physicians were the most concerned, with 54% expressing no confidence, compared to 37% of suburban doctors and 41% of urban doctors.

Large cattlemen-funded survey found no link between animal protein and increased mortality

• Large U.S. survey finds no link between animal protein and increased mortality

• Higher intake tied to modest reduction in cancer-related deaths

• Researchers say both plant and animal protein support long-term health

Eating animal-sourced protein does not raise the risk of early death and may even lower the odds of dying from cancer, according to a new study published in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. While that may be surprising, it's worth noting that the study was funded by the National Cattlemens Beef Association,though the organization was not involved in the design, data collection, analysis or publication of the findings, the study's authors said.

The research analyzed dietary data from nearly 16,000 adults aged 19 and older who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). Scientists compared typical animal and plant protein intake with the risk of death from cancer, cardiovascular disease and all causes.

While the cattlemen may not have controlled the study's outcome, it's possible they had their eye on the calendar when they signed on to support it. That's because new dietary guidelines are expected to be issued this year and they're expected to favor plant protein over animal sources.

For the first time, according to a ConsumerReports article, theguidelines advisory committeerecommends that people put plant protein at the top over their menu.Beans, peas, and lentils would move to the top of the list of protein sources, encouraging people to emphasize those, while red meat moves to the bottom as the protein source you should eat least, says Christopher Gardner, PhD, professor of medicine at Stanford Prevention Research Center in Palo Alto, Calif., and one of the committee members, according to the non-profit organization.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association is a contractor to the USDA's Beef Check-Off program. Proceeds are used to fund "public education" and promotion.(Disclosure: the author of this story was once a consultant to the cattlemen'sassociation.)

No added risk, possible benefit

The results of the study showed no increased mortality risk from eating more animal protein. In fact, participants with higher intakes had a modest but statistically significant reduction in cancer-related mortality.

Theres a lot of confusion around protein how much to eat, what kind and what it means for long-term health. This study adds clarity, said Stuart Phillips, Professor and Chair of Kinesiology at McMaster University in Ontario, who supervised the work.

To strengthen the analysis, researchers used advanced statistical models, including the National Cancer Institute method and multivariate Markov Chain Monte Carlo modeling, to better capture long-term eating patterns and reduce measurement errors.

Plant vs. animal protein

When both plant and animal protein were included in the models, the findings held steady: neither type increased overall mortality risk, though plant protein showed little effect on cancer outcomes, while animal protein appeared to provide a slight protective edge.

Lead researcher Yanni Papanikolaou, MPH, said the results align with decades of clinical evidence. When both observational data like this and clinical research are considered, its clear both animal and plant protein foods promote health and longevity, he said.

Agency says whipped products not approved forms of sunscreen

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs