Consumer News: Glass found in Trader Joe’s chicken fried rice triggers nationwide recall

They often add lots of calories without the nutrition

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Ultra-processed foods are engineered for taste and convenience, not nutrition, often packing high levels of sugar, salt, and unhealthy fats into products that are stripped of fiber and essential nutrients.

• Industrial additives including emulsifiers, artificial sweeteners, and flavor enhancers may disrupt digestion, metabolism, and even the gut microbiome.

• Mounting research links heavy consumption of ultra-processed foods to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, depression, and premature death.

HHS Secretary Robert Kennedys emphasis on healthy food has focused a lot of attention on so-called ultra-processed food, which makes up a significant portion of the American diet. But, what exactly is ultra-processed food, and what makes it unhealthy?

For starters, its everywhere. Walk down almost any grocery store aisle and youll find them: brightly packaged snacks, frozen meals, sugary cereals, soft drinks, and ready-to-eat meats.

These ultra-processed food products now make up more than half of the calories consumed in the typical American diet, according to some research. Theyre convenient, affordable, and engineered to taste irresistible.

Theyre also increasingly associated with serious health risks. The Mayo Clinic produced the video below explaining the problems with ultra-processed food:

What counts as ultra-processed?

The term comes from the NOVA food classification system, developed by Brazilian researchers. Ultra-processed foods are formulations made mostly or entirely from substances extracted from foods such as oils, starches, and sugars along with additives like flavorings, colorings, emulsifiers, and preservatives. They typically contain little or no whole food.

Examples include:

• Sugary breakfast cereals

• Packaged snack cakes and cookies

• Hot dogs and chicken nuggets

• Instant noodles

• Sweetened beverages

Unlike minimally processed foods such as frozen vegetables or canned beans ultra-processed products are industrial creations designed for long shelf life and hyper-palatability.

Nutritional imbalance by design

One of the biggest concerns is nutritional quality. Ultra-processed foods tend to be high in added sugars, refined carbohydrates, sodium, and unhealthy fats, while being low in fiber, protein, and micronutrients.

Fiber, found in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, helps regulate blood sugar, supports gut health, and promotes fullness. When foods are heavily refined, fiber is often stripped away. The result: products that digest quickly, spike blood sugar, and leave people hungry again soon after eating.

Many ultra-processed foods are also energy-dense, meaning they pack a large number of calories into small portions. This combination high calories, low satiety can promote overeating.

In a widely cited clinical trial conducted by the National Instituteof Health, participants allowed to eat as much as they wanted consumed significantly more calories and gained weight on an ultra-processed diet compared with a minimally processed diet, even though both were matched for sugar, fat, and salt. Researchers concluded that processing itself may influence how much people eat.

The additive effect

Beyond macronutrients, scientists are examining the role of food additives.

Emulsifiers, which help ingredients blend smoothly, have been shown in some animal studies to alter gut bacteria and promote inflammation. Artificial sweeteners may interfere with the bodys glucose response and appetite regulation. Flavor enhancers and texturizers are designed to create a rewarding sensory experience that encourages repeat consumption.

While many additives are approved as safe individually, researchers are increasingly asking whether long-term exposure to combinations of these substances could have unintended consequences.

Links to chronic disease

Large observational studies from the United States and Europe have found associations between higher intake of ultra-processed foods and increased risks of:

• Obesity

• Type 2 diabetes

• Cardiovascular disease

• Certain cancers

• Depression

• Early mortality

While these studies cannot prove cause and effect, the consistency of the findings across populations has raised alarms among public health experts.

Some researchers suspect multiple mechanisms are at play: excess calorie intake, blood sugar spikes, chronic inflammation, altered gut microbiota, and even changes in brain reward pathways.

Why theyre so hard to avoid

Ultra-processed foods are often cheaper and more accessible than fresh produce and lean proteins. They require little preparation, have long shelf lives, and are heavily marketed especially to children.

For busy families and people living in food deserts, these products can seem like the only practical option.

Public health advocates argue that addressing the issue requires more than individual willpower. It may also demand changes in food policy, marketing regulations, and agricultural subsidies.

The front-of-box words that dont mean much

• Natural isnt tightly defined. The Food and Drug Administration offers guidance, but theres no strict, enforceable definition and it says nothing about pesticides or processing.

• Low and light can be misleading. Lower than what? Even legitimate claims like low sodium can hinge on unrealistically small serving sizes.

• Feel-good words arent proof. Terms like green, sustainable, and free range often lack real oversight and may be more marketing than standard.

Most shoppers know to scan the ingredient list and avoid products with stuff you can't pronounce.

But according to Tasting Table, one of the biggest food-label red flags is often printed boldly on the front of the package but its frequently just vague, feel-good language with no clear definition.

Specifically, terms like natural, light, low sugar, green, and sustainable can create the illusion of healthy eating, without guaranteeing much of anything.

Dont assume 'natural'means regulated

The word natural sounds reassuring, but it remains loosely defined.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued guidance suggesting natural means no artificial or synthetic ingredients and no added colors.

However there is no formal, enforceable definition. As Tasting Table points out, it does not address how ingredients were grown, whether pesticides were used, or how processed the product may be.

In short, natural does not automatically mean minimally processed or chemical-free.

Question claims like 'low'and 'light'

Words such as low fat, low sugar, and light are often relative.

Lower than what? A previous version? A competitor? Some undefined benchmark?

Even when a term has a technical definition, such as low sodium, the serving sizes can be small enough to make numbers look way better than they are.

This serves as a great reminder that without context, these labels can be misleading.

Be skeptical of environmental buzzwords

Labels like green, sustainable, free range, and pasture raised may suggest higher standards, but many of these terms lack strict oversight or enforcement.

In actuality, they can signal positive practices, or simply be smart marketing ploys.

Look for certifications with real standards

Not all labels are created equal.

For example, any products marked organic must meet federal requirements. Also, third-party certifications like Fair Trade Certified, overseen by Fair Trade USA, involve defined criteria and a verification process that you can rely on.

When a product carries independent certification, theres at least a measurable standard behind the claim.

The bottom line

I love the way Tasting Table sums it up by saying, Does a company care enough to prove the claims it's making, or does it just want you to swallow what it's selling?

So, the next time you see packaging with the words light or sustainable plastered on the front, its up to us to figure out what that means. Unfortunately, this makes eating a healthier diet a more time-consuming activity when standing in the grocery aisle.

New national data suggest pouch use is low overall but more common among people quitting cigarettes or vapes

• New research offers the first national estimates of nicotine pouch use in U.S. adults.

• Pouch use remains rare overall but is most common among adults who recently quit smoking or vaping.

• Very few people who never used tobacco products report using pouches.

Nicotine pouches small, tobacco-free pouches that users place between their lip and gum have been selling more rapidly as traditional cigarette smoking declines.

Because they deliver nicotine without burning tobacco or producing smoke, some scientists and regulators are watching closely to see whether they could serve as a less harmful alternative for people who already use tobacco products.

In early 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared the first nicotine pouch products for marketing, though theyre not officially approved as quit-smoking aids like patches or gum. That regulatory shift makes understanding who uses pouches and how is more important than ever.

As nicotine pouches gain increased attention in the U.S., many agree that we need to better understand who is using these products and how, researcher Mary Hrywna said in a news release. This study offers a snapshot of use patterns that is informative and, at least for now, somewhat reassuring.

How the Rutgers study worked

A team led by researchers at Rutgers University analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureaus 2022-2023 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey a massive household survey of more than 110,000 adults.

Participants answered questions about whether they had ever tried nicotine pouches, whether they were current users, and how often they used them (including daily use). The team also looked at peoples history with other nicotine products like cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and smokeless tobacco to see how use patterns differed across groups.

To make sure the results reflect the U.S. population, the researchers applied statistical techniques that account for how the survey was collected, and analyzed differences by age, gender, region, and racial or ethnic group.

The results

Overall, nicotine pouch use among U.S. adults was quite low:

• About 2.65% had ever used pouches

• 0.42% were current users, and

• Only 0.18% used them daily.

Use was much more common among people with a history of tobacco use especially those who had recently quit cigarettes or other nicotine products. In fact, adults who quit smoking within two to three years of the survey were significantly more likely to be daily pouch users compared with people who never used tobacco.

Men and non-Hispanic White adults also had higher rates of use, while people who never used tobacco products (often called tobacco-nave) were almost never pouch users.

The studys design means it cant prove that pouches cause people to quit cigarettes, but the patterns suggest many users may be turning to them after quitting or reducing smoking or vaping.

People who have never used tobacco products should not suddenly be using nicotine pouches, researcher Cristine Delnevo said in a news release. But for people who smoke or use other nicotine products and dont want to stop using nicotine, switching completely from the more harmful product and moving down the risk continuum with nicotine pouches is likely good for public health.

Median home prices rose just 1.1% from a year earlier while sales declined

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• The median U.S. home sale price rose 1.1% year over year in January to $422,921, as a strong buyers market kept a lid on price growth.

• Annual price gains have remained below 2% for 10 straight months, a sharp slowdown from the double-digit increases seen during the pandemic.

• Buyers are gaining negotiating power, with homes selling for an average of 2.1% below list price and fewer properties attracting bidding wars.

Theres good news and bad news for would-be homebuyers. Home prices continued to rise in January, but the increase was small.

According to a new report from Redfin, the median home sale price climbed 1.1% from a year earlier in January to $422,921. While still a record high for the month, the modest increase reflects a market that has shifted firmly in favor of buyers.

Home prices grew so fast for so long that a lot of buyers got shut out of the market, which is now causing price growth to cool, said Redfin Senior Economist Asad Khan. With far more homes for sale than people who want to buy them, the buyers who are in the market have the power to negotiate on price, which is keeping price growth in check.

Increased negotiating power

In a buyers market, sellers outnumber buyers, giving shoppers more options and greater negotiating leverage. In January, the typical home sold for 2.1% less than its final list pricethe biggest January discount since 2023. Just 20.8% of homes sold above list price, the lowest share for the month since 2020.

Still, improved negotiating conditions have not been enough to spark a sales rebound.

Pending home sales fell 0.9% in January from the previous month to their lowest seasonally adjusted level since November 2023.

Existing-home sales dropped 3.6% month over month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.2 million, marking the steepest decline since late 2022. Overall home sales declined 2.3%the largest monthly drop in more than two years.

Illusive affordability

Affordability remains a key hurdle. Although price growth has cooled and mortgage rates have dipped, borrowing costs remain significantly higher than pandemic-era lows. The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate fell to 6.1% in January, its lowest level since 2022, but still more than double the record lows seen earlier in the decade.

Wages, however, are rising faster than home prices. Earnings increased 3.7% year over year in Januarymore than triple the pace of home-price growth. Redfin economists predict that affordability will improve in 2026 if income growth continues to outpace price gains.

For now, many buyers are waiting on the sidelines, hoping rates will fall further. Economic uncertainty and severe winter storms in parts of the country also dampened activity in January.

Nearly 40,000 home purchase agreements were canceled during the month, representing 13.7% of homes that went under contractthe highest January share since at least 2017.