Connect with us

Business

High-caffeine energy drinks to be banned for under-16s in England – Streeting

Published

on

High-caffeine energy drinks to be banned for under-16s in England – Streeting



High-caffeine energy drinks will be banned for under-16s in England to prevent harm to children’s health, the Government has said.

The plan will make it illegal to sell energy drinks containing more than 150mg of caffeine per litre to anyone under 16 across all retailers, including online, in shops, restaurants, cafes and vending machines.

Lower-caffeine soft drinks – such as Coca‑Cola, Coca‑Cola Zero, Diet Coke and Pepsi – are not affected, and neither are tea and coffee.

However, high-caffeine energy drinks such as Red Bull, Monster, Relentless and Prime would all breach the limit.

Major supermarkets including Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Waitrose, Morrisons and Asda have already stopped sales of the drinks to youngsters, but the Department of Health said research suggests some smaller convenience stores are still selling them to children.

According to ministers, a ban could prevent obesity in up to 40,000 children and will help prevent issues such as disrupted sleep, increased anxiety and lack of concentration, as well as poorer school results.

Around 100,000 children are thought to consume at least one high-caffeine energy drink every day.

Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting said: “How can we expect children to do well at school if they have the equivalent of a double espresso in their system on a daily basis?

“Energy drinks might seem harmless, but the sleep, concentration and wellbeing of today’s kids are all being impacted while high sugar versions damage their teeth and contribute to obesity.

“As part of our plan for change and shift from treatment to prevention, we’re acting on the concerns of parents and teachers and tackling the root causes of poor health and educational attainment head on.

“By preventing shops from selling these drinks to kids, we’re helping build the foundations for healthier and happier generations to come.”

A newly-launched consultation will now run for 12 weeks to gather evidence from experts in health and education as well as retailers, manufacturers, local enforcement leaders and the public.

Drinks containing more than 150mg of caffeine per litre must already carry warning labels stating they are not recommended for children.

Gavin Partington, director general of the British Soft Drinks Association, said firms do not market or promote the drinks to under-16s.

He added: “Our members have led the way in self-regulation through our long-standing energy drinks code of practice.

“Our members do not market or promote the sale of energy drinks to under-16s and label all high-caffeine beverages as ‘not recommended for children’, in line with and in the spirit of this code.

“As with all Government policy, it’s essential that any forthcoming regulation is based on a rigorous assessment of the evidence that’s available.”

According to the Department of Health, up to one in three children aged 13 to 16, and nearly a quarter of children aged 11 to 12, consume one or more high-caffeine energy drink every week.

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said: “This Government inherited a scourge of poor classroom behaviour that undermines the learning of too many children – partly driven by the harmful effects of caffeine-loaded drinks – and today’s announcement is another step forward in addressing that legacy.”

Professor Steve Turner, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said: “Paediatricians are very clear that children or teenagers do not need energy drinks.

“Young people get their energy from sleep, a healthy balanced diet, regular exercise and meaningful connection with family and friends.

“There’s no evidence that caffeine or other stimulants in these products offer any nutritional or developmental benefit, in fact growing research points to serious risks for behaviour and mental health.

“Banning the sale of these products to under-16s is the next logical step in making the diet of our nation’s children more healthy.”

Carrera, from the youth-led group Bite Back, which campaigns for changes to the way unhealthy foods are made, marketed and sold, said: “Energy drinks have become the social currency of the playground – cheap, brightly packaged, and easier to buy than water.

“They’re aggressively marketed to us, especially online, despite serious health risks.

“We feel pressured to drink them, especially during exam season, when stress is high and healthier options are hard to find.

“This ban is a step in the right direction, but bold action on marketing and access must follow.”

Amelia Lake, professor of public health nutrition at Teesside University, said: “Our research has shown the significant mental and physical health consequences of children drinking energy drinks.

“We have reviewed evidence from around the world and have shown that these drinks have no place in the diets of children.”

Barbara Crowther, of the Children’s Food Campaign at Sustain, an alliance of food, farming and health organisations, said the drinks were “branded and marketed to appeal to young people through sports and influencers, and far too easily purchased by children in shops, cafes and vending machines”.

Professor Tracy Daszkiewicz, president of the Faculty of Public Health, said: “Mounting evidence shows us that high-caffeine energy drinks are damaging the health of children across the UK, particularly those from deprived communities who are already at higher risk of obesity and other health issues.

“We welcome this public health intervention to limit access to these drinks and help support the physical and mental wellbeing of our young people.”

James Lowman, chief executive of the Association of Convenience Stores, said: “The majority of convenience stores already have a voluntary age restriction in place on energy drinks, and will welcome the clarity of regulation on this issue.

“Our members have a long-standing track record of enforcing age restricted sales on different products, but it is essential that the Government effectively communicates the details of the ban to consumers to avoid the risk of confrontation in stores.”



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

Trade talks about ‘hard yards’ rather than photo opportunities, says Starmer

Published

on

Trade talks about ‘hard yards’ rather than photo opportunities, says Starmer



Whisky negotiations with the US are about “the hard yards” rather than “one-off photo opportunities”, the Prime Minister has said in a rebuke to First Minister John Swinney.

Mr Swinney has made securing a deal to cut whisky tariffs with the US a key part of his premiership in recent months, meeting President Donald Trump on a number of occasions this year in the hopes of reducing the levies.

The First Minister’s involvement in the talks comes despite international trade being a reserved issue, with the UK Government in the lead.

Speaking to a group of Scottish journalists in Downing Street on Monday, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said: “Negotiations and getting the trade deals you want… is about the hard yards of negotiation and that’s what we’ve been up to.

“That’s what we’ve delivered in relation to the India deal and, as you can imagine, we’re continuing those negotiations and hard yards with the US, in particular in relation to whisky.”

He added: “The hard yards is what matters, creating relationships, having the conversations, and these things take time.

“They’re not a one-off photo opportunity.”

Both the Scottish and UK governments are “trying to achieve the same thing” on whisky, the Prime Minister said.

“In the end, I went to Scotland two or three days after the election to say I want to deliver for Scotland above all else and therefore, that’s why we continue these negotiations and discussions with the US and we will continue to do so.”

The First Minister has met with President Trump twice during a visit to his golf courses in the summer, at the State Visit in September and in a private audience at the White House in Washington DC, each time raising the plight of the industry, which claims to be losing £4 million per week due to the US-imposed tariffs.

Speaking to the PA news agency earlier this month, the First Minister said he would like to be involved in the trade talks between the two sides.

“I’ve not been privy to the trade talks,” he said ahead of the SNP’s conference in Aberdeen.

“I would like to be, because I think I’ve actually been quite helpful in all of this.

“It’s clear to me earlier on this year that whisky was not really featuring in the trade talks at all, it was not there as a principal negotiating priority for the UK Government.

“Well, I had to make sure it was, because it really matters to Scotland.”

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Government said: “The First Minister is focussed on securing a zero tariff deal for Scotch whisky, and has raised this matter on a number of occasions with key decision makers, including the President of the United States.

“Further trade negotiations are for the UK Government to take forward.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

What’s the best way to detect and destroy drones?

Published

on

What’s the best way to detect and destroy drones?


Adrienne MurrayTechnology reporter

AFP via Getty Images In Denmark, a round sign picturing a drone with a red stripe through it, indicating a zone where drone flying is prohibited.AFP via Getty Images

Denmark has taken measures to curb drone flying

In the northern Danish city of Aalborg, the firm MyDefence makes equipment that jams and repels drones.

“We’ve had a big surge of interest,” says chief executive, Dan Hermansen.

He says that up until early October his company was mainly dealing with defence firms, but now it has “completely shifted”.

The small, box-like kit made by MyDefence is mostly used by the military of Nato countries and Ukraine.

However lately demand has grown from civilian customers.

“It’s coming from critical infrastructure,” he adds, “from big companies, looking to protect their own assets”.

The device detects communication between the drone and its pilot, then breaks that connection, explains Mr Hermansen, by emitting a powerful radio signal on the same frequency.

Rather than falling out of the sky, the drone is pushed away and has a controlled landing. If it tries to reconnect to a GPS signal, that can be blocked too, he adds.

Mr Hermansen reckons that radio frequency jamming works against 80 to 90% of the drones that are flown.

MyDefence A soldier wearing a helmet, mask and sunglasses holds a large table computer and looks upwards. Behind him is a military vehicle.MyDefence

MyDefence uses powerful radio waves to jam drone control systems

While forcing an unwanted drone to crash land is a good result, it’s essential to be able to detect it first.

“The first part is really about identification. And the second part is an interceptor system,” explains Kasper Hallenborg, director of The Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Institute at University of Southern Denmark.

Identifying a drone is not so easy, points out Andreas Graae, the head of research at the Institute of Military Technology at the Danish Defence Academy.

“[Drones] can be very small or really big, and are often produced from materials like plastic or fabrics that are very hard to detect on a traditional radar,” he says.

A suite of technologies are under constant development, to help find drones.

That includes acoustic sensors that listen for the drone’s buzzing; advanced optical cameras, with very high resolution; and increasingly sophisticated tactical radars, which work over longer ranges and can even differentiate between a drone or a bird.

Once detected, a drone needs to be disabled. Electronic jamming, similar to that used by MyDefence has leapt forward, thanks in large part to the war in Ukraine.

“[Ukraine’s] frontlines are totally jammed,” Mr Graae says, which means that drone controllers lose control of their machines.

So, Russia and Urkaine have adapted by using drones controlled by fibre optic cables, or using drones that can navigate autonomously, or fly along pre-programmed routes.

Such drones need to be intercepted or shot down and plenty of firms are working on novel ways to do that.

Among them is Swedish start-up, Nordic Air Defence. It is developing a low-cost interceptor designed to strike the targeted drone, forcing it to crash.

“It’s missile shaped, so travels incredibly fast,” he adds. “It’s incredibly easy to manufacture. It is basically 3D printed,” says Jens Holzapfel, the company’s business director.

AFP via Getty Images A small drone with four rotors, three aerials and a camera on the front flies in front of a detection device.AFP via Getty Images

Cheap hunter drones are one way to intercept unwanted drones

Cost is a criticial factor in countering drones.

Last month, Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte said: “It’s unacceptable to shoot down drones costing one or two thousand dollars with missiles that may cost half a million or even a million dollars.”

That’s been a big lesson from Ukraine, says Mr Graae. “It’s become a competition of how cheap you can actually make a drone attack, and how expensive it is to defend against.”

“As hostile drones become cheaper, it puts pressure on the defender to manufacture low cost products,” agrees Mr Holzapfel.

Low-cost drones are increasingly a security issue away from the frontlines of Ukraine.

Poland and Romania had their airspace breached by Russian drones; while separate drone incidents were reported, in Norway, Sweden, Lithuania, Romania and most recently at Germany’s Munich airport.

In Denmark tensions have also run high after a string of mysterious sightings at airports and military installations around the country.

That spurred the defence ministry to deploy “several capacities” that can detect, track and jam drones; and last week Sweden announced plans to invest more than $365m (£275m) in anti-drone systems, including measures to jam and shoot them down, as well as the deployment of hunter drones.

Mr Holzapfel at Nordic Air Defence currently works with Sweden and its European allies. As well as the military, clients are from law enforcement agencies and security companies.

But he also sees civilian sectors like shipping and the oil and offshore industries as potential markets.

AFP via Getty Images In Poland in September, three people inspect a damaged roof, where the wooden beams have been exposed. The roof was hit by falling parts of a drone that had been shot down.AFP via Getty Images

Debris from a destroyed drone hit a rooftop in Poland in September

In a civilian setting. simply shooting down a drone might be too risky.

“It could be rather dangerous,” says Kasper Hallenborg, pointing to the falling parts and potentially flammable fuel.

“We saw the impact in Poland,” he continues. “That was just drone fragments, which more or less removed the roof of a house.”

Early detection would help, says Mr Hallenborg: “Then you can probably take it down somewhere it’s more safe to do so.”

At short ranges, shooting out nets to tangle up the drone is another method and cheap lasers are also being developed.

There are also safer, so-called soft-kill options, including hacking. “That’s a more secure way to neutralize the drone, because then you can actually control the landing,” says Mr Graae.

Crucially, a traffic management system is urgently needed, suggests Mr Hallenborg, involving electronic license plates for each drone device and way for users to register the flight in advance.

“Then we can quickly identify which drones are allowed to be there and those that aren’t,” says Mr Hallenborg.

“The [Danish] police have been overloaded with people telling them about what they’ve seen in the sky. A lot of these drones are probably there with a [legitimate] purpose,” he says.

More Technology of Business



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Disney+ cancellations soar after Jimmy Kimmel suspension

Published

on

Disney+ cancellations soar after Jimmy Kimmel suspension


Danielle KayeBusiness reporter

Reuters A man wearing a black suit speaks with his hands raised in front of him.Reuters

Comedian Jimmy Kimmel was temporarily suspended last month

Disney+ and Hulu cancellations rates doubled in September after TV host Jimmy Kimmel was briefly taken off air, suggesting the move may have hurt the entertainment giant financially.

Data from analytics firm Antenna shows Disney+’s so-called churn rate – the percentage of subscribers who cancel each month – jumped from a 4% average to 8%, which equates to about three million cancellations, while Hulu’s rose to 10% or more than 4 million.

Disney suspended Kimmel after comments he made about the shooting of Charlie Kirk, following pressure from a federal regulator. The decision sparked free speech debates.

ABC, which airs Jimmy Kimmel Live, reinstated him within a week after a backlash.

Disney, which owns ABC, decided on 17 September to take the comedian off air, two days after Kimmel had said, during one of his shows, the “Maga gang” was “desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them” and of trying to “score political points from it”.

The abrupt suspension came hours after Brendan Carr, chair of broadcast regulator, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), threatened to revoke ABC’s broadcast licence.

The move was met with protests in California and lambasted by the writers and actors guilds, lawmakers and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Critics and First Amendment advocates had railed against ABC’s decision as censorship and a violation of free speech. They also called for economic pressure on Disney, urging people to boycott the company’s services.

Hundreds of celebrities and Hollywood creatives signed a letter backing Kimmel, who was later reinstated.

Reuters A man at a protest holds a sign in the shape of Mickey Mouse's face, which reads "Protect Free Speech" and "Cancel Disney ABC".Reuters

Critics called for boycotts of Disney’s streaming services

The new data from Antenna, released on Monday, offers the first indication that Disney may have taken a hit from the blow-back.

Disney+ and Hulu lost millions more subscribers in September compared to recent months, while Netflix saw its churn rate hold steady at 2%.

But it is not clear whether Kimmel’s suspension was the only factor driving the surge in cancellations.

Disney’s move to suspend Kimmel coincided with its announcement of previously planned increases to subscription prices, as the company faces pressure to boost its profit from streaming services.

Despite the rise in cancellation rates, both Disney+ and Hulu saw an uptick in new sign-ups in September, offsetting some of the loss, according to Antenna.

Disney declined to comment and Hulu is yet to respond. However, Disney noted discrepancies between Antenna’s data and its internal figures.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending