You might know a tomato when you see one, but for the federal government, identifying one is harder. Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable? In 1893, this question went all the way to the Supreme Court, which decided that, for tax purposes, at least, a tomato was a vegetable. What about milk? For a bureaucrat setting standards, a straightforward explanation such as “liquid from a cow’s udders” won’t quite cut it; according to the FDA, milk is “the lacteal secretion, practically free from colostrum, obtained by the complete milking of one or more healthy cows.”

Even for the government, however, tomatoes and milk are relatively simple to define compared with ultra-processed foods. Although many researchers agree that these creations are negatively affecting people’s health, they cannot agree on what foods do and don’t belong in that category. That’s not keeping Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from trying: After months of promising the federal government’s first formal definition of ultra-processed foods, the secretary of Health and Human Services announced on Monday that the department is finalizing one.

He stopped short, though, of sharing the exact text in either the public announcement or at a “food policy celebration” held Monday at HHS’s Washington headquarters; the definition is still being reviewed by the White House. This effort may have real upsides. Having a regulatory definition of ultra-processed foods (or UPF, as they’re often referred to) could at the very least advance inquiries into the harms of these products. But the effort also raises the question: Can the government adequately define a problem before researchers know its true cause?

So far, scientific efforts to define UPF have revealed only how fuzzy the category is. The most commonly used definition, which was developed by Brazilian researchers, takes the most expansive approach: It lumps all foods with industrial ingredients, such as sweeteners and emulsifiers, into the ultra-processed category. A classification system created by academics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, meanwhile, defines “highly processed foods” as products “processed to the extent that they are no longer recognizable as their original plant/animal source.” Yet another well-respected system, this one designed by a French analytics company, attempts to incorporate additional factors, such as a food’s salt, sugar, and fat content, as well as the “function, number, and potential health risk of additives.”

These rubrics are distinct enough from one another that flavored yogurt is an ultra-processed food under the Brazilian system and a moderately processed food under the UNC system. Under the French system, the classification depends entirely on the yogurt itself (even though a paper from the group found that 95 percent of flavored yogurts in French grocery stores were indeed ultra-processed).

Researchers disagree on how to define these foods, because the science around how and why they may be harmful is ambiguous. Epidemiological studies have found that UPF-heavy diets have consistently been associated with a range of maladies including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. But although researchers suspect that certain additives are causing dietary issues, the number of industrial ingredients or additives in Americans’ food is so large that many more may also be causing trouble. Nor do researchers know what processing steps cause everyday food ingredients to go from healthful to harmful. That means Kennedy and his department are essentially trying to define a food group that no one really understands.

Kennedy is under no illusions about how little we know about the American food supply. He has frequently criticized a decades-old loophole that allows food companies to put new additives in their food without even telling the FDA. On Monday, he announced a new proposal to fix this issue; if finalized, the rule would require companies to let the FDA know when they’re introducing a new additive. But even that won’t fully solve America’s additive problem.

Researchers at the Pew Health Group estimated in 2011 that America’s food supply already features more than 10,000 additives. The new rule would require manufacturers that quietly introduced such compounds to tell the FDA what those additives are but not to submit any scientific proof of the additives’ safety. And although the FDA can do its own review of such ingredients, that process is often glacially slow. (The agency still hasn’t completed its rereview of several chemicals nearly a year after announcing that it was taking a second look at their safety.) Plus, certain additives may be safe when consumed on their own but harmful when consumed alongside other additives. A study published last year found, for example, that consuming a cocktail of emulsifiers, a preservative, and a dye was associated with higher rates of type 2 diabetes but that several other industrial concoctions were not.  

If anything, researchers know less about how processing changes the ways humans digest certain foods. As the term ultra-processed implies, researchers believe that the ways food companies process individual ingredients has had a profound impact on our health. But because that concept is so new, very little research has been done on it. The Brazilian researchers, for example, have cited pre-frying as a mark of ultra-processing, even though it’s hard to imagine that precooking chicken nuggets could meaningfully affect how they’re digested. And although research does suggest that extrusion, which is used to make products such as cereal by pushing ingredients through a heated tube with rotating screws, makes it easier for the body to break down starches, the evidence of any ill effect on humans is limited.

All of this makes Kennedy’s push to define UPF difficult. Any earnest effort to “Make America Healthy Again” cannot ignore the fact that a majority of the calories Americans consume come from ultra-processed foods, and that something in those foods seems to be making people ill. Creating a definition is an obvious first step toward addressing the issue, and the previous definitions for ultra-processed foods have undoubtedly advanced researchers’ understanding of those foods’ impact on our health. A 2019 study using the Brazilian definition found, for example, that people ate faster and gained more weight when fed an utlra-processed diet compared with an unprocessed one.

But for researchers, the definition of UPF serves more as a hypothesis—an idea that they can test and adjust about how to think about this category of food. A government definition of UPF has a different purpose—it can prompt research, but it can also be used to make rules about how foods are tested, advertised, and sold. An overbroad definition could cost food companies millions in unnecessary costs and stoke unsubstantiated fear in consumers; a narrower definition, based on a hunch, could cause the same problems.

Government definitions are not written in stone: In 2024, the FDA overhauled an outdated definition of healthy foods, which was issued amid the low-fat craze of the 1990s and excluded foods such as nuts and fatty fish. But the process of revising the definition took eight years. As Kennedy said Monday, “If you can’t define a problem, you can’t solve it.” But if you define a problem in the wrong way, you probably can’t solve it either.

“There is the possibility that a state could choose to not follow the DNC here and hold its primary when they want to,” Dovere said as CNN host Manu Raju added that New Hampshire wanted to do this.

“And people saying, ‘Hey, the DNC is broke. They can’t do anything to help us anyway. Nobody is scared in any way of Ken Martin as the chair. And so maybe they’ll just go and violate it.’ It is not where the infrastructure of the party needs to be for going into 2026 and then 2028,” Dovere added.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) panel, meeting in the nation’s capital on Friday, picked South Carolina over Nevada to hold the party’s first presidential nominating contest in 2028, a move that will likely maintain a key role in the primary calendar for Black voters, who are a crucial part of the Democrats’ base.

KAMALA HARRIS IS THE ‘FAIRLY OBVIOUS’ 2028 PRESIDENTIAL FRONTRUNNER, DEMOCRATIC INSIDERS SAY

The decision came after intense lobbying by both states, and by New Hampshire and Iowa over the past year to hold the much-coveted lead-off Democratic primary in the race for the White House. 

The battle between South Carolina and Nevada was seen as a struggle between rewarding Black voters and outreach to Latino voters, with whom President Donald Trump and Republicans made major gains in the 2024 election, handing Democrats major setbacks.

The New Hampshire Democratic Party pointed Fox News Digital to a statement they put out on Friday, in which New Hampshire Democratic Party chair Ray Buckley said that the national party didn’t learn anything from 2024.

“Today’s vote shows that many party insiders have learned nothing from 2024. New Hampshire has a proven track record of testing our candidates with a rigorous, fair, and efficient process, yet those qualities did not prevail. This committee’s vote does not change the realities governing New Hampshire’s primary, which are beyond the control of both this committee and our state party,” Buckley said.

Buckley continued, “Democrats’ guiding North Star should be winning general elections, and New Hampshire Democrats will get back to work focusing on the 2026 elections and addressing the significant challenges facing America’s overwhelmed working class. Today’s vote moves the party further away from that objective.”

SLOTKIN SAYS DEMOCRATIC PARTY NEEDS ‘NEW LEADERSHIP’: ‘OLD MODELS ARE NO LONGER WORKING’

Raju asked if Martin would “survive” as chairman. Dovere said that the DNC chair could only be kicked out of the position if he resigned.

“He cannot be kicked out, and so it’s up to him,” he added. 

The DNC pointed Fox News Digital to a press release from June that highlighted the RBC’s vote to strengthen penalties for states and candidates that buck the calendar.

The DNC voted at the end of June to strengthen penalties for states who participate in an unsanctioned contest in the early window of the presidential nominating calendar, according to a press release from late June.

The rules include implementing a $270,000 fine for any state that hosts an unsanctioned contest and increasing the delegates lost for states that host an unsanctioned contest from 50% to 100%, including all automatic delegates, among others. The penalties also prohibit any candidate’s participation in DNC debates if they violate the early window rules.

DNC CHAIR KEN MARTIN THREW PHONE AT AIDE’S DESK, FACED HR COMPLAINT IN SIGN OF ‘FRAYING NERVES’: REPORT

Martin, while speaking to reporters on Friday, was asked how the DNC would respond, should states such as New Hampshire go rogue.

“We have put in significant penalties and sanctions, probably the most enforcement mechanisms ever, to make sure that, you know, folks know we are serious about making sure the calendar we put forth is abided by. Not just by the parties themselves – the state parties – but by also by the candidates,” Martin told reporters.

He added, “If there’s a consequence to the candidates, right, the candidates are going to have to decide whether or not they want to lose all their delegates in the first four states. Whether they want to lose access to the debate stage. I can’t imagine if one of those states moves into the early window and is not sanctioned, that presidential candidates are going to risk it, risk going there.”

New Hampshire state law requires that the state hold its primary election at least seven days before any other state holds a “similar” election.

When South Carolina was selected as the first primary state in 2024, New Hampshire defied the DNC, and former President Joe Biden left his name off the ballot, though he still won the state as a write-in.

While the DNC threatened to withhold New Hampshire’s delegates in an effort to get the state to comply, they were ultimately restored in April 2024, ending the feud between the DNC and New Hampshire’s Democratic Party in the previous presidential election cycle, according to the AP.

Martin faced a formal human resources complaint after allegedly throwing his phone at a junior aide’s desk at the party’s Washington headquarters in early July, The New York Times reported Sunday.

The Times cited six people familiar with the incident, none of whom witnessed it firsthand. Their accounts differed over how forcefully Martin threw the phone, but the newspaper reported that it landed on the aide’s desk while Martin was reprimanding the staffer and led to a formal HR complaint.

NOTUS also reported on DNC turmoil on Sunday, noting a source briefed on the episode described it as worsening conduct.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE

“It’s just f—ing unacceptable. This is spiraling behavior,” the source told NOTUS.

The RNC blasted the national Democratic Party operation in a statement to Fox News Digital.

“The DNC is broke, leaderless, and imploding before America’s eyes. From states defying the national party to Ken Martin throwing his phone at staffers, it is undeniable that the inmates are running the asylum. While the Democrat Party collapses, Republicans are united, on offense, and focused on electing our candidates up and down the ballot this November,” RNC national press secretary Natalie Baldassarre said in a statement.

Source: YouTube

Summary

Trump says "nobody got out ahead" of him on Saudi nuclear deal announcement after changing terms

Why It Matters

This video provides visual context for the story and helps readers quickly understand the key development from the original source.

Watch Original Video

Sitting in Brussels, or one of the EU’s 27 chancelleries, one could be forgiven for tuning out the latest psychodramas in Britain’s Conservative party. After all, the country has a new Labour prime minister who is a pro-European keen to build upon the “reset” begun by Keir Starmer. Who cares what a party in opposition thinks about anything when it is still reeling from its landslide 2024 defeat, and languishing third in the opinion polls as it haemorrhages support from its right flank? It is easy to dismiss Kemi Badenoch and her party as a sideshow.

That would be a mistake. Following her latest pronouncements, Badenoch has effectively committed the Conservatives to a policy of conflict, and possibly even rupture, with the EU. She recently suggested in a newspaper article that anyone who opposes her policy of withdrawing from the European convention on human rights (ECHR) or ditching net zero commitments would be considered “not serious”, and thus excluded from consideration as a Conservative candidate at the next election. She then withdrew the party whip (a UK parliamentary euphemism for “kicked out”) from Gavin Barwell, a member of the House of Lords who criticised Badenoch’s stance. Such a choice revives memories of Boris Johnson’s purge of pro-Europeans from the party.

Simon Nixon is a journalist and economics commentator

Continue reading…

Source: YouTube

Summary

Updated at 3:41 p.m. ET on July 16, 2026There are two competing schools of thought over just how water-intensive AI is. In one, the technology is horribly thirsty. Data centers will exacerbate droughts throughout the country and “drain the great lakes,” as…

Why It Matters

This video provides visual context for the story and helps readers quickly understand the key development from the original source.

Watch Original Video

Blanche, who is currently leading the Justice Department in an interim role, responded: “I’m his lawyer.” Then, perhaps, realizing his mistake, he corrected himself. “Was his lawyer,” he said. “And now I’m the deputy attorney general.”

In politics, this is what is known as a Kinsley gaffe, a term coined by the journalist Michael Kinsley: an instance where a political figure says something true that he didn’t intend to admit. Blanche’s day job may no longer involve working as President Trump’s private attorney, but his conduct at the top of the Justice Department has left little doubt that his primary loyalty is not to the United States or the Constitution but to the man in the White House. Blanche’s willingness to twist the law to Trump’s advantage has unnerved even some usually quiescent Senate Republicans, and he may face a tight confirmation vote in the weeks ahead. But whether or not Blanche secures the top job, yesterday’s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee made clear that Trump has demolished everything but the occasional pretense of an independent Justice Department.

For Blanche, the confirmation process is essentially a formality. Even if the Senate rejects his nomination, he can likely continue to lead the department as acting attorney general—as he has already done for three months since the departure of Pam Bondi. Trump fired Bondi after becoming frustrated with her inability to adequately implement his plans for revenge, and Blanche, it seems, has made up his mind that he will not be subject to the same fate. He has already applied himself single-mindedly to the project of making Trump happy, wielding the skills he developed while leading Trump’s criminal-defense team prior to the 2024 election.

[Read: Does Todd Blanche have a red line?]

Under Blanche, the Justice Department has launched investigations and brought a series of laughably weak criminal cases against a handful of Trump’s enemies, including felony charges against former FBI Director James Comey for posting an Instagram picture of seashells spelling out “86 47.” Additionally, in May, Blanche unveiled an agreement that ended any IRS audits of the president and seemingly purported to immunize Trump and his family from any other government investigation into their past actions. That was paired with the announcement of a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” which would use taxpayer money to pay supposed victims of persecution by the Biden administration. News of the fund was greeted with outrage from both Democrats and Republicans on the Hill, and Blanche quickly backpedaled. But he still managed to secure the coveted marker of status: Trump’s nomination for the permanent role of attorney general.

Until very recently, this sycophancy would have been obviously disqualifying for the role. After the abuses of Watergate, DOJ refashioned itself to resist political interference by the White House in the name of dispensing impartial justice. This tradition, hard-won, has been treated by the second Trump administration as a faintly ridiculous artifact of bygone times, and most Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee appear unconcerned by Trump’s meddling in the Justice Department’s work. To the extent they addressed the issue, it was largely to suggest that Blanche’s relationship with Trump was not out of line with historical practice. After Blanche’s slip, Kennedy went on to point out that previous attorneys general had included the brother of one president and the former law partner of another. (The senator did not mention that John F. Kennedy’s appointment of Robert Kennedy was hugely controversial at the time, nor that the law partner in question—John Mitchell, appointed by Richard Nixon—would go on to be criminally charged and lose his law license for his involvement in Watergate.)

As the saying goes, hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. Blanche did pay at least a few pennies of tribute to the notion of a Justice Department not entirely subsumed to presidential power. DOJ is “part of the executive,” and “Article II of the Constitution gives the power of the executive to President Trump,” he told Democratic Senator Chris Coons, before adding, “We certainly operate with integrity.” Later, he hedged once again when questioned by  Coons’s Democratic colleague Alex Padilla, who recalled Blanche telling him in a private meeting that “the independence of the department was a misnomer in the context of the Department of Justice.” Blanche said, “I definitely did not say that, but nice try.” Instead, he clarified, “My obligation is to the American people and the rule of law. That being said, I am a member of the Cabinet of the president of the United States.” In the absence of any significant demonstration of integrity or independence, this is a slender reed on which to rest a distinction.

[Jonathan Chait: William Barr’s dangerous endorsement of Todd Blanche]

Blanche’s feigned outrage at Padilla may have been born of necessity. The GOP cannot afford to lose a single vote on the Judiciary Committee if Blanche’s nomination is to move forward—and the committee includes two lame-duck Republicans, John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who could conceivably buck the party line. Tillis, who spent much of his time at the hearing complaining about the Biden administration, seemed positively inclined toward Blanche. Cornyn, though, questioned Blanche closely on the Anti-Weaponization Fund and DOJ’s immunity agreement with Trump. Blanche insisted that the fund was “not moving forward,” but acknowledged that the president had not agreed to forgo the program in writing and could potentially sue DOJ for breach of contract over the failure to put the fund in place. Later, he dodged a question from Padilla about whether, even in the absence of the fund, DOJ could pay January 6 rioters through a preexisting process under the Federal Tort Claims Act.  

After the hearing, Cornyn told reporters that he remained undecided on Blanche’s nomination. Tillis said he was “leaning yes” but wants the Justice Department to endorse legislation that would kill the fund once and for all. If the senator sticks to that demand, then Blanche’s chance of getting confirmed will depend on his ability to secure this small marker of autonomy while retaining Trump’s confidence that Blanche can be relied upon to carry out his dirty work.

Traditionally, Senate-confirmed officials are considered more independent from White House interference than temporary appointees, having made commitments to Congress as well as the president. Here, though, there is little reason to believe that a Senate vote will alter Trump’s demands for absolute fealty from the Justice Department. Blanche may have exaggerated his displays of loyalty in order to secure his nomination as attorney general—but Trump rarely accepts less after he is given a taste of what he wants.

Blanche, who is currently leading the Justice Department in an interim role, responded: “I’m his lawyer.” Then, perhaps, realizing his mistake, he corrected himself. “Was his lawyer,” he said. “And now I’m the deputy attorney general.”

In politics, this is what is known as a Kinsley gaffe, a term coined by the journalist Michael Kinsley: an instance where a political figure says something true that he didn’t intend to admit. Blanche’s day job may no longer involve working as President Trump’s private attorney, but his conduct at the top of the Justice Department has left little doubt that his primary loyalty is not to the United States or the Constitution but to the man in the White House. Blanche’s willingness to twist the law to Trump’s advantage has unnerved even some usually quiescent Senate Republicans, and he may face a tight confirmation vote in the weeks ahead. But whether or not Blanche secures the top job, yesterday’s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee made clear that Trump has demolished everything but the occasional pretense of an independent Justice Department.

For Blanche, the confirmation process is essentially a formality. Even if the Senate rejects his nomination, he can likely continue to lead the department as acting attorney general—as he has already done for three months since the departure of Pam Bondi. Trump fired Bondi after becoming frustrated with her inability to adequately implement his plans for revenge, and Blanche, it seems, has made up his mind that he will not be subject to the same fate. He has already applied himself single-mindedly to the project of making Trump happy, wielding the skills he developed while leading Trump’s criminal-defense team prior to the 2024 election.

[Read: Does Todd Blanche have a red line?]

Under Blanche, the Justice Department has launched investigations and brought a series of laughably weak criminal cases against a handful of Trump’s enemies, including felony charges against former FBI Director James Comey for posting an Instagram picture of seashells spelling out “86 47.” Additionally, in May, Blanche unveiled an agreement that ended any IRS audits of the president and seemingly purported to immunize Trump and his family from any other government investigation into their past actions. That was paired with the announcement of a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” which would use taxpayer money to pay supposed victims of persecution by the Biden administration. News of the fund was greeted with outrage from both Democrats and Republicans on the Hill, and Blanche quickly backpedaled. But he still managed to secure the coveted marker of status: Trump’s nomination for the permanent role of attorney general.

Until very recently, this sycophancy would have been obviously disqualifying for the role. After the abuses of Watergate, DOJ refashioned itself to resist political interference by the White House in the name of dispensing impartial justice. This tradition, hard-won, has been treated by the second Trump administration as a faintly ridiculous artifact of bygone times, and most Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee appear unconcerned by Trump’s meddling in the Justice Department’s work. To the extent they addressed the issue, it was largely to suggest that Blanche’s relationship with Trump was not out of line with historical practice. After Blanche’s slip, Kennedy went on to point out that previous attorneys general had included the brother of one president and the former law partner of another. (The senator did not mention that John F. Kennedy’s appointment of Robert Kennedy was hugely controversial at the time, nor that the law partner in question—John Mitchell, appointed by Richard Nixon—would go on to be criminally charged and lose his law license for his involvement in Watergate.)

As the saying goes, hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. Blanche did pay at least a few pennies of tribute to the notion of a Justice Department not entirely subsumed to presidential power. DOJ is “part of the executive,” and “Article II of the Constitution gives the power of the executive to President Trump,” he told Democratic Senator Chris Coons, before adding, “We certainly operate with integrity.” Later, he hedged once again when questioned by  Coons’s Democratic colleague Alex Padilla, who recalled Blanche telling him in a private meeting that “the independence of the department was a misnomer in the context of the Department of Justice.” Blanche said, “I definitely did not say that, but nice try.” Instead, he clarified, “My obligation is to the American people and the rule of law. That being said, I am a member of the Cabinet of the president of the United States.” In the absence of any significant demonstration of integrity or independence, this is a slender reed on which to rest a distinction.

[Jonathan Chait: William Barr’s dangerous endorsement of Todd Blanche]

Blanche’s feigned outrage at Padilla may have been born of necessity. The GOP cannot afford to lose a single vote on the Judiciary Committee if Blanche’s nomination is to move forward—and the committee includes two lame-duck Republicans, John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who could conceivably buck the party line. Tillis, who spent much of his time at the hearing complaining about the Biden administration, seemed positively inclined toward Blanche. Cornyn, though, questioned Blanche closely on the Anti-Weaponization Fund and DOJ’s immunity agreement with Trump. Blanche insisted that the fund was “not moving forward,” but acknowledged that the president had not agreed to forgo the program in writing and could potentially sue DOJ for breach of contract over the failure to put the fund in place. Later, he dodged a question from Padilla about whether, even in the absence of the fund, DOJ could pay January 6 rioters through a preexisting process under the Federal Tort Claims Act.  

After the hearing, Cornyn told reporters that he remained undecided on Blanche’s nomination. Tillis said he was “leaning yes” but wants the Justice Department to endorse legislation that would kill the fund once and for all. If the senator sticks to that demand, then Blanche’s chance of getting confirmed will depend on his ability to secure this small marker of autonomy while retaining Trump’s confidence that Blanche can be relied upon to carry out his dirty work.

Traditionally, Senate-confirmed officials are considered more independent from White House interference than temporary appointees, having made commitments to Congress as well as the president. Here, though, there is little reason to believe that a Senate vote will alter Trump’s demands for absolute fealty from the Justice Department. Blanche may have exaggerated his displays of loyalty in order to secure his nomination as attorney general—but Trump rarely accepts less after he is given a taste of what he wants.