Thursday, December 5, 2024
Home Blog Page 4

Wallace allegations ‘truly upsetting’ says MasterChef’s Torode

0
Wallace allegations ‘truly upsetting’ says MasterChef’s Torode


MasterChef presenter John Torode has said he found the recent allegations against co-host Gregg Wallace “truly upsetting”.

He added that the “thought of anyone who has appeared on our show not having a brilliant experience is awful to hear”.

His comments come after co-host Wallace stepped back amid an investigation into ongoing allegations of inappropriate behaviour, which he denies.

Torode, who has presented the BBC One cooking show alongside Wallace since 2005, said on Instagram he “loves being part of” the show and “will continue to be a part of it”.

“Since last Friday I have been away filming MasterChef overseas. I love my job, and I love MasterChef. I love being part of it and will continue to be part of it,” he wrote.

“During the last few days, I’ve been trying to make the best cookery programme, so being busy making the show and caring for our contestants has allowed me little time to think about anything else, but that has been hard.

“But as I hope everyone appreciates there is an investigation under way, which I fully support, so I cannot make any further comment at this stage and I hope that you all understand and respect my silence on the matter moving forward.”

Wallace’s lawyers have strongly denied he engages in behaviour of a sexually harassing nature.

On Tuesday, the BBC announced that two MasterChef celebrity Christmas specials have been pulled from its festive schedule, as well as a Celebrity MasterChef Christmas Cook Off and a special Strictly-themed episode.

The BBC said: “MasterChef is an amazing competition which is life-changing for the chefs taking part and the current series of MasterChef: The Professionals is continuing as planned.

“The celebrity Christmas specials are obviously a different type of show and in the current circumstances we have decided not to broadcast them.”

Three episodes of BBC Two’s Inside The Factory, which are repeats, are also coming out of the schedule, but the current series of MasterChef: The Professionals remains on air.

Torode became a familiar face to TV audiences in 1996 as the resident chef on ITV’s This Morning.

MasterChef launched in 2005 as a revamped version of the original 1990-2001 series, which was hosted by Loyd Grossman.

The revamped 2005 series, which was called MasterChef Goes Large and was won by Thomasina Miers, reverted to its original name in 2008.

The success of the programme led to spin-off shows such as Junior MasterChef, Celebrity MasterChef and MasterChef: The Professionals.

Last week Banijay UK, the production company behind the BBC show, announced that Wallace would be “stepping away from his role on MasterChef” following complaints from individuals in relation to historical allegations of misconduct.

Banijay UK announced an “immediate, external review to fully and impartially investigate” and said that Wallace was “committed to fully cooperating throughout the process”.





Source link

United Healthcare CEO fatally shot outside Manhattan hotel

0
United Healthcare CEO fatally shot outside Manhattan hotel


The head of US insurance company UnitedHealthcare has been gunned down in New York City.

Chief executive Brian Thompson was fatally shot in the chest just before 07:00 EST (midday GMT) on Wednesday outside the Hilton Hotel in Midtown Manhattan, where he had been scheduled to speak at an investor conference later in the day.

The 50-year-old was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead, officials said.

A suspect fled the scene and remains at large, the New York Police Department said.

Thompson appeared to be targeted in the attack, with the suspect waiting for him outside wearing a ski mask and cream jacket, police said.

Investigators said they have video footage of the shooting, but they did not know the suspect’s motive. Nothing was taken from the victim, they added.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul said police had briefed her on the “horrific and targeted” shooting.

“I directed the State Police to provide NYPD with any necessary assistance with the investigation to ensure the safety of all New Yorkers,” she said in a statement.

“Our hearts are with the family and loved ones of Mr Thompson and we are committed to ensuring the perpetrator is brought to justice.”

UnitedHealthcare’s parent company, UnitedHealth Group, said in a statement it was “deeply saddened and shocked at the passing of our dear friend and colleague”.

“Brian was a highly respected colleague and friend to all who worked with him,” the group said.

“We are working closely with the New York Police Department and ask for your patience and understanding during this difficult time.”

Thompson was named chief executive of UnitedHealthcare in April 2021. He earned $10.2m (£8m) in the role last year.

He started at the health insurance provider in 2004, and has held multiple leadership roles, including CEO of the company’s government programmes division.

UnitedHealthcare is the largest private insurer in the US.

UnitedHealth Group quickly cancelled its investor conference after the shooting, according to US media.

“We’re dealing with a very serious medical situation,” UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty said at the event.

The BBC has contacted UnitedHealthcare for comment.

In a statement, a Hilton Hotel spokesperson said the company was “deeply saddened by this morning’s events in the area and our thoughts are with all affected by the tragedy”.



Source link

Porridge and crumpets fall under new ad ban

0
Porridge and crumpets fall under new ad ban


Getty Images Close-up of a bowl of porridge with a spoon on a wooden tableGetty Images

Certain types of porridge with added sugar are classified as “junk food” under the ban – though porridge products with no added sugar, salt or fat are exempt.

Certain types of porridge, crumpets and breakfast cereals are included in a list of products that fall under a new junk food advertising ban.

The government says the legislation, which applies to both paid online adverts and TV adverts shown before 21:00, is designed to curb childhood obesity.

Due to come into force in October 2025, food classed by the government as “less healthy” falls under the ban, and includes fast food, soft drinks and ready meals as well as pastries, cereal bars and sweetened yoghurts.

Cook and TV presenter Thomasina Miers welcomed the move as “bold” but the ban has prompted criticism from others.

Details of the restrictions show baked goods including crumpets, scones and pancakes are all considered junk food under the new legislation.

Adverts for sugary breakfast cereals will also disappear from pre-watershed television screens, with granola, muesli and “porridge oats, including instant porridge and other hot oat-based cereals” all classed as “less healthy” food.

The promotion of sweetened yoghurts and sugary drinks – including fizzy drinks and some fruit juices – will also be restricted.

The government will classify products according to a scoring system based on their sugar, fat and protein content, banning advertising on all foods designated as “less healthy”.

This means healthy versions of products – including porridge products with no added sugar, salt or fat, and unsweetened yoghurt products – will not be subject to the ban.

As well as TV advertising, the new legislation applies to paid-for online ads for these products to reduce children’s exposure to foods high in fat, sugar or salt.

The legislation comes in the context of rising childhood obesity levels in the UK, with NHS data suggesting almost one in 10 reception-aged children (9.2%) lives with obesity.

One in five children by the age of five (23.7%) suffers tooth decay because of excess sugar consumption, NHS figures indicate.

Former prime minister Boris Johnson first announced a UK-wide ban on TV adverts for food high in sugar, salt and fat before 21:00 to help tackle the problem in 2021.

The ban was later delayed to 2025, with the Conservative government saying it wanted to give the food and drink industry time to prepare for the change because of the cost of living crisis.

PA Wes Streeting in a suit, smiling, wearing a poppyPA

Health secretary Wes Streeting says the advertising ban will “deliver a major shift in the focus of healthcare from sickness to prevention.”

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, cook and Wahaca restaurant chain co-founder Ms Miers welcomed the advertising ban.

“The government is taking very concerted, bold, and very brave action against big food [companies] who have a complete control of our food environment,” she said.

Ms Miers said the ban would reduce the strain on taxpayers, pointing to research by Professor Tim Jackson for the Food Farming and Countryside Commission suggesting food-related chronic disease costs the UK £268bn a year.

“We’ve got the worst diet in Europe and we know it’s causing us absolute pain, discomfort, long-term sickness, early death, preventable death. It’s bringing the NHS to its knees”, she said.

Ms Miers said the “proposed legislation doesn’t go far enough” and urged the government to do more to tackle poor diets.

The government has said its legislation will prevent thousands of cases of childhood obesity each year, and is expected to remove 7.2 billion calories annually from UK children’s diets.

But for Prasanna Callaghan, who runs Crumpets café near Buckingham Palace, the proposed advertising ban on baked goods is “bonkers.”

“The world’s gone mad”, he told BBC News, arguing the government legislation should draw a clearer distinction between crumpets and more traditional junk food like fried chicken.

“If you categorise crumpets as a junk food that will have a great impact on my business – basically what they’re saying is: ‘you shouldn’t eat crumpets’, indirectly.”

“It’s an old traditional food that’s been eaten for years and years”, he said of the griddled bread.

Getty/clubfoto A close-up of two crumpets covered in melted butterGetty/clubfoto

Crumpets are among the foods that would fall under the government’s proposed junk food advertising ban

Meanwhile, mother-of-two Maria McCracken from Ashford, Kent, said she disagreed with the advertising ban, instead stressing the importance of teaching children to eat healthy, balanced diets.

Ms McCracken told the BBC she “cooked pretty much everything from scratch” for her children when they were growing up, but added that they enjoyed “the occasional takeaway” together. “There’s nothing wrong with that,” she said.

“It’s about the way we bring our kids up,” Ms McCracken said, suggesting that children should be shown how to cook nutritious meals for themselves.

“That really has to happen within the family, not the government banning something before nine o’clock,” she said.

The Slimming World consultant also questioned whether the TV advertising ban would effectively counter childhood obesity. “Are [children] influenced by the adverts? I don’t think they pay attention ever.”

The government’s impact assessment on the legislation notes that “overall the studies do find a clear link between food advertising and calorie consumption”.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the policy was “the first step to deliver a major shift in the focus of healthcare from sickness to prevention, and towards meeting our government’s ambition to give every child a healthy, happy start to life.”



Source link

Moment of big opportunity and high risk for Marine Le Pen

0
Moment of big opportunity and high risk for Marine Le Pen


The no-confidence vote facing French Prime Minister Michel Barnier is a high-stakes moment for Marine Le Pen.

It could be her best chance of power yet as head of France’s far-right National Rally.

Before she decided to push for the downfall of Michel Barnier, she said she wasn’t “the master of the clocks” – the one who dictated the agenda.

But that may well be exactly what she becomes, by bringing down Emmanuel Macron’s second government since he beat her to the presidency for a second time in 2022.

As his presidency looks ever weaker, it is Le Pen who appears to have the upper hand.

However, this situation is not without immense risks for her too.

Le Pen has played a waiting game for years as National Rally’s leader. She may be tantalisingly close to power now – but she is having to make big choices.

Pushing for a no-confidence vote “comes as a considerable risk because people are now wondering if she’s really acting in the interests of the country or her own, personal interests,” says Prof Armin Steinbach of HEC business school in Paris.

“What is obvious is that it’s not about Barnier… it’s about her trying to overthrow and weaken Macron, obviously for her personal ambitions to herself become the next president,” he told the BBC.

Le Pen has long sought to “normalise” National Rally (RN) in the eyes of the French people, rebranding it six years ago from her father’s old National Front.

Jump back a few months to France’s snap parliamentary elections when RN came first with 32% of the vote. Her mission appeared almost complete, even if it could only manage third place in the run-off round.

Now in the dying days of 2024, she is taking a gamble on whether French voters will see her as acting in the national interest in bringing down a weakened government because she objects to its 2025 budget that aims to bring down France’s budget deficit from 6% of national output, or GDP.

Barnier had already agreed to several of her demands on social security – but Le Pen decided it was not enough.

There are real economic risks for France, as well as real political risks for Le Pen in backing a left-sponsored vote of no confidence.

After only three months in the job, Barnier has appealed to MPs to act in France’s greater interest, but Le Pen’s party leader Jordan Bardella has accused him of adopting a “strategy of fear”.

Le Pen’s colleagues are sensing Macron’s potential downfall.

RN adviser Philippe Olivier told Le Monde the president was “a fallen republican monarch, advancing with his shirt open and a rope around his neck up to the next dissolution [of parliament]”.

It was Macron’s surprise decision to call an early parliamentary election in June that has left France in the political deadlock it finds itself now.

Le Pen’s argument is that Barnier didn’t include enough of her demands in his budget, while Barnier said his budget wasn’t “aimed to please” – and he accused her of “trying to get into a kind of bidding war” during their negotiations.

The RN leader could end up plunging France “into the great political and financial unknown”, in the words of Le Figaro deputy editor Vincent Trémolet de Villers.

She won’t want to be labelled as the politician who pushed France into economic turbulence when in her eyes it is Macron who is to blame for France’s economic state.

“It’s a result of seven years of amateurism and a spectacular drift in our public finances,” she has said.

There are plenty of French voters who want Macron gone before his term ends in 2027. Recent polls suggest at least 62% of the electorate think the president should resign if the Barnier government falls.

National Rally would arguably be in line with the broader electorate if it pushed for that, even if Le Pen has not yet done so.

But the RN leader has other issues going on behind the scenes which her critics believe might be influencing her judgement.

On 31 March, a French court will rule in a long-running trial against her and other party figures on allegations of misuse of European Parliament funding.

Prosecutors want her to go to jail and face a five-year ban in public office.

If that were to happen, her hopes of winning the presidency would be dashed.

For Marine Le Pen this moment really could be now or never.

Three times she has run for the top job. If she does get to run a fourth time in the coming months she is in with a strong chance of winning.

Jordan Bardella is already considered more popular than Le Pen both within National Rally and beyond, and if Macron does see out his term, the 29-year-old party chief would be favourite to run in 2027.

No French government has fallen after a no-confidence vote since 1962.

Get this wrong and Le Pen may not be forgiven next time France goes to the ballot box.



Source link

9 states poised to end coverage for millions if Trump cuts Medicaid funding

0
9 states poised to end coverage for millions if Trump cuts Medicaid funding


With Donald Trump’s return to the White House and Republicans taking full control of Congress in 2025, the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion is back on the chopping block.

More than 3 million adults in nine states would be at immediate risk of losing their health coverage should the GOP reduce the extra federal Medicaid funding that’s enabled states to widen eligibility, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, and the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families. That’s because the states have trigger laws that would swiftly end their Medicaid expansions if federal funding falls.

The states are Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

The 2010 Affordable Care Act encouraged states to expand Medicaid programs to cover more low-income Americans who didn’t get health insurance through their jobs. Forty states and the District of Columbia agreed, extending health insurance since 2014 to an estimated 21 million people and helping drive the U.S. uninsured rate to record lows.

In exchange, the federal government pays 90% of the cost to cover the expanded population. That’s far higher than the federal match for other Medicaid beneficiaries, which averages about 57% nationwide.

Conservative policy groups, which generally have opposed the ACA, say the program costs too much and covers too many people. Democrats say the Medicaid expansion has saved lives and helped communities by widening coverage to people who could not afford private insurance.

If Congress cuts federal funding, Medicaid expansion would be at risk in all states that have opted into it — even those without trigger laws — because state legislatures would be forced to make up the difference, said Renuka Tipirneni, an associate professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health.

Decisions to keep or roll back the expansion “would depend on the politics at the state level,” Tipirneni said. 

For instance, Michigan approved a trigger as part of its Medicaid expansion in 2013, when it was controlled by a Republican governor and legislature. Last year, with the government controlled by Democrats, the state eliminated its funding trigger.

Six of the nine states with trigger laws — Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina and Utah — went for Trump in the 2024 election.

Most of the nine states’ triggers kick in if federal funding falls below the 90% threshold. Arizona’s trigger would eliminate its expansion if funding falls below 80%. 

Montana’s law rolls back expansion below 90% funding but allows it to continue if lawmakers identify additional funding. Under state law, Montana lawmakers must reauthorize its Medicaid expansion in 2025 or the expansion will end.

Across the states with triggers, between 3.1 million and 3.7 million people would swiftly lose their coverage, researchers at KFF and the Georgetown center estimate. The difference depends on how states treat people who were added to Medicaid before the ACA expansion; they may continue to qualify even if the expansion ends.

Three other states — Iowa, Idaho and New Mexico— have laws that require their governments to mitigate the financial impact of losing federal Medicaid expansion funding but would not automatically end expansions. With those three states included, about 4.3 million Medicaid expansion enrollees would be at risk of losing coverage, according to KFF. 

The ACA allowed Medicaid expansions to adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level, or about $20,783 for an individual in 2024.

Nearly a quarter of the 81 million people enrolled in Medicaid nationally are in the program due to expansions.

“With a reduction in the expansion match rate, it is likely that all states would need to evaluate whether to continue expansion coverage because it would require a significant increase in state spending,” said Robin Rudowitz, vice president and director of the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured at KFF. “If states drop coverage, it is likely that there would be an increase in the number of uninsured, and that would limit access to care across red and blue states that have adopted expansion.”

States rarely cut eligibility for social programs such as Medicaid once it’s been granted.

The triggers make it politically easier for state lawmakers to end Medicaid expansion because they would not have to take any new action to cut coverage, said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families.

To see the impact of trigger laws, consider what happened after the Supreme Court in 2022 struck down Roe v. Wade and, with it, the constitutional right to an abortion. Conservative lawmakers in 13 states had crafted trigger laws that would automatically implement bans in the event a national right to abortion were struck down. Those state laws resulted in restrictions taking effect immediately after the court ruling, or shortly thereafter.

States adopted triggers as part of Medicaid expansion to win over lawmakers skeptical of putting state dollars on the hook for a federal program unpopular with most Republicans.

It’s unclear what Trump and congressional Republicans will do with Medicaid after he takes office in January, but one indicator could be a recent recommendation from the Paragon Health Institute, a leading conservative policy organization led by former Trump health adviser Brian Blase.

Paragon has proposed that starting in 2026 the federal government would phase down the 90% federal match for expansion until 2034, when it would reach parity with each state’s federal match for its traditional enrollees. Under that plan, states could still get ACA Medicaid expansion funding but restrict coverage to enrollees with incomes up to the federal poverty level. Currently, to receive expansion funding, states must offer coverage to everyone up to 138% of the poverty level.

Daniel Derksen, director of the Center for Rural Health at the University of Arizona, said it’s unlikely Arizona would move to eliminate its trigger and make up for lost federal funds. “It would be a tough sell right now as it would put a big strain on the budget,” he said.

Medicaid has been in the crosshairs of Republicans in Washington before. Republican congressional leaders in 2017 proposed legislation to cut federal expansion funding, a move that would have shifted billions in costs to states. That plan, part of a strategy to repeal Obamacare, ultimately failed.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.



Source link