2 hours agoShareSaveMaryLou CostaTechnology ReporterShareSaveKerry ClaytonFor gluten-free, citrus-free and tomato-free Kerry Clayton, shopping and cooking is a challenge.As well as her own food requirements, her 10-year-old son is dairy and wheat-free.The family shops at multiple stores each week to get the best free-from options, cooks adaptable meals like jacket potatoes and pasta, and makes cakes and cookies from scratch.She spends about an hour a week baking, on top of running two online jewellery businesses and parenting another child.When M&S launched its Only range in March, with products featuring six or fewer ingredients, Ms Clayton described it as “a dream”.That was despite higher prices – its one-ingredient corn flakes cost £2.50 for a 325g box, compared with 90p for 500g of the standard kind.”For standard shoppers, it seems a lot, but for us with allergies, it’s about normal,” says Kent-based Ms Clayton.”It’s hard to find enjoyable things we can all eat. If you’re used to the luxury of standard cereal, you might not enjoy alternatives, or understand the extra cost – but for those of us that need low ingredient food, it’s perfect.”Life might just be about to get a lot easier for Ms Clayton. More retailers and food brands are taking M&S’s lead to offer more items containing fewer ingredients, prompted by the concern around ultra-processed food (UPF) that has been growing since Dr Chris Van Tulleken released his book, “Ultra-Processed People”, in 2023.Less processed is growing in popularity.Matthew Hopkins, founder of IND!E, a platform which helps small food and drink brands get into big retailers, says he’s seen a 40% increase in retailer enquiries over the past year about products with fewer ingredients. He is taking bigger orders specifically from Ocado, Selfridges and John Lewis.”Retailers are responding to growing consumer demand for simpler, more recognisable ingredient lists,” says Harrogate-based Mr Hopkins.IND!EFeeling the need to offer a less-processed product, plant-based brand THIS, which makes meat-free sausages, burgers, chicken and bacon, has recently launched a new Super Superfoods range.It’s designed to be the protein component of a meal, and features natural ingredients, like beans, seeds and mushrooms.THIS is also responding to surveys indicating that shoppers are avoiding meat replacement products, due to their processed nature and the presence of artificial additives.Luke Byrne, innovation and sustainability director at THIS is concerned about “consumer confusion and hesitation”.”We understand we are classified as a UPF, however, that has little bearing on whether our products are healthy, because their nutritional properties are extremely good. Our products are high in protein, high in fibre, low in saturated fat and low in sugar,” says London-based Mr Byrne.”It has been frustrating in many ways as it has shifted the focus away from the most important thing about food, which is the nutrition aspect.”So has the public been misled that all ultra-processed food is bad, and all unprocessed food is good?Nutritionist Dr Laura Wyness thinks so, expressing disappointment that the M&S Only range puts “hype over health”.”It may be that consumers are looking for products with shorter ingredient lists, but to leave out fortified nutrients is a backwards step for public health nutrition. We should be encouraging more nutrient dense foods in the diet, and fortifying products such as plant milk and dairy alternatives and breakfast cereals,” says Edinburgh-based Dr Wyness.”This seems like one occasion that the customer is not always right – mainly due to the misinformation that is informing their food choices.”Dr Jibin He says UPF as a term is not a helpful indicator of whether something is healthy or unhealthy, as the concept, and how it is explained to the public, is flawed.Processed food, Dr He notes, will remain an essential part of feeding a large and growing human population, as processing ensures food safety, extends shelf life, and reduces waste.”Take tofu as an example. It is a great source of protein, low in fat and considered as a healthy alternative to meats, particularly red meat. It is also more environmentally friendly.However, tofu would be considered as a UPF whereas red meat would be an unprocessed food,” says Dr He, who is head of science and a chartered food scientist at Teesside University. He has also collaborated with food manufacturers and food technology companies to improve processing technologies.For food brands wanting to create less processed products, Dr He advises that it can be done by simplifying the formulas of existing products, and looking at new processing and packaging technologies that mean fewer ingredients can be used.”Many food products have extremely complex formulas, and a manufacturer may not fully understand the functions of each listed ingredient in their formula.”I would advise food manufacturers to closely examine their formulas and identify which ingredients are absolutely necessary and which they can do without,” Dr He recommends.”Novel food processing technologies can also help produce products with higher nutritional retention and longer shelf life without significantly altering the physical structure and chemical composition of the food.”Dr He is also expecting a rise in marketing to push the virtues of less processed food products, as well as to justify their higher price points.Premium porridge brand 3Bears, for example, recently launched its own range of low ingredient breakfast cereals, in partnership with footballer Harry Kane. Mr Kane appears in product promotion, and is also a company shareholder.3Bears’ oat cinnamon loops, containing seven ingredients, are priced at £3.99 for 250g.That’s compared with Only multigrain hoops from M&S, containing five ingredients, at £2.50 for 300 grams, while Waitrose Essential multigrain hoops are £1.25 for 375 grams, and contain 22 ingredients.”With our oat flakes it was really hard to get the texture and crunchiness right – as we only wanted to use three ingredients, and oats are very different to process than other grains. With the costs of creating products with fewer ingredients higher and the process harder, the price points are reflective of this,” explains 3Bears co-founder Caroline Nichols.3 BearsFor some foods, the debate over UPF, seems less of a problem. The UK confectionery market continues to grow steadily, and is worth about £14.8bn, despite it having a high proportion of UPF products.Ice cream ball brand Little Moons might list over 30 ingredients on some of its flavours, but it now exports from the UK to 35 countries, and supermarkets have copied it with own-brand versions.Ross Farquhar, the company’s marketing, innovation and sustainability director, is confident that treat food brands can ride out the UPF storm, so he isn’t in a hurry to slash Little Moon’s ingredient list.”The reality of a category like ice cream is that certain ingredients are needed to keep the product stable through the food supply chain, like emulsifiers and stabilisers. So unless we’re all going to start making ice cream at home regularly then off-the-shelf ice cream still has a role to play,” says London-based Mr Farquhar.”I’m sure the M&S ‘Only’ chocolate bars are delicious, but they’re speaking to a very specific audience, and I doubt the big confectionery brands are going to be willing to compromise the core product attributes consumers love.”

3 hours agoShareSaveHugh Pym, Health EditorShareSaveGetty ImagesWinston Churchill’s push to obtain penicillin in time to treat casualties expected from D-Day has come to light in documents seen by BBC News.Official papers unearthed by the National Archives reveal the prime minister’s frustration and concern over slow progress securing supplies of what was then seen to be a brand new “wonder drug”.The BBC was shown the papers ahead of the anniversary of the Normandy landings on 6 June 1944.Even months after D-Day, the wartime prime minister called efforts “very disappointing” and bemoaned the fact the US was “so far ahead” despite the drug being a “British discovery”.Penicillin was discovered in London by Professor Alexander Fleming in 1928. Despite attempts to produce a usable medicine from the bacteria-killing mould, this had not been achieved by the start of World War Two. But an Oxford team of scientists, led by Howard Florey, carried out the first successful trials. With large-scale production difficult in the UK, they took their research to the United States, where drug companies expanded output.Before the development of penicillin, blood poisoning could follow even minor wounds with no cure available. So with the anticipation of the huge military effort ahead, supplies of the drug were seen as essential.Early in 1944, the prime minister was complaining to his ministers about Britain’s inability to produce it at scale. He scrawled in red ink on a Ministry of Supply report that said the Americans were producing greater quantities: “I am sorry we can’t produce more”.Later in the year, in response to explanations from officials, he said: “Your report on penicillin showing that we are only to get about one-tenth of the expected output this year, is very disappointing.” On another report, he instructs: “Let me have proposals for a more abundant supply from Great Britain”.

A new study shows how the technology deployed in Covid vaccines helped scientists coax the virus out of hiding.The technology that powered Covid vaccines may also lead scientists to a cure for H.I.V. Using mRNA, Australian researchers said they were able to trick the virus to come out of hiding, a crucial step in ridding the body of it entirely.The research, published last week in Nature Communications, is still preliminary, and so far, has been shown to be successful only in a lab. But it suggests that mRNA has potential far beyond its use in vaccines as a means to deliver therapies against stubborn adversaries.Short for messenger RNA, mRNA is a set of instructions for a gene. In the case of Covid vaccines, the instructions were for a piece of the coronavirus. In the new study, they are for molecules key to targeting H.I.V.Dr. Sharon Lewin, director of the Cumming Global Center for Pandemic Therapeutics in Melbourne, who led the study, called mRNA a “miraculous” tool “to deliver things that you want into places that were not possible before.” Vaccines deploying mRNA instruct the body to produce a fragment of the virus, which then sets off the body’s immune response. In the United States, the shots were initially hailed for turning back the pandemic, then viewed by some with suspicion and fear. Some officials, including Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have falsely said that they are highly dangerous and even deadly.Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services sought to limit the vaccine’s availability to pregnant women, children and healthy younger adults. The administration also canceled a nearly $600 million contract with the drugmaker Moderna to develop an mRNA shot for humans against bird flu.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

The states consider it a move to force the F.D.A. to review and acknowledge extensive research showing the pill’s safety.In a strategy aimed at countering efforts to further restrict the abortion pill mifepristone, attorneys general of four states that support abortion rights on Thursday asked the Food and Drug Administration to do the opposite and lift the most stringent remaining restrictions on the pill.The petition filed by Massachusetts, New York, California and New Jersey might seem surprising given the opposition to abortion expressed by Trump administration officials. But the attorneys general consider it a move that would require the F.D.A. to acknowledge extensive scientific research that has consistently found mifepristone safe and effective, said an official with the Massachusetts attorney general’s office who worked on the filing and asked not to be named in order to share background information. It would also prevent the F.D.A. from changing mifepristone regulations while the petition is pending.The petition notes that at a May senate hearing, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health and human services secretary, responded to questions by Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, who opposes abortion, by saying he had ordered the F.D.A. to do a “complete review” of mifepristone.“We want to make sure that when F.D.A. is making these decisions that they have all the data in front of them, all of the really powerful data that show that mifepristone is safe” the Massachusetts official said.The F.D.A. is required to respond within 180 days by granting or denying the request, or saying it needs more time. In its responses, the agency must document its position, which could be useful in lawsuits, including one that the four states could file if their petition is denied.Mifepristone, which blocks a hormone necessary for pregnancy development, was approved for abortion in America in 2000. The F.D.A. imposed an additional regulatory framework called Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, on mifepristone. That framework has been used for only about 300 drugs, currently covering only about 60 medications.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

In every postpartum hospital unit across the country, 1-day-old babies undergo the same ritual: A nurse pricks the newborn’s heel and stamps tiny drops of blood onto a paper filter, which is then sent off for a standard screening panel.Today, that panel checks for unusual bio-markers that may indicate a rare but treatable disease like sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis. But what if that same dried blood spot could tell you about the baby’s risk of developing certain conditions later in life — some with no method of prevention or cure?What if that heel prick could tell you that the baby was almost certainly going to be diagnosed with autism by the time they turned 5? Or that the child would be more likely to develop breast cancer as an adult?Would you want to know? Would she?These questions are no longer hypothetical. Tens of thousands of parents have sought such insights by enrolling their newborns in research projects that examine the baby’s genome — the full blueprint for her growing body. As the cost of sequencing plummets, the practice of analyzing hundreds of genes in healthy babies is quietly on the rise, ushering in new questions about where to draw the boundaries of knowledge — and who should get to decide.Scientifically speaking, the possibilities are almost endless. Since virtually every disease has some basis in our genes, the full genome — with three billion base pairs, coding some 20,000 genes — contains a wealth of data to be mined for lifesaving intel and gut-wrenching secrets.But the experts are divided. Some say that revealing a risk of an incurable illness will only put parents in distress, bombarding them with despairing predictions for their young child’s life. Others believe any data about diseases that arise in adulthood, like breast or colon cancer, must be excluded, since they violate that future adult’s privacy and autonomy — in other words, the right not to know.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

The U.S. health secretary said people should have access to experimental therapies including unregulated stem cells. But some methods have resulted in blindness, tumors and other injuries.Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently declared that he wanted to expand access to experimental therapies but conceded that they could be risky or fraudulent.In a podcast with Gary Brecka, who describes himself as a longevity expert, Mr. Kennedy vowed to end what he called the Food and Drug Administration’s war with alternative medicine. He said that would include stem cells, vitamins, peptides and chelation therapy, which involves removing heavy metals from the blood.“If you want to take an experimental drug — you can do that, you ought to be able to do that,” Mr. Kennedy said.“And of course you’re going to get a lot of charlatans, and you’re going to get people who have bad results,” he added. “And ultimately, you can’t prevent that either way. Leaving the whole thing in the hands of pharma is not working for us.”Mr. Kennedy cited his own experience at a clinic in Antigua, where he said he received a stem cell treatment that “enormously” eased his neurological condition, spasmodic dysphonia, which affects his voice and has few treatment options.If Mr. Kennedy does permit broader use of unauthorized or experimental therapies, he would be reversing longstanding efforts by the F.D.A. to monitor and sometimes police the emerging field. Experts, including some who support alternative medicine, worry that without safeguards, an expansion of such treatments could undermine legitimate development of new therapies.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

As Republicans weigh steep cuts to the program, Times reporters want to hear from people who rely on the Affordable Care Act for coverage.President Trump’s domestic policy bill would make deep cuts to Obamacare that are expected to leave millions uninsured. The changes would make it harder to enroll in coverage and, for many, make plans more expensive.Republicans say these changes are needed to combat fraud and ensure government dollars go only to those who are eligible. Critics of the policies say they are unnecessary red tape that will cause people to lose coverage just because they couldn’t gather and verify the necessary documents in time.Times reporters want to hear from the people who use Obamacare for their health coverage to better understand what some of the Republicans’ proposed changes would look like. If you buy health insurance through Healthcare.gov or a state-run marketplace (these all have different names depending on where you live), share what your experience has been so far — and any concerns you have about possible changes — in the form below.We will not publish anything you submit before reaching out to you first.

In every postpartum hospital unit across the country, 1-day-old babies undergo the same ritual: A nurse pricks the newborn’s heel and stamps tiny drops of blood onto a paper filter, which is then sent off for a standard screening panel.Today, that panel checks for unusual bio-markers that may indicate a rare but treatable disease like sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis. But what if that same dried blood spot could tell you about the baby’s risk of developing certain conditions later in life — some with no method of prevention or cure?What if that heel prick could tell you that the baby was almost certainly going to be diagnosed with autism by the time they turned 5? Or that the child would be more likely to develop breast cancer as an adult?Would you want to know? Would she?These questions are no longer hypothetical. Tens of thousands of parents have sought such insights by enrolling their newborns in research projects that examine the baby’s genome — the full blueprint for her growing body. As the cost of sequencing plummets, the practice of analyzing hundreds of genes in healthy babies is quietly on the rise, ushering in new questions about where to draw the boundaries of knowledge — and who should get to decide.Scientifically speaking, the possibilities are almost endless. Since virtually every disease has some basis in our genes, the full genome — with three billion base pairs, coding some 20,000 genes — contains a wealth of data to be mined for lifesaving intel and gut-wrenching secrets.But the experts are divided. Some say that revealing a risk of an incurable illness will only put parents in distress, bombarding them with despairing predictions for their young child’s life. Others believe any data about diseases that arise in adulthood, like breast or colon cancer, must be excluded, since they violate that future adult’s privacy and autonomy — in other words, the right not to know.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

5 hours agoShareSaveKen Banks and Ben PhilipBBC Scotland, AberdeenShareSaveBBCMarlene Lowe has lived with chronic pain for more than a decade but believes a “ground-breaking discovery” by researchers may offer her and millions of fellow sufferers new hope.Marlene, 35, is among the estimated one-in-five people in Scotland living with chronic pain, with standard painkillers often seen as ineffective.Researchers at the University of Aberdeen now say they have found chronic pain is physiologically different from other types of pain – which could help find the best way to treat it.Marlene, who lives in Aberdeen, described the findings as “amazing”, as she said it validated an illness that many people did not understand, and offered hope for the future.The research team said they identified that chronic pain is processed differently in the nervous system from the pain that comes from an injury or over-exertion.They said the separate “physiological pathway” for this chronic type of pain meant it could now be a target for future therapies.Marlene, who works in marketing, lives with her partner Mark and their springer spaniels Spock and Cheese.She says her pain began in her early 20s, when she began feeling sick “all the time” and could not work out what was wrong.”So for the next two years I kept getting sick, my life was kind of taken away, and then I was finally diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), which was a relief, but not great when you also get told there’s nothing we can do about it,” she said.”About five years ago, the pain was getting worse, I got a new GP, and said ‘I need help’, and was diagnosed with fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a neurological condition that basically targets the nerve endings, so what feels like a light brush (to the hand) might be agonising.”Describing the day-to-day impact, Marlene said she even had to cut clothes tags off.”Even light brushes becomes like someone is stabbing me, over and over and over again, in the same place,” she said.Marlene said she takes antihistamines every single day, not because she hay fever but if she does not then her palms start itching, and the itchiness can then crawl up her arms and down her body.”It literally feels like you’ve got ants crawling constantly underneath your skin,” she told BBC Scotland News.”You can scratch it but a couple of minutes later it’s back. Then there’s the muscular pain. If you can imagine what it’s like when you’ve done really hard exercise, that from just standing cooking, or walking up the stairs.”I have tried painkillers – and they’ve never worked.”You start to feel invisible, because you don’t look like you’re sick. You start distrusting your own body, and thinking it must just all be in my head, which is so damaging mentally, as you’re trying to stay on top of life, work, relationships, and have this pain constantly eating away.”She said it had forced her to re-think her plans for her life.Dr Guy Bewick, senior lecturer in Neurosciences at the University of Aberdeen, said not all pain could be treated in the same way, and medicine could be ineffective for chronic pain.”The stinging pain from sharp objects and surgery can usually be treated effectively with common painkillers, but chronic pain often cannot,” he said.”New treatments require an identifiably different drug target. This study has found that target. ”He said the team discovered that a molecule called glutamate is released in muscles to activate an unusual receptor.They found that the release of too much glutamate activated pain nerves nearby, making them permanently active, and not switching off as they normally would. Blocking the glutamate receptor would stop the chronic pain being triggered.Dr Bewick said: “This discovery means scientists can now start to develop new treatments specifically targeting this new pain pathway which does not respond to standard painkillers.”This has the potential to help the many people whose pain is currently inadequately treated.”What is chronic pain?Persistent pain that lasts more than three months, despite medication or other forms of treatmentSecondary chronic pain is a pain which tends to be caused by another condition, for example, arthritis, endometriosis, cancer painPrimary chronic pain is a condition in its own right – there is no known condition other than the pain itself – this can include conditions such as fibromyalgia or complex regional pain syndromeChronic pain is often confused with acute pain – a short-term pain such as a broken bone or a torn muscleMarlene hopes the research might one day mean “just trying to get through 24 hours” is no longer on daily repeat.”I wanted to save the world, work with animals, orphanages, be moving all the time,” she said. “But realising I couldn’t even manage a desk job without getting sick really hit me mentally. I have had to completely re-evaluate how I live, how I fit in the world.”It’s not mind over matter, otherwise we’d be able to fix it. It’s so hard to explain it to people. I am choosing to live, I’m choosing not to let the pain win. For bad days, it’s using a walking stick if I need to. Mostly it’s keeping a sunny disposition.”Could there be a pain-free future?She said the research offered light at the end of the tunnel, as well as an understanding of the condition.”I know that there’s nothing that can be done right now to help the pain, and at the moment it’s showing how they can stop the pain from happening in the first place,” Marlene explained.”The biggest thing is that it’s validating. It’s saying the pain is there, it does exist, you’re not crazy. It’s OK if you don’t understand the pain that someone is going through, but dismissing it is not OK.”She added: “I am delighted to see that there is more work being done to try to understand and treat chronic pain conditions.”It gives me hope for a pain-free future.”

ADHD is not becoming more common despite the surge in people being diagnosed, research suggests.The review, led by King’s College London, looked at 40 studies in 17 countries and found no clear evidence rates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) had risen since 2020, despite rising diagnoses and longer waits for assessment.Some blame greater social media use and the Covid pandemic for rising numbers developing the condition – but the researchers say greater awareness and acceptance were likely to be encouraging more people to seek help.There were no signs the true rate of ADHD, known as prevalence, was on the up, they added.Lead researcher Dr Alex Martin said it was likely to be a case of under-diagnosis of the condition in the first place.”ADHD prevalence in adults and children has remained largely stable since 2020,” she added.In the UK, around 3 to 4% of adults and around 5% of children and young people are thought to have ADHD. Experts believe there are similar rates in other countries but only a fraction of these have been diagnosed.ADHD is a neurodevelopmental condition characterised by difficulties with concentration, energy levels, impulsiveness, or by a person’s ability to manage their time.The study, published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, comes as a national taskforce in England is looking at what this rising demand for support means across the NHS, education and justice sectors.Figures published last week by NHS England estimated there were nearly 2.5 million people in England with ADHD, with more than 550,000 currently waiting for an assessment. Every month 20,000 more people are referred for support, a 13% rise on this time last year.NHS England has admitted patients are waiting “too long for assessment and diagnosis”.Patient watchdog Healthwatch England has also campaigned on the issue, calling for better support.A report it published last week highlighted how ADHD can lead to people struggling in work and education and emphasised the importance of them getting a diagnosis to help understand and manage their condition.One woman, Alex, told the watchdog a diagnosis had helped her find ways to manage better and opened up access to medication which meant she was better able to care for her daughter.”I just couldn’t cope with normal things or keep a routine. It made living exhausting.”But the 32-year-old was only able to get a diagnosis after paying for private support.”I’m lucky I could afford going private, but I know many people can’t,” she added.Henry Shelford, of ADHD UK, said the condition had been ignored for too long.”Increasing awareness and diagnosis is the key to unlocking the talents of over 2 million people in the UK. “Doing so isn’t just good for the individual, it’s economically positive for the entire country.”Prof Edmund Sonuga-Barke, a fellow at the Academy of Medical Sciences and an ADHD expert at King’s College London who was not involved in the research, said it was clear there had been a “chronic under-diagnosis” of ADHD in the UK.He said while ADHD medications were safe, there needed to be more progress in developing a greater range of non-drug treatments and therapies to help people self-manage their conditions.It comes amid criticism too many people are being placed on drugs to treat ADHD.