Author: admin

  • Energy Drinks Seen Fuelling Cancer, But There’s a Strange Catch : ScienceAlert

    Energy Drinks Seen Fuelling Cancer, But There’s a Strange Catch : ScienceAlert

    Energy drinks are big business. Marketed as quick fixes for fatigue and performance dips, energy drinks are especially popular among young people, athletes, sports enthusiasts, and so-called “weekend warriors” – people who pack their workouts into the weekend instead of exercising regularly. Gamers are now a major target too.

    But as the market grows, so do concerns about what’s actually in these drinks – and what these ingredients might be doing to our bodies.

    Many energy drinks contain some combination of three familiar stimulants: caffeine, found naturally in coffee, tea and cacao; guarana, an Amazonian plant rich in caffeine; and taurine, a naturally occurring amino acid found in scallops, mussels, turkey and chicken.

    Related: Scientists Discover Unexpected Link Between Diet And Lung Cancer Risk

    Taurine, in particular, has drawn both hype and hope. It is credited with performance-enhancing properties and potential health benefits. But new research is raising important questions about how it behaves in the body – and when it might do more harm than good.

    frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share” referrerpolicy=”strict-origin-when-cross-origin” allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen”>

    In May 2025, a study published in Nature sparked headlines and unease in equal measure. It found that taurine may fuel the progression of leukaemia, a group of blood cancers that begin in the bone marrow.

    The study showed that while healthy bone marrow cells naturally produce taurine, leukaemia cells cannot. But they can absorb taurine from their surroundings and use it as a fuel source to grow and multiply.

    Research on mice and in human leukaemia cell samples demonstrated that taurine in the tumour microenvironment – the area around a tumour that includes blood vessels, immune cells and structural support – accelerated the progression of leukaemia.

    Crucially, when researchers blocked taurine uptake by leukaemia cells (using genetic techniques), cancer progression slowed significantly. The authors suggest taurine supplements could potentially worsen outcomes in people with leukaemia and propose that developing targeted ways to block taurine uptake by cancer cells might offer a new treatment strategy.

    Taurine: friend or foe?

    Taurine is one of the most abundant free amino acids in the human body, found in especially high concentrations in the heart, muscles and brain. In healthy people, it’s mainly obtained through diet, but the body can also synthesise taurine from the amino acids methionine and cysteine, provided it has enough vitamin B6, which is found in foods such as salmon, tuna, chicken, bananas and milk.

    Most people consuming a typical western diet take in 40mg–400mg of taurine a day from food alone. This figure refers only to taurine that is directly ingested, not including the additional amount the body can synthesise internally, which may vary depending on age, diet and health.

    Taurine is listed on the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) generally recognised as safe (GRAS) database, and according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), it’s safe to consume up to six grams per day. By comparison, a serving of Red Bull or Monster contains around one gram – comfortably below that threshold.

    Despite recent concerns about a possible link to blood cancer progression, taurine isn’t inherently harmful. In fact, some people may benefit from supplementation, especially those receiving long-term parenteral nutrition, where nutrients are delivered directly into the bloodstream because the gut isn’t working properly.

    People with chronic liver, kidney or heart failure may also have trouble producing or holding on to enough taurine, making supplementation helpful in specific clinical settings.

    Ironically, some research suggests taurine may actually help reduce the side effects of chemotherapy in leukaemia patients – even as emerging studies raise concerns that it could also fuel the disease.

    This contradiction underscores how much context matters: the effects of taurine depend not just on dosage and delivery, but also on the patient’s underlying condition. What helps in one context, could harm in another.

    But here’s the catch: taking taurine as a supplement for particular health reasons is very different from consuming large quantities through energy drinks, which often combine taurine with high levels of caffeine and sugar.

    This combination can put strain on the heart, interfere with sleep and increase the risk of side effects, particularly for people with underlying health conditions or those taking other stimulants.

    The latest research raises important questions about whether taurine-heavy products could be harmful in some cases, especially for people with, or at risk of, blood cancers.

    So, should you worry?

    According to the current evidence, if you’re a healthy adult who occasionally sips an energy drink, there’s little cause for alarm. But moderation is key.

    Consuming multiple high-taurine drinks daily or taking taurine supplements (without prior professional consultation), on top of a taurine-rich diet might not be wise, especially if future research confirms links between taurine and cancer progression.

    Until more is known, the safest approach would be to enjoy your energy boosts by consuming a nutritious diet rather than consuming energy drinks. If you have any underlying health conditions – or a family history of cancer – it’s always best to consult a healthcare professional before diving into taurine supplementation or consumption of energy drinks.The Conversation

    Gulshanara (Rumy) Begum, Senior Lecturer in Nutrition & Exercise Science, University of Westminster

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Continue Reading

  • What retaliatory action is the EU planning over Trump’s tariffs? | Donald Trump News

    What retaliatory action is the EU planning over Trump’s tariffs? | Donald Trump News

    The European Union is readying a package of tariffs to be levied on 72 billion euros’ ($84bn) worth of goods against the US, even as it steps up efforts to reach a trade deal and avert a transatlantic trade war with President Donald Trump.

    The European Commission, which oversees EU trade policy, is understood to have drawn up a list of duties for various US imports, ranging from cars to bourbon, after Trump declared on Sunday that he would levy a 30 percent “reciprocal” tariff on European imports from August 1.

    The EU and the US have been locked in trade negotiations for months, after Trump set a reciprocal tariff of 20 percent on EU goods in April. Those were dropped to 10 percent shortly afterwards, pending a three-month pause, before the president’s latest 30 percent salvo.

    Following Trump’s announcement, French and German government bond prices fell to lows seldom seen since the eurozone debt crisis of 2009-11, as traders fretted about whether the $1.7 trillion transatlantic trade relationship could remain intact.

    What tariffs has Trump announced for the EU?

    President Trump said he would impose a 30 percent tariff on goods imports from the EU starting on August 1. He says he wants to rebalance the $235.6bn trade deficit – whereby imports exceed exports – that the US has with the EU.

    EU officials had been hoping they could limit the damage by agreeing a baseline tariff of about 10 percent – the level of the one currently in place – with additional carve-outs for key sectors like cars. But Trump’s recent announcement, which came via a letter, dashed those hopes.

    Trump has sent similar letters to 23 other trading partners over the past eight days, including Canada, Japan and Brazil, setting blanket tariff rates ranging from 20 percent to 50 percent, as well as a blanket 50 percent tariff on copper imports from all countries.

    Earlier this year, Trump also slapped a 25 percent tariff on European steel and aluminium as well as cars, in an effort to reduce US dependence on imports and encourage more domestic production.

    In response to that, the EU announced retaliatory tariffs on $23.8bn worth of US goods (totalling 6 percent of US imports), with EU officials describing the US tariffs as “unjustified and damaging”. The implementation of these EU tariffs was delayed, however, as a gesture of goodwill during ongoing trade talks.

    On April 7, the head of the European Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen, offered Trump an alternative in the form of a zero-for-zero tariffs deal on industrial goods, including cars. But Trump said her proposal did not address US concerns about the trade deficit.

    How has the EU responded to the new US tariff?

    Von der Leyen has previously indicated that the 27-member bloc will continue negotiating until the August 1 deadline.

    On Monday, however, the EU commissioner for trade, Maros Sefcovic, said there was still a “big gap” between the two sides and it would be “almost impossible to continue the trading as we are used to in a transatlantic relationship”, with the new 30 percent rate. “Practically, it prohibits the trade,” he said.

    The EU, therefore, is now readying retaliatory tariffs in the event that talks break down before the deadline, Sefcovic said. “We have to protect the EU economy, and we need to go for these rebalancing measures.”

    Before a meeting with EU ministers to discuss trade, he told reporters: “Therefore I think we have to do, and I will definitely do, everything I can to prevent this super-negative scenario.”

    The EU’s latest tariff list, which covers 72 billion euros’ ($84bn) worth of goods, has been seen by Politico and Bloomberg.

    Though tariff rates are as yet unknown, they will apply to 11 billion euros’ ($13bn) worth of US aircraft and parts. Other items include cars, machinery, electrical products and chemicals.

    The list also covers agricultural products, including fruit and vegetables, as well as alcoholic drinks, such as bourbon and rum. Looking ahead, the Commission’s trade policy committee will have to formally approve the list before any retaliatory measures can be applied.

    The bloc is understood to be rife with disagreement over US trade, however. While Germany has urged a quick deal to safeguard its industries, other EU members – particularly France – insist that EU negotiators must not cave in to an “asymmetric” deal in favour of the US.

    On Monday, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen told reporters in Brussels it was too early to impose countermeasures, “but we should prepare to be ready to use all the tools”. He added: “If you want peace, you have to prepare for war. And I think that’s where we are.”

    What and how much does Europe sell to the US?

    In 2024, the US-EU goods trade reached nearly $1 trillion, making the EU the biggest trading partner of the US.

    Overall, the US bought $235.6bn more in goods than it sold to the 27 countries that make up the EU. Trump has made no secret of wanting to reduce that trade deficit. On the other hand, the US earns a surplus on services with the EU.

    The US mainly buys pharmaceutical products from the EU, as well as mechanical appliances, cars and other non-railway vehicles – totalling roughly $606bn. The US alone accounts for 21 percent of EU goods exports.

    For its part, the US mainly exports fuel, pharmaceutical products, machinery and aircraft to the EU – to the tune of some $370bn.

    How would tariffs affect the US and Europe’s economies?

    Economists at Barclays estimate that a US tariff on EU goods of 35 percent, covering both reciprocal and sectoral duties, along with a combined 10 percent theoretical retaliation from Brussels, would shave 0.7 percent from the eurozone output, lowering it to just 0.4 percent annual growth.

    This could derail much of the eurozone’s already meagre growth. The EU struggled to regain its footing in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the surge in energy prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has added to the strain.

    The economic forecasting consultancy, Oxford Economics, estimated on Monday that a 30 percent tariff could push the EU “to the edge of recession”.

    An April estimate, meanwhile, by German economic institute IW, found that reciprocal and sectoral tariffs ranging from 20 percent to 50 percent would cost Germany’s 4.3 trillion euro ($5 trillion) economy – the largest in the Eurozone – more than 200 billion ($232bn) euros between now and 2028.

    “We would have to postpone large parts of our economic policy efforts because it would interfere with everything and hit the German export industry to the core,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said of the potential US 30 percent reciprocal rate.

    Meanwhile, countermeasures from the EU would hit certain US industries hard. As Europe is a top-five market for US agriculture (particularly soya and corn), European tariffs could reduce US farm incomes and anger a key Trump constituency. The same is also true for the auto and plane parts sectors.

    Continue Reading

  • How Spotify Can Solve Songwriters’ Low Payment Crisis (Guest Column)

    How Spotify Can Solve Songwriters’ Low Payment Crisis (Guest Column)

    Spotify didn’t break the system on its own. It inherited it. And like any smart startup walking into a rigged game, it played to survive — cutting deals, kissing rings, and keeping quiet. But now it’s no longer the underdog. It’s the house. And the same old rules that built its empire are the ones still starving songwriters.

    So the question is: will Daniel Ek change the game, or keep cashing out?

    Spotify didn’t solely cause the songwriter crisis — the disappearing royalty checks, the broken splits, the vanishing middle class of music creators — but it sits right in the center of it. And that’s exactly why Ek is the one person with the power to fix it. He didn’t ask for the problem, but it’s on his doorstep. And he’s finally rich and independent enough to do something about it.

    Let’s be honest: Spotify didn’t rise because of cozy deals — it rose in spite of them. Ek built a global tech giant with sharp strategy, relentless vision, and a little help from the majors, who handed over equity in exchange for early access. That bet paid off — for Spotify.

    With a market cap now topping $145 billion, Spotify is worth more than most of the companies it licenses music from. Universal is valued at $56B. Warner? Just over $15.5 billion. And Ek? He’s sold more than $800 million in stock since 2023 alone — more than many of the songwriters on the platform have made combined. That’s not just a bad look. It’s a stat you can’t explain away.

    Yes, he earned it. He helped assemble the biggest music library on earth. But when the guy holding the keys to the industry cashes out like a Silicon Valley titan while songwriters are still being paid like baristas, something’s broken. Ek’s net worth is closing in on $10 billion according to Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index. He can afford to lead — and it won’t cost him much to do it.

    Still, to this point, Spotify’s recent decisions have made an adversary out of the songwriter class. The company took on significant criticism in the business last year for electing to pay out less to songwriters through a controversial bundling strategy with audiobooks, a move that caused the Mechanical Licensing Collective to sue the company. Spotify emerged victorious in that legal dispute earlier this year as the suit was dismissed. The NMPA stated back in June that the strategy has already cost publishers $230 million so far. Spotify, for its part, said earlier this year that it has paid $4.5 billion in royalties to songwriters and publishers in the past two years.

    Bundling is the latest blow to the writer’s demise. Spotify’s push to boost subscribers by packaging music with audiobooks may help its bottom line, but it drags songwriter royalties down with it. When music becomes just one piece of a discounted bundle, the revenue attributed to it shrinks — and so do the mechanical payments. Songwriters aren’t just getting the smallest slice of the pie; now the pie itself is smaller. It’s a textbook case of the system working for growth, but not for the people who make the product.

    Bundles aside, Spotify needs to take on songwriters’ lousy terms because everyone else is compromised. Legacy music companies benefit from the current model and are mired in conflicts by housing both record labels and publishers’ interests. To that end, the publishers, representing songwriters, answer to their bosses, the people overseeing the record companies. Less a push-and-pull than a noose where one side is looking to maximize profits by minimizing payouts to the ancillary non-artist players that their colleagues represent. Their fate is tied and it leaves over 100,000 songwriters without an unencumbered advocate at the table.

    All three major music conglomerates — Universal, Sony and Warner — have had equity in Spotify, with Warner selling all of its Spotify shares in 2018 for over $500 million while Sony sold half of its shares for $750 million . How do they determine payouts for artists on their roster? Via a complicated formula which aggregates the whole of streaming activity and apportions a sum to rightsholders by their percentage of market share. In this pro-rata model, the top 1 percent of artists earn more than 90 percent of total streaming revenue. From there, it’s on the labels and publishers to assess earnings based on individual deals. In recent years, both Spotify itself (via its Spotify for Artists service) and many labels have instituted dashboards that are meant to provide transparency to the artist when it comes to accounting. No two deals are the same.  

    How did we get here? Let’s rewind. When the streaming wars began around the early 2010s, the music business perked up. There was no way the industry would blow it a third time — after fumbling Napster and handing Apple’s iTunes the keys to the kingdom for 99 cents a song — this time, they swore they’d get it right.

    So they played hard to get. The big players watched the in-fighting between nascent services to see who would gobble up the other. They slapped a chastity belt on their song catalogs and made tech beg for access. And when Spotify emerged as the dragon-slaying supplicant of the new world order and came calling, music squeezed several years and every crumb on the plate to close a collective deal— not just for licensing fees, but ownership stakes in Ek’s startup to the tune of 20%. The majors didn’t just agree to terms; they jumped right into bed with the shotgun wedding already on the books. 

    Now they’re shareholders, controlling nearly three-quarters of what got streamed in 2024 — a decrease from 1994, when six majors controlled over 85% of the airwaves. But two factors define the difference: back then, there was no streaming partner taking 30%, and there are still only 100 pennies in a dollar.

    The tech giants don’t need music to survive. But Spotify? It only works if the song does. The service doesn’t own many music copyrights or control catalogs. Spotify is not beholden to or defensive of the past. Spotify’s premium users are in effect renting the songs. Even if a listener downloads a track off the platform, it will be wiped from their library once they cease subscribing monthly.  

    Spotify is reaching the age of puberty and still has the chaos and creativity of a teenager — the kind who might wreck the car or rewrite the rules. That’s not a liability. That’s the X factor. They can be  the company that finally fixes this and changes the financial trajectory of songwriters forever. And no one else is even trying.

    If Spotify were to use just 3 percent of its 2024 net profit (around $39 million)  to boost payouts for qualifying songwriters, it wouldn’t be life-changing for most, but it could cover, say, health insurance, which neither record companies nor publishers provide. But what about this: 

    If Spotify truly wanted to change the economics of music forever, it should grant 1 percent ownership in the company to songwriters. That 1 percent shifts the entire landscape — not symbolically, structurally.  A 1 percent equity stake — worth over $1.45 billion —  could be placed into an irrevocable 30-year trust, designed and governed by a writer-led organization in partnership with labels, PROs, and publishers. This isn’t a Washington lobbying arm, but an industry-rooted, cooperative body with shared oversight and aligned interests. The trust would be repaid gradually through revenue generated by writers themselves, supported by proportional contributions from labels, pubs, PROs and all broadcast platforms–essentially all entities who profit from the use of songs. 

    Managed at a conservative 5 percent annual yield, it could generate $72.5 million a year — enough to finally fund the kind of infrastructure writers have always deserved. With just a third of that, 50,000 eligible writers could receive basic health coverage, career services, a 401(k), even access to a songwriter-focused credit union. The rest could support emergency relief, innovation grants, and profit-sharing. After 30 years, full ownership of the stake would transfer to the songwriter community outright. Not a payout. A future — built by the people who power the product.

    Here’s the other unspoken truth: songwriters aren’t built for battle at the moment. Some are loners. Most don’t have managers. They aren’t on stage with a mic and a fanbase ready to fight for them. They’re not organized to collectively bargain and are often invisible in the food chain. So with no one fighting for their cut and no fairy dust  to add more pennies to the dollar, they’ve been left on the bench like a third-string punter in the game they created.

    It’s all about the song. Always has been, always will be. No producers, no artists, no studios — and no Spotify — without the song. If Spotify ascends, the rest must follow suit. This isn’t welfare — it’s an overdue music industry wellness renovation that could fix the leaky roof but for good. I am not saying Ek should fund the entire ecosystem — just  take the first step: Commit to standing up and staying in. Don’t drain the golden goose and cash out; pony up hard, and become the company that saved music. The solution is clear, realistic and within reach. And the shareholders will love it. Music history is legacy and the opportunity to seize yours, Daniel, is right there in the bridge.

    Continue Reading

  • UK insurance industry wins lower capital requirements for in-house risk managers – Financial Times

    UK insurance industry wins lower capital requirements for in-house risk managers – Financial Times

    1. UK insurance industry wins lower capital requirements for in-house risk managers  Financial Times
    2. Joint statement by the PRA and FCA on HM Treasury’s captive insurance consultation response  Bank of England
    3. Solvency capital rules and tax to drive UK captive onshoring  The Insurer
    4. Industry responds to UK captive insurance reforms  Insurance Business America
    5. UK Government confirms plans for captive insurance regime  Captive International

    Continue Reading

  • Our Milky Way galaxy may be surrounded by 100 undetected ‘orphan’ galaxies

    Our Milky Way galaxy may be surrounded by 100 undetected ‘orphan’ galaxies

    Our cosmic neighborhood may be far more crowded than previous estimates have suggested. New research hints the Milky Way could have many more small dwarf galaxy “satellites” around it than expected.

    The team, comprised of cosmologists from Durham University, combined supercomputer simulations with mathematical modeling to predict the existence of missing Milky Way “orphan” galaxies. The researchers’ novel technique suggests that as many as 100 extra satellite dwarf galaxies could orbit our large, spiral galaxy.

    Continue Reading

  • BiomEdit raises $18.4m to expand designer probiotics platform

    BiomEdit raises $18.4m to expand designer probiotics platform

    Indiana-based animal microbiome specialist BiomEdit has raised an $18.4 million Series B round and is gearing up to launch its first product, an engineered probiotic (BE-101) to tackle necrotic enteritis, a bacterial affliction driving significant losses in the broiler chicken industry.

    The round—which was led by Anterra Capital with follow-on investment from animal nutrition co Nutreco and new participation from AgriZeroNZ, Elevate Ventures, and Betagro Ventures—will fund BiomEdit through conditional licensure and into the commercial launch of BE-101.

    Spun out of animal health company Elanco in 2022 after partnering with synthetic biology co Ginkgo Bioworks, BiomEdit is working with Diamond Animal Health as its contract development and manufacturing organization to scale production of BE-101. The product, which has entered the final phase of USDA’s conditional licensure process, is expected to launch commercially in late 2026.

    To support the launch, animal health industry execs Kristin Bloink (Elanco) and Andrew Carlson (ADM) have joined BiomEdit’s team as VP of development and CCO, respectively.

    BiomEdit has also secured over $1.7 million in new non-dilutive grants including an USDA grant targeting avian flu with a novel biologic approach, an NIH award for early research into a human therapeutic application based on BiomEdit’s tech, and a Global Methane Hub grant to support its work exploring enteric methane reduction in cattle.

    First-of-its-kind probiotic vectored antibody (pvAb) product

    BE-101, which will assume the brand name Optavant upon full licensure, is a first-of-its-kind probiotic vectored antibody (pvAb) product. It comprises a pair of microbes that BiomEdit has genetically engineered to express antibodies to toxins produced by the bacterium Clostridium perfringens, which causes necrotic enteritis.

    The product is sprayed on the back of birds the day they hatch. “They then peck and preen each other, and ingest the product which is colonizing bacteria, so they don’t need a lot of it,” CEO Aaron Schacht told AgFunderNews in a recent interview.

    “The colony lasts for about two weeks and expresses the biomolecules that target the toxins. We then give a boost in the drinking water to replenish the colony, which gives us coverage for about five weeks of the growth cycle [the typical broiler growth cycle is six weeks].”

    Genomic analysis, metabolomic analysis, and proteomic analysis

    After the spinoff from Elanco, BiomEdit “took advantage of something Elanco had unique access to, the intestinal or fecal content of thousands of animals, and built a library,” said Schacht. “From 2016 to 2021, we sampled and analyzed over 10,000 samples from 7,500 pigs, chickens, fish, cows, and dogs.

    “That was the origin of the sample database that we created, and then we built a platform for culturing these organisms so that we could learn how they grow and then isolate and purify them. And then we could do genomic analysis, metabolomic analysis, and proteomic analysis to see what molecules they made.”

    In parallel, BiomEdit built a strain engineering, gene editing, and synthetic biology capability “with the idea that we would find microbes of interest that could produce feed additives or serve as a delivery vehicle for a targeted molecule if they colonized the gut of the animal,” he explained.

    While BE-101 is its most advanced product, BiomEdit has multiple products in its pipeline, including BE-01, an enzyme that degrades Lipopolysaccharide, which is found in the leftover cell wall remnants from gram-negative bacteria and serves as a potent inflammatory stimulant across all major farm animal species.

    Here, instead of using microbes to deliver the enzyme inside farm animals, BiomEdit uses a microbe to express it at scale, isolate the enzyme and then make the enzyme itself a feed additive. In the process, it had to engineer the host strain to get better at producing and secreting the enzyme, said Schacht. “So there’s an example of where we used synthetic biology to improve a production host.”

    He added: “Separately [as with BE-101, for example] we can use synthetic biology to create products where the microbial host is the product, and it expresses and secretes the molecule in situ [inside the animal].”

    People have been “feeding probiotics to chickens and pigs and cows forever,” said Schacht. “We want to bring real science to [understand] why microbial solutions work, and use synthetic biology to make them even better.”

    Further reading:

    BiomEdit CEO: Next gen designer probiotics will disrupt the animal and human health market

    🎥 Designer probiotics startup ZBiotics has sold 8 million ‘pre-alcohol’ shots, launched new ‘sugar to fiber’ product

    Verb Biotics on next gen biotics: ‘We’re function-first, and we’re not tied into any one organism or flagship strain’

    Continue Reading

  • Apple inks $500m deal for rare earth magnets with US mining firm | Apple

    Apple inks $500m deal for rare earth magnets with US mining firm | Apple

    Apple has signed a $500m deal with a US firm for rare earth magnets, essential for manufacturing electronics, after China curbed exports of the scarce, vital materials.

    The backing from one of the world’s most valuable companies comes after MP Materials, which operates the only US rare earths mine, last week agreed to a multibillion-dollar deal with the US Department of Defense that will see the Pentagon become its largest shareholder. Both deals are aimed at mitigating supply chain risks after China limited the outgoing supply of rare earths earlier this year in response to Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs.

    The deal, announced on Tuesday, guarantees Apple a steady flow of rare earth magnets free from China – by far the world’s largest producer. For Apple, the cost to support US magnet production pales in comparison to the long-term risk that it could lose access entirely to the critical components, analysts said.

    “We’re in an era where executives are willing to pay a significant premium for a reliable supply chain. They don’t want stoppage,” said Gracelin Baskaran, director of the critical minerals security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    Rare earths are a group of 17 metals used to make magnets that turn power into motion, including the devices that make cellphones vibrate. They are also used in weapons, electric vehicles and many other electronics.

    China placed export restrictions on rare earths in April in response to Trump’s tariffs. Though the US and China reached a deal in June that has resolved much of the rare earths dispute, broader trade tensions continue to underscore demand for a non-Chinese supply.

    As part of the agreement, Apple will prepay MP $200m for a supply of magnets slated to begin in 2027. The companies did not disclose the length of the deal nor the volumes of magnets to be provided.

    The agreement calls for magnets produced from recycled material, in keeping with Apple’s longstanding goal of ending its reliance on the mining industry. They will be produced at MP’s Fort Worth, Texas, facility using magnets recycled at MP’s Mountain Pass, California, mining complex.

    “Rare earth materials are essential for making advanced technology, and this partnership will help strengthen the supply of these vital materials here in the United States,” Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, said in a statement.

    Las Vegas-based MP Materials’ stock price has nearly doubled since the government deal was announced. It has had remarkable turnaround since last year, when it contemplated merging with an Australian rival as profits plunged in what its CEO, Jim Litinsky, called a “very frustrating” pricing environment for rare earths.

    Bob O’Donnell, president at market research firm TECHnalysis Research, said Tuesday’s move “makes complete sense” given that Apple requires significant amounts of rare earth magnets for its devices.

    skip past newsletter promotion

    “Plus, by focusing on a US-based supplier, it does help position Apple more positively in Washington,” he said.

    Apple, which said the deal is part of its $500bn four-year investment commitment to the US, has faced threats from Trump over iPhones not made in the US. But many analysts have said making the iPhone in the US is not possible, given labor costs and the existing smartphone supply chain.

    Apple did not disclose which devices in which it will use the magnets. MP said the deal will supply magnets for hundreds of millions of devices, which would constitute a significant share of any of Apple’s product lines.

    MP produces mined and processed rare earths and has said it expects to start commercial magnet production in its Texas facility by the end of this year.

    Continue Reading

  • Israel strikes Damascus military HQ as fighting between Syrian forces and Druze continues – live updates

    Israel strikes Damascus military HQ as fighting between Syrian forces and Druze continues – live updates

    Israel defence minister: ‘Warnings have ended and painful blows to come’published at 14:05 British Summer Time

    Image source, Reuters

    Shortly after Israeli strikes on Damascus began, Israel’s defence minister shared a statement of intent on social media.

    “The warnings in Damascus have ended – now painful blows will come,” Israel Katz writes.

    Katz says the Israeli military will “continue to operate forcefully” in Suweida, the area of southern Syria where Israel has recently intervened in clashes between the minority Druze community and other armed groups.

    He then speaks directly to the Druze community in Israel, saying the Israel Defense Forces will protect the Syrian Druze population.

    “Prime Minister Netanyahu and I, as Minister of Defence, have made a commitment – and we will uphold it,” he adds.

    Katz also shared a video of a live TV news broadcast, showing a building in Damascus being hit by a strike and the on-air newsreader ducking for cover.

    Continue Reading

  • Princess Beatrice’s dreamy curls give Disney vibes

    Princess Beatrice’s dreamy curls give Disney vibes



    Princess Beatrice channels fairytale glamour at 18th birthday.

    Princess Beatrice marked her 18th birthday in 2006 with a celebration straight out of a storybook complete with a grand Victorian ball at Windsor Castle.

    Hosted by her parents, the Duke and Duchess of York, the opulent event invited guests to dress for the occasion in full period attire. 

    The birthday girl stole the spotlight in a show stopping powder blue gown adorned with gold embroidery, a voluminous skirt and bustle, draped sleeves, and a V-shaped neckline.

    The party’s ‘1888 masked ball’ theme held special significance. Beatrice was born exactly a century later, at 8:18 p.m. on August 8, 1988. 

    With over 400 guests donning elaborate costumes, many reportedly spending hundreds of pounds on custom made period pieces.

    Her auburn hair was styled in a dramatic bouffant half updo, with curls far longer than her usual locks, completing her enchanting transformation.

    Princess Eugenie also celebrated the theme in a Hollywood designed gown by The Addams Family costume designer Barbara Matera, paired with elegant white lace gloves.

    Among the attendees were Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher, Kelly and Jack Osbourne, and Pixie Geldof. 

    However, several senior royals were notably absent, including the late Queen Elizabeth II, King Charles, and Princes William and Harry, who all skipped the extravagant affair.

    Continue Reading

  • Trump tariffs threaten US economy as much as European one, says German finmin – Reuters

    1. Trump tariffs threaten US economy as much as European one, says German finmin  Reuters
    2. EU threatens €72 billion tariffs on US goods amid Stalled Trade Talks  Ptv.com.pk
    3. In Trump’s game of chicken, the EU cannot afford to back down | Nathalie Tocci  The Guardian
    4. Statement by President von der Leyen on EU-U.S. trade  European Commission
    5. EU warns that its trade with the US could be effectively wiped out if Trump follows through on his threat  CNN

    Continue Reading