What are interest rates?published at 10:01 British Summer Time
10:01 BST
Michael Race Business and economics reporter
Put simply, interest is the extra amount you get charged when you borrow money.
Say someone lends you £10 at a 10% interest rate, you’ll pay them back £11 – the £10 you borrowed, plus an extra £1 in interest (10% of £10).
The Bank of England’s base interest rate, which is being set today, dictates what rates most high street banks and lenders set for things – ranging from mortgages to credit cards and savings accounts.
When the Bank puts up its rate, it gets more expensive to borrow money, but it also means that returns on savings accounts, which accrue interest, go up.
When rates drop, as they are expected to today, borrowing becomes cheaper and saving rates typically go down.
The Bank of England’s job is to keep inflation, which is the rate prices rise at for goods and services, at an annual rate of 2%. It uses interest rates to try to keep it at that level.
When rates rise, people tend to spend less and save more. That slows the demand for goods and services, which can limit price rises and thus cool inflation.
Ultra-processed foods make up the bulk of what kids eat — and adults aren’t far behind, a report published Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds.
About 62% of kids’ and teens’ daily calories came from ultra-processed foods, the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics found, compared with 53% for adults.
The report marks the first time CDC has provided estimates about how much ultra-processed foods make up Americans’ diets.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in May cited ultra-processed foods among his list of top issues that need to be addressed to curb what he says is an epidemic of childhood chronic diseases.
Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services took the first step to formally define “ultra-processed foods” — a move, experts say, that could open the door to regulation, including what types of food are eligible for food assistance programs. Diets high in ultra-processed foods have been linked to a number of health problems, including depression, Type 2 diabetes and early death.
Previous administrations have also tried to take action on ultra-processed foods, but those efforts have focused mostly on labeling and individual ingredients — such as added sugars and trans fats — rather than on regulating or classifying foods based on their level of processing. In January, during the Biden administration, the Food and Drug Administration proposed requiring a new label on the front of most packaged food and drinks that would alert consumers to how much saturated fat, salt and added sugar they contained.
Thursday’s report was based on findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, from August 2021 to August 2023.
The report’s lead author, Anne Williams, a researcher with the National Center for Health Statistics, said the agency identified ultra-processed foods using the NOVA classification system — a framework developed by Brazilian researchers that’s the most commonly used tool to evaluate processed foods. NOVA defines ultra-processed products as “industrial creations” made with little — if any — whole foods.
The top source of ultra-processed foods for both kids and adults was sandwiches, such as burgers, hot dogs and PB&Js, Williams said. That was followed by baked goods, salty snacks and sugary drinks.
The report found that adults with higher incomes tended to eat fewer ultra-processed foods.
It also found that intake of ultra-processed foods for both kids and adults dropped slightly from 2017-18 to August 2021–23. For adults, the decline started even earlier, going back to 2013–14. Williams cautioned that the decline so far has been small — a 56-calorie difference over roughly a decade.
Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, said the CDC’s findings align with what outside researchers have found about Americans’ eating habits.
Nestle said parents tend to gravitate toward ultra-processed foods for their kids because they’re easy to throw in a school lunch bag.
But, she added, probably the biggest reason kids eat so many ultra-processed foods is that the food industry heavily markets it to them.
“They’re the most profitable products in the supermarket, and the companies sell them, they market them directly to kids,” Nestle said. “They’re seen as cool and are iconic and you’re lucky to eat them, because that’s how they’re marketed.”
The term “ultra-processed food” was created around 2009 and has primarily been used for research purposes, said Susan Mayne, who was director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition in both the Biden and the first Trump administrations.
Mayne said research has shown that eating ultra-processed foods in general is linked to increased caloric intake and weight gain and that it is associated with greater risk of chronic diseases.
The problem with defining ultra-processed foods, she said, is that not all of them are linked to greater health risks. In fact, some — like certain yogurts, whole grain breads and cereals — are actually associated with reduced risks of chronic diseases like colon cancer. States like California have tried to address that by coming up with a definition of “particularly harmful” ultra-processed foods, she added.
The NOVA classification system also has limitations, as it doesn’t directly measure processing, Mayne said. Rather, it uses additives and specific ingredients as a proxy for the level of processing.
“FDA is engaging in a public process to attempt to define UPF, which is a good first step,” Mayne said in an email, referring to ultra-processed foods. “But it would be important to repeat studies to demonstrate that the new definition is as or more predictive of chronic disease risk than existing definitions before it could be used for policies.”
HHS hasn’t said when it plans to formally define “ultra-processed.”
Nestle said she hopes the Trump administration also targets marketing.
“These are highly convenient products, and the kids will eat them because the kids have been trained to eat them,” she said.
The federal government is facing mounting pressure to confirm how it plans to regulate fast-growing artificial intelligence technology, with the Coalition critical of mixed messaging from Labor ministers about whether new laws are needed.
As debate erupts over big tech companies seeking access to Australian material including journalism and books to train AI models, Anthony Albanese has stressed the importance of protecting copyright. But the shadow productivity minister, Andrew Bragg, has urged Australia not to squander its opportunity to harness AI’s benefits, warning against any major new rules.
“The risk is that we over-regulate. The risk is that we make ourselves even more uncompetitive,” Bragg told Guardian Australia.
“[AI] might be the only free kick we get on productivity.”
Sign up: AU Breaking News email
A suggestion from the Productivity Commission to give big tech companies an exemption to copyright laws for “text and data mining”, or to expand existing fair dealing rules, prompted fierce pushback from arts, creative and media companies this week, alarmed that Australian work could be used by massively wealthy tech companies – without compensation – to train AI models.
Federal ministers, including the treasurer, Jim Chalmers, have said they have no plans to change copyright law, and spoken in favour of creatives and rights holders. Albanese on Thursday echoed concerns over protecting copyright, but also said the government was keen to reap the benefits of AI technology, including productivity gains, expected to be a focus of the upcoming economic reform roundtable.
“My government’s a government that supports the arts,” Albanese said at a press conference in Melbourne, calling AI a “complex” issue.
“We as a society will work [the balance of AI risks and opportunities] through. It’s good there’s debate about it, but copyright and intellectual property is important.”
The government’s plans to respond to the fast-moving technology have shifted, prompting Bragg to call on Labor to offer certainty to the industry.
Former industry and science minister Ed Husic had set out plans for a standalone AI act to regulate the field; the productivity minister, Andrew Leigh, has advocated for a low-intervention approach described by some as “light-touch”; the new industry and science minister, Tim Ayres, has spoken about regulation and legislation among plans still to be decided, as well as giving trade unions more say in developing the sector. Chalmers has pushed for a “sensible middle path” between high and low regulation.
“I just think the government has no idea, really, what it wants to do. They have more positions than you can poke a stick at on AI,” Bragg said, noting these positions.
“We don’t need new laws,” he said. “The government need to say to the regulators ‘How are you going in enforcing the laws the parliament already has on the books?’ before they look to put more laws on those books.”
Julian Leeser, the shadow attorney general and arts spokesperson, echoed similar sentiments, saying creators deserve fair compensation and calling for clarity from the government.
“In the real world, we wouldn’t let someone use an artist’s work for commercial purposes without paying for it. The virtual world should be no different,” he said in a statement.
“This government just doesn’t know what it’s doing when it comes to AI, and it has no plan to protect Australian artists.”
Labor senator Tony Sheldon, who chaired an inquiry into AI in the last term of parliament, wrote on X that copyright laws “must be enforced to ensure big tech fairly licenses and compensates artists, writers and other creatives”.
“Despite the Productivity Commission’s interim report, the Albanese government has been clear – we stand with Australia’s creative workers and industries, and we will not compromise our copyright laws,” Sheldon wrote.
“If the Googles and Amazons of the world want to use Australia’s extraordinary trove of written and recorded treasures, they can license and pay for it just like everyone else.”
APM Terminals’ quarterly results for Q2 2025 show record-high volumes – despite volatile markets. These numbers reflect the hard work and commitment of colleagues in 60 terminals in 33 countries worldwide. As important as these numbers are for the company, this success goes far beyond numbers; we measure our success in the relationships we’ve built and the progress we’ve made with those who matter most.
“APM Terminals delivered on record-high volumes in all regions in a very volatile market. This quarter has proven to us that flexibility and reliability are key to our customers so that they can adapt to market fluctuations. We continue to stay very close to them as an advisor and operator to find solutions where needed. We are also very pleased to have extended a number of concessions with good partners to further develop and enable their opportunities to grow and ensure modernisations of the terminals.” says Keith Svendsen, CEO of APM Terminals.
In this past quarter, the company has continued to strengthen partnerships with customers who rely on APM Terminals to keep their supply chains moving, has worked with governments and port authorities on critical infrastructure projects, and has teamed up with partners in the industry to improve operational efficiency. These aren’t just business deals, they’re shared commitments made to building more resilient, connected global trade networks that benefit the communities in which we operate.
Looking to the future, Svendsen added, “As we move forward, our focus remains clear: to deliver value to every stakeholder in our ecosystem. Our terminals aren’t built on quarterly volumes, they’re built on trust, long-term collaboration and a shared commitment to raising industry standards. That’s why we lead with SQDC: Safety, Quality, Delivery and Cost. It’s how we solve problems and how we earn and keep our customers’ trust. That consistency is what drives long-term performance. Thank you to every partner and colleague who made this progress possible. Together, we’re building a more resilient and reliable global trade system.”
Toyota has warned it faces a 1.4tn yen (£7.1bn) hit from Donald Trump’s trade tariffs, as the Japanese company reported a drop in net profit and cut its guidance for next year.
The biggest carmaker in the world said it expected to make an operating profit of 3.2tn yen in its financial year to March 2026, down 16% on previous guidance of 3.8tn yen.
The anticipated annual hit from US tariffs includes the impact of the levies on car imports, higher material prices and a stronger yen.
The figures were reported as the latest wave of country-specific tariffs came into force, with dozens of countries facing higher taxes on their exports to the US. This includes Japan, whose baseline rate rose from 10% to 15% under the terms of a framework agreed between Tokyo and Washington last month.
Under the deal, Japanese automotive exports to the US are to face a 15% tariff, down from previous sector-specific levies that added up to 27.5%. The timeframe for when the change comes into effect has yet to be announced.
Toyota’s operating profit fell by almost 11% to 1.17tn yen in the three months to the end of June compared with the same period last year.
Its figures came a day after the rival Japanese carmaker Honda reported a 50% drop in profit in the same quarter, to 244bn yen. That was mainly because of a 124bn-yen hit from US tariffs, the company said.
The global car industry has been one of the hardest hit by Trump’s trade wars. The sector accounts for 8% of jobs in Japan, with vehicles and automotive parts making up more than a quarter of all the countries exports to the US.
As part of last month’s bilateral deal, Trump said Japan would invest $550bn (£410bn) in the US. The president also claimed that Japan would open its market to US products such as cars, trucks, rice and certain agricultural products.
Despite the trade turmoil, Toyota reported record sales in the first half of the year, up 5.5% to 5.1m vehicles, supported by demand for hybrid cars. Shares in the company, however, have dropped by more than 10% this year over tariff uncertainty.
skip past newsletter promotion
after newsletter promotion
Trump’s latest wave of country-specific tariffs that came into force on Thursday include rates of more than 40% on imports from Syria, Laos and Myanmar, down to 15% for the EU and 10% for the UK.
The “reciprocal” levies announced by the White House a week ago – before a previous 1 August deadline was due to elapse – came into effect a minute past midnight Washington time on Thursday.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v. Ceracon GmbH, Mannheim Local Division, June 6, 2025 (UPC_CFI_745/2024)
The UPC has recently clarified its strict approach to amending counterclaims for revocation in patent litigation. The Mannheim Local Division ruled that parties cannot introduce new prior art or grounds for revocation after the initial filing of a counterclaim, if the omission was caused by an oversight in a prior art search. This decision underscores the importance of comprehensive preparation at the outset of UPC proceedings.
Background
Sunstar Engineering commenced infringement proceedings against CeraCon, and, in response, CeraCon filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent (EP4108413), which included prior art references and arguments. Two months later, CeraCon sought to introduce an additional piece of prior art, arguing that they had only recently become aware of the new material, despite a diligent prior art search by a reputable firm. CeraCon contended that allowing the amendment would not prejudice Sunstar, particularly given that the prior art is Sunstar’s own patent application, which was filed by the same representatives representing Sunstar in these proceedings. CeraCon further argued that the requirements of an amendment of case according to Rule 263 Rules of Procedure (RoP), if applicable to counterclaims for revocation, should at least be applied generously, and that neither the UPCA nor the Rules of Procedure explicitly exclude the introduction of new grounds for invalidity in the Reply to the Defense to a counterclaim for revocation. According to Rule 263.2 RoP, the court shall grant leave to amend a case only if (a) the amendment in question could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage, and (b) the amendment will not unreasonably hinder the other party in the conduct of its action. Sunstar opposed the request and, in the alternative, requested a two-month deadline to respond to the new prior art.
Decision
The Mannheim Local Division rejected the request to amend the counterclaim. Rule 263 RoP applies equally to counterclaims for revocation as it does to infringement claims, prohibiting the late introduction of new prior art or grounds. The court emphasized that all grounds and supporting documents must be included in the initial counterclaim, as required by Rule 25 RoP. The interests of the counterdefendant in having certainty in preparing its defense and not having to defend itself against a new attack for the first time in the rejoinder outweighed the counterclaimant’s interest in introducing new arguments at a later stage, regardless of the reasons for the initial omission.
Key takeaways
This decision signals a strict procedural approach by the UPC. This contrast with more flexible practices in some national courts, such as Germany, where submission of prior art in later stages of the proceedings is sometimes permitted. Litigants in the UPC should therefore ensure that all relevant grounds and supporting documents are identified and included when a counterclaim for revocation is filed. UPC proceedings require thorough and early preparation.
Copenhagen, Denmark – A.P. Moller – Maersk A/S (Maersk) achieved strong results in the second quarter with revenue growth of 2.8% and EBIT reaching USD 845m. While down sequentially, Maersk results were in line with the previous year despite significant geopolitical uncertainty and continued rate pressure. The performance was driven by continued strong results in Terminals, volume growth in Ocean and increased profitability in Logistics & Services and further supported by continued operational improvements and ongoing cost discipline in all business segments. Given the more resilient market demand outside of North America, Maersk raises its full-year 2025 financial guidance as per the table below.
We have had a strong first half of the year, driven by consistent follow through on our operational improvement plans and the successful launch of the Gemini Cooperation. Our new East-West network is raising the bar on reliability and setting new industry standards. It has been a key driver of increased volumes and solid delivery of our Ocean business. Even with market volatility and historical uncertainty in global trade, demand remained resilient, and we’ve continued to respond with speed and flexibility. As our customers navigate these complex challenges, we remain committed to helping them build stronger and more adaptable supply chains— making sure they are ready to not just weather disruption, but to grow through it.
Ocean delivered good results in a quarter marked by significant volatility in demand and rates. Volumes grew 4.2% compared to the same quarter last year, mainly driven by exports out of Asia, with freight rates picking up in the quarter, while still being under pressure both sequentially and compared to previous year. The Gemini Cooperation was successfully phased in fully in June with reliability scores above the 90% target in its first few months of operation.
Logistics & Services continued to focus on operational efficiency and delivering sustainable profitability improvement. EBIT increased by 39% to USD 175m and EBIT margin was 4.8%, up from 3.5% in the same quarter last year. The margin growth was driven by strong cost discipline and increased productivity.
It was another strong quarter in Terminals with record-high volumes and revenue. Volumes increased 9.9% and were supported by the successful phase-in of the Gemini cooperation adding more Maersk Ocean volumes to the Terminals business. EBIT increased by 31% to USD 461m driven primarily by strong operational and joint venture performance. ROIC increased to 15.4%, up from 12.2% in the same quarter last year.
Financial guidance
Given the more resilient market demand outside of North America, Maersk raises its full-year 2025 financial guidance as per the table below. The expected global container market volume growth has been revised to between 2% and 4% (previously between -1% and 4%). At this time, disruption in the Red Sea is still expected to last for the full year.
Guidance 2025
EBITDA Underlying (Previously: 6.0-9.0)
EBIT Underlying (Previously: 0.0-3.0)
Free cash flow or higher (Previously: -3.0 or higher)
CAPEX (Unchanged) 2024-2025
CAPEX (Unchanged) 2025-2026
Guidance 2025
USDbn
EBITDA Underlying (Previously: 6.0-9.0)
8.0-9.5
EBIT Underlying (Previously: 0.0-3.0)
2.0-3.5
Free cash flow or higher (Previously: -3.0 or higher)
-1.0
CAPEX (Unchanged) 2024-2025
10.0-11.0
CAPEX (Unchanged) 2025-2026
10.0-11.0
Maersk’s guidance for 2025 is subject to considerable macroeconomic and geopolitical uncertainties impacting container volume growth and freight rates.
Cash distribution to shareholders
Distribution of cash to shareholders during the quarter was USD 864m of which USD 514M was from share buy-backs.
Highlights Q2
Revenue
USD million
2025
2024
USD million
Ocean
2025
8,572
2024
8,370
USD million
Logistics & Services
2025
3,668
2024
3,632
USD million
Terminals
2025
1,307
2024
1,089
USD million
Unallocated activities, eliminations, etc.
2025
-417
2024
-320
USD million
A.P. Moller – Maersk consolidated
2025
13,130
2024
12,771
EBITDA
USD million
2025
2024
USD million
Ocean
2025
1,443
2024
1,407
USD million
Logistics & Services
2025
419
2024
348
USD million
Terminals
2025
458
2024
408
USD million
Unallocated activities, eliminations, etc.
2025
-22
2024
-19
USD million
A.P. Moller – Maersk consolidated
2025
2,298
2024
2,144
EBIT
USD million
2025
2024
USD million
Ocean
2025
229
2024
470
USD million
Logistics & Services
2025
175
2024
126
USD million
Terminals
2025
461
2024
353
USD million
Unallocated activities, eliminations, etc.
2025
-20
2024
14
USD million
A.P. Moller – Maersk consolidated
2025
845
2024
963
CAPEX
USD million
2025
2024
USD million
Ocean
2025
964
2024
578
USD million
Logistics & Services
2025
139
2024
159
USD million
Terminals
2025
141
2024
135
USD million
Unallocated activities, eliminations, etc.
2025
34
2024
32
USD million
A.P. Moller – Maersk consolidated
2025
1,278
2024
904
Sensitivity guidance
Financial performance for Maersk for 2025 depends on several factors subject to uncertainties related to the given uncertain macroeconomic conditions, bunker fuel prices and freight rates. All else being equal, the sensitivities for 2025 for four key assumptions are listed below:
Factors
Change
Effect on EBIT (Rest of 2025)
Factors
Container freight rate
Change
+/- 100 USD/FFE
Effect on EBIT (Rest of 2025)
+/- USD 0.7bn
Factors
Container freight volume
Change
+/- 100,000 FFE
Effect on EBIT (Rest of 2025)
+/- USD 0.01bn
Factors
Bunker price (net of expected BAF coverage)
Change
+/- 100 USD/tonne
Effect on EBIT (Rest of 2025)
+/- USD 0.1bn
Factors
Foreign exchange rate (net of hedges)
Change
+/- 10% change in USD
Effect on EBIT (Rest of 2025)
+/- USD 0.1bn
About Maersk
A.P. Moller – Maersk is an integrated logistics company working to connect and simplify its customers’ supply chains. As a global leader in logistics services, the company operates in more than 130 countries and employs around 100,000 people. Maersk is aiming to reach net zero GHG emissions by 2040 across the entire business with new technologies, new vessels, and reduced GHG emissions fuels*.
*Maersk defines “reduced GHG emissions fuels” as fuels with at least 65% reductions in GHG emissions on a lifecycle basis compared to fossil of 94 g CO2e/MJ.
