J.M. Smucker plans to remove artificial colors from its jams and other products by the end of 2027
J.M. Smucker Co. plans to remove artificial colors from its products by the end of 2027.
Orrville, Ohio-based Smucker said Thursday it will also remove synthetic dyes from foods sold to K-12 schools by the 2026-2027 school year.
Smucker said the majority of its products – including its Uncrustables sandwiches – are already free of synthetic dyes. But some products still have them, including sugar-free jams and ice cream toppings.
Smucker said some products from Hostess, which it acquired in 2023, also contain artificial colors. Twinkies are made with Red 40 and Yellow 5, for example, while Snoballs snack cakes are made with Red 40 Lake, a dye combined with aluminum to keep it from dissolving in water.
Smucker joins a growing number of big food companies that have announced plans to eliminate artificial dyes. Earlier this week, Nestle and Conagra Brands — the parent company of Duncan Hines — both said they would phase out synthetic dyes. Kraft Heinz and General Mills made similar pledges last week.
Monday Mornings
The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week.
The federal government has stepped up its scrutiny of artificial colors in recent months. In January, days before President Donald Trump took office, the U.S. regulators banned the dye called Red 3 from the nation's food supply, nearly 35 years after it was barred from cosmetics because of potential cancer risk.
In April, Trump's Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said the agency would take steps to eliminate synthetic dyes by the end of 2026, largely by relying on voluntary efforts from the food industry.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
G7 agrees to exempt U.S. companies from higher taxes
The United States and the Group of Seven nations have agreed to support a proposal that would exempt U.S. companies from some components of an existing global agreement, the G7 said in a statement on Saturday. The group has created a 'side-by-side' system in response to the U.S. administration agreeing to scrap the Section 899 retaliatory tax proposal from President Donald Trump's tax and spending bill, it said in a statement from Canada, the head of the rolling G7 presidency. The G7 said the plan recognizes existing U.S. minimum tax laws and aims to bring more stability to the international tax system. Opinion: The G7 is dead – time to move on to the G6 U.K. businesses are also spared higher taxes after the removal of Section 899 from Mr. Trump's tax and spending bill. Britain said businesses would benefit from greater certainty and stability following the agreement. Some British businesses had in recent weeks said they were worried about paying substantial additional tax due to the inclusion of Section 899, which has now been removed. 'Today's agreement provides much-needed certainty and stability for those businesses after they had raised their concerns,' Britain's finance minister Rachel Reeves said in a statement, adding that more work was needed to tackle aggressive tax planning and avoidance. G7 officials said that they look forward to discussing a solution that is 'acceptable and implementable to all.' In January, through an executive order, Trump declared that the global corporate minimum tax deal was not applicable in the U.S., effectively pulling out of the landmark 2021 arrangement negotiated by the Biden administration with nearly 140 countries. He had also vowed to impose a retaliatory tax against countries that impose taxes on U.S. firms under the 2021 global tax agreement. This tax was considered detrimental to many foreign companies operating in the U.S.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
What's in the latest version of Trump's big bill now before the Senate
WASHINGTON (AP) — At some 940-pages, the legislation is a sprawling collection of tax breaks, spending cuts and other Republican priorities, including new money for national defense and deportations. Now it's up to Congress to decide whether President Donald Trump's signature's domestic policy package will become law. Trump told Republicans, who hold majority power in the House and Senate, to skip their holiday vacations and deliver the bill by the Fourth of July. Senators were working through the weekend to pass the bill and send it back to the House for a final vote. Democrats are united against it. Here's the latest on what's in the bill. There could be changes as lawmakers negotiate. Tax cuts are the priority Republicans say the bill is crucial because without it, there would be a massive tax increase, totaling some $3.8 trillion, after December when tax breaks from Trump's first term expire. Those existing tax rates and brackets would become permanent under the bill. It temporarily would add new ones that Trump campaigned on: no taxes on tips, overtime pay or some automotive loans, along with a bigger $6,000 deduction in the Senate draft for older adults who earn no more than $75,000 a year. It would boost the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200 under the Senate proposal, or $2,500 in the House's version. Families at lower income levels would not see the full amount, if any. A cap on state and local deductions, called SALT, would quadruple to $40,000 for five years. It's a provision important to New York and other high tax states, though the House wanted it to last for 10 years. There are scores of business-related tax cuts. The wealthiest households would see a $12,000 increase from the legislation, which would cost the poorest people $1,600 a year, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House's version. Middle-income taxpayers would see a tax break of $500 to $1,500, the CBO said. Money for deportations, a border wall and the Golden Dome The bill would provide some $350 billion for Trump's border and national security agenda, including $46 billion for the U.S.-Mexico border wall and $45 billion for 100,000 migrant detention facility beds, as he aims to full his promise of the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history. Money would go for hiring 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, with $10,000 signing bonuses and a surge of Border Patrol officers, as well. The goal is to deport some 1 million people per year. The homeland security secretary would have a new $10 billion fund for grants for states that help with federal immigration enforcement and deportation actions. The attorney general would have $3.5 billion for a similar fund, known as Bridging Immigration-related Deficits Experienced Nationwide, or BIDEN, referring to former Democratic President Joe Biden. To help pay for it all, immigrants would face various new fees, including when seeking asylum protections. For the Pentagon, the bill would provide billions for ship building, munitions systems, and quality of life measures for servicemen and women, as well as $25 billion for the development of the Golden Dome missile defense system. The Defense Department would have $1 billion for border security. How to pay for it? Cuts to Medicaid and other programs To help partly offset the lost tax revenue and new spending, Republicans are seeking to cut back some long-running government programs: Medicaid, food stamps, green energy incentives and others. It's essentially unraveling the accomplishments of the past two Democratic presidents, Biden and Barack Obama. Republicans argue they are trying to rightsize the safety net programs for the population they were initially designed to serve, mainly pregnant women and children, and root out what they describe as waste, fraud and abuse. The package includes new 80-hour-a-month work requirements for many adults receiving Medicaid and food stamps, including older people up to age 65. Parents of children 14 and older would have to meet the program's work requirements. There's also a proposed new $35 co-payment that can be charged to patients using Medicaid services. Some 80 million people rely on Medicaid, which expanded under Obama's Affordable Care Act, and 40 million use the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. Most already work, according to analysts. All told, the CBO estimates that under the House-passed bill, at least 10.9 million more people would go without health coverage and 3 million more would not qualify for food stamps. The Senate proposes a $25 billion Rural Hospital Transformation Fund to help offset those reductions. It's a new addition, intended to win over holdout GOP senators and a coalition of House Republicans warning that the proposed Medicaid provider tax cuts would hurt rural hospitals. Both the House and Senate bills propose a dramatic rollback of the Biden-era green energy tax breaks for electric vehicles. They also would phase out or terminate various the production and investment tax credits companies use to stand up wind, solar and other renewable energy projects. In total, cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs would be expected to produce at least $1.5 trillion in savings. Trump savings accounts and so, so much more A number of extra provisions reflect other GOP priorities. The House and Senate both have a new children's savings program, called Trump Accounts, with a potential $1,000 deposit from the Treasury. The Senate provided $40 million to establish Trump's long-sought 'National Garden of American Heroes.' There's a new excise tax on university endowments, restrictions on the development of artificial intelligence and blocks on transgender surgeries. A $200 tax on gun silencers and short-barreled rifles and shotguns was eliminated. One provision bars money to family planning providers, namely Planned Parenthood, while $88 million is earmarked for a pandemic response accountability committee. Billions go for the Artemis moon mission and for exploration to Mars. What's the final cost? Altogether, keeping the existing tax breaks and adding the new ones is expected to cost $3.8 trillion over the decade, the CBO says in its analysis of the House bill. An analysis of the Senate draft is pending. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. The CBO estimates the House-passed package would add $2.4 trillion to the nation's deficits over the decade. Or not, depending on how one does the math. Senate Republicans are proposing a unique strategy of not counting the existing tax breaks as a new cost because those breaks are already 'current policy.' Senators say the Senate Budget Committee chairman has the authority to set the baseline for the preferred approach. Under the Senate GOP view, the cost of tax provisions would be $441 billion, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Democrats and others say this is 'magic math' that obscures the costs of the GOP tax breaks. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget puts the Senate tally at $4.2 trillion over the decade.
Global News
2 hours ago
- Global News
B.C. billionaire's plan to take over Bay leases facing legal battle
A group of Hudson's Bay's landlords don't want to transfer more than two dozen leases to British Columbia billionaire Ruby Liu, but the department store still has a chance to get its way. The Bay, which filed for creditor protection in March, ran a process over the last several months to find buyers for leases belonging to it and Saks Canada. It agreed to sell up to 28 spaces to Liu. Three leases were transferred to her without any hiccups because they're in B.C. malls she owns, but another 25 are at properties held by a who's who of Canadian commercial real estate firms. 2:00 What will Montreal do with the vacant Hudson's Bay building? Landlords for 23 of those sites oppose the transfer. Several have said in court they've been 'very troubled' with their interactions with Liu and have had 'no productive discussions, no meaningful disclosure.' Liu insists if the court hands her the leases, landlords will warm to her and her plan to open a new department store in their properties. Story continues below advertisement While the disagreement could serve as a roadblock to the Bay closing on its agreement with Liu, lawyers not involved in the case say the retailer has another route it can take to get a deal done. That route lies in changes to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act — Canada's main insolvency law — made in 2009, said Jeff Lee, a Saskatoon-based partner at MLT Aikins LLP. The changes laid out three criteria courts must consider when asked to assign leases to a new tenant. The first is whether or not the sale has the support of the monitor, a court-appointed, independent third party which helps guide businesses through creditor protection. In the Bay's case, the monitor is Alvarez & Marsal. It has yet to reveal whether it supports the Liu deal and did not respond to requests for comment. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'Before any court application is brought forward, typically the company will test that out with them,' Lee said. 'They're not going to just sort of fly in blind and hope for the best.' The second aspect for the court to mull is whether the proposed new tenant is suitable. Lee said that's determined by looking at whether they can perform the duties of the tenant and pay rent. Liu, who made her money in Chinese real estate, appears to have deep pockets, but her experience comes from being a landlord rather than a tenant. Story continues below advertisement 1:47 Nostalgic Vancouver shoppers flock to 'The Bay' on its final day The final aspect the court will consider is whether a transfer of a lease to Liu is 'appropriate.' Lee said people should think of it as asking this question: 'Is what's proposed for this post-assignment lease relationship what people signed up for, or are they seeking to rewrite the lease or change the playing field so radically that it's not appropriate?' That's where much of the tension could lie in the Bay case. 'You can't go into CCAA as a tenant and then force your landlords to renegotiate their leases as a result,' said Peter Tolensky, a Vancouver-based partner at Lawson Lundell LLP. The Canadian Press obtained a document last week that Liu's lawyer sent landlords outlining her plans. It says she will take on the leases on an 'as is, where is' basis but doesn't mention the dining, entertainment, children's and fitness experiences she's told media she'd like to include in her department stores. Story continues below advertisement It's unclear whether the leases allow for uses other than a Bay-like department store. A court faced with a request to reassign leases will weigh this context and think about whether 'the landlord's world is being turned upside down by having this new tenant,' said Geoffrey Dabbs, a B.C.-based founding partner at Gehlen Dabbs Cash. 'The more it's a minor inconvenience for the landlord, the more likely the judge will order it,' he said. While the Bay hasn't said whether it will seek an assignment, it's likely because any company in creditor protection has a duty to show the court it's doing its best to pay back companies and people it owes money to, Dabbs said. The Bay has a 26-page list of creditors, with some lenders owed more than $100 million each. 2:08 Hudson's Bay last day Liquidation sales and a deal to sell the Bay trademarks to Canadian Tire for $30 million have put a dent in what's owed but selling leases to Liu would also help. Story continues below advertisement Anyone who made an offer for leases had to make a deposit of 10 per cent of their estimated purchase price. Court documents show Liu made a deposit of $9.4 million, in addition to $6 million for the three approved leases, which would equate to a purchase price of $100 million for 28 leases. When a deal like this is reached, Dabbs said a company typically seeks landlord consent because commercial leases tend to have provisions stopping anyone from transferring a lease without a property owner agreeing. It's not uncommon for landlords to object because any leases that can't be sold and aren't assigned get turned back over to property owners who can choose how to fill them and under what terms. 'Remember, these are anchor leases, so they're probably very favourable to the Bay or to the tenant in a lot of respects,' said Tolensky, alluding to the fact that anchor tenants are often given attractive rents or terms. Thus, it's more advantageous for landlords to get their properties back, said Monica Beffa, founder of an Oakville, Ont., law firm. If they do, they can then charge higher rents, develop them for entirely new uses such as residential units or break them up into smaller parcels that can be rented by a wide array of tenants. If they don't and a court assigns the leases to Liu, landlords will likely be watching her closely to ensure she doesn't violate any terms of the agreement. Story continues below advertisement 'The landlord may be cranky, if the tenant breaches, but put it this way, they don't want to rely on that,' Dabbs said. 'If they don't want this lease being assigned, they will fight it right up front.'
