None
How Dr Manmohan Singh defied Leftist obstructionism to redefine IndiaMcDonald’s is launching its new “McValue” menu for 2025, which includes its signature $5 meal. The fast-food company announced on Friday that a new menu — featuring breakfast, lunch, and dinner meals — will be officially offered in stores on January 5, 2025. The McValue menu will include the beloved $5 Meal Deal, which will be extended until at least summer 2025. The deal gives customers the choice of a McDouble or McChicken sandwich, a small fries, four-piece chicken nuggets, and a small soft drink — all, of course, for the price of $5. The brand is also launching a “Buy One, Add One for $1” special on the menu, where customers can buy one full-price item and then get a second item for $1. Customers won’t have to get the same two items on the menu; they can mix and match two things from these breakfast options: Sausage McMuffin, Sausage Biscuit, Sausage Burrito, and Hashbrowns. The lunch and dinner options for the “Buy One, Add for $1” deal include six-piece Chicken McNuggets, Double Cheeseburger, McChicken, and small fries. The McValue menu will also have drink and food deals available at local stores, depending on locations, and different offers will be available on the McDonald’s app. “When it comes to value, we know there’s no one-size-fits-all. We’ve worked closely with our franchisees to create a new platform that will let our customers define value on their own terms,” Joe Erlinger, president of McDonald’s USA, said in a statement. “From deals on their personal go-to order to universal favorites like the $5 Meal Deal, we’re excited to give fans more ways to save every time they visit one of our restaurants.” Cory Watson, McDonald’s Owner/Operator and National Value Chair for 2025, acknowledged that he’s still “always listening to what [their] customers want from their neighborhood McDonald’s.” “No matter the city or the state, they’re telling us how important it is for them to find their favorite meals at affordable prices. And we couldn’t agree more. That’s why we’re committed to continuing to serve up great local deals,” he added. McDonald’s introduced the $5 Meal Deal in June following a sales slump in its first quarter. The company faced another crisis in October following an E. coli outbreak tied to onions in its Quarter Pounder sandwiches. The company has since spent $100 million to lure customers back. Earlier this month, McDonald’s also announced the return of one of its fan favorites, the McRib, with the sandwich returning to US stores on December 3. As described by McDonald’s, the McRib is a “seasoned boneless pork dipped in a tangy BBQ sauce, topped with slivered onions and tangy pickles, all served on a toasted homestyle bun .” Customers will also be able purchase a half-gallon jug of the McRib sauce, aptly named “A Whole Lotta McRib Sauce.” According to McDonald’s, the jug is “perfect for holiday parties, festive recipes, or the ultimate stocking stuffer for McRib lovers.”
BAKU, Azerbaijan (AP) — In the wee hours Sunday at the United Nations climate talks, countries from around the world reached an agreement on how rich countries can cough up the funds to support poor countries in the face of climate change. It’s a far-from-perfect arrangement, with many parties still unsatisfied but some hopeful that the deal will be a step in the right direction. World Resources Institute president and CEO Ani Dasgupta called it “an important down payment toward a safer, more equitable future,” but added that the poorest and most vulnerable nations are “rightfully disappointed that wealthier countries didn’t put more money on the table when billions of people’s lives are at stake.” The summit was supposed to end on Friday evening but negotiations spiraled on through early Sunday. With countries on opposite ends of a massive chasm, tensions ran high as delegations tried to close the gap in expectations. Here’s how they got there: What was the finance deal agreed at climate talks? Rich countries have agreed to pool together at least $300 billion a year by 2035. It’s not near the full amount of $1.3 trillion that developing countries were asking for, and that experts said was needed. But some delegations said this deal is headed in the right direction, with hopes that more money flows in the future. The text included a call for all parties to work together using “all public and private sources” to get closer to the $1.3 trillion per year goal by 2035. That means also pushing for international mega-banks, funded by taxpayer dollars, to help foot the bill. And it means, hopefully, that companies and private investors will follow suit on channeling cash toward climate action. The agreement is also a critical step toward helping countries on the receiving end create more ambitious targets to limit or cut emissions of heat-trapping gases that are due early next year. It’s part of the plan to keep cutting pollution with new targets every five years, which the world agreed to at the U.N. talks in Paris in 2015. The Paris agreement set the system of regular ratcheting up climate fighting ambition as away to keep warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. The world is already at 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) and carbon emissions keep rising. What will the money be spent on? The deal decided in Baku replaces a previous agreement from 15 years ago that charged rich nations $100 billion a year to help the developing world with climate finance. The new number has similar aims: it will go toward the developing world’s long laundry list of to-dos to prepare for a warming world and keep it from getting hotter. That includes paying for the transition to clean energy and away from fossil fuels. Countries need funds to build up the infrastructure needed to deploy technologies like wind and solar power on a large scale. Communities hard-hit by extreme weather also want money to adapt and prepare for events like floods, typhoons and fires. Funds could go toward improving farming practices to make them more resilient to weather extremes, to building houses differently with storms in mind, to helping people move from the hardest-hit areas and to help leaders improve emergency plans and aid in the wake of disasters. The Philippines, for example, has been hammered by six major storms in less than a month , bringing to millions of people howling wind, massive storm surges and catastrophic damage to residences, infrastructure and farmland. “Family farmers need to be financed,” said Esther Penunia of the Asian Farmers Association. She described how many have already had to deal with millions of dollars of storm damage, some of which includes trees that won’t again bear fruit for months or years, or animals that die, wiping out a main source of income. “If you think of a rice farmer who depends on his or her one hectare farm, rice land, ducks, chickens, vegetables, and it was inundated, there was nothing to harvest,” she said. Why was it so hard to get a deal? Election results around the world that herald a change in climate leadership, a few key players with motive to stall the talks and a disorganized host country all led to a final crunch that left few happy with a flawed compromise. The ending of COP29 is “reflective of the harder geopolitical terrain the world finds itself in,” said Li Shuo of the Asia Society. He cited Trump’s recent victory in the US — with his promises to pull the country out of the Paris Agreement — as one reason why the relationship between China and the EU will be more consequential for global climate politics moving forward. Developing nations also faced some difficulties agreeing in the final hours, with one Latin American delegation member saying that their group didn’t feel properly consulted when small island states had last-minute meetings to try to break through to a deal. Negotiators from across the developing world took different tacks on the deal until they finally agreed to compromise. Meanwhile, activists ramped up the pressure: many urged negotiators to stay strong and asserted that no deal would be better than a bad deal. But ultimately the desire for a deal won out. Some also pointed to the host country as a reason for the struggle. Mohamed Adow, director of climate and energy think tank Power Shift Africa, said Friday that “this COP presidency is one of the worst in recent memory,” calling it “one of the most poorly led and chaotic COP meetings ever.” The presidency said in a statement, “Every hour of the day, we have pulled people together. Every inch of the way, we have pushed for the highest common denominator. We have faced geopolitical headwinds and made every effort to be an honest broker for all sides.” Shuo retains hope that the opportunities offered by a green economy “make inaction self-defeating” for countries around the world, regardless of their stance on the decision. But it remains to be seen whether the UN talks can deliver more ambition next year. In the meantime, “this COP process needs to recover from Baku,” Shuo said. ___ Associated Press reporters Seth Borenstein and Sibi Arasu contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org .
49ers QB Brock Purdy resumes throwing but status for this week remains unknown
NFL Analysis: Week 12 was filled with sloppy play, especially on special teamsSAN DIEGO , Dec. 29, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Wolfspeed, Inc. (NYSE: WOLF ) securities between August 16, 2023 and November 6, 2024 , all dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until Friday, January 17, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Wolfspeed class action lawsuit. Captioned Zagami v. Wolfspeed, Inc. , No. 24-cv-01395 (N.D.N.Y.), the Wolfspeed class action lawsuit charges Wolfspeed as well as certain of Wolfspeed's executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Wolfspeed class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-wolfspeed-class-action-lawsuit-wolf.html You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at [email protected] . CASE ALLEGATIONS : Wolfspeed operates as a bandgap semiconductor company that focuses on silicon carbide and gallium nitride (GaN) technologies. The Wolfspeed class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Wolfspeed's optimistic claims of potential growth of its Mohawk Valley fabrication facility and general demand for Wolfspeed's 200mm wafers in the electronic vehicle market fell short of reality; and (ii) Wolfspeed had overstated demand for its key product and placed undue reliance on purported design wins while the Mohawk Valley facility's growth had begun to taper before recognizing the $100 million revenue per quarter allegedly achievable with only 20% utilization of the fabrication, let alone the promised $2 billion revenue purportedly achievable by the facility. The Wolfspeed class action lawsuit further alleges that on November 6, 2024 , Wolfspeed announced its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2025, revealing that 20% utilization of the Mohawk Valley fabrication facility would result in 30% to 50% below the $100 million mark defendants had claimed, attributing the results and lowered guidance to "demand . . . ramp[ing] more slowly than we originally anticipated" as "EV customers revise their launch time lines as the market works through this transition period." On this news, the price of Wolfspeed stock fell more than 39%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS : The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Wolfspeed securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Wolfspeed class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Wolfspeed class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Wolfspeed class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Wolfspeed class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER : Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud cases. Our Firm has been #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for six out of the last ten years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. We recovered $6.6 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – over $2.2 billion more than any other law firm in the last four years. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities- fraud .html Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 800-449-4900 [email protected] SOURCE Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLPArticle content Every year, we compile a list of the most impactful food stories to highlight the trends, challenges, and opportunities shaping Canada’s agri-food sector. From policy changes and economic pressures to technological advancements and consumer-driven shifts, these stories reflect the complexities of our food system and its broader societal implications. 2024 was no exception, offering a mix of triumphs and setbacks that defined the year for farmers, consumers, and businesses. As always, this list aims to provide a balanced perspective on the events that mattered most in the agri-food world, helping us understand where we’ve been and are headed. Enjoy! 10. The Loblaw boycott that wasn’t We were uncertain about including this story on the list since it never truly materialized. Despite significant online momentum, particularly on Reddit, the boycott, which initially targeted Canadian grocers like Loblaw, Sobeys, and Metro — while excluding American giants such as Walmart and Costco — failed to gain traction. Initially declared as a one-month protest starting May 1, it was later announced as indefinite. However, the boycott’s impact was negligible, as reflected in Loblaw’s shares soaring to $195—a remarkable 27% increase since the campaign’s launch. While the financial outcome left Loblaw unscathed, the campaign sparked important discussions around “greedflation,” corporate ethics, and the public image of Canada’s major grocers. The controversy exposed a critical gap in consumer confidence and intensified calls for greater transparency in pricing and competition practices. Addressing these issues will be essential for rebuilding trust and fostering a more equitable and competitive grocery landscape in the future. Recommended video 9. Capital gains tax changes impacting farmers The June 25 increase in the capital gains inclusion rate for profits exceeding $250,000 has alarmed the agricultural sector. Farmers, often asset-rich but cash-poor, face a 30% tax hike on average, according to the Grain Growers of Canada. With Canada already losing 700–1,000 farms annually, these changes exacerbate generational succession challenges and accelerate industry consolidation. Although the lifetime capital gains exemption has increased to $1.25 million, the higher tax rate disproportionately affects family-owned farms, posing a threat to the future of Canadian agriculture. 8. Endorsement of Grocer Code of Conduct by the “Big Five” The endorsement of the Grocer Code of Conduct by Canada’s largest grocers marked a milestone in addressing power imbalances between retailers and suppliers. By fostering fairer negotiations and reducing price volatility, the code is expected to enhance transparency and stabilize the food supply chain. However, questions remain about enforcement, and grocers must demonstrate their commitment to rebuilding consumer trust through fair practices. 7. Rise of GLP-1 drugs Like Ozempic The rise of GLP-1 drugs, such as Ozempic, marks a transformative moment in the pharmaceutical and health sectors, with the potential to impact millions worldwide. Initially developed for managing Type 2 diabetes, these drugs have gained widespread recognition for their effectiveness in promoting weight loss by suppressing appetite and slowing digestion. With global obesity rates continuing to rise, medications like Ozempic are being touted as game-changers, with experts predicting widespread adoption in the coming years. A pivotal moment in this shift occurred in February when Oprah Winfrey stepped down from the board of Weight Watchers, signalling a potential decline in traditional weight-loss programs as pharmaceutical solutions gain traction. While these drugs offer significant benefits, including improved metabolic health and reduced risks of obesity-related diseases, they also raise critical concerns. Affordability, long-term safety, and equitable access remain pressing issues. Additionally, the growing demand prompts questions about their impact on health-care systems and evolving societal attitudes toward weight loss and wellness. 6. The GST holiday and taxes on food debate Ottawa’s temporary GST/HST holiday on food and restaurant items sparked significant debate. While consumers will see minimal savings — roughly $5 at grocery stores — restaurants will benefit more, with families saving $60–$90. However, the logistical burden on retailers and regional disparities in tax rates and the possibility of opportunity pricing drew criticism. A permanent removal of GST on food would have been a more effective solution, fostering affordability without the instability of short-term policies. 5. Record food recalls and safety alerts Food recalls reached their fourth-highest level in 2024, driven by high-profile incidents involving cucumbers, bakery products, and plant-based beverages like Silk and Great Value brands. Tragically, these recalls were linked to three fatalities, emphasizing the importance of robust safety measures. This story sheds light on the ongoing challenges of managing food safety in complex supply chains, calling for stronger oversight and transparency in the agri-food industry. 4. Railway, grain, and port disruptions Labour disputes in Canada’s logistics sector disrupted the nation’s food supply chain in 2024, damaging its international reputation. With railways, ports, and other infrastructure under constant strain, these disruptions highlighted the critical importance of safeguarding the backbone of the Canadian economy. While protecting workers’ rights is vital, striking a balance to ensure uninterrupted supply chains is equally necessary. The year underscored the need for proactive labour policies to avoid holding the economy — and the food system — hostage. 3. Potential Tariffs with the Return of Donald Trump The return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency reignited fears of economic disruption, particularly in Canada’s agri-food sector, which sends 60% of its agri-food exports — $40 billion worth — south of the border. Proposed tariffs of up to 25% would devastate Canadian producers, already grappling with slim margins and the carbon tax. Ottawa faced mounting pressure to develop a long-term strategy to mitigate these risks and strengthen the agri-food sector’s competitiveness in an increasingly protectionist global landscape. 2. Carbon tax debate on food prices Carbon pricing remains a divisive issue in 2024, with peer-reviewed studies confirming that the policy increases production and transport costs, ultimately eroding the competitiveness of Canadian food systems. While grocers often mitigate impacts by importing cheaper goods, this approach masks the structural weaknesses created by rising operational costs. As such, studies looking at the impact of carbon pricing on food prices are generally flawed. Critics argue that many studies dismissing the tax’s effect on food prices are influenced by funding from Environment and Climate Change Canada, raising questions of bias. Policymakers must look beyond retail price fluctuations to understand the long-term implications of carbon pricing on Canada’s agri-food sector and food security. 1. Record number of visits to food banks In 2024, the HungerCount report revealed a record-breaking number of visits to food banks, alongside Canada’s food insecurity rate reaching an unprecedented 22.9%. These figures highlight a growing affordability crisis, driven by soaring food prices, stagnant wages, and broader inflationary pressures. While some have pointed fingers at immigration, such narratives overlook the complex economic dynamics at play and the humanity at the heart of this issue. Food banks, stretched beyond capacity, are emblematic of a broader social crisis. This story underscores the urgent need for robust social safety nets and policies that prioritize affordability and inclusivity. Honourable mentions: — Upcoming approval of cloned meat in Canada: Health Canada’s consideration of cloned meat approval has sparked heated debate. While advocates point to potential benefits like enhanced livestock genetics and improved food security, critics highlight concerns about transparency, ethical implications, and biodiversity. Without mandatory labelling, consumers are left in the dark about what’s on their plates, intensifying the call for stricter regulations and open communication. — Approval of methane-reducing feed for cattle and dairy: Bovaer, a feed additive approved in February, has the potential to significantly reduce methane emissions from cattle, offering an innovative solution for sustainable farming. However, its adoption remains limited, with no clear government communication or labelling guidelines. The lack of transparency echoes past controversies like Buttergate, leaving consumers uninformed about its broader implications. — Bill C-282 to protect supply management during trade deals: The advancement of Bill C-282, aimed at protecting supply management in future trade agreements, stands as one of the year’s most significant food policy developments. The bill seeks to safeguard Canada’s dairy, poultry, and egg sectors from trade concessions, ensuring industry stability and maintaining predictable prices for consumers. However, its progress has stalled in the Senate, casting doubt on whether it will pass before a new U.S. administration, potentially less favourable to Canada’s supply management system, takes office in January. Critics argue that the legislation could restrict Canada’s flexibility in broader trade negotiations. Nevertheless, supporters view it as essential for preserving food sovereignty and protecting Canadian farmers from an increasingly unpredictable global market. — Bill C-293: Canada’s “Vegan Act:” Originally focused on pandemic preparedness, Bill C-293 has sparked controversy for promoting alternative proteins and de-risking animal protein production. Proponents argue the bill aligns with sustainability goals and food innovation, while critics fear it marginalizes traditional farming. The ongoing debate highlights the tension between progressive food policies and the preservation of Canada’s agricultural heritage. — Ottawa’s tightening of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: While changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program aimed to prioritize domestic hiring, they have exacerbated labour shortages in agriculture and food processing. While the policy seeks to address labour exploitation, it risks destabilizing sectors heavily reliant on foreign workers, calling for a more balanced approach to ensure workforce stability. Happy Holidays! — Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is the director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast.