 |
|
|
|||||
Another day, another recall: On Tuesday, popular chocolate brand Tony’s Chocolonely recalled two of its bars, Tony’s Dark Almond Sea Salt Bar (6.35oz) and Everything Bar (6.35oz), following 12 reports from consumers who found small stones “not filtered during third-party almond harvesting and the almond processing process.” The bars were distributed nationwide from February 7 to March 24, 2025 and sold in various retail stores, as well as at Tony’s online store. “We are extremely sorry to have to issue this recall, and for the inconvenience that this will cause,” a company spokesperson told Fast Company. “Whilst the probability of a product being affected is low, we always put the safety and satisfaction of our consumers first.” The company added that all complaints occurred outside of the United States and Canada, and no injuries or illnesses have been reported. Tonys issued this voluntary recall in consultation with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a precautionary measure. How can I tell if I purchased one of the recalled chocolate bars? The recall applies to seven lot codes, listed below: 6.35-oz. of of Tony’s Chocolonely Everything Bar with lot code 4327, UPC 850011828564, and use by date Nov. 22, 2025 6.35-oz. of of Tony’s Chocolonely Everything Bar with lot code 4330, UPC 850011828564, and use by date Nov. 25, 2025 6.35-oz. of of Tony’s Chocolonely Everything Bar with lot code 4331, UPC 850032676441, and use by date Nov. 26, 2025 6.35-oz. of of Tony’s Chocolonely Everything Bar with lot code M4331, UPC 850011828564, and use by date Nov. 26, 2025 6.35-oz. of of Tony’s Chocolonely Dark Chocolate Almond Sea Salt with lot code 163094, UPC 858010005641, and use by date April 2, 2026 6.35-oz. of of Tony’s Chocolonely Dark Chocolate Almond Sea Salt with lot code 162634, UPC 858010005641, and use by date Feb. 28, 2026 6.35-oz. of of Tony’s Chocolonely Dark Chocolate Almond Sea Salt with lot code M162634, UPC 850011828908, and use by date Feb. 28, 2026 No other Tony’s products are affected. What should I do if I have a recalled Tony’s chocolate bar? If you purchased one of the affected products with the specified lot codes, it is recommended to return it to the store of purchase for a refund, or throw it away. For more information, or to claim a refund or replacement, visit the company’s website here.
Category:
E-Commerce
Influencing has a major pay gap, and its not what you might expect. A new report from Collabstr, based on over 15,000 influencer collaborations using first-party data, reveals a surprising disparity: male creators earn 40% more per collaboration than female creators$291 compared to $208 on average. This gap persists despite women making up the majority of the content creator space. In 2024, 72% of influencers are women, up from 70% in 2023. These two facts are connected. The report, which focused predominantly on nano and micro-influencers, suggests that female creators are paid less largely due to the sheer number of women in the industry. Oversaturation drives down rates and weakens their bargaining power compared to male counterparts. Notably, the report found that the higher the follower count, the smaller the pay gap. While female dominated niches like fashion, beauty, lifestyle receive a lot of influencer spend, there is a lot of saturation especially at the nano and micro-influencer stage, and as a result the brands have more options and are able to price collaborations lower because there is essentially unlimited supply in these niches, Collabstr cofounder Kyle Dulay tells Fast Company. Perception also plays a role in the gender pay gap. According to the report, women are more often labeled as influencers, while men are referred to as content creators. This distinction isnt just semanticit has real consequences. The label influencer can diminish and undervalue womens work, framing them as product-pushers, while men are positioned as creative professionals and innovators. Dulay suggests that one way for female creators in saturated niches to command higher rates is by narrowing their focus. Instead of being a ‘beauty’ influencer, see how you can narrow that down further, perhaps into skincare particularly or highlighting your journey with acne, he explains. By doing this, you’re no longer competing with every other female in the beauty space, and you retain the power to price your services accordingly, rather than having prices dictated by brands. That niche doesnt have to be permanent. As you grow, naturally the ratio of female to male influencers drops, and you can begin widening your niche while retaining your pricing power, he adds. The creator economy is booming. The user-generated content (UGC) market hit $7.62 billion in 2024 and is projected to climb to $35.44 billion by 2030. More creators are seizing the opportunity66% now offer UGC services, up from just 26% in last years report. For female creators especially: know your worth, and dont be afraid to claim it.
Category:
E-Commerce
Earthquakes and the damage they cause are apolitical. Collectively, we either prepare for future earthquakes or the population eventually pays the price. The earthquakes that struck Myanmar on March 28, 2025, collapsing buildings and causing over 2,700 deaths, were a sobering reminder of the risks and the need for preparation. In the U.S., this preparation hinges in large part on the expertise of scientists and engineers in federal agencies who develop earthquake hazard models and contribute to the creation of building codes designed to ensure homes, high-rises and other structures wont collapse when the ground shakes. Local communities and states decide whether to adopt building code documents. But those documents and other essential resources are developed through programs supported by federal agencies working in partnership with practicing engineers and earthquake experts at universities. This essential federal role is illustrated by two programs that we work closely with as an earthquake engineer and a disaster management expert whose work focuses on seismic risk. Improving building codes First, seismologists and earthquake engineers at the U.S. Geological Survey, or USGS, produce the National Seismic Hazard Model. These maps, based on research into earthquake sources such as faults and how seismic waves move through the earths crust, are used to determine the forces that structures in each community should be designed to resist. A steering committee of earthquake experts from the private sector and universities works with USGS to ensure that the National Seismic Hazard Model implements the best available science. In this 2023 update of the national seismic risk map, red areas have the greatest chance of a damaging earthquake occurring within 100 years. [Image: USGS] Second, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, supports the process for periodically updating building codes. That includes supporting the work of the National Institute of Building Sciences Provisions Update Committee, which recommends building code revisions based on investigations of earthquake damage. More broadly, FEMA, the USGS, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Science Foundation work together through the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program to advance earthquake science and turn knowledge of earthquake risks into safer standards, better building design and education. Some of those agencies have been threatened by potential job and funding cuts under the Trump administration, and others face uncertainty regarding continuation of federal support for their work. It is in large part because of the National Seismic Hazard Model and regularly updated building codes that U.S. buildings designed to meet modern code requirements are considered among the safest in the world, despite substantial seismic hazards in several states. This paradigm has been made possible by the technical expertise and lack of political agendas among the federal staff. Without that professionalism, we believe experts from outside the federal government would be less likely to donate their time. The impacts of these and other programs are well documented. We can point to the limited fatalities from U.S. earthquakes such as the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake near San Francisco, the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles and the 2001 Nisqually earthquake near Seattle. Powerful earthquakes in countries lacking seismic preparedness, often due to lack of adoption or enforcement of building codes, have produced much greater devastation and loss of life. The US has long relied on people with expertise These programs and the federal agencies supporting them have benefited from a high level of staff expertise because hiring and advancement processes have been divorced from politics and focused on qualifications and merit. This has not always been the case. For much of early U.S. history, federal jobs were awarded through a patronage system, where political loyalty determined employment. As described in The Federal Civil Service System and The Problem of Bureaucracy, this system led to widespread corruption and dysfunction, with officials focused more on managing quid pro quo patronage than governing effectively. That peaked in 1881 with President James Garfields assassination by Charles Guiteau, a disgruntled supporter who had been denied a government appointment. The passage of the Pendleton Act by Congress in 1883 shifted federal employment to a merit-based system. This preference for a merit-based system was reinforced in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. It states as national policy that to provide the people of the United States with a competent, honest, and productive workforce and to improve the quality of public service, Federal personnel management should be implemented consistent with merit system principles. The shift away from a patronage system produed a more stable and efficient federal workforce, which has enabled improvements in many critical areas, including seismic safety and disaster response. Merit-based civil service matters for safety While the work of these federal employees often goes unnoticed, the benefits are demonstrable and widespread. That becomes most apparent when disasters strike and buildings that meet modern code requirements remain standing. A merit-based civil service is not just a democratic ideal but a proven necessity for the safety and security of the American people, one we hope will continue well into the future. This can be achieved by retaining federal scientists and engineers and supporting the essential work of federal agencies. Jonathan P. Stewart is a professor of engineering at the University of California, Los Angeles. Lucy Arendt is a professor of business administration management at St. Norbert College. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||