As food companies and researchers look for lower-resource protein sources, algae is moving beyond supplements and specialty products into familiar grocery items. That shift now includes ketchup, where scientists from Ural Federal University in Russia and the University of Otago in New Zealand tested whether microalgae protein could be added without changing the condiment consumers expect. Their findings, published online on July 2, 2026, show that modest additions of algae-derived protein increased nutrition while preserving the sweet, tangy profile most tasters recognized.

Researchers published a ketchup trial using Chlorella protein

The specific ingredient in the study was protein isolated from Chlorella vulgaris, a green microalga often studied for its high protein content. According to the ACS Food Science & Technology paper, the team produced ketchup formulations containing 1% to 13% of the algae protein isolate and compared them with a plain control ketchup. The article was published online on July 2, 2026, and appeared in the journal’s July 17, 2026 issue.

The scale of the sensory testing was small but clearly defined. The American Chemical Society said a panel of 15 people tasted the bottled and pasteurized ketchup samples, and the group found that versions with 1% and 3% added protein retained the familiar flavor and appearance associated with ketchup. At higher inclusion levels, especially 5% and 13%, the algae taste and greener color became more noticeable.

The nutritional changes were measurable. Per the journal abstract, protein content rose from 1.6% in the control formulation to 6.3% in the ketchup made with 13% Chlorella vulgaris protein isolate. The ACS summary also reported that the 3% and 5% versions delivered two to three times more protein than plain ketchup, alongside increases in essential amino acids, iron, sodium, and antioxidant activity.

The immediate impact is in research, not store shelves

For now, the effect on shoppers in the United States is limited to what the published research suggests about future product development. The study did not announce a commercial partnership, a manufacturing rollout, or a retail launch in any U.S. state, and no company said an algae-fortified ketchup would be sold in supermarkets. The researchers tested experimental formulations, not a branded national product.

That means there is no confirmed state-by-state distribution footprint to report. The authors were affiliated with Ural Federal University in Yekaterinburg and the University of Otago in Dunedin, and the 15-person sensory panel was conducted with student volunteers in Yekaterinburg, according to article details surfaced by ACS. The researchers have not released any U.S. pilot market, pricing plan, or list of restaurant or grocery partners.

What is known is narrower and more practical. The paper shows that ketchup, because it is shelf-stable and widely used, is being evaluated as a vehicle for functional ingredients rather than only as a condiment. That matters for U.S. food manufacturers because ketchup is a mass-market product with consistent consumer expectations, so even small formulation changes have to clear taste, color, and texture hurdles before commercial adoption.

Why algae is drawing attention from food developers

The main reason algae is being tested in foods like ketchup is its combination of protein density and lower resource use compared with many land-based crops. In the ACS release, corresponding author Parise Adadi said the researchers chose microalgae because Chlorella vulgaris can be cultivated rapidly year-round while using comparatively little land and freshwater. That sustainability argument is a central part of why algae continues to attract interest across the food industry.

There is also a formulation reason. A review in Frontiers in Food Science and Technology noted that microalgae can be used in foods as a nutrient source, flavor-active ingredient, or texture enhancer, while also warning that aroma, color, bitterness, and grassy or marine notes can limit consumer acceptance. In other words, the opportunity is nutritional, but the constraint is sensory performance.

That tension shows up clearly in the ketchup study. The published results suggest lower inclusion levels were more acceptable, while higher levels delivered stronger nutritional gains but made the product less familiar in taste and appearance. The researchers said their next steps include larger consumer studies, shelf-life testing, and development work at commercial scale, which means customers should view this as an early-stage food innovation rather than an imminent change to the ketchup aisle.

Consumers are still making room in their budgets for meals away from home. That resilience is showing up in the numbers, even as fuel costs keep squeezing wallets across the country.

Why restaurant spending is still climbing

U.S. restaurant spending rose to $103.6 billion in July on a seasonally adjusted basis, according to preliminary federal data highlighted by the National Restaurant Association. That makes July the fourth straight month of gains, with monthly sales increasing by more than $3 billion over that stretch. In a year marked by uneven consumer confidence, that is a powerful sign that dining out remains a priority for many households.

Part of the explanation is simple: the labor market is still doing enough to support everyday spending. The National Restaurant Association has pointed to job growth and wage income as the key pillars holding up restaurant demand, even when other costs rise. As long as people feel employed and reasonably secure, restaurants continue to benefit from both convenience spending and the social role dining plays in daily life.

There is also a practical reality behind the numbers. Eating and drinking places account for roughly 72% of total restaurant and foodservice sales, so this category captures the broad center of how Americans spend on food away from home. Even when consumers pull back on larger discretionary purchases, they may still preserve smaller indulgences like takeout, coffee runs, quick-service meals, and casual dinners.

That said, the top-line figure does not necessarily mean every operator is thriving. Census retail data showed broader retail and food services sales fell 0.6% in July from June, suggesting restaurant strength is arriving in a mixed consumer environment. In other words, diners are still showing up, but the broader economy is giving businesses little room for complacency.

The gas price squeeze is reshaping how people dine

The surprise in the latest spending figure is not that Americans like restaurants. It is that they kept spending even while regular gasoline hovered near or above $4 a gallon for more than four months, a threshold the National Restaurant Association says has put visible pressure on household budgets. Fuel does not just affect commuting; it competes directly with money that might otherwise be spent on lunch, delivery, or dinner out.

That pressure tends to hit lower-income consumers first, and large chains are already seeing it in their results. Reuters reported that McDonald’s posted softer-than-expected U.S. sales growth in early August, with the company pointing to execution issues and a customer base that has become more cautious as fuel and basic living costs rise. Value menus and promotions still matter, but they are no longer guaranteed to offset broader household stress.

Other industry reporting has suggested the same pattern across the sector. Reuters previously noted that several restaurant brands experienced weaker sales momentum as higher gasoline prices forced customers to cut spending elsewhere. Analysts and transaction data firms have also found that restaurant visits soften more noticeably once gas prices push past the $4 mark.

This does not mean consumers stop dining out altogether. Instead, they trade down, visit less often, skip appetizers, or favor quick-service restaurants over full-service occasions. The spending total can still rise in dollar terms even while traffic patterns become more selective and operators fight harder for every visit.

What the $103.6 billion milestone really means

The headline figure is encouraging, but it needs context. Monthly sales are reported in nominal dollars, meaning they are not adjusted for inflation. That means some of the increase reflects higher menu prices, not just more meals sold. For restaurant operators, strong sales can coexist with thinner margins if labor, food, rent, and utilities continue rising alongside revenue.

That tension is central to the 2026 restaurant story. The National Restaurant Association still expects total restaurant and foodservice sales to grow this year, but at a slower pace than it projected earlier. Industry expectations have been tempered by elevated operating costs and more price-sensitive consumers, even though the sector remains one of the largest employers and a major engine of service-sector spending.

For consumers, the July total shows that dining out still holds emotional and practical value. Restaurants serve as convenience, routine, entertainment, and social connection all at once. That makes the category unusually durable compared with other discretionary spending areas, especially when households are choosing where to absorb financial pressure.

Still, resilience is not immunity. If gas prices remain elevated, credit balances keep rising, or job growth weakens meaningfully, restaurant momentum could cool later in the year. For now, though, the $103.6 billion figure stands as a vivid reminder that even in a cost-conscious economy, Americans are not ready to give up their meals out.

Nutrition research has long emphasized how many vegetables people should eat, but newer data is adding another measure: how many different kinds make it onto the plate. A study highlighted by King’s College London on July 29, 2025, found that variety across plant foods, including vegetables, may matter more for long-term health than many people realize.

A study of more than 670 adults points to diversity, not just volume

King’s College London said its researchers analyzed dietary data from more than 670 adults in the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey and found that plant-food diversity was linked with better diet quality and healthier cardiometabolic markers. The study, published in Clinical Nutrition and highlighted by the university on July 29, 2025, examined not only how much plant-based food people ate but also how many distinct plant foods appeared in their diets. According to King’s, that included vegetables alongside fruits, grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, herbs, spices and plant-based beverages.

Researchers reported that current advice often focuses on quantity, such as the familiar “5-a-day” benchmark, while this analysis suggests the range of plant foods consumed may also shape health outcomes. Dr. Eirini Dimidi, a senior lecturer in nutritional sciences at King’s and the study’s senior author, said the findings indicate dietary variety across plant-based food groups may be as important as total intake for improving diet quality and lowering cardiometabolic risk. The study population was overwhelmingly omnivorous, with King’s stating that 97% of participants did not follow vegetarian or vegan diets.

That distinction matters because the research did not frame vegetable variety as a niche eating pattern. Instead, it assessed what people were already eating and compared diversity with markers tied to cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes risk, according to the university’s summary of the findings.

What the findings mean in the U.S., where vegetable intake remains uneven

For U.S. readers, the immediate takeaway is confirmed more by context than by a direct American trial: major federal nutrition reviews already show vegetable intake remains below recommended levels for many people, and the new evidence suggests simply increasing servings may not tell the whole story. The 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s scientific report said vegetables remain an important part of healthy dietary patterns, but intake gaps persist across age groups. The King’s College London study adds that the mix of plant foods, including the spread of different vegetables, may be another factor in overall diet quality.

What is not yet known is whether the same associations would appear at the same strength in a nationally representative U.S. sample. The King’s analysis used UK survey data from 2016 to 2017, and the researchers described the work as observational rather than a clinical trial. That means the study identifies links between more diverse plant intake and better health markers, but it does not prove that adding more vegetable types alone caused those results.

Even so, the issue has practical relevance in U.S. grocery aisles and home kitchens, where repeat purchasing patterns often concentrate vegetable intake in a small number of foods. The study suggests the difference between eating vegetables regularly and eating a broader spread of vegetables may be meaningful.

Researchers say biodiversity, nutrients and gut health help explain the pattern

The underlying explanation offered by researchers centers on what different plants contribute biologically. King’s College London said the rationale for its broader plant-diversity research is that mixed plant intake exposes people to a wider range of nutrients and bioactive compounds, which can act differently in the body. That helps explain why variety may matter even among people who already eat a generally adequate amount of vegetables.

Other recent research is reinforcing that bigger picture. A 2026 paper indexed by PubMed and led by researchers connected to the World Vegetable Center said vegetables span a broader phylogenetic range than any other plant-derived food group, giving them unusual potential to diversify diets. The authors wrote that reversing vegetable biodiversity loss will require conservation, breeding, variety testing and stronger inclusion of nutrient-dense vegetables in home and school meals.

King’s has already moved beyond the 2025 observational findings into follow-up work. ClinicalTrials.gov shows the university is sponsoring the PLANTIFUL study to test how plant foods affect gut and cardiometabolic health, with gut microbiota diversity listed as a main outcome. For consumers, the evidence base is still evolving, but the direction is increasingly clear: in nutrition, the number of different vegetables eaten may matter alongside the total amount.

Beef processors across the U.S. have been reshaping operations as tight cattle supplies and plant economics continue to pressure the industry. In Pennsylvania, that shift has centered on JBS Souderton, a major Montgomery County beef facility whose shutdown notice put nearly 1,500 workers on the layoff list. The closure stands out not only for its scale, but for what it means in a region where meat processing remains a significant food-manufacturing employer.

JBS filed a closure notice affecting 1,485 workers in Souderton

JBS Souderton filed a WARN notice with Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor & Industry listing a closure at 249 Allentown Road and 741 Souder Road in Souderton, Montgomery County. The state’s public notice lists 1,485 affected workers and gives an effective date of August 14, 2026. The filing identifies the action as a closure, not a temporary layoff, making it one of the larger food-industry job losses publicly posted in Pennsylvania this year.

JBS separately announced on June 12, 2026 that it planned to close the Souderton beef production facility as part of broader network changes in its U.S. operations. Local and trade reporting at the time said the plant was one of Montgomery County’s larger employers and that many workers were represented by UFCW Local 1776. The company said work performed at the site would be redistributed within its broader operating network.

The scale of the notice matters because WARN filings are designed to give workers and local officials advance notice of mass layoffs and plant closings. In this case, the Pennsylvania filing provides the clearest verified count and the exact Souderton addresses tied to the closure. That state record is also the most direct public confirmation of when the layoffs could begin.

The closure hits Montgomery County, though the full local fallout is still unfolding

The confirmed Pennsylvania impact is concentrated in Souderton, in Montgomery County, where the WARN notice names the two facility addresses and the 1,485 affected workers. That makes this a localized shutdown with statewide labor implications, especially because the plant has been part of the region’s food supply and manufacturing base for years. Publicly available records do not show additional Pennsylvania plant locations included in this specific JBS notice.

What remains less clear is how many of the workers ultimately separate from the company versus transfer or remain employed through changed operations. On August 10, 2026, JBS announced that the Souderton site would be transformed into a dedicated value-added operation and said approximately 400 jobs would remain in place. That means the original closure notice still describes the broad layoff event, but later company guidance indicates the final employment picture changed before the August 14 date.

The company has not released a full public breakdown showing which job categories are being eliminated, which departments will continue, or whether all retained positions are at the same Souderton addresses named in the WARN filing. Public statements also do not provide a city-by-city list of where any transferred work or displaced employees may land. For residents, the confirmed facts remain the closure notice, the Montgomery County location, and JBS’s later statement that some jobs will be preserved through conversion of the site.

Tight cattle supplies and JBS network changes help explain the shutdown

JBS said in its June 12 announcement that it was making network changes to strengthen operations, and industry coverage tied the Souderton closure to broader restructuring across the company’s U.S. footprint. The company’s later August 10 statement said beef harvesting and processing at Souderton would conclude on August 14, 2026, while the facility would be repurposed for value-added and case-ready production. JBS also said it plans to invest more than $30 million over the next decade in the Souderton site.

That strategy aligns with a national cattle-supply backdrop that has made beef processing more difficult. USDA’s January 30, 2026 Cattle report said there were 86.2 million head of cattle and calves on U.S. farms as of January 1, 2026, down from a year earlier. USDA data also showed 27.6 million beef cows, down 1% year over year, extending a multiyear contraction in herd size that has limited slaughter capacity economics for packers.

For consumers and residents in southeastern Pennsylvania, the immediate change is that Souderton’s beef harvesting and processing operation is ending, even as the property remains in use under a different model. JBS has said about 400 jobs are expected to stay and that the site will focus on consumer-ready beef products after conversion. The practical outcome is not a simple vacant-plant closure, but a smaller operation with a narrower role in the regional food-manufacturing system.

Food manufacturing layoffs have continued to hit several U.S. processing hubs in 2026 as companies adjust to weaker demand, cattle supply pressures, and broader changes across meatpacking and packaged foods. In Nebraska, that trend now includes Omaha, where American Foods Group is shutting down its Skylark Meats plant. The closure will remove another sizable food-production employer from the state at a time when other high-profile facilities have already announced cuts.

Skylark Meats is closing its Omaha plant and cutting 218 jobs

Skylark Meats, LLC, a subsidiary of American Foods Group, is permanently closing its plant at 4430 South 110th Street in Omaha, according to a WARN notice filed with the Nebraska Department of Labor on June 26. The state’s WARN listing shows 218 affected workers at the Omaha site. Local reporting by WOWT and The Reader said employees were told all operations are expected to end at the close of business on August 25, 2026.

Food Business News reported the Omaha facility measures about 215,000 square feet and produces a range of fresh meat products, including cut steaks, liver, marinated meats, and other beef and pork items. American Foods Group described the decision as difficult, according to multiple local and trade reports. The company also said it planned to support workers through the transition and encouraged affected employees to consider openings at affiliated operations.

The notice appears to be a final plant-closing notice rather than a conditional filing, based on the language reported by local outlets stating the facility is expected to close permanently on a specific date. Nebraska’s WARN listing does not provide a public breakdown by department or job title. No additional Omaha-area Skylark locations were identified in the state notice.

The closure adds to Nebraska’s food-manufacturing losses

For Nebraska, the confirmed impact is centered on a single Omaha facility, with 218 workers listed in the state WARN filing. The address in the notice matches Skylark Meats’ long-standing South 110th Street operation in Omaha. Publicly available reporting has not indicated any second Nebraska Skylark plant included in this action.

What is not yet known is how many of the affected workers may transfer to other American Foods Group facilities, accept other positions in the Omaha area, or leave the industry entirely. The company has not released a comprehensive public list of roles affected at the Nebraska site. It also has not publicly outlined whether any production lines, customer accounts, or product volumes from Omaha will be shifted to another plant.

The Omaha shutdown follows other major food-sector layoffs in Nebraska this year. The Reader and other local coverage noted Tyson Foods closed its Lexington beef plant earlier in 2026, and a separate WARN filing shows WK Kellogg is closing its Omaha facility as well. Together, those developments have made 2026 a notable year of contraction for food processing employment in Nebraska.

Supply pressures and industry change are shaping the backdrop

The company has not publicly issued a detailed explanation tying the Omaha shutdown to one single cause. But Nebraska Public Media, as cited in follow-up reporting on the state’s food manufacturing sector, has pointed to several pressures affecting processors in the state, including tariffs, declining exports, increased automation, and historically low cattle numbers. Those factors have created a more difficult operating environment for processors that depend on steady livestock supply and efficient plant utilization.

Trade coverage has also framed the Skylark decision within a broader reshaping of meat processing in Nebraska during 2026. Food Business News described Skylark as the second meat facility in the state to announce closure this year. That context matters because plant economics in meatpacking can shift quickly when input costs, cattle availability, and downstream demand no longer support a facility’s operating model.

For Omaha residents, the immediate change is straightforward: the Skylark Meats plant is scheduled to stop operating on August 25, and the publicly confirmed impact is 218 jobs at one local address. The company has said affected workers may apply for openings at affiliated facilities, but it has not announced any reversal of the closure. As of now, the official state notice and company statements point to a permanent shutdown on that date.

Erythritol has become a common ingredient in reduced-sugar foods, drinks and snack products sold across the U.S., especially in items marketed as keto, diabetic-friendly or lower calorie. New research is now sharpening questions about whether that popularity carries cardiovascular tradeoffs. The latest study, published online on February 20, 2025, found that higher erythritol levels were associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes, adding to earlier findings that had already tied the sweetener to heart attack and stroke risk.

A new study adds to earlier warnings on erythritol

The newest paper came from researchers working with the ARIC study, a long-running U.S. cardiovascular cohort, and was published in JACC Advances as an electronic publication on February 20, 2025. According to the PubMed record for the paper, the researchers analyzed 4,006 older adults without existing cardiovascular disease at baseline and measured erythritol and erythronate using mass spectrometry. The study did not test a branded food product or announce a market withdrawal; instead, it examined whether blood levels of these compounds tracked with later health outcomes.

The authors reported that circulating erythritol was associated with several later cardiovascular outcomes, while erythronate, a downstream metabolite, was associated with ischemic stroke and other events. That finding matters because ischemic stroke is the most common type of stroke and is tied to blocked blood flow in the brain. The paper adds another layer to earlier research from Cleveland Clinic investigators and collaborators that found higher blood erythritol levels were associated with major adverse cardiovascular events over three years.

Federal research summaries have already described those earlier findings in similar terms. The National Institutes of Health said in 2023 that higher blood levels of erythritol were linked with elevated risk of heart attack, stroke or death in studies involving more than 4,000 people in the United States and Europe. NIH also said lab and animal data from that earlier work suggested erythritol could make platelets more reactive, a mechanism that may increase clotting risk.

What this means in the U.S., and what remains unknown

The latest findings are national in scope, not tied to a single state, city, retailer or restaurant chain. Erythritol is sold and consumed broadly in the U.S. because it is used in packaged foods, tabletop sweeteners, protein products and beverages, but the new study did not identify specific states, brands, store counts or distribution regions. Researchers measured blood markers in study participants rather than tracking purchases from named products.

What is confirmed is that the ARIC-based analysis involved U.S. adults and found associations between higher erythritol-related measures and later cardiovascular events. What is not yet known from this paper is how much risk comes from food intake alone versus erythritol the body produces naturally, because erythritol is both an endogenous metabolite and an added sweetener. The study also does not establish that eating a single erythritol-sweetened product directly causes a stroke.

That distinction is important for readers trying to interpret headlines. NIH said in a 2024 summary of related xylitol research that erythritol and xylitol findings suggest possible long-term cardiovascular risks, but it also said further safety studies are warranted. No federal agency announcement reviewed here says consumers should stop using every product containing erythritol, and no nationwide recall or FDA market action was identified in the available source material.

Why researchers are still focused on erythritol

Scientists have kept studying erythritol because it sits at the intersection of two major trends: demand for low-sugar foods and concern about long-term cardiometabolic health. The earlier Nature Medicine study found that people with higher erythritol levels had greater risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, and experimental work in that paper suggested erythritol exposure could increase thrombosis potential. That helped move the discussion from simple dietary preference to a broader safety question.

More recent genetic analyses have pushed the issue further. A 2025 Mendelian randomization study published in Medicine reported that genetically predicted higher erythritol levels were associated with increased risks of coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke. A separate 2025 PubMed-indexed study likewise reported positive associations between erythritol and coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction and stroke using genetic methods.

For consumers, the practical takeaway is narrower than the headlines may suggest. The current evidence points to a possible cardiovascular risk signal that is strongest in blood-based and genetic research, not a confirmed immediate hazard tied to one recalled product or one named brand. For now, the most factual near-term expectation is continued scrutiny from researchers and public health institutions as more safety data on sugar alcohol sweeteners becomes available.

Restaurant closures have continued to pressure full-service dining chains and regional hospitality groups as operators face higher labor, food and financing costs across California. In the Bay Area, Vine Hospitality abruptly moved to close its entire restaurant portfolio in late June, including its steakhouse brand LB Steak. The shutdown ended service at seven restaurants across San Ramon, San Jose, Menlo Park, Larkspur and Tiburon.

Vine Hospitality shut all seven restaurants over three days

Vine Hospitality, a Bay Area restaurant group founded in 1994, confirmed in June 2026 that it would cease operations and close all seven of its restaurants. According to Patch, CEO Alistair Levine told the San Francisco Chronicle that all seven restaurants would close between Monday and Wednesday, with closures beginning June 22. The affected restaurants were LB Steak in San Ramon and San Jose, Left Bank Brasserie in Menlo Park, Larkspur and San Jose, Petite Left Bank in Tiburon, and Meso Modern Mediterranean in San Jose.

The timing was unusually abrupt. SFGATE reported that Petite Left Bank and Meso Modern Mediterranean ceased operations on June 22, Left Bank in Menlo Park closed June 23, and LB Steak at Santana Row and Left Bank locations in Larkspur and Santana Row were set to close June 24. Patch separately confirmed that LB Steak at City Center Bishop Ranch in San Ramon had already closed on June 22.

The scale of the closure was significant for a regional operator rather than a national chain. SFGATE reported that a WARN notice filed with the state listed 365 laid-off employees, while Patch cited Levine saying roughly 300 employees would be affected. Vine Hospitality’s public messages on restaurant social media accounts stated that the businesses were closing and thanked guests and staff, but the company did not announce any staggered reopening plan.

The California impact reached five Bay Area cities, including two steakhouse locations

The confirmed California closures spanned five Bay Area communities: San Ramon, San Jose, Menlo Park, Larkspur and Tiburon. For steakhouse diners, the most notable losses were the two LB Steak locations, one at City Center Bishop Ranch in San Ramon and one at Santana Row in San Jose. Patch reported that City Center staff confirmed the San Ramon restaurant had closed, while SFGATE reported the San Jose location was scheduled to close on June 24.

San Jose was hit hardest by confirmed unit count, losing three restaurants in the same week: LB Steak at Santana Row, Left Bank at Santana Row and Meso Modern Mediterranean. Menlo Park lost its Left Bank on June 23, Larkspur lost its Left Bank on June 24, and Tiburon lost Petite Left Bank on June 22. Those are the specific cities publicly identified in news reports.

What remains unclear is whether any additional California facilities connected to the company, beyond the seven operating restaurants, were affected by the shutdown. Vine Hospitality publicly confirmed the restaurant closures, but it has not released any broader statewide asset disposition plan in the reporting reviewed here. The known impact is limited to the seven named Bay Area restaurants.

The company pointed to cash shortages, capital problems and a difficult operating climate

The reasons cited for the shutdown were financial and operational. SFGATE reported that Vine Hospitality’s WARN notice said the company had tried to find additional investors or capital to support continued restaurant operations, but those efforts failed, leaving insufficient cash to continue. That filing gives the clearest formal explanation for why the closures happened so quickly.

Levine also told the San Francisco Chronicle, as quoted by SFGATE and Patch, that the company was operating in a challenging post-pandemic environment. He cited rising ingredient costs, including beef and tomatoes, and said plans tied to two unopened San Francisco restaurants fell apart late in the process. Those explanations place the closure within broader pressures facing full-service restaurants in California.

For customers, the practical effect is immediate: the seven restaurants named by Vine Hospitality are closed, and service has ended at those locations. SFGATE reported that laid-off employees would receive vacation pay and final earned wages, according to Levine. The company’s final public statements focused on thanking guests and staff, and no replacement operator or reopening schedule had been publicly announced at the time of the closures.

Coffee remains one of the most widely consumed beverages in the world, and researchers have long studied whether it may help explain lower rates of conditions such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease seen in some populations. New findings from Finland now add a more detailed look at how regular coffee intake tracks with body composition, metabolic markers, and sex hormones in midlife adults. The research centers on a large birth cohort in Northern Finland, where coffee consumption is especially high by global standards.

Researchers tracked 2,264 adults and found measurable body-composition differences

The new study came from the University of Oulu and was published in the European Journal of Nutrition on July 16, 2026, according to the journal record and the university’s summary of the findings. Researchers analyzed cross-sectional data from 2,264 participants in the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966, all age 46 at the time of assessment. The team examined habitual coffee intake alongside circulating metabolites, cardiometabolic risk markers, and sex hormone levels.

The clearest body-composition findings were that participants with higher coffee consumption tended to have lower total body fat, lower visceral fat, and greater skeletal muscle mass, according to the University of Oulu and the published paper. Those differences appeared even though body mass index was similar across higher- and lower-intake groups. That distinction matters because BMI alone can miss meaningful differences in fat distribution and lean mass.

Researchers also reported lower circulating branched-chain amino acid concentrations in both men and women with higher coffee intake. The paper noted that persistently elevated branched-chain amino acids have previously been linked with insulin resistance and greater type 2 diabetes risk. The study’s authors said the results show associations, not proof that coffee directly produced those outcomes.

The study was based in Northern Finland, and its findings reflect that population

The data came specifically from the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966, a long-running population study administered through the University of Oulu. That means the findings reflect adults from one defined region and age group rather than a nationally representative sample of Finland, the United States, or global coffee consumers. The researchers have not said the results can be generalized without further study in other populations.

Finland is a notable setting for this research because it remains one of the world’s highest coffee-consuming countries. The University of Oulu said average annual consumption there is about 11.8 kilograms, or roughly 26 pounds, per person. That high baseline intake gave researchers a population where meaningful differences in habitual coffee use could be studied at scale.

What is not yet known is whether the same pattern would appear in younger adults, older adults, or people in countries with different diets, activity levels, and coffee habits. The published study focused on observational associations in one cohort at midlife. Researchers also have not issued any recommendation that people start drinking more coffee based on these findings alone.

Hormone patterns may help explain coffee’s broader health links, but causation is unproven

Some of the most striking findings involved sex hormones, especially in men. According to the published study, greater coffee consumption in men was associated with a more favorable glucose-insulin profile, higher total and bioavailable testosterone, and higher sex hormone-binding globulin, or SHBG. At the same time, free testosterone and the free androgen index were modestly lower.

Among women, the hormonal pattern was narrower. Higher coffee intake was mainly associated with increased SHBG and lower measures of free androgens, according to the study and the University of Oulu summary. Lead author Luca Verroest said the research identified a distinct hormonal signature that remained even after accounting for BMI and lifestyle factors, with several associations differing between men and women.

Researchers said those hormone-related findings could help explain why coffee has been linked in earlier studies with better metabolic health. Still, the paper was observational, so it cannot determine cause and effect. The University of Oulu said scientists are now studying whether coffee itself drives these biological changes in animal models, with the longer-term goal of moving toward human intervention studies before any dietary guidance changes.

Coca-Cola’s color seems obvious now. But for generations, people have confused the shade of the drink with the changing colors of the bottles that carried it.

That mix-up helped create one of the most persistent myths in food history: that Coke itself somehow changed from green to brown.

The myth started with the bottle, not the beverage

The biggest source of confusion is the famous early Coca-Cola bottle. According to The Coca-Cola Company’s own history, the 1915 contour bottle contract specified a green-tinted glass known first as “German Green,” later renamed “Georgia Green.” That meant consumers often encountered Coca-Cola in a distinctly green bottle, even though the liquid inside was already dark.

Collectors’ guides published by the company also show that early straight-sided Coca-Cola bottles came in several glass colors, including clear, light green, and amber. In other words, packaging varied widely by era and bottler. When people look at vintage glass today, it is easy to assume the drink’s color changed with the container.

That misunderstanding survives because the green contour bottle became such a strong visual icon. Coca-Cola spent decades building brand recognition around a package that could be identified by touch or even from broken glass on the ground. Over time, the bottle’s identity became so powerful that many people mentally merged the package with the product.

Why Coke looks brown in the first place

The drink’s brown appearance comes from caramel coloring, not from cola nuts, bottle glass, or some secret aging process. The FDA lists caramel as an approved color additive, and its guidance on carbonated soft drinks explicitly notes that caramel coloring may be used in beverages like cola. That makes Coke’s trademark look part chemistry, part regulation, and part brand consistency.

Caramel color is not the same thing as melted candy poured into soda. In food manufacturing, it is a controlled ingredient made by heating carbohydrates under specific conditions to create a range of shades from yellow-tan to deep brown. The FDA also classifies caramel among color additives exempt from certification, which helps explain why it has long been common in soft drinks and other foods.

That dark tone matters commercially as much as visually. A cola that looked pale, cloudy, or inconsistent would feel wrong to many consumers, even if the flavor stayed similar. The brown hue signals richness, familiarity, and the classic cola profile people expect before the first sip.

The stranger truth is that branding made the myth believable

What makes this story stranger than people expect is that Coca-Cola did not need a dramatic color change in the drink itself to create decades of confusion. The combination of green glass, vintage bottling variation, and powerful nostalgia was enough. In popular memory, packaging history became beverage history.

The myth also flourished because Coca-Cola has always been sold as more than a formula. From its earliest years, the company fought imitators by emphasizing distinctive visual identity, especially the contour bottle. When a package becomes that culturally dominant, consumers start treating every detail of it as evidence about the product inside.

So no, Coca-Cola was not once a green soft drink that later turned brown. The more accurate story is less obvious and more interesting: the liquid stayed dark because caramel coloring defined the look, while the bottle changed around it. In food history, that is often how myths are born—not from one shocking switch, but from decades of people remembering the wrong color.

Protein has become one of the most prominent marketing claims in American food retail, showing up across bars, chips, yogurt cups and ready-to-drink shakes. The current boom is especially visible in the snack aisle, where brands are racing to meet demand for portable, higher-protein products. Dietitians say the trend reflects real consumer interest, but they also say a protein label by itself does not make a snack a better choice.

Protein snacks are gaining ground across the U.S. food market

Consumer research shows the shift is not anecdotal. Mintel reported in its 2026 U.S. consumer protein outlook that one-third of U.S. consumers said they cared more about protein intake than they did six months earlier, a change the firm said is fueling growth across snacks, beverages and menu items. IFIC’s 2025 Food and Health Survey also found that “good source of protein” ranked as the top criterion Americans used to define a healthy food.

That broader demand is showing up in snack-specific data as well. Mintel said protein-forward snack innovation remained a major theme in 2025, particularly in bars and other convenient formats. Separate consumer research cited in a 2025 industry report from Cargill found 34% of consumers considered “high in protein” a very important factor when selecting snacks, up 9% from 2020.

Dietitians say the interest makes sense because protein can support fullness and help people bridge long gaps between meals. Harvard Health has advised that high-protein snacks can help slow digestion and promote satiety, while Mayo Clinic guidance says protein-rich snacks can provide energy and help people stay satisfied between meals. That does not mean every protein-branded product offers the same nutritional value.

Dietitians say the label matters more than the front-of-pack claim

Registered dietitians consistently separate the protein trend from product quality. Cleveland Clinic dietitian Beth Czerwony said shoppers choosing snack bars should look for protein and fiber together while avoiding products high in sugar and saturated fat. For snack bars specifically, Cleveland Clinic recommends no more than 2 grams of added sugar or 2 grams of saturated fat per bar when the product is being used as a snack rather than a meal replacement.

Harvard’s Nutrition Source makes a similar point in broader snack guidance. It says satisfying snacks often pair protein with fiber and whole grains, naming foods such as nuts, yogurt and popcorn as examples, while cautioning that many ultra-processed snacks can also bring excess sodium, added sugars and unhealthful fats. Harvard’s public health guidance on jerky likewise notes that the category can be high in sodium, saturated fat and added sugar even when it delivers substantial protein.

That is why dietitians often direct shoppers first to minimally processed foods. Mayo Clinic and Harvard both point to options such as Greek yogurt, cottage cheese, legumes, nuts, tuna and eggs as protein snacks that can fit into a balanced eating pattern. For packaged items, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics spokesperson Caroline Susie told the Associated Press that shoppers should read the nutrition facts panel for added sugar and sodium, not just protein grams on the front.

What shoppers should expect from the trend now

For consumers, the practical takeaway is that protein snacks are not a fad category anymore. IFIC reports that seven in 10 Americans snack at least once a day, and protein has become one of the strongest signals shoppers associate with health. That combination helps explain why manufacturers keep extending protein claims into more snack categories, from refrigerated dairy to shelf-stable meat snacks and bars.

Dietitians, however, say most healthy adults do not automatically need more protein from specialty products. IFIC’s dietitian-authored guidance notes that baseline needs for many healthy adults can be estimated at 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight, and Mayo Clinic says many people can meet their needs through regular meals without adding protein shakes or supplements. In other words, the rise in protein branding reflects demand, but not necessarily a universal nutrition gap.

What shoppers should expect next is more choice, not a single dietitian-approved category winner. Expert guidance from Harvard, Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic points in the same direction: a useful protein snack is one that fits the person’s overall diet, includes other nutrients such as fiber, and does not rely on heavy amounts of sugar, sodium or saturated fat to deliver its protein message.