A major shell egg recall in 2025 became one of the larger food-safety actions of the year after federal investigators traced illnesses to a California supplier. The specific recall involves August Egg Company of Hilmar, California, which on June 6, 2025, recalled about 1,700,000 dozen brown cage-free and brown certified organic eggs, according to the FDA.

What was recalled, and how big is it?

August Egg Company announced the recall on June 6, 2025, after eggs were linked to a Salmonella Enteritidis outbreak, according to the FDA and the CDC. The FDA said the recall covered about 1.7 million dozen shell eggs, a figure often rounded in headlines to nearly 1.6 million dozen, and the products were sold under multiple brand names. FDA outbreak records said the company’s eggs were tied to 134 reported illnesses, 38 hospitalizations and one death across 10 states by the agency’s July 10, 2025 update.

The recalled products were brown cage-free and brown certified organic eggs with plant code numbers P-6562 or CA-5330 and Julian dates between 32 and 126 printed on the carton or package, according to the FDA. The agency listed products including Clover Organic Large Brown 12 eggs, Nulaid Medium Brown Cage Free 12 eggs, Nulaid Jumbo Brown Cage Free 12 eggs, O Organics Cage Free Large Brown 6 eggs, O Organics Large Brown 12 eggs and 18 eggs, Marketside Organic Large Cage Free Brown 12 eggs and 18 eggs, Marketside Large Cage Free Brown 12 eggs and 18 eggs, Raley’s Large Cage Free Brown 12 eggs, and First Street Cage Free Large Brown Loose 1 case = 150 eggs.

The FDA listing also included UPCs for many cartons, including Clover Organic Large Brown 12 eggs, UPC 070852010427; Nulaid Medium Brown Cage Free 12 eggs, UPC 071230021042; Nulaid Jumbo Brown Cage Free 12 eggs, UPC 071230021011; O Organics Large Brown 12 eggs, UPC 079893401508; Marketside Large Cage Free Brown 12 eggs, UPC 681131122764; and Raley’s Large Cage Free Brown 12 eggs, UPC 046567033310. The FDA recall announcement directed consumers to return recalled eggs to their place of purchase for a full refund. FDA materials reviewed for this article did not show a posted FDA enforcement recall number or hazard classification on the public recall announcement page.

Where the eggs were sold

The state-by-state distribution list is specific. According to the FDA, eggs were distributed within California and Nevada from February 3, 2025, through May 15, 2025, with sell-by dates from March 4, 2025, to June 4, 2025, through retailers including Save Mart, FoodMaxx, Lucky, Smart & Final, Safeway, Raleys, Food 4 Less and Ralphs.

The FDA also said eggs were distributed from February 3, 2025, through May 6, 2025, with sell-by dates from March 4, 2025, to June 19, 2025, to Walmart stores in California, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Wyoming, New Mexico, Nebraska, Indiana and Illinois. That means the full state list named by regulators is Arizona, California, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington and Wyoming.

What is not publicly detailed in the federal notices is a store-by-store location list for every affected market outside the chains named in the recall. The FDA identified the states and some retail banners, but it did not publish a comprehensive list of individual store addresses in each state. Federal outbreak records also noted confirmed product distribution to those nine states, while reported illness cases were recorded in a somewhat different group of 10 states during the investigation.

Why this happened and what shoppers should know

Federal agencies said the recall followed a multistate outbreak investigation. According to the FDA, traceback work identified August Egg Company as a common supplier, and inspectors collected environmental samples at cage-free laying houses used by the company. The FDA said three environmental samples matched the outbreak strain of Salmonella by whole genome sequencing, and eggs from that facility were already included in the recall.

The CDC said August Egg Company recalled eggs on June 6, 2025, after investigators connected patient interviews and supply-chain information to the company’s products. FDA records also said August Egg Company began diverting all eggs to an egg breaker in May 2025, a processing step the agency said eliminates the Salmonella risk for those eggs.

For shoppers, the practical guidance remained narrow and specific. Consumers were told by the FDA to check cartons for plant codes P-6562 or CA-5330 and Julian dates 32 through 126, then return recalled eggs to the place of purchase for a full refund. By the FDA’s July 10, 2025 outbreak update, regulators said all recalled eggs should have been off the market and beyond shelf life, but the agency also noted that the company and regulators were working on corrective and preventive actions.

It looks almost too simple to deserve the hype. But the cucumber salad dominating feeds and dinner tables right now has all the elements of a modern classic: crunch, salt, acid, heat, and a recipe simple enough to make on repeat.

What makes this particular version stand out is not culinary complexity. It is the way a handful of pantry ingredients turn an everyday cucumber into something vivid, savory, and oddly hard to stop eating.

Why this cucumber salad took off

The version catching on most widely is the deli-container cucumber salad popularized across TikTok, often associated with creator Logan Moffitt. The method is instantly recognizable: a whole cucumber gets sliced very thin, usually with a mandoline, straight into a quart container, then dressed and shaken until every slice is glossy and seasoned. That visual simplicity helped make it ideal social media food.

Its core formula is remarkably consistent. Most versions build from soy sauce, toasted sesame oil, garlic, green onion, sesame seeds, and a balancing note from sugar, rice vinegar, or fish sauce. Some add MSG or chili crisp, while others lean into cream cheese, smoked salmon, or steak-inspired variations. The point is less strict recipe fidelity than a repeatable, flavor-packed structure.

The trend also lands because it solves a real-life dinner problem. It is fast, cheap, and requires almost no cooking, which matters in hot weather and busy households. Unlike many viral recipes, it does not ask for specialty equipment beyond a knife or mandoline, and it scales easily from a solo lunch to a backyard side dish.

There is also a deeper food culture reason it resonates. The salad borrows from established East Asian cucumber dishes, including Chinese smashed cucumber salads and Korean cucumber banchan, both of which rely on crisp texture and assertive seasoning. What social media did was repackage those flavor ideas into a highly repeatable, pantry-friendly format for a broad home-cooking audience.

Why it tastes so much better than it should

This salad works because cucumbers are mostly water, which makes them exceptionally crisp, cooling, and good at carrying strong dressings without feeling heavy. Tufts notes that cucumbers are about 96 percent water, while USDA nutrition data shows they are low in calories and provide potassium, with much of their vitamin K in the skin. That combination gives the dish a fresh, hydrating quality without sacrificing flavor.

Texture is the first secret. Very thin slicing creates more surface area, so each piece picks up salt, acid, and aromatics quickly. When the cucumber is shaken in a sealed container, the dressing distributes evenly and lightly bruises the slices, helping them absorb flavor faster than a tossed salad usually would.

Balance is the second secret. Soy sauce supplies salinity and depth, sesame oil adds toastiness, garlic gives bite, and vinegar or fish sauce sharpens the finish. A pinch of sugar rounds the edges, while chili oil or chili crisp adds heat and richness. The result lands in that rare sweet spot between snack, side dish, and craving.

There is also an element of control that home cooks love. If you want it brighter, add more vinegar. If you want it richer, increase sesame oil. If you prefer extra crunch, use Persian cucumbers. The salad feels adaptable rather than precious, which is one reason people keep making it after the first viral attempt.

How to make it well at home

The best version starts with the right cucumber. Persian and English cucumbers are popular because they have thinner skins, smaller seeds, and a cleaner crunch than standard field cucumbers. Slice them thinly, but not paper-thin; you want enough structure to keep the salad crisp after dressing. If using a mandoline, the payoff is uniform texture, but careful knife work still produces an excellent bowl.

For a reliable baseline, combine sliced cucumber with soy sauce, a small splash of rice vinegar, a few drops of fish sauce, toasted sesame oil, grated garlic, sliced green onion, sesame seeds, and a pinch of sugar. Shake or toss thoroughly, then let it sit for 5 to 10 minutes. That short rest gives the cucumbers time to soften slightly while staying bright and snappy.

From there, variations are easy. Add chili crisp for heat, crushed peanuts for texture, or a spoonful of cream cheese for a richer, savory spin seen in some viral versions. For a meal, pair it with grilled chicken, cold noodles, rice, or seared salmon. It also works well beside burgers, sandwiches, or takeout-style weeknight dinners.

The only real mistake is overdressing or letting it sit too long. Cucumbers release water as they stand, which can dilute the seasoning. Make just enough to eat the same day, season assertively, and serve cold. That is the genius of the trend: a humble vegetable, a few pantry staples, and a result that tastes current without trying too hard.

The FDA’s broader campaign to reduce petroleum-based dyes in food has largely focused on the better-known certified colors still used in packaged products nationwide. On July 22, the agency moved on two lesser-known additives, quietly crossing Orange B off the books and starting the formal process to do the same for Citrus Red No. 2. The action is national in scope, but its most direct consumer relevance is in produce and legacy meat-processing rules rather than in the brightly colored snack foods that usually dominate the debate.

FDA finalized one dye revocation and proposed another

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on July 22 that it had issued a final order revoking the authorized use of Orange B in food and had proposed revoking the authorized use of Citrus Red No. 2, according to the agency’s news release and Federal Register filings. The FDA said Orange B’s authorized use had been abandoned by industry after the agency reviewed public comments, while Citrus Red No. 2 is now under a proposed revocation with comments due by August 24, 2026. In practical terms, that means one dye has been formally removed from the food rules and the second is on track to follow if the proposal is finalized.

The scale involved is small compared with the six widely used certified dyes the FDA is separately tracking for phaseout through voluntary industry pledges. Orange B had long been authorized only for hot dog and sausage casings, a narrow use that federal summaries and earlier FDA materials have described as effectively dormant for decades. Citrus Red No. 2 has been authorized since 1959 for coloring the skins of mature oranges, not the fruit’s interior, and the FDA said it has not been batch certified for food use in the United States since 2020.

The agency tied both actions to its review of outdated regulations rather than to a newly announced contamination issue or foodborne-illness event. No FDA recall number applies here because this was not a recall, market withdrawal, or safety alert for a specific product lot. The FDA instead described the move as part of a regulatory cleanup and said foods using these color additives after their authorization ends would be considered adulterated under federal law.

What the move means in stores, including in produce aisles

For shoppers, the immediate effect is likely to be subtle because the dyes at issue were already either unused or used only in highly limited ways. Citrus Red No. 2’s authorized use was confined to the skins of mature oranges that were not intended for processing, and the FDA said the additive has not been batch certified since 2020. Orange B’s use was even narrower, restricted to hot dog and sausage casings under older federal rules, and the FDA said it found no evidence during the comment process to change its view that industry had abandoned that use.

That means there is no published list of affected grocery chains, orange packers, or meat brands in California, Florida, Texas, New York, or any other state because the FDA did not announce a recall or identify currently marketed products containing the dyes. The agency has not released a state-by-state list of distributors, retailers, or processing facilities tied to these authorizations. It also has not said that any specific store shelves in any city are being cleared as a result of the July 22 action.

What is confirmed is that the rule changes apply nationwide because FDA color additive regulations govern the U.S. food supply broadly, not a single region. For consumers, the practical takeaway is less about pulling a named product from the pantry and more about the shrinking list of synthetic colors that can remain legally authorized for food use. The FDA’s public materials indicate any further action on Citrus Red No. 2 will depend on the comment process now underway.

Why the FDA is doing this now

The immediate reason, according to the FDA, is that both authorizations appear outdated because industry no longer uses the dyes for their limited approved purposes. In the proposed order for Citrus Red No. 2, published in the Federal Register on July 23, the agency said its records show the color additive was last batch certified in 2020 and that it has received no certification requests since then. Based on that record, the FDA said it tentatively concluded the use had been abandoned and that the regulation had become unnecessary.

The larger context is the administration’s push to phase out petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the food supply. HHS and the FDA announced that initiative on April 22, 2025, saying the agency would start revoking the authorizations for Orange B and Citrus Red No. 2 while also pressing industry to eliminate six more commonly used certified dyes by the end of 2027. The FDA’s tracking page now lists voluntary commitments from manufacturers, retailers, and trade groups that are removing certified colors across school foods, frozen products, cereals, dairy items, and broader retail portfolios.

For customers and residents, that means this latest action is best understood as a regulatory milestone rather than a sudden store-level disruption. People buying oranges or processed meats are not being told to return or discard a named product because none was identified in the July 22 announcement. The next concrete date is August 24, 2026, when the public comment period on Citrus Red No. 2 is scheduled to close, after which the FDA said it will decide whether to finalize that revocation.

Heart advice often sounds repetitive until you notice what keeps repeating. Again and again, cardiologists come back to a short list of foods that quietly do the most work.

What surprises many people is not the foods themselves, but why they matter. Their power is less about one miracle nutrient and more about how they replace salt-heavy, sugar-heavy, and saturated-fat-heavy choices across an entire diet.

Why these six foods keep rising to the top

Ask preventive cardiologists or dietitians to name reliable heart foods, and six categories appear constantly: beans and lentils, berries, dark leafy greens, nuts, extra-virgin olive oil, and fatty fish such as salmon or sardines. The American Heart Association, Mayo Clinic, and Cleveland Clinic all emphasize versions of this lineup because it fits the broader eating patterns linked with lower cardiovascular risk. These foods also show up naturally in Mediterranean-style and DASH-style eating plans, two of the most consistently recommended approaches for blood pressure and long-term heart protection.

The reason may surprise people who expect a single nutrient story. These foods help partly because of what they bring, including fiber, unsaturated fats, potassium, antioxidants, and omega-3 fatty acids. But they also help because of what they often push out of the diet: processed meats, refined snacks, butter-heavy meals, and sugary desserts.

That substitution effect matters. Mayo Clinic notes that legumes can replace higher-fat animal proteins while increasing fiber intake, and the American Heart Association recommends shifting protein choices toward beans, peas, lentils, nuts, and fish. In other words, cardiologists are not just praising foods in isolation. They are favoring ingredients that improve the whole plate.

What each food actually does inside a heart-healthy diet

Beans and lentils are inexpensive, filling, and remarkably effective in everyday meal planning. They provide plant protein and fiber without cholesterol, making them an easy stand-in for processed or fatty meats. That swap can reduce saturated fat intake while helping with cholesterol control and steadier blood sugar, two issues that often travel with heart disease risk.

Berries and leafy greens work differently but just as strategically. Cleveland Clinic highlights berries for their antioxidant and fiber content, while dark greens contribute potassium, fiber, and a dense package of micronutrients. For people trying to lower blood pressure, these foods support a pattern that naturally contains more produce and fewer ultra-processed sides.

Nuts, olive oil, and fatty fish round out the list by improving fat quality rather than simply lowering fat overall. The American Heart Association recommends unsaturated fats in place of saturated fats, and foods like walnuts, almonds, olive oil, salmon, herring, and sardines fit that model well. In the large PREDIMED trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine, people assigned to a Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil or nuts had fewer major cardiovascular events than those advised to follow a lower-fat control diet.

The real lesson cardiologists want people to understand

The bigger message is that heart health is built through patterns, not perfection. No cardiologist expects blueberries or salmon to cancel out a diet dominated by sodium, refined grains, and heavily processed foods. These six foods matter because they make a protective pattern easier to repeat at breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks.

That is why experts keep recommending practical meals instead of dramatic detoxes. A bowl of lentil soup, greens dressed with olive oil, yogurt topped with berries and nuts, or salmon with beans and vegetables does more than add nutrients. It creates meals with better satiety, better fat balance, and fewer of the ingredients that tend to raise LDL cholesterol or blood pressure.

There is also a real-world reason this advice endures: it is sustainable. These foods are widely available, flexible across cuisines, and easy to use in small daily upgrades. Cardiologists keep pointing to them because the best heart foods are not the most glamorous ones. They are the foods people can come back to often enough for the benefit to compound.

Buc-ee’s continues to expand its interstate footprint across the South, with new projects often drawing attention well before construction starts. In Florida, the clearest contender for the chain’s next location is now Tallahassee, where county records and local officials show the project has a defined site near Interstate 10 and Capital Circle Northwest. What remains unsettled is the opening date, because the development is still in review and Buc-ee’s has not announced a groundbreaking.

Tallahassee is the clearest next Florida site, with a large project now in public review

Buc-ee’s has moved beyond speculation in Leon County by securing land and filing development paperwork for a Tallahassee store. Leon County Commissioner Rick Minor’s January-February 2026 district newsletter said the county had received the Site and Development Plan for the Tallahassee Buc-ee’s and identified the project record as LSP26002. That public record step matters because it shows the proposal is active in county review rather than floating as an early concept.

The scale is substantial. Reference reporting based on Leon County property records said Buc-ee’s purchased 30.77 acres in late 2025 for $10,722,800, and the proposed travel center has been described at roughly 74,000 square feet with 120 fueling positions and about 800 parking spaces. If built as proposed, it would rank as one of the largest roadside retail projects now moving through local review in the Panhandle.

A separate official notice in Florida public records also shows Buc-ee’s advancing elsewhere in the state. On January 12, 2026, regulators issued final agency action approving an environmental resource permit for “Buc-ee’s #49 – Port Charlotte,” covering retail and gas station activity on 32.4 acres in Charlotte County. That confirms Florida has more than one Buc-ee’s project in motion, but Tallahassee remains the location most often discussed as the state’s likely next opening.

What is confirmed in Florida, and what is still unknown about the opening schedule

For Florida residents, the confirmed facts are narrower than many headlines suggest. Florida currently has open Buc-ee’s travel centers in Daytona Beach and St. Augustine, both on Interstate 95, while Tallahassee is the best documented next candidate in active local review. Leon County’s April 2026 district newsletter said a Tallahassee site plan meeting had been rescheduled for April 22, another sign that the project was still working through the local process rather than entering immediate construction.

What has not been confirmed is the exact opening date. Earlier projections in public reporting pointed to a mid-2027 debut, but no county source reviewed here says construction has started, and Buc-ee’s has not publicly announced a Tallahassee groundbreaking. County-level materials instead show an ongoing administrative review process, which means any date circulating online should be treated as tentative unless the company states otherwise.

There is also mixed public messaging across Florida projects. Buc-ee’s own contact page, which lists estimated opening dates subject to change, currently shows St. Lucie, Florida, in 2027 and Ocala, Florida, in 2029, but it does not list Tallahassee at all. That omission does not mean the Leon County plan is inactive; it means the company has not yet added a public opening estimate for that site.

Why the timeline is blurry, and what drivers should expect next

The main reason for the uncertainty is procedural, not mysterious. Leon County’s public materials show the Tallahassee project is moving through site and development review, a stage that typically involves technical work on land use compliance, infrastructure, stormwater, access, and other engineering issues handled before building begins. The county’s Development Services division describes that review system as part of the local process for implementing the comprehensive plan and land development code.

That helps explain why people may know the location but not the opening date. A project can have land under contract or already purchased, conceptual plans in circulation, and even public meetings on file without having a shovel-ready construction timeline. In other words, the address question can be clearer than the calendar question.

For customers in North Florida, the practical takeaway is straightforward. Tallahassee appears to be the most established candidate for the next Florida Buc-ee’s, but no official grand opening has been released. Until Buc-ee’s announces construction and posts a formal date, Floridians should view mid-2027 talk as an estimate and watch for the next concrete milestone: final approvals, a groundbreaking, or the company adding Tallahassee to its public opening list.

Across the U.S., restaurants increasingly market experience as aggressively as food, with historic buildings and visually distinctive dining rooms becoming part of the business model. In Vermont, that pattern shows up in a different form: some of the state’s strangest places to eat are notable not for gimmick menus, but for the railcars, schoolhouses and roadside structures where the meals are served. The result is a cluster of restaurants where the setting is verified history, not manufactured spectacle.

Vermont’s most unusual restaurants are defined by the structures they occupy

Casey’s Caboose in Killington is among the clearest examples. The restaurant states that it opened in 1981 inside a 35-ton railroad snowplow car dating to about 1900, a piece of equipment that once cleared snow from New England rail lines before being sidelined after a derailment. That makes the building itself the central point of difference, with diners eating beside train windows and in an elevated observation area once used by a rail operator.

Brattleboro’s T.J. Buckley’s follows a different model but with the same emphasis on place. The restaurant says it operates inside a restored 1925 Worcester dining car, and its website identifies chef Michael Fuller’s open kitchen as part of the experience. The compact footprint is not decorative; it is the core operating reality of the restaurant, and it limits seating while turning food preparation into a visible part of dinner service.

Waitsfield’s Canteen Creemee Company shifts the focus from historic architecture to format and scale. The business promotes its Bad Larry vertical sundae, a tall creemee presentation that can be finished with cotton candy, while also serving fried chicken and other savory items from its Main Street location. In each case, the unusual feature is specific and verifiable: an original rail vehicle, a preserved diner car, or a dessert presentation the restaurant itself has built into its identity.

The strongest concentration of these destinations is spread across several Vermont towns

What is confirmed is that these restaurants are not clustered in one tourist corridor. Casey’s Caboose is in Killington, T.J. Buckley’s is in Brattleboro, Canteen Creemee Company is in Waitsfield, The Belfry is in Montgomery Center, and Blue Benn Diner is in Bennington, according to the businesses and local institutional references. That statewide spread matters because it shows Vermont’s unusual dining scene is tied to local building stock and town-scale identity rather than a single entertainment district.

The Belfry in Montgomery Center identifies itself as serving the town from 14 Amidon Road, and booking information carried by the restaurant and OpenTable describes it as an 1800s schoolhouse with the original blackboard still used for daily specials. Its location near Jay Peak has helped position it within the state’s ski-country dining economy, but the most distinctive element remains the reused school building. The restaurant’s oddity is architectural and historical, not menu-driven.

In Bennington, Blue Benn Diner remains one of the best-known examples of a place where the physical structure defines the meal. Bennington College refers to it as a 1945 Silk City diner, while Vermont Public reported that the blue-and-cream aluminum eatery was built in New Jersey in 1948 and brought to Bennington, where it still sits. What is not publicly settled in one single source is a universal dating convention for the diner’s manufacture, but multiple reputable references agree it is an authentic mid-20th-century diner car that has long anchored the same site.

The broader context is Vermont’s reuse of historic spaces as working restaurants

The reason these restaurants stand out is partly economic and partly cultural. Across hospitality, operators often use distinctive real estate to differentiate themselves in a crowded market, but in Vermont that strategy frequently overlaps with preservation and adaptive reuse. Official business descriptions for Casey’s Caboose, T.J. Buckley’s and The Belfry all emphasize the age or original purpose of their structures, showing that the buildings are not secondary branding details; they are central to how the restaurants present themselves.

That context also helps explain why the menus are not the main story. Canteen Creemee Company can promote a towering sundae and fried chicken in the same breath because the business fits within a broader Vermont pattern of pairing local food culture with offbeat presentation. The restaurant calls attention to the Bad Larry on its own site, while Food Network, quoted there, highlighted one of its maple-topped creations as a standout. The novelty is real, but it is grounded in a regional product category, the Vermont creemee, rather than an unrelated stunt.

For customers, the practical takeaway is straightforward: in Vermont, some of the state’s most unusual restaurant experiences come from where the meal happens as much as what is on the plate. Seating capacity can be limited in restored diner cars and rail equipment, and the experience may be shaped by preserved layouts that were not originally designed as modern dining rooms. As these businesses continue operating, the verified pattern is that Vermont’s strangest places to eat are often hiding in plain sight inside historic structures that were built for entirely different jobs.

Regional fast-food chains continue to grow carefully in the West even as many national brands pursue faster, broader expansion. In-N-Out Burger is the latest example, with six new city-level projects moving forward while one proposed California location in Palm Springs remains delayed. The split outcome shows how expansion can depend not just on demand, but on local planning and design rules.

In-N-Out’s next wave is already taking shape

In-N-Out has identified six “Opening Soon” locations on its official store locator: Commerce, Stockton and Irvine in California; San Tan Valley in Arizona; St. George in Utah; and Twin Falls in Idaho. The company’s locations page shows confirmed addresses for at least four of those sites, including 6233 Telegraph Ave. in Commerce, 10537 Trinity Pkwy. in Stockton, 33375 N. Gary Rd. in San Tan Valley, and 4643 S. Pioneer Rd. in St. George. In Twin Falls, the chain separately confirmed in a July 22, 2026 press release that the restaurant at 1965 Blue Lakes Blvd. North would begin serving customers on July 24.

That Twin Falls announcement provides the clearest official opening date among the six cities. In-N-Out said the Idaho restaurant would employ about 90 associates when it opened, underscoring that at least one of the six projects has already moved from pipeline status to active operations. The company has not published one consolidated rollout schedule showing when each of the other listed locations will open.

What is confirmed is the scale of the current push. California accounts for three of the six city additions, while Arizona, Utah and Idaho each account for one. The company’s official materials also state that In-N-Out now operates in 10 states and is still pursuing gradual growth tied to its supply system rather than a national buildout at once.

Palm Springs is the outlier in California

Palm Springs is not on that “Opening Soon” list, and city proceedings show why. According to KESQ, the Palm Springs Planning Commission reviewed updated plans on July 6, 2026 for a proposed In-N-Out at 1801 E. Palm Canyon Drive in Smoke Tree Village, but did not grant final approval after nearly three hours of discussion. NBC Palm Springs reported the commission voted 5-0 to approve revised design conditions while still requiring one more review before final architectural sign-off.

That means Palm Springs is in a different position from the six cities where In-N-Out is already publicly signaling near-term expansion. Local officials are not rejecting the project outright, but they are also not allowing it to move ahead unchanged. City discussion has centered on whether the building design is distinctive enough for Palm Springs rather than whether the restaurant can operate there at all.

Some details remain unresolved. The company has not released a public opening date for Palm Springs, and local coverage indicates the timeline is now uncertain. The proposal has been under city review since 2024, and while nearby Coachella Valley residents already have access to In-N-Out locations in Rancho Mirage and Thousand Palms, Palm Springs would still mark a notable addition inside the city itself.

Design standards, not demand, are driving the delay

The Palm Springs holdup is rooted in architecture and site design, according to local reporting and city records. KESQ said commissioners and residents argued the revised proposal still looked too much like a standard In-N-Out rather than a project tailored to Palm Springs. NBC Palm Springs reported commissioners asked for squarer building lines, changes to decorative exterior elements, and thicker landscaping to reduce headlight glare on nearby homes.

That local review process has unfolded against In-N-Out’s broader strategy of controlled expansion. The company states in its media materials that it only builds stores within a single-day drive of its in-house patty-making facilities so ingredients can be delivered fresh and never frozen. That policy helps explain why the six advancing cities are all in states where the chain already operates and supports a pattern of infill growth rather than long-distance leaps.

For customers, the practical takeaway is straightforward. New In-N-Out restaurants are moving ahead in six named cities, but Palm Springs residents should expect more design review before construction can proceed there. The company has said it is willing to consider the city’s requested changes, and the next step in Palm Springs is another architectural review rather than a confirmed opening date.

As GLP-1 weight-loss drugs increasingly influence how Americans order at restaurants, chains across the industry are testing smaller portions, higher-protein meals and other menu adjustments. Gordon Ramsay has taken a different position, saying he will not create special reduced-portion menus for diners using medications such as Ozempic or Mounjaro. His response has become a clear counterpoint to one of the restaurant industry’s biggest menu trends.

Ramsay says no as chains test smaller portions

Ramsay’s position became public on November 10, 2025, when Fox News, citing his interview with The Sunday Times, reported that the celebrity chef rejected the idea of GLP-1-specific menus and said there was “no way” he would offer an “Ozempic tasting menu.” Fox News reported that Ramsay’s restaurant business spans nearly 90 establishments worldwide, giving his remarks weight well beyond a single concept.

The comments came as more restaurant brands were publicly experimenting with smaller portions and protein-focused offerings. Fox News reported that Olive Garden introduced a lighter-portion menu, while Chipotle rolled out a High Protein Cup, Subway added compact Protein Pockets and Smoothie King launched a GLP-1 support menu. Those moves reflect a broader effort by chains to adapt menus without waiting for a full overhaul of their core offerings.

Circana said in a January 14, 2026, research release that GLP-1 users reduced the average number of items ordered per restaurant trip by 1%, while 35% of all restaurant consumers reported ordering smaller portions for health-related reasons in October. That gave operators a measurable reason to test smaller-format items, even as Ramsay publicly distanced himself from the trend.

What the trend looks like in the U.S. market

The immediate impact is national rather than tied to one city or state. The available reporting and industry research describe a broad U.S. restaurant shift toward portion flexibility, protein-forward dishes and menu labeling aimed at health-conscious diners, but they do not provide a full state-by-state breakdown of which locations have adopted those changes.

That means some details remain unconfirmed. Public reports show chains including Olive Garden, Chipotle, Subway, Shake Shack and Smoothie King have introduced either lighter portions, curated high-protein items or GLP-1-friendly marketing, but the companies have not all released comprehensive location-by-location lists in every market. In Olive Garden’s case, ABC News reported the lighter-portion section began as a test before a wider rollout.

For customers, the visible change is less about restaurants becoming smaller in scale and more about menus becoming more segmented. National Restaurant Association analysis published May 20, 2026, said GLP-1 users are still active restaurant customers, averaging 7.6 restaurant purchases in the prior week versus 5.1 for non-users. The trade group also said many users are modifying orders by choosing smaller portions, more protein and more vegetables.

Why restaurants are moving this way, and what diners should expect

Industry sources have tied the shift to changes in consumer behavior rather than a collapse in restaurant demand. Circana said GLP-1 users are not abandoning restaurants, but are changing what they order by choosing more main dishes and fewer sides, snacks and breads, while also seeking vegetables, fruit and nutrient-dense items such as smoothies.

The National Restaurant Association reached a similar conclusion, stating that the issue is “shifting habits, not shrinking demand.” Its May 2026 analysis said more than nine in 10 GLP-1 users would order menu items tailored to their preferences, and 76% said they would pay a premium for those options. That helps explain why chains are testing customization, portion control and menu callouts even as some chefs resist the framing.

Ramsay’s stance suggests not every operator will embrace GLP-1 branding directly. For diners, the near-term expectation is a split market: some chains will keep adding lighter portions and protein-focused combinations, while others will stick to traditional menu formats. The broad industry signal, based on current trade-group and research data, is that restaurants see menu flexibility as a lasting consumer demand rather than a short-lived promotion.

Food recall headlines move fast, and federal officials continue to post new food, drug and consumer-product notices on the FDA’s public safety pages. For shoppers trying to decide whether a pantry item or refrigerated product is actually affected, the most reliable answer comes from the FDA’s own recall systems, not a reposted image or a partial social media warning. The practical check starts with the official product listing and ends with matching the exact package details in your home to the details the agency or manufacturer published.

Start with the FDA page, then verify the exact product details

The FDA’s public “Recalls, Market Withdrawals, & Safety Alerts” page is the agency’s front-facing database for recall announcements and related public notices, and the agency says those listings remain available on the site for three years before being archived. That matters because many viral recall posts omit dates, pull old notices back into circulation, or leave out whether a recall has already been terminated. The FDA also states that not every recall has a press release or appears on that page, which is why a second check may be necessary when a notice seems incomplete.

For food products, the FDA’s consumer guidance says recall notices typically include the product name, package size, UPC, lot codes, sell-by or use-by dates, label images and distribution information. Those details are what determine whether the item in a shopper’s kitchen matches the affected product. A brand name alone is not enough, because recalls often apply only to specific package sizes, production runs or date ranges rather than every item sold under that label.

The agency’s consumer recall guidance says people should read the recall notice carefully and verify brand name, packaging size and identifying codes such as expiration or best-by dates. If those numbers and dates do not match exactly, the item may not be part of the recall described in the public notice. In practice, that means checking the barcode area, side panel, lid, carton flap or printed date stamp before deciding whether to discard or return a product.

Use FDA enforcement records when the first notice is missing key facts

When a recall post circulating online looks real but lacks specifics, the FDA’s Enforcement Report can provide another layer of confirmation. The agency says that database tracks recalls pending classification as well as classified recalls, and it can show updates to a recall’s classification, reason for recall, code information and product description. For consumers, that makes it useful when the first headline includes only a company name or a broad warning but not the identifying product data needed for a shelf check.

The Enforcement Report is also where official recall numbers and classifications may appear once the agency posts or updates the record. In food cases, those entries can clarify whether the issue involves contamination, mislabeling or an undeclared allergen, and whether the recall has been formally classified. The FDA says the report’s quick and advanced search tools can be used to locate those records, which can help distinguish an authentic government-tracked recall from a vague repost.

If the product is regulated by another agency, shoppers may need to look beyond the FDA page. The FDA’s food recalls and emergencies page directs consumers to FoodSafety.gov for food safety and food recall information from both FDA and USDA, a distinction that matters for items such as certain meat, poultry and egg products that may fall under USDA oversight rather than FDA oversight. A notice using the phrase “FDA recall” for a product the agency does not regulate is a sign that more verification is needed.

What a real recall notice tells shoppers to do next

A real recall notice does more than announce a problem; it tells consumers what action to take. The FDA’s food recall guidance says product-specific instructions often direct customers to return the item to the store for a refund or to dispose of it properly, and the agency says consumers should not give recalled food to others. The FDA’s broader recall explainer also notes that a recalling company’s notice may include photos, distribution details and direct customer-service information to help people identify the exact product and understand the next step.

The FDA also offers email subscriptions for recalls, market withdrawals and safety alerts, including food-specific notices and individual recall events. That subscription system is one way to avoid relying on cropped screenshots or secondhand summaries that may omit key qualifiers, such as limited date ranges or only certain states and stores. The agency’s recall pages are updated on an ongoing basis, and the FDA says terminated recalls are identified separately from notices that remain active or in progress.

For shoppers, the bottom line is procedural rather than speculative. Check the FDA listing, compare the exact package information in your home, review any enforcement entry if details are missing, and follow the manufacturer or agency instructions attached to that specific notice. The FDA’s own guidance makes clear that the deciding factors are the product description, codes, dates and distribution information published in the official recall notice.

It happens in seconds. You reach for the smaller package because it feels cheaper, smarter, and more practical. But grocery shelves are designed to make that snap judgment unreliable.

Why your brain treats a smaller package as the safer deal

Most shoppers do not calculate value from scratch in the aisle. They rely on visual shortcuts, and package size is one of the strongest. A smaller box, pouch, or bottle often signals lower spending, even when the cost per ounce is worse. That instinct feels rational because the shelf price is lower, but it does not always reflect the better buy.

Research and government guidance both point to the same problem: consumers are much better at spotting price changes than quantity changes. Purdue’s October 2024 Consumer Food Insights Report found that 82% of surveyed shoppers often or always check overall price, while shrinkflation is harder to detect without looking at weight or unit price. The U.S. GAO also reviewed consumer response to downsizing and found that size reductions can raise the per-unit price while drawing less attention than a direct sticker shock increase.

That gap matters because grocery shopping is a high-speed decision environment. A 2024 CFPB research release on price complexity found that when prices become harder to compare, consumers tend to pay more. While that study was not about cereal boxes or coffee bags specifically, the lesson carries over: the more mental math a shopper must do, the easier it is to misjudge value.

How packaging design helps create the illusion of value

The smaller package can look like the better buy for another reason: brands rarely present value in a neutral way. Shape, height, width, and empty headspace all affect what consumers think they are getting. A shorter, sturdier container can feel efficient and premium, while a taller one can appear generous even when the net contents say otherwise.

Food packaging rules do try to limit deception. Federal regulation says a food container can be misleading if it contains nonfunctional slack-fill, meaning empty space that serves no legitimate purpose. But many packages still use legal design choices that create strong impressions without technically mislabeling the contents. The front panel sells the feeling; the net weight tells the truth.

Unit pricing was created to counter exactly this problem. According to NIST’s 2025 Unit Pricing Guide, shelf labels became the preferred method because they are easier for consumers to use, and 74% of shoppers use unit pricing in stores when it is available, citing FMI grocery shopper data. NIST calls unit pricing one of the most effective tools consumers have for comparing value, especially when package sizes change.

The number that actually tells you which package wins

If two packages seem close, the deciding factor should usually be the unit price, not the package size or even the sticker price. That small shelf number, listed by ounce, pound, or quart, strips away the visual tricks. It lets shoppers compare brands, store labels, and oddly sized packages on equal terms.

That matters more than ever in an era of downsizing. A 2024 Marketing Science study using U.S. grocery retail data found that after a size reduction, price per volume was about 12% higher on average over the following 12 months. In other words, a product can look familiar, cost about the same, and still quietly become a worse deal.

None of this means the largest package is always the winner. Sometimes a smaller pack makes sense if it prevents waste, fits a budget this week, or matches how fast your household actually uses the product. But when the question is pure value, the smartest move is simple: ignore the shape, ignore the “convenient” size, and read the per-unit cost first. That is where the better buy usually reveals itself.