Americans are consuming non-nutritive sweeteners in everything from diet drinks to yogurt and tabletop packets as food makers continue to push lower-sugar products. Now a new mouse study has focused attention on two of the best-known options, sucralose and stevia, and whether their effects can extend beyond the people or animals that consume them. The research, released publicly on August 31, 2026, suggests some gut and metabolic changes may persist into later generations.

Researchers traced changes in mice exposed to sucralose and stevia

The study, published in Frontiers in Nutrition, examined 47 male and female C57BL/6J mice that were split into three groups, according to the paper. One group received plain water, while the other two received water supplemented with sucralose or stevia for 16 weeks. The doses were described by the researchers as roughly equivalent to the FDA acceptable daily intake for humans.

Researchers then bred the mice through two additional generations. The first-generation and second-generation offspring were not directly given sweeteners and received only plain water and standard chow, according to the paper. That design allowed the team to test whether any biological changes could still be detected after the original exposure had ended.

The researchers measured oral glucose tolerance, fecal microbiota composition, short-chain fatty acid concentrations, and the expression of genes tied to inflammation, gut barrier function, and metabolism. In the paper’s conclusion, the authors stated that parental consumption of sucralose or stevia induced intergenerational changes in metabolism, gene expression, gut microbiota composition, and microbial metabolite production. The strongest and most persistent findings were linked to sucralose, while stevia-related effects were more concentrated in the first generation.

What the findings do and do not show for people in the U.S.

The study does not identify a specific state or city impact because it was conducted in laboratory mice at the University of Chile, not in people or at U.S. food facilities. There is no recall, store closure, or geographic distribution list associated with this research, and no U.S. state-by-state consumer advisory was issued with the publication. The findings instead add to a broader public-health discussion relevant to shoppers nationwide because both sweeteners are widely used in American packaged foods and beverages.

What is confirmed is that the investigators observed changes in gut bacteria and lower levels of short-chain fatty acids in animals exposed to either sweetener, with some of those patterns also detected in offspring. ScienceDaily’s summary of the research reported that first-generation male offspring in the sucralose line showed impaired glucose tolerance, while second-generation animals showed elevated fasting blood sugar in males from the sucralose group and females from the stevia group. The authors also reported that sucralose produced larger microbiome shifts, including more potentially pathogenic bacteria and fewer beneficial species.

What remains unknown is how closely those effects translate to human diets, pregnancy, or long-term health outcomes in U.S. consumers. The researchers said the animals did not develop diabetes and cautioned that the study shows associations in mice, not proof of the same outcome in humans.

Why sweetener researchers are paying closer attention now

The paper places the work in the context of rising global use of non-nutritive sweeteners, including among women of childbearing age. The authors noted that these additives were designed to reduce sugar intake and calorie consumption, but concerns have persisted for years about whether some sweeteners can alter the gut microbiome and downstream metabolic responses. Their hypothesis was that changes in microbial activity and short-chain fatty acid production could help explain why effects might carry into offspring.

That idea builds on earlier animal and human research cited in the paper. Prior studies have reported that some low- and no-calorie sweeteners can influence microbiome composition, while a human randomized controlled trial previously found distinct microbiome and glycemic effects for several sweeteners, including sucralose. The new study extends that line of inquiry by looking not just at the directly exposed animals, but at two subsequent generations.

For consumers, the practical takeaway is narrower than the headline. The authors said the goal is not to create alarm but to support further investigation into long-term biological effects. For now, the study adds evidence to an unsettled research area, with the clearest conclusion being that in mice, sucralose and stevia were not biologically neutral under the conditions tested.

As food inflation and climate pressure continue to test household budgets worldwide, researchers and international agencies are warning that affordability, not just supply, is becoming the central food issue of the coming decades. The sharpest concern is in lower-income regions, where the latest global modeling and U.N. food-security data indicate millions could face food costs that absorb an extraordinary share of income by 2050. While the headline risk is global, the consequences are increasingly relevant to U.S. consumers because the same forces driving instability abroad are also affecting farm inputs, imports, and grocery pricing at home.

New projections put food affordability at the center of the 2050 debate

The most concrete recent warning comes from a 2026 economic modeling study indexed by FAO and published this year, which found that under some healthier-diet scenarios, food’s share of household expenditure in East and Central Africa could rise from 18% to 25% by 2050. The study also said that in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, food price increases could outpace wage gains for low-skilled workers, reducing real purchasing power, according to the FAO record for the paper.

That does not verify a single global forecast that “millions” will definitively spend half their income on food by 2050. But it does show that major institutions are documenting a severe affordability problem, and related research in Nature Communications found projected food-affordability outcomes ranging as high as 90.44% across countries, reflecting extreme disparities tied to economic development.

The broader baseline is already troubling. FAO’s interactive 2026 affordability explainer said nearly 3 billion people still cannot afford the nutrition they need, while the 2026 State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report said 645 million people faced hunger in 2025. Those figures make clear that the affordability crisis is not a distant scenario starting in 2050; it is already embedded in current food systems.

The U.S. impact is indirect for now, but the pressures are still local

No major U.S.-specific projection in the source material says American households will spend anywhere near half their income on food by 2050. The confirmed risk is more indirect: global food affordability stress can feed into trade disruption, input volatility, and renewed grocery inflation, especially when extreme weather or conflict tightens supply. FAO said high food price inflation has made healthy diets a more pressing issue in recent years, and the World Bank’s updated CoAHD analysis said affordability depends on both diet cost and household income growth.

For U.S. readers, that means the local effect is less about famine-style scarcity and more about sustained pressure on food budgets, especially for lower-income households already sensitive to produce, protein, and staple price swings. The source material does not identify which U.S. states or metro areas would be most exposed by 2050, and no state-level list is publicly confirmed in the research cited here.

What is confirmed is that affordability has become a central metric in food policy. FAO’s August 2026 summary of the global hunger report said progress remains fragile and uneven, and more than half of Africa’s population faced moderate or severe food insecurity in 2025, compared with 8.7% in Northern America and Europe. That gap helps explain why the most extreme budget-share projections are concentrated outside the United States, even as the structural drivers are global.

Why researchers say the risk is rising, and what consumers should expect

The sources point to several overlapping causes. FAO and the World Bank have tied worsening affordability to high food price inflation, persistent income inequality, and structural costs across agrifood supply chains. Nature Food research published in late 2025 added that food-system transformation scenarios can improve health and environmental outcomes, but they also reshape agricultural wages, labor demand, and household spending patterns, especially in poorer countries.

Climate and land pressures are also part of the picture. FAO has long projected that feeding the world in 2050 will require major gains in productivity and investment, while its more recent roadmap and food-systems reporting say countries remain off track on many food-system goals. Reuters and Thomson Reuters Foundation coverage cited in the source set has also documented how climate shocks, crop nutrition losses, and land degradation can compound hunger and raise costs for vulnerable populations.

For consumers, the practical takeaway is narrower than the headline. The verified evidence supports a future in which food could absorb a much larger share of income for millions in the world’s most vulnerable regions, and in extreme modeled cases even far more than a quarter of household budgets. What has not been confirmed in the sources reviewed here is a single authoritative 2026 forecast stating that millions will definitely spend half their income “just to eat” by 2050. The clearer consensus from FAO, the World Bank, and peer-reviewed research is that without stronger policy, investment, and income growth, healthy diets will remain unaffordable for a large share of the global population through mid-century.

Pizza chains have been adjusting store portfolios as operators face uneven traffic, higher costs, and tighter franchise economics. In Ohio, that pressure surfaced abruptly when a Domino’s franchisee exited 13 locations in multiple north-central communities. Domino’s said the issue was limited to one franchisee and not representative of the broader brand.

Domino’s confirmed 13 Ohio store closures tied to a former franchisee

Domino’s confirmed on September 14 that 13 Ohio locations operated by Mile High Pizza Company had closed, according to a company statement reported by Nation’s Restaurant News and Restaurant Dive. The stores were tied to franchisee Anthony Satterwhite, whom Domino’s described as a “former franchisee.” The company also said it is working to transition the restaurants to new ownership so service can eventually resume in affected markets.

The closure count is notable because broad shutdowns of this size are uncommon inside the Domino’s U.S. system. Restaurant Dive reported that Domino’s recorded only nine franchise terminations in 2025 across its nearly 7,000 franchised U.S. stores. That makes the Ohio closures significant even as Domino’s continues to post overall domestic unit growth.

Publicly available records also show the scale of Satterwhite’s prior footprint. Nation’s Restaurant News reported that Domino’s most recent franchise disclosure document, published in April 2026, showed Satterwhite owned at least 25 locations at the end of 2025. Mansfield News Journal, as cited in coverage of the closures, reported that he had been a Domino’s franchisee since 2017.

The shutdowns hit several north-central and northeast Ohio communities

The confirmed Ohio cities named in published reports include Mansfield, Canal Fulton, Ashland, Galion, Crestline, Akron, Barberton, Mount Gilead, and Wadsworth, according to Nation’s Restaurant News and local reporting echoed by AOL. That establishes the closures as a multi-market disruption rather than a single-city retrenchment. Some of the affected communities are in Richland, Stark, Summit, Morrow, Medina, and Crawford county trade areas.

Local reports have identified at least some specific storefronts, including a Domino’s at 2077 Locust St. in Canal Fulton and locations in Mansfield and Mount Gilead, according to AOL’s republication of local reporting. Even so, the company has not released a comprehensive public list of all 13 affected Ohio restaurants. That means some city-level and address-level details remain unconfirmed by Domino’s itself.

For customers, the immediate impact is straightforward: some neighborhoods temporarily lost nearby carryout and delivery coverage. Domino’s has not publicly said when any of the closed Ohio stores might reopen under new operators. The company’s statement instead focused on finding replacement ownership so customers in those communities can again access the service and products they expect from the brand.

The closures come as Domino’s grows overall but franchise pressures persist

Domino’s framed the episode as an isolated franchisee matter, but the broader pizza business has been contending with softer category demand and operator cost pressure. Nation’s Restaurant News, citing Technomic data, reported that the pizza category declined 0.3% year over year in 2025 even as Domino’s posted a 4.8% gain. The same report noted that Pizza Hut and Papa Johns have also been closing hundreds of locations this year while responding to slower sales.

At the corporate level, Domino’s is still expanding. The company’s second-quarter 2026 financial results showed 26 net new U.S. store openings in the quarter, after 19 net new domestic openings in the first quarter, and management said it was targeting about 175 net new U.S. stores for the full year. That contrast underscores that systemwide growth can continue even while individual franchisees run into local financial or operating trouble.

What Ohio residents should expect next is a transition period rather than an immediate brand exit. Domino’s said it is actively working to place the affected stores under new ownership, but it has not released a timetable for each market. Until that process is complete, customers in the affected Ohio cities may see reduced delivery ranges, fewer nearby carryout options, or both, while the brand attempts to restore service store by store.

Restaurant franchise bankruptcies have continued to reshape parts of the quick-service business as operators contend with debt, weaker traffic, and higher operating costs. In Florida, that pressure is now playing out in court after Miami-based Popeyes franchisee Sailormen sued over a failed sale involving 23 Orlando-area restaurants. The lawsuit centers on whether the bankrupt operator can keep $2.5 million that had been placed in escrow for the transaction.

Sailormen asks the court to let it keep a $2.5 million escrow payment

Sailormen Inc. filed the lawsuit on September 16, 2026, in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, according to Nation’s Restaurant News and Bloomberg Law. The company said RFI Ventures improperly backed out of an agreement to buy 23 Orlando-area Popeyes restaurants and argued the $2.5 million in escrow should be forfeited as liquidated damages.

The dispute follows Sailormen’s January 15, 2026 Chapter 11 filing. Court records tracked by Stretto show the company entered bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of Florida, and reporting on the case said Sailormen was working to sell restaurants to multiple buyers as part of the restructuring process.

At the center of the case is a package of 23 stores that had originally been part of a larger June sale process. Nation’s Restaurant News reported that 97 of Sailormen’s locations were sold through that broader effort, with the Orlando group assigned to RFI Ventures for about $2.5 million before the deal fell apart.

Sailormen told the court that RFI later tried to justify its nonperformance on what the company described in filings as unsupported grounds for termination. Bloomberg Law reported that Sailormen is seeking permission to retain the escrowed funds now held in dispute, making the case one of the latest courtroom fights tied to the chain’s bankruptcy sales.

The dispute is centered on Orlando-area restaurants, but the full local list is not public

The restaurants at issue are in the Orlando area, but a comprehensive public list of the 23 affected addresses was not included in the source material reviewed for this article. What is confirmed is the scale of the package and the geography: these were Orlando-area Popeyes units that Sailormen had planned to transfer to RFI Ventures before finding another buyer.

For Central Florida customers, that means the ownership path for those restaurants changed during the bankruptcy process, but not all site-level outcomes have been detailed publicly. Nation’s Restaurant News reported that after RFI withdrew, Sailormen sought court approval to keep operating the restaurants while it looked for another buyer.

A replacement deal was reached in July, when SBH Foods PLK agreed to acquire the same 23 Orlando-area locations for $2.7 million, or roughly $200,000 more than the original offer, according to court documents cited by Nation’s Restaurant News. That agreement allowed the sale process for those stores to move forward.

Elsewhere in the bankruptcy, other Florida and Georgia markets were also affected. Prior reporting said Popeyes corporate was set to buy 16 Miami-area locations, 61 Biscuits LLC agreed to buy three West Palm Beach-area stores, and SBH Foods had separately agreed to buy five Savannah, Georgia, locations.

The lawsuit grows out of a broader bankruptcy driven by debt and operating pressure

Sailormen’s legal fight is part of a larger restructuring tied to heavy debt and weaker restaurant economics. Nation’s Restaurant News reported that the company estimated about $130 million in debt in its Chapter 11 filing and said it had faced significant challenges over the prior year, including rising operational costs and consumer behavior changes that reduced traffic.

Additional reporting on the bankruptcy said Sailormen had operated more than 136 Popeyes locations across Florida and Georgia before the filing. Earlier in the case, 20 restaurants in Florida and Georgia closed in March, including three units where leases were rejected, showing that some store-level fallout had already begun before this latest lawsuit.

The court fight also highlights how bankruptcy sales can continue even after an approved buyer steps away. A legal analysis published after a recent court order noted that the judge directed the escrow dispute into an adversary proceeding rather than resolving it immediately through a motion in the main bankruptcy case, meaning the question of who ultimately gets the money is now being litigated separately.

For customers, the practical takeaway is narrower than the lawsuit itself. The Orlando-area restaurants have a replacement buyer, but the company has not released a full public list of the affected locations in the materials reviewed here, and the escrow dispute is still pending in bankruptcy court as Sailormen continues unwinding its Florida and Georgia portfolio.

Fast food burger chains are still leaning on limited-time launches and value menus in 2026, even as their permanent cheeseburger lineups remain the category’s biggest day-to-day traffic driver, according to chain menu materials and company updates. Within that broader market, some of the most reliable burgers are not the headline items but the standard builds that chains keep selling year-round. This list focuses on seven cheeseburgers that remain easy to overlook but are still worth ordering when they are on the menu.

Seven burgers that still outperform their billing

Culver’s ButterBurger Cheese belongs on any underrated list because the chain’s signature item is often overshadowed by the more heavily dressed Deluxe or by the brand’s cheese curds and custard. Culver’s says its ButterBurgers are made with fresh, never frozen beef and served on a lightly buttered, toasted bun, and its nutrition guide lists the single ButterBurger Cheese at 460 calories.

Freddy’s Original Double is another easy miss because the chain’s steakburgers compete for attention with seasonal promotions and newer bowls. Freddy’s menu describes its steakburgers as a core offering, and the brand’s current nutrition and allergen resources show a broad burger lineup anchored by thin, crisp-edged patties and cheese-forward builds.

Wendy’s Dave’s Single may not feel underrated in pure name recognition, but it is often skipped in favor of bacon-heavy specials and returning limited-time burgers. Wendy’s says the burger includes a quarter-pound of fresh, never-frozen beef with American cheese, lettuce, tomato, pickle, ketchup, mustard, mayo, and onion on a potato bun, giving it one of the more complete standard builds in major fast food.

Regional chains and secondary burger menus deserve more attention

Whataburger’s Bacon and Cheese Whataburger Jr. is a smaller-format burger that has become easier to overlook because the chain has spent recent months promoting value bundles and broader menu deals. In January 2026, Whataburger said the burger joined its Whatadeal lineup at a $5 price point, and the company describes it as a longtime favorite built with a 100% beef patty, bacon, and cheese.

Del Taco’s Double Del Cheeseburger remains one of the most unusual sleeper picks in fast food because it comes from a chain better known for tacos and burritos. Del Taco’s current burger listing says the sandwich includes two 100% beef patties grilled to order, two slices of American cheese, tomato, burger sauce, shredded lettuce, and diced onions on a grilled sesame seed bun, and its nutrition listing puts it at 690 calories.

Sonic’s SuperSONIC Double Cheeseburger also fits the category because broader attention often goes to drinks, shakes, and limited-time snack items rather than its mainline burgers. Sonic’s official menu continues to feature the burger as a national item, reinforcing that it remains a permanent part of the chain’s core lineup rather than a short-run promotion.

Why these burgers hold up in 2026

Jack in the Box’s Ultimate Cheeseburger rounds out the list because it remains one of the chain’s signature burgers without commanding the same current attention as newer bundles or late-night combinations. Jack in the Box’s company materials still identify the Ultimate Cheeseburger as part of the brand’s core burger lineup, and its nutrition materials list the sandwich at 820 calories with 50 grams of protein.

What links all seven burgers is not novelty but staying power. Large burger chains and regional operators continue using menu innovation to drive visits, but category reports still show major sales concentration among established burger brands including Wendy’s, Sonic, Whataburger, Culver’s, Jack in the Box, and Freddy’s, which helps explain why durable core items continue to matter.

For customers, the practical takeaway is straightforward: the best order is not always the newest one. Across national and regional chains, these burgers remain notable because the companies still feature them in official menu, nutrition, and value materials, indicating they are not legacy leftovers but active menu anchors that continue to define each brand’s burger business in 2026.

Restaurant chains are putting more attention on staffing structures as they try to grow while holding onto workers in a still-uneven labor market. Chipotle Mexican Grill is now widening one of its internal career-building programs, saying it wants an apprentice role in every company-owned restaurant by the end of 2027. The expansion signals how large chains are using management development, not just hiring, to support operations and long-term growth.

Chipotle sets a companywide expansion target

Chipotle announced on September 15 that it is expanding its Apprentice program with a goal of placing the role in each of its more than 4,200 company-owned restaurants by the end of 2027, according to the company’s official news release. The company said roughly 75% of its restaurants already have an apprentice in place, and those units produce stronger operational scores than restaurants without the position. Chipotle described the apprentice role as a pipeline to general manager jobs and said the added coverage helps restaurants during peak hours and weekends.

The company said apprentices help general managers distribute responsibilities more effectively while improving digital execution and day-to-day consistency. In the same announcement, Chief Legal and Human Resources Officer Ilene Eskenazi said every crew member hired has the potential to become a future restaurant leader. That framing is central to how Chipotle is presenting the program: not as a new store format or menu initiative, but as a leadership system inside the restaurant.

Chipotle has tied the apprentice role to a broader internal-promotion strategy for years. In a February 2025 hiring announcement, the company said 85% of all restaurant management role promotions were internal and that 23,000 team members were promoted in 2024. Public filings also show Chipotle owned 4,042 restaurants as of December 31, 2025, including 3,938 in the United States and 104 international locations, underscoring the scale of the infrastructure the company is now trying to standardize.

The impact is national, but store-by-store details are limited

Because Chipotle owns and operates its North American restaurants, the apprentice expansion is positioned as a systemwide operational change rather than a franchise rollout. The company said the target applies to every company-owned restaurant, which means the plan reaches thousands of locations across the United States and Canada. Chipotle has not released a comprehensive public list showing which specific cities, regions, or individual restaurants still do not have an apprentice role in place.

That leaves the local picture incomplete for now. What is confirmed is the broad scale: about three-quarters of the chain’s restaurants already have apprentices, and the remainder are expected to be added before the end of 2027, according to Chipotle. What is not yet known is which stores in specific states or metro areas will receive the role next, or whether staffing timelines will vary by market.

For workers inside the system, the change could matter more than it appears to diners. Nation’s Restaurant News reported that more than 85% of Chipotle’s restaurant managers began as crew members, and the company said the apprentice job is intended to strengthen that leadership pipeline. In practical terms, that creates another step between entry-level work and the general manager office, while also giving restaurants an extra layer of management support during busy service periods.

Why Chipotle is doing this now

Chipotle’s explanation centers on growth, retention, and operational consistency. The company said the apprentice expansion is meant to strengthen management infrastructure as it works toward a long-term goal of 7,000 restaurants in the United States and Canada. That makes the program part of a larger expansion strategy, not a standalone human-resources initiative.

The company is also linking the program to education and retention. Chipotle said its partnership with Guild Education began in 2016 and that nearly 25,000 employees have enrolled in an education program since then, with more than 14,000 completing one. According to the company, 57% of those graduates earned a college degree and 43% earned a certificate, while employees in Cultivate Education have a 66% lower average annual turnover rate than nonparticipants and are promoted about 1.4 times as often.

The broader restaurant backdrop also helps explain the timing. The National Restaurant Association, citing Bureau of Labor Statistics data, said eating and drinking places added a net 59,200 jobs in August 2026 after losses in both June and July. Trade reporting has also noted that chains including Cava and Starbucks have added or emphasized assistant-manager-type roles as operators look for steadier execution in a muted traffic environment. For customers, the immediate change may be subtle, but Chipotle said the larger aim is clearer operations, stronger digital service, and a deeper bench of future general managers as the company continues to grow.

Traditional grocery chains across the U.S. are continuing to trim underperforming stores as competition, softer consumer spending and higher operating costs pressure margins. In California, West Sacramento-based Raley’s, a grocery company founded in 1935, has now confirmed additional closures in its home state. The latest announcement expands a store reduction plan that now stretches across Northern California and into early 2027.

Raley’s confirmed another round of closures on August 24

Raley’s confirmed on August 24 that it plans to close stores in Brentwood, California; Petaluma, California; and Elko, Nevada, according to Supermarket News and Progressive Grocer. Those closures are scheduled for Nov. 3, 2026, in Brentwood, Dec. 8, 2026, in Elko, and Jan. 26, 2027, in Petaluma, trade publications reported after speaking with the company. A Raley’s spokesperson said the decision for each store reflected local market conditions and long-term financial sustainability.

The newly announced closures add to earlier shutdowns already reported this year. Supermarket News said the latest round will bring the total number of Raley’s closures announced for 2026 and early 2027 to seven stores. That total includes earlier closures of a Nob Hill Foods in Mountain View and Raley’s stores in Roseville and Antioch, according to the trade outlet.

The company has framed the moves as store-specific decisions rather than a chainwide retreat. The Los Angeles Times reported that Raley’s said the Brentwood, Elko and Petaluma closures were not part of a broader downsizing effort, even as the grocer continues to evaluate individual locations. The company also told trade media that such decisions are tied to where it can best invest in communities, employees and the business.

Northern California cities are confirmed, but a full California list is still limited

In California, the newly confirmed cities are Brentwood in Contra Costa County and Petaluma in Sonoma County. SFGATE reported that the Petaluma store at 157 N. McDowell Blvd. is expected to close Jan. 26, 2027, and that the Brentwood store at 2400 Sand Creek Road is set to close Nov. 3, 2026. Those are the specific California locations publicly identified in the latest round.

Other California closures tied to Raley’s had already surfaced earlier in 2026, but the company has not released a single comprehensive statewide list covering every affected store in one announcement. Supermarket News reported previous closures in Mountain View, Roseville and Antioch, while SFGATE separately reported that a Nob Hill Foods store in Los Gatos is scheduled to close in June 2027. That means at least six California locations have been publicly identified across reports, but the full state-by-state breakdown has emerged piecemeal rather than through one master company release.

For California shoppers, the practical effect is local. Brentwood and Petaluma now have confirmed closure dates, while Los Gatos has a later timeline tied to the Nob Hill Foods banner. Raley’s still operates more than 100 stores and employs about 11,500 people, according to the Los Angeles Times, so the company’s footprint in California remains substantial despite the closures.

The company points to store economics as grocery pressures continue

Raley’s has attributed the closures to local market conditions and long-term financial sustainability, according to comments reported by Progressive Grocer, Supermarket News and SFGATE. In the Los Gatos case, SFGATE reported that Chief Marketing Officer Carol Barsotti said the company chose not to renew the lease after reviewing store performance and current economic conditions. Those explanations tie the closures to individual store economics rather than a single statewide trigger.

Broader grocery industry conditions also provide context. The Los Angeles Times reported that inflation, reduced food assistance and high gas prices have put pressure on chains including Raley’s, Kroger and Grocery Outlet. SFGATE also cited census data showing grocery spending in California declined from November 2025 through April 2026, a sign of softer consumer demand in the state.

What customers should expect next is clearer in some communities than others. Confirmed dates are in place for Brentwood, Petaluma and Los Gatos, while no broader California closure list has been released beyond locations already reported individually. At the same time, Raley’s has said it plans to open a new store in Madera in March 2027, according to Supermarket News and Progressive Grocer, indicating the company is still investing in selected California markets even as it closes others.

As app-based grocery delivery continues to expand across the U.S., major retailers are adding new partners to reach more households. Costco is the latest to widen its delivery footprint, announcing a national expansion with Uber Eats that members across most of the country are now poised to notice. The change adds another ordering option beyond Costco’s existing same-day setup and reaches far more states than before.

Costco broadens its delivery partnership, reaching 47 states

Costco and Uber announced on September 16, 2026, that Costco delivery through Uber Eats is expanding to 47 states, up from 17, according to Uber’s investor relations statement and reporting from the Associated Press. The companies described the move as a major national expansion of their U.S. partnership, putting Costco on Uber Eats for millions more potential customers. That is the clearest verified scale attached to the change so far.

The expansion means Costco members in newly added coverage areas can place orders through Uber Eats from participating U.S. Costco stores, rather than relying only on in-store shopping or Costco’s existing web-based delivery channels. Uber said Uber One members also qualify for no Uber fees on eligible grocery and retail orders over $60, a benefit tied to the platform rather than Costco membership itself. Costco has long offered delivery in other forms, but this announcement specifically changes the app landscape members will see.

Costco’s own customer-service materials show that same-day grocery delivery has already been powered by Instacart, while 2-day grocery delivery remains available nationwide except in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. This new expansion does not replace those services in the company’s published materials. Instead, it adds a broader Uber Eats option that members in most states may now encounter alongside Costco’s existing delivery programs.

Members nationwide will see broader access, but some details are still limited

For shoppers, the most immediate impact is geographic. Uber said the service is now available in 47 states, which makes this a near-national change rather than a limited regional test. The companies have not, however, released a comprehensive public list of every affected warehouse or every newly added city.

That leaves some local questions unresolved. Costco has not published a full warehouse-by-warehouse map tied to the September 16 expansion, and neither company has publicly detailed which specific metro areas were added first within each state. What is confirmed is the state-level scale: the service moved from availability in 17 states to 47 states, making access substantially broader than it was before.

There are also still differences between Costco delivery channels. Costco’s same-day service pages state that a $35 minimum order applies for qualifying ZIP codes, while help materials also note that long-distance orders may carry a higher minimum and an added fee. Members in areas newly covered by Uber Eats should expect broader app availability, but not necessarily identical pricing, fees, or inventory across every delivery option.

The shift reflects intensifying competition in grocery delivery

The timing reflects a larger competition for grocery orders. The Associated Press reported that DoorDash and Uber Eats have both been expanding their U.S. grocery businesses, and Uber said Costco had been one of the most-searched retailers not yet widely available on its U.S. platform. That helps explain why both companies framed the rollout as a significant national growth move.

Costco’s existing delivery model also provides context. Company customer-service pages continue to separate same-day delivery, which is powered by Instacart, from other shipping methods and from nationwide 2-day grocery delivery. In other words, Costco is not entering delivery for the first time; it is broadening how customers can access delivery and through which platform they place those orders.

For members, the practical result is straightforward. More Costco shoppers across the continental U.S. are likely to see Costco appear in Uber Eats where it was not previously offered, while Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico remain outside some of Costco’s broader delivery coverage in published company materials. The companies have not announced a narrower end date for the expansion, indicating that this is a continuing service change rather than a temporary promotion.

Luxury spirits makers continue to lean on limited releases and distinctive cask stories to stand out in a crowded premium whisky market. The Macallan narrowed that strategy on September 17, 2026, with the debut of TIME : SPACE Sherry Cask, a new single malt positioned as a technical first for the Speyside distillery. The release centers on The Macallan’s deeper direct involvement in sherry cask seasoning in Jerez de la Frontera, Spain.

The release marks a first for The Macallan

The Macallan announced on September 17 that TIME : SPACE Sherry Cask is the first whisky in the brand’s history to be influenced by casks seasoned with Valdespino sherry since the company came under The Macallan’s ownership. The company also said it is the first time Valdespino sherry has been used to season oak casks specifically for The Macallan. Those details set the release apart from the distillery’s broader Sherry Oak range, which has long relied on sherry-seasoned wood as a core part of its production model.

According to The Macallan’s release materials, the whisky begins with a base of predominantly European oak sherry-seasoned casks selected by its Whisky Mastery Team. The company said the spirit was then married with whisky from the first 200 sherry casks seasoned in The Macallan’s Valdespino bodega in Jerez de la Frontera. The casks were crafted in The Macallan’s own cooperages in Jerez and shipped to Scotland for filling in 2024, the company’s 200th anniversary year.

That scale matters because The Macallan framed the first 200 casks as a milestone rather than a routine production run. In recent years, the brand has continued to build premium limited releases around wood management, including its 110 Proof launch in 2025 and the concluding Harmony Collection release in August 2026. TIME : SPACE Sherry Cask extends that strategy with a release defined less by age statement and more by cask provenance and direct control over seasoning.

The immediate impact is centered on Jerez and global luxury retail

The geography attached to this launch is unusually specific for a Scotch whisky release. While the whisky is distilled and matured in Scotland, The Macallan said the defining distinction comes from casks seasoned in its Valdespino bodega in Jerez de la Frontera, a city in southern Spain long tied to the sherry trade. The company described the release as part of a shared future with Valdespino, deepening The Macallan’s connection to the home of sherry wine.

What is confirmed is the role of Jerez in the cask program and the use of those first 200 casks in the final marriage. What is not yet publicly detailed is a full market-by-market allocation, retail pricing breakdown, or a comprehensive list of stores and hospitality channels where bottles will be available. The company’s published materials emphasize the release story and production significance, but they do not provide a public bottle count in the announcement page reviewed for this article.

For consumers, that means the practical effect is likely to show up first in high-end spirits retail and collector-focused channels rather than broad mass distribution. The Macallan has used that model before for prestige launches, including travel retail and select global placements for some recent releases. Without a published U.S. allocation list, it remains unclear how widely the whisky will be offered in specific states or cities.

Why The Macallan is focusing even more on sherry cask control

The Macallan has spent years presenting wood management as central to its identity, stating on product and brand pages that sherry-seasoned oak casks are the single greatest contributor to the character of its whisky. In prior company materials, The Macallan said the cask-making and seasoning process can take about five years and accounts for a substantial share of flavor and all of the whisky’s natural color. TIME : SPACE Sherry Cask fits squarely within that long-term business and production strategy.

What changes here is the degree of direct integration. By highlighting its own cooperages in Jerez and a Valdespino bodega used for cask seasoning, The Macallan is putting more emphasis on vertical control over a process that many drinkers know only as part of the finished flavor profile. That message also arrives as luxury spirits brands seek clearer differentiation in a market where age statements alone no longer define premium positioning.

For customers, the immediate takeaway is straightforward: this is a new Macallan release built around a specific cask innovation rather than a conventional age-led launch. The company has not published a full public distribution list alongside the announcement, but it has presented the whisky as a milestone expression tied to casks filled in 2024 and unveiled on September 17, 2026. That leaves TIME : SPACE Sherry Cask as both a product release and a marker of how The Macallan wants to define its next phase in sherry-cask whisky.

Cold drinks remain one of the biggest battlegrounds in the U.S. restaurant beverage business as chains push limited-time launches to drive traffic beyond the morning coffee rush. Starbucks moved directly into that competition on May 12, 2026, with a new summer drink launch built around bright colors, fruit flavors and customization.

Starbucks adds a new summer Refresher and ties it to a larger beverage platform

Starbucks announced that its summer menu arrived in U.S. coffeehouses on May 12, 2026, featuring the new Tropical Butterfly Refresher, according to the company’s spring preview and summer launch fact sheet. The company said the drink combines passionfruit and guava flavors with mango-pineapple flavored pearls and butterfly pea flower infusion, giving the beverage a layered purple-and-gold appearance. Starbucks also launched the drink with customization options, saying customers can order it with lemonade or coconutmilk and adjust caffeine and B vitamins.

The same seasonal rollout included the return of the Iced Horchata Shaken Espresso and the debut of a Horchata Frappuccino blended beverage, the company confirmed. Starbucks described the horchata drinks as limited-time offerings tied to its summer lineup rather than permanent menu additions. The menu also included a returning Unicorn Cake Pop and new packaged snack offerings, showing the launch was broader than a single beverage.

What stands out in company materials is the scale Starbucks attaches to the category behind the launch. In a July 28, 2026 press release about future beverage testing, Starbucks said Refreshers had grown into a $2 billion platform in U.S. company-operated coffeehouses, placing the new drink inside one of the company’s largest non-coffee growth engines.

What the launch means in U.S. stores, and what Starbucks has not broken out by market

For customers in the United States, the practical effect was straightforward: the new Tropical Butterfly Refresher became part of the summer menu beginning May 12 at participating Starbucks coffeehouses. Starbucks said availability could vary by location, particularly for some related features and merchandise, and it did not publish a store-by-store breakdown for where the drink was selling first. The company also did not release state-by-state counts for participating locations.

That means there is no public Starbucks list showing exactly how many stores in California, Texas, Florida, New York or other states received the drink on launch day. The company’s fact sheet said only that the summer merchandise collection would be available at participating U.S. coffeehouses beginning May 12 while supplies lasted. For the beverage itself, Starbucks framed the launch as a U.S. coffeehouse menu update rather than a regional test.

The lack of a geographic breakdown is notable because Starbucks has used limited-market testing for other beverage concepts. In a separate July 28 announcement, the company said it was exploring new sparkling beverages, including a Golden Peach Spritz and Strawberry Matcha Spritz, as part of future refreshment development. By contrast, the Tropical Butterfly Refresher was presented as a national seasonal menu item, though Starbucks has not released a comprehensive public list of individual participating stores.

Why Starbucks is emphasizing drinks like this and what customers should expect next

Starbucks has been explicit that beverage innovation is central to its current growth plan. At its January 29, 2026 Investor Day, the company said its “Back to Starbucks” strategy included expansion of the Refreshers platform, continued growth in cold beverages and more customization-focused offerings. Executives also said Starbucks was working to strengthen afternoon demand, a daypart where fruit-forward and iced drinks can help broaden traffic beyond traditional espresso orders.

That context helps explain the structure of the Tropical Butterfly Refresher launch. The drink sits at the intersection of several company priorities named by Starbucks executives: cold beverages, visual appeal, customization and incremental afternoon usage. Later company statements reinforced that approach, with Starbucks saying new additions to Refreshers continue to create new occasions and expand customer usage throughout the day.

For customers, the main takeaway is that Starbucks is continuing to treat limited-time drinks as part of a larger menu strategy rather than one-off novelties. The company followed its summer launch with additional seasonal beverage pushes later in 2026, including what it called its strongest fall launch day in U.S. and Canada history on Aug. 25. Starbucks has not said how long the Tropical Butterfly Refresher would remain available beyond the summer window, but its 2026 messaging shows more beverage experimentation is still in the pipeline.