Latest Developments

Europe
BBC Business

Sainsbury's agrees to sell Argos for £120m

Image source, PA MediaByMitchell Labiak, Business reporter and Emma Simpson, Business correspondentPublished31 July 2026, 07:50 BSTUpdated 1 hour agoSainsbury's has agreed to sell Argos for £120m after a long process of trying to offload it as the supermarket chain aims to focus on its main food business. Sainsbury's said it would be "business as usual" for Argos customers, staff, and suppliers. Shoppers will see no change as Argos will still operate in Sainsbury's shops, sell Habitat products, and offer Nectar points. The buyer, Swift Partners, is a company that has been created to buy the brand and includes former Co-operative Group boss Richard Pennycook. There are 667 Argos shops across the UK, with 201 operating as standalone stores and 466 operating within Sainsbury's. It also has more than 450 collection points. Founded in 1973, Argos opened shops where customers browsed its catalogues and placed their orders, with products being delivered to tills from warehouses connected to the stores. The Argos catalogue, once described by comedian Bill Bailey as the "laminated book of dreams", used to be a physical book. Argos no longer prints this hefty tome, with its full range now available online instead. In store, customers can browse the product collection on tablet computers. Sainsbury's has been trying to sell Argos - which has been seen as an underperforming brand - for some time. Sainsbury's bought Argos – together with Habitat and all the other retail brands owned by Home Retail Group – in 2016 for £1.4bn. It then sold Argos financial services, which runs the Argos card, for around £720m in 2024. In September last year, its talks to sell the rest of Argos to Chinese online retailer JD.com fell through. Sainsbury's chief executive Simon Robert said that all of Argos's nearly 14,000 staff would be transferred over to Swift Partners as part of the deal. Swift Partners' Pennycook said he believed "strongly in Argos's future and see real opportunities to invest and build on its progress".

Sainsbury's agrees to sell Argos for £120m
North America
CNBC Finance

Consolidated food supply may be worsening cyclospora outbreaks, experts say

The cyclospora outbreak that has sickened thousands in the U.S. is drawing renewed attention to a decades-long shift in how fresh food moves through the country. While investigators work to identify the original source of contamination, some food safety experts say the industry's centralized sourcing and distribution networks after a wave of consolidation can help turn what once may have been an isolated contamination event into a multistate outbreak. "The general trends that have taken place in the food industry, the way in which food has been sourced and then distributed has played some role here," said Dr. David Relman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University. The cyclospora parasite's long incubation period, the difficulty in tracking its path and what some experts have criticized as a bumpy federal response have all played a role in the widening outbreak. Some experts say the structure of the food system has also contributed. "It's possible that as food sourcing and distribution becomes consolidated you get pooling and then redistribution of what might have been a very local contamination problem, so that it now becomes a widely distributed contamination problem," Relman said. Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, said the shrinking of the industry has amplified the consequences when contamination occurs. "Consolidation means that if something goes wrong, it goes wrong big time," Nestle said. The current FDA investigation around cyclosporiasis has focused on shredded iceberg lettuce distributed through Taylor Farms' foodservice business, an ingredient that reached Taco Bell restaurants and other foodservice customers across multiple states. Relman referenced bagged lettuce as one example of how changes in distribution could spread a foodborne illness. "Think of the difference between one head of lettuce and a bag of chopped lettuce that may have come from many, many heads," he said. "These bags are now being produced in huge numbers and distributed in far-flung distribution networks." The industry's evolution toward fewer distributors has been driven in part by a push for efficiency. Nestle said those improvements for businesses come with trade-offs for food safety. "Big is not necessarily better," she said. "The bigger the supplier, the greater the opportunity for contamination."

Consolidated food supply may be worsening cyclospora outbreaks, experts say
Europe
The Guardian

ABC argues that early license review by FCC is ‘retaliation’ for network’s coverage

ABC lawyers say the FCC’s actions are retaliation for the exercise of the network’s first amendment rights. Photograph: Mario Anzuoni/ReutersView image in fullscreenABC lawyers say the FCC’s actions are retaliation for the exercise of the network’s first amendment rights. Photograph: Mario Anzuoni/ReutersABC ABC argues that early license review by FCC is ‘retaliation’ for network’s coverageIn filing, network’s lawyers urged FCC to reject petitions to deny license renewals for eight ABC-owned local stations ABC has pushed back aggressively against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for putting the network under an expedited license renewal process for eight local television stations it owns, charging in a lengthy filing that the process is payback for the network’s editorial decision-making and coverage of Donald Trump. “The retaliation against ABC is a signal to every media company in the country: Accommodate the administration’s view of what news coverage should look like or pay the price,” lawyers representing the Disney-owned network wrote in a 109-page filing, submitted as a reply to petitions from conservative media groups to deny ABC’s licenses. “The tools vary; the objective does not: a media industry too fearful of official reprisal to report the news freely.” The FCC chair, Brendan Carr, has denied that inquiries into the network relate to its editorial decision-making and instead said they stem from concerns about the company’s employment practices and compliance with statutory obligations. ABC’s lawyers pointed out how unusual it is for the FCC to demand that a group of network-owned stations apply several years early to renew their licenses. Other ABC-owned stations have licenses that run all the way until 2031. “The commission’s departure from those norms lays bare what is really going on: the administration is retaliating against ABC for the exercise of its First Amendment rights,” ABC’s lawyers wrote. “Because this whole proceeding rests on an unconstitutional premise, the stations should never have been asked to justify license renewal years early.” Responding to petitions to deny ABC’s licenses based on accusations of liberal bias, the network’s lawyers pointed out that the “commission has no authority to regulate the content of television programming”. “No Petitioner has established any ‘violations’ of Commission rules or regulations, let alone the ‘serious’ ones or the ‘pattern of abuse’ required to warrant denying renewal,” they added. ABC’s lawyers also argued that its eight stations had made “essential contributions to their local communities” in markets such as New York City and Philadelphia and argued that the FCC should dismiss the petitions to deny their licenses. Participants have until 5 August to reply to petitions to deny. After that time, the FCC could choose to either grant the license renewal requests – an unlikely prospect – or schedule hearings on the matter, beginning a potentially onerous and time-consuming process that could run for several years, particularly if an adverse ruling is challenged in the courts. On Tuesday, a bipartisan coalition of former FCC commissioners and staffers submitted a filing urging the commission to reject the petitions to deny ABC’s license renewals, arguing that the early renewal process ordered by Carr’s FCC in April is “a grave violation of both the Communications Act and the Constitution”. Thousands of commenters have filed on behalf of ABC in both the license renewal inquiry and another FCC investigation into the daytime talkshow The View for a potential violation of rules guarding political candidate appearances.

ABC argues that early license review by FCC is ‘retaliation’ for network’s coverage
Europe
The Guardian

Oil prices fall as US pauses strikes on Iran over strait of Hormuz

The US has suspended its bombing campaign around the strait of Hormuz. Photograph: Amirhosein Khorgooi/APView image in fullscreenThe US has suspended its bombing campaign around the strait of Hormuz. Photograph: Amirhosein Khorgooi/APOilOil prices fall as US pauses strikes on Iran over strait of HormuzBrent crude drops 9% to below $88 a barrel, prompting UK government bond yields to fall Oil prices have dropped sharply as traders bet that a pause in US attacks on Iran could prevent an escalation in the conflict that would further restrict global supply. Brent crude, the international benchmark for oil, initially fell 9% to below $88 a barrel on Monday after climbing to $100 last week, when the Iran-aligned Houthis attacked Saudi Arabian oil tankers in the Red Sea. An attempted recovery later in the day was halted by comments from Donald Trump that the US was having “good talks” with Iran, pushing Brent back down about 8%. The retreat from the short-lived return to more than $100 a barrel came as the US and Iran paused hostilities after 13 days of fighting, amid Trump’s comments suggesting that talks to end the conflict had resumed. Iran said it had stopped “retaliatory” attacks after two nights without American missiles, after the US ambassador to the UN, Mike Waltz, told journalists on Sunday that Trump had decided to pause the attacks to allow more time for diplomacy. Separate reports claimed that US military officials had told Trump that the bombing campaign had reached the limits of its effectiveness and warned of dwindling stocks of munitions. The comments raised hopes that a renewed focus on diplomatic solutions could de-escalate the regional conflict, which since the end of February has disrupted flows of oil and gas from Gulf states via the strait of Hormuz, and in recent weeks has interrupted vessels leaving the Red Sea via the Bab al-Mandab strait, too. However, the brief reprieve from rising oil prices was met with scepticism by some market observers. “We’ve been here multiple times since March,” said Ole Hvalbye, an analyst at SEB Research. “And each rally on a leak has faded as substance failed to materialise.” John Evans, an analyst at PVM, said he expected oil prices would only be able to fall further if there was a meaningful decline in demand, “not questionable mini-ceasefires”. He said: “The market seems to be forever seeking good news from an arena that really is not providing any. A stay of military strikes might seem an improvement, but it does not come with any guarantees that oil will soon flow from the area.” Analysts at Deutsche Bank led by Jim Reid said the 10% increase in Brent crude prices last week had “added to fears that the global economy was facing a prolonged inflation shock, and that the Fed might need to hike rates more aggressively in response”. The expectation of higher inflation caused by rising global energy costs has put pressure on central banks to raise interest rates. In recent weeks that has pushed up sovereign bond yields, which move inversely to prices. However, the oil price drop on Monday prompted yields to fall. The yield on UK 10-year government debt dropped below 5%, down 0.05 percentage points during the day. The rate-sensitive two-year yield fell 0.06 percentage points to 4.35%.

Oil prices fall as US pauses strikes on Iran over strait of Hormuz
North America
CNBC Economy

Trump's new global tariff draws rebukes from trade partners over forced-labor justification

U.S. trading partners from Canberra to Brasília have rejected the forced-labor rationale behind President Donald Trump's new global tariffs, while most signaled they would keep negotiating rather than retaliate. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on Thursday took action under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, imposing tariffs on 60 economies for what Washington called their failure to impose and enforce bans on goods made with forced labor. The duties — 10% for partners that have adopted or committed to import prohibitions, 12.5% for those that haven't — cover the top 60 US trade partners and 99.4% of American imports. The measure replaces a temporary 10% global tariff imposed under Section 122 of the trade act, which expires July 24, a stopgap put in place after the Supreme Court ruled Trump's emergency-powers tariffs unlawful in February. The forced-labor probes give the administration a more durable legal foundation for a baseline tariff that the courts had challenged. "These tariffs are unjustified, inconsistent with our free trade agreement, and should be removed," Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell said in a statement. "Australia's measures to combat forced labor and modern slavery are among the strongest in the world, and we are recognized globally, including in the U.S., for our leadership." Brazil's government called the tariffs "arbitrary" and "unjustified." President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said he remained open to negotiations but that Brazil would seek other markets if it couldn't sell into the U.S. The new duty stacks on a separate 25% Section 301 tariff imposed on Brazilian goods this month, rebuilding a 37.5% barrier — close to the 50% rate struck down as unlawful last year. Chile's government said the measure was inconsistent with the country's labor standards and the technical, political and legal evidence it submitted throughout the investigation, according to a statement from the trade undersecretariat in Santiago. It noted the U.S. resolution doesn't allege Chile exports goods made with forced labor, and said it would press for exclusions covering key export products. Canada, placed in the lower 10% tier with an exemption for USMCA-compliant goods, struck the mildest tone. The move "is not unexpected," Minister for Canada-U.S. Trade Dominic LeBlanc said in a statement, adding that Ottawa shares Washington's objective on forced labor and would "continue engaging constructively" in the coming weeks. New Zealand's foreign ministry said in a market report that the trade minister made clear Wellington disagrees with the investigation's findings and will continue to register that position with the U.S. government. Existing exemptions covering roughly 30% of New Zealand's U.S.-bound exports, including beef and kiwifruit, remain unchanged. The investigation is "not a labor-standards exercise but a mechanism for exporting America's import ban on Chinese goods, as well as an attempt to recreate the tariff regime struck down by the Supreme Court," the Peterson Institute for International Economics wrote earlier this week. Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about our products and services. Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes. Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data and Analysis.

Trump's new global tariff draws rebukes from trade partners over forced-labor justification
Europe
The Guardian

Tariffs are Trump’s favorite plaything – and his justifications are absurd | Steven Greenhouse

‘Trump is essentially telling Canada: I have a right to punch you in the nose whenever I want. But if you punch me back, that’s illegal discrimination against the US.’ Photograph: Carlos Barría/ReutersView image in fullscreen‘Trump is essentially telling Canada: I have a right to punch you in the nose whenever I want. But if you punch me back, that’s illegal discrimination against the US.’ Photograph: Carlos Barría/ReutersOpinionDonald TrumpTariffs are Trump’s favorite plaything – and his justifications are absurdSteven GreenhouseThe president is using forced labor as a pretext to slap tariffs on countries around the world With the midterm elections less than four months away, it’s a precarious time for Donald Trump and Republicans: Trump’s war against Iran is going badly, his approval ratings are in the toilet, gas prices are soaring and pushing up inflation, and nation after nation is furious about Trump’s insults, bullying and ugly American unilateralism. So amid all this mess, what does Trump do? He turns to his favorite economic plaything: tariffs. On Monday, Trump signed orders to slap a 50% tariff on many Canadian goods, and four days later, he imposed across-the-board 10% or 12.5% tariffs on goods from more than 80 countries. Trump was no doubt thumping his chest, while millions of people overseas were dumping on him for yet another unnecessary, hostile act. Too bad for Republicans, and most Americans, though, because Trump’s fixation on tariffs will only worsen their troubles. Trump’s new tariffs will push up prices – let’s not forget that tariffs are taxes on imports, and US consumers will pay those taxes. A corollary of that: Trump’s tariffs will worsen Americans No 1 economic concern: affordability. In bad news for typical Americans, the Yale Budget Lab estimates that Trump’s tariffs will increase costs for the average US household by $1,100 each year. The tariffs are also likely to push Trump’s approval ratings deeper into the sewer. If Trump thinks these tariffs are going to distract Americans from thinking about the Epstein files or the disastrous mess he’s made with his Iran “excursion”, he’s deluding himself. The American people aren’t going to forget those things. It’s hard to tell whether Trump’s repeated use of tariffs is a fixation or an addiction. Emperor Donald I evidently loves tariffs because he can use them to clobber other countries whenever he wants. They’re a powerful cudgel he won’t let go of. Trump imposed his new tariffs on more than 80 countries on the very day that another set of tariffs he slapped on dozens of countries was due to expire. To paraphrase the actor Charlton Heston, I can imagine Trump saying: “I’ll give up tariffs when you take them from my cold, dead hands.” With these new tariffs, Trump is again engaged in his delusional, destructive tariff tomfoolery. They’ll push up prices, squeeze Americans’ wallets and anger other countries. Trump said his tariffs would boost US manufacturing, but the US has lost 75,000 factory jobs since he returned to office, with many executives complaining about all the herky-jerky uncertainty Trump has wrought. Assessing Trump’s effects on the economy, Atsi Sheth, the chief credit officer for Moody’s Ratings, told the New York Times :“Volatility and unpredictability is the new normal.” Like so much that Trump does, his new tariffs are clearly based on pique and false premises with lots of shamelessness and absurdity thrown in. After the US supreme court overturned Trump’s me-against-the-whole-world tariffs in February, Trump, refusing to let go of his tariff toy, turned to other strategies. To justify his new 50% tariffs against Canada – which are piled atop numerous other tariffs he’s imposed on a country that was long the US’s closest ally – Trump relied on a never before used provision of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, a widely derided 1930 law that greatly worsened the Great Depression of a century ago. With this new tariff, placed on hockey sticks, paper, plywood, dairy products and many other Canadian goods, Trump invoked a Smoot-Hawley provision that allows retaliation against countries that engage in trade discrimination against the US. In making that case, Trump’s exhibit No 1 is something rather preposterous, or should I say rather shameless? After Trump imposed high, punitive tariffs on Canada last year, 11 of Canada’s 13 provinces and territories halted liquor imports from the US because they were so irate about those tariffs along with Trump’s outlandish and belittling statements that he wanted to make Canada the 51st state. The White House called this ban on US liquor illegal discrimination, while Canadians view it as a type of traditional trade retaliation that countries engage in when another country – here the US – slaps tariffs on them, a situation made worse by the fact that Trump’s tariffs against Canada are an egregious violation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Trump also insists that Canada has improperly discriminated against the US because Canada imposed a 25% tariff on select US-made cars after Trump slapped a 25% tariff on Canadian-made cars. He is essentially telling Canada: I have a right to punch you in the nose whenever I want. But if you punch me back, that’s illegal discrimination against the US. That’s the logic of America’s leading stable genius, who also offered another far-fetched justification for his decision: “We’re going to put a big tariff on Canada because of the smoke,” he told reporters on Friday, referring to wildfire smoke that has crossed the US border. Ontario’s premier, Doug Ford, isn’t happy about Trump’s painful, new 50% tariff. “We won’t back down,” he said on social media. “The fastest and only way to get US alcohol back on Ontario shelves is for the U.S. to drop its illegal tariffs on Canada.” As for the new tariffs hitting more than 80 countries, Trump, who over the years has shown next to no concern about worker exploitation, turned rather surprisingly to the issue of forced labor to slap on those tariffs.

Tariffs are Trump’s favorite plaything – and his justifications are absurd | Steven Greenhouse
Europe
BBC Business

Oil price dives as US and Iran pause attacks

Image source, Getty ImagesByNick EdserBusiness reporterPublished27 July 2026, 11:43 BSTUpdated 9 minutes agoThe price of oil has fallen sharply on hopes that a pause in attacks between the US and Iran could help lead to a resolution to the conflict. Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil, sank more than 9% to below $88 a barrel at one point, marking a sharp turnaround from last week when it had risen above $100. The fall came after the US ambassador to the UN said attacks on Iran had been halted for a second night in a row to give "talks some space". An Iranian army spokesperson said on Sunday that Tehran had halted "retaliatory" attacks in the region in response. The outbreak of the Iran war triggered a sharp rise in oil prices as the conflict led to the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route which usually carries about 20% of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG). When Iran and the US signed a memorandum of understanding in June to halt military operations and reopen the strait, the price of oil fell back to pre-war levels of around $70 a barrel. However, the collapse of the ceasefire earlier this month reignited fears over global energy supplies and pushed the oil price back up. Last week it hit $100 a barrel for the first time since May, with added concerns coming after Houthi militia in Yemen attacked oil tankers in the Red Sea, threatening a key export route that Saudi Arabia had used to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. Susannah Streeter, chief investment strategist at Wealth Club, said markets were remaining "cautious given the twists and turns during this conflict". Despite the sharp fall in crude, "there is still significant uncertainty baked into these prices and a reticence about whether negotiations will lead to a lasting breakthrough," she added. The conflict between the US and Iran - and its impact on oil - has pushed up the cost of fuel such as petrol and diesel in many countries. This often has knock-on effects on other prices, such as food, as businesses pass on the higher costs they are facing to customers, and this can push up the rate of inflation.

Oil price dives as US and Iran pause attacks
Europe
BBC Business

Thames Water boss says leakage targets 'not realistic'

The boss of Thames Water has claimed targets the company has been set over things like leakages are "not realistic". Thames has been criticised for its performance in recent years following a series of sewage discharges and leaks, and last year was fined a record £122.7m by regulator Ofwat, most of which was for breaching sewage spills rules. Chris Weston said Thames wanted "to do better" but said some of its targets were not achievable. Ofwat said company targets were "intended to be ambitious", while an environmental group said sewage pollution should not be accepted as inevitable. Thames, which has struggled for years under billions of pounds of debt, faces being put in a form of temporary nationalisation known as a special administration regime. But Weston said if that were to happen, there was a risk the taxpayer would have to bear the cost of funding it, and instead backed a rescue deal put forward by the firm's lenders. It is illegal to release raw sewage into rivers and seas during "normal" weather conditions, but firms are allowed to do so when it rains heavily, to prevent homes being flooded. Thames is the UK's largest water company, supplying water and wastewater services to 16 million customers across London and parts of southern England. Speaking to the BBC's Big Boss Interview podcast, Weston said the company treats 4.3 billion litres of waste a day, and "99.5% of the time" it gets treated successfully, although "sometimes something goes wrong". "We want to do better when it comes to pollutions," he said, but added, "the targets that the company is expected to make are not realistic. "[For example], we have to hit a certain level of leakage, but it is so far in excess of what we are capable of doing, I think anyone would be capable of doing, however much money you invested, that it is not going to be achievable." Ofwat told the BBC: "With around a fifth of water put into supply still lost through leakage, companies must deliver on the commitments they have been funded to achieve.

Thames Water boss says leakage targets 'not realistic'
Europe
BBC Business

'I pay £580 a month to live in a disused care home': Property guardians show us around

Would you live in a disused care home, pub or bank in exchange for a heavily discounted rent? As cost of living pressures persist, a growing number of people are applying to become so-called property guardians - living in vacant residential or commercial buildings to protect them from squatters, vandalism and disrepair. They typically pay 30-50% less rent than private tenants, sometimes with bills thrown in, in exchange for looking after the buildings. However property guardians also have significantly fewer rights than private renters and can be evicted with just 28 days' notice. Katrina, 29, has spent the last 10 months living with around 50 other people in an Edwardian mansion in Hampstead, London, which was used as a care home until 2015. The postgraduate student, who says she could not afford to rent privately in the capital, currently pays £580 a month for her room including bills and council tax, about £400 below the London average, external. Katrina says guardianship gives her the chance to live in an unusual property and describes the mansion as an "incredible" and "romantic" place despite it being "quite run down". Set in 1.7 acres of gardens, the building has grand staircases, south-west-facing balconies and chandeliers in some rooms, but it does have some downsides: "We've had mushrooms growing on the walls, leaks, parts of the balcony stonework have fallen off," says Katrina. Katrina says she loves the communal aspect of guardianship, which is "somewhere between living in university halls, a block of flats and a fancy squat". She lives with "all sorts of people", from lawyers to artists, sharing bathrooms, a kitchen and communal living areas, and regularly socialising. But there are disagreements over things like noise, she says. And while Lowe, the company that manages the property, operates a stringent vetting process for its guardians, two residents have been asked to leave because of antisocial behaviour - one for alleged sexual harassment. Lowe tells the BBC it acts "quickly and decisively" on the rare occasion someone breaches its standards and that the "overwhelming majority" of guardians go on to be "brilliant, community-minded residents".

'I pay £580 a month to live in a disused care home': Property guardians show us around