General rules of food safety dictate that leftovers should be stored below 40 degrees Fahrenheit, but how many times can you safely reheat them?
Mashed – Fast Food, Celebrity Chefs, Grocery, Reviews
Month: July 2026
Former Mizzou slugger Ashley Fleming makes contact on Feb. 25, 2009, at then-University Field in Columbia. Fleming was selected into Mizzou Hall of Fame’s Class of 2026 Wednesday morning.
Alaska’s minimum wage has officially increased to $14 an hour under Ballot Measure 1, marking the first step in a series of scheduled wage increases. While many workers welcome the extra pay, some say rising housing costs and the state’s…
Wednesday night, clear to partly cloudy. Low 49F. Winds light and variable. Thursday, except for a few afternoon clouds, mainly sunny. High 74F. Winds NNE at 5 to 10 mph.
Wednesday night, rain early, then remaining cloudy with showers overnight. Low 46F. Winds SE at 5 to 10 mph. Chance of rain 100%. Thursday, cloudy with occasional rain showers. High 56F. Winds S at 5 to 10 mph. Chance of…
Wednesday night, generally clear skies. Low 48F. Winds SW at 5 to 10 mph. Thursday, except for a few afternoon clouds, mainly sunny. High 63F. Winds W at 5 to 10 mph.
While, sure, In-N-Out ranks high on the fast food satisfaction list, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have room for improvement, like adding this condiment.
Food Republic – Restaurants, Reviews, Recipes, Cooking Tips
Categories
Why the World Cup is a royal affair
Spotted at World Cup matches so far: King Felipe VI from Spain, King Willem-Alexander and Queen Máxima from the Netherlands, and Norway’s Princess Ingrid Alexandra and Prince Sverre Magnus. The European royals have been out in force supporting their national teams.
Hardly spotted yet: Europe’s elected leaders.
European heads of government only tend to make appearances at matches in person during later stages of the tournament. For example, Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, attended the 2018 final in Moscow and traveled to Qatar in 2022 for the semifinals and finals.
This is perhaps because a monarch attending the national team’s match is viewed as apolitical, whereas a prime minister making the same trip can invite criticism over priorities and use of public funds.
Indeed, this year, Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney had to reject opposition claims that his trip to Massachusetts to watch his country play Haiti was a taxpayer-funded “World Cup jolly.” Portuguese President António José Seguro also attended the Colombia vs. Portugal game in Miami last Saturday evening.
As the tournament heads toward the quarterfinals and beyond, expect more European politicians, whose countries remain in contention, to start appearing in the stands. So no Friedrich Merz or Rob Jetten…
Politics
The round of 32 rolls on at the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup with more surprises in store as teams with different styles and different expectations will square off. The day begins in Los Angeles, where one of the pre-tournament favorites in Spain will take on an Austria team that will be looking to relentlessly press its way to an upset. The tournament then shifts to Toronto, where Croatia and Portugal meet in a game that will be highlighted by a clash of two of the game’s best players over the past two decades in Cristian Ronaldo and Luka Modrić. The tournament remains in Canada for the day’s final game in Vancouver, where an improving Switzerland will take on an explosive Algeria team that takes a lot of risks and plays on the edge. Here is all you need to know for Thursday at the World Cup. When: Thursday, July 2, 3 p.m. ET Where: Los Angeles TV: FOX Stream: Watch three days free on FOX One As one of the tournament’s leading contenders, Spain will get its knockout campaign underway on Thursday afternoon when it takes on Austria at Los Angeles Stadium. After being held to a stunning 0-0 draw by Cape Verde in its group stage opener, it has been smooth sailing for Spain, which is yet to concede a goal at the tournament. Following the Cape Verde result, Luis de la Fuente’s team defeated Saudi Arabia 4-0 and Uruguay 1-0 to win the group. The biggest concern for Spain entering this game is that wingers Nico Williams and Yéremy Pino are not expected to start due to injuries sustained in the win over Uruguay. Obviously, that will place an increased burden on budding superstar Lamine Yamal and Atlético Madrid mainstay Alex Baena to provide width to the Spanish attack and combine with center forward Mikel Oyarzabal. But beyond them, the options are limited. Spain’s strength, however, is in its midfield triangle of Pedri, Rodri, and Mikel Merino, who are among the best in the world in possession. But this game will be a clash of styles. Under manager Ralf Rangnick, Austria presses intensely and relentlessly. If Austria ever loses possession, its players immediately press in an attempt to win the ball back quickly. It will be a huge test for either team to pull off its game plan. Austria will attempt to force turnovers from the best-possession national team in the world, while Spain rarely presses as much as what the Austrians will attempt in this game. Austria’s style of play has the team frequently walking a thin line between success and failure because if the press is ineffective, opponents typically have space to exploit. But this risky approach nearly cost the team dearly against Algeria in the group stage finale. In that game, Austria squandered two leads and then fell behind in stoppage time only to find a last-minute equalizer to advance. Rangnick’s team is very much living on borrowed time at this World Cup. If Austria is going to pull off a stunning upset in this game, Marko Arnautovic will have to play a key role. The 37-year-old center forward has been dealing with an injury that has limited his involvement to no more than 45 minutes in any game. But he has been excellent whenever on the field, having scored two very important goals and served as the team’s emotional leader. Player to Watch The Atlético Madrid man has been sharp in Spain’s last two games, both wins, and was the Man of the Match after scoring a goal in the 1-0 win over Uruguay. In a game against a pressing team, Baena will have the opportunity to exploit space if he can maintain possession under pressure. Baena is playing well and should be a key to Spain’s attack against Austria. When: Thursday, July 2, 7 p.m. ET Where: Toronto TV: FOX Stream: Watch three days free on FOX One Portugal and Croatia will meet on Thursday at Toronto Stadium in one of the most star-studded games in this World Cup’s round of 32. At front and center will be an emotional battle between two legendary former Real Madrid teammates in Cristiano Ronaldo and Luka Modrić who are both fighting to keep their final hopes of winning a World Cup alive. Neither team had been convincing during the group stage. Portugal was held to lackluster draws by DR Congo and Colombia while only defeating debutants Uzbekistan, 5-0. Croatia, meanwhile, has fared only slightly better. After a 4-2 loss to England, Croatia had to fight much harder than expected to notch a 1-0 win over Panama and a 2-1 win over Ghana. For Portugal, Bruno Fernandes is the creator, and he will have to win in the midfield against Croatia, which features Modrić, Mateo Kovačić, and Petar Sučić. It will be a clash of styles as Portugal thrives at speeding the game up while Croatia will look to slow the game down. Because of that, the game will likely be decided in transition play and whether Portugal can get wingers like Rafael Leão and Pedro Neto involved. But many eyes will be on Modrić and Ronaldo, two iconic players who are now over 40. Ronaldo will be playing in his ninth career World Cup knockout game but is still searching for his first goal in this stage of the tournament. Modrić is the midfield engine and is coming off a great performance in the win over Ghana where he was everywhere on both sides of the ball. But doing that against Portugal will require an even higher level. Player to Watch In a game such as this with contrasting styles, both teams will be looking to have the game played on their terms. For Portugal, that begins with Fernandes who is the engine of the team’s midfield. He is very direct and plays the game with a lot of energy. He won’t want to let Croatia slow the game down and become choppy. Portugal struggled against Colombia in the group stage finale, but Fernandes was at the heart of Portugal’s best moments. When: Thursday, July 2, 11 p.m. ET Where: Vancouver TV: FS1 Stream: Watch three days free on FOX One After both Switzerland and Algeria had uneven campaigns in their respective World Cup group stages, the two teams will meet on Thursday at BC Place Stadium (Vancouver) in the round of 32. Switzerland began the tournament with a very poor performance in a 1-1 draw with Qatar but since then, Murat Yakin’s squad has been on the rise with a convincing 4-1 win over Bosnia and Herzegovina followed by a 2-1 win over co-hosts Canada. Algeria, meanwhile, have been all over the place in its first three games of the tournament. A lopsided loss to Argentina was expected in the opening game, but the Desert Foxes needed to come from behind in the second half to defeat Jordan 2-1 and then get a result in a wild 3-3 draw with Austria – where Algeria came from behind twice, but then blew a lead late to settle for a point. Algeria should be prepared for this game as its head coach, Vladimir Petković, was the head coach of Switzerland for seven years from 2014-2021. Many of the Switzerland players came into the national team under Petković, and he knows the team well. Despite Petković’s history with Switzerland, the two teams play with very different styles. The Swiss team is more structured and disciplined with its game plan under Yakin, while Algeria is more explosive and lethal on counter-attacks. The team’s attack is driven by veteran wingers Houssem Aouar and Riyad Mahrez, who both play for Saudi Arabian clubs but who both have experience with top European teams. For Switzerland, Granit Xhaka and Remo Freuler will be tasked with controlling the midfield and preventing the game from becoming wide open, which is what Algeria would prefer. Player to Watch Switzerland’s 20-year-old midfielder has been one of the top young players of this tournament, with three goals and an assist in the group stage. In the 2-1 win over Canada, the Geneva-born Manzambi was arguably the best player on the field with a goal and an assist. Manzambi has had a great year at the club level with SC Freiburg in the Bundesliga. He was also named the Europa League Young Player of the Season for 2025-26, and he excels at making late runs into the box. He could be one of the keys to victory for Switzerland in this game.Latest Sports News from FOX Sports
Mifepristone is one part of a two-drug regimen commonly used to terminate a pregnancy before 10 weeks and for miscarriage treatment. (Photo by Natalie Behring/Getty Images)
This story was originally reported by Jenae Barnes, Climate Reporter of The 19th. Meet Jenae and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.
Anti-abortion advocates, including Republican lawmakers and state officials, want the EPA to review mifepristone as a water contaminant. Scientists say there’s no evidence it harms the environment or people.
While there is no scientific evidence that abortion medication is contaminating Americans’ water supply, it has nonetheless become a central claim by the anti-abortion movement. Activists, Instagram influencers and Republican Party officials — including state and federal lawmakers — are doubling down on what experts describe as a disinformation campaign that mixes environmental policy and reproductive rights, and risks exploiting legitimate concerns about clean water.
“What if I were to tell you that every time you fill up a glass of water at your kitchen sink from the tap, you were actually *drinking* someone else’s abortion,” influencer Isabel Brown wrote in an Instagram post in May. In the accompanying video, the Gen Z conservative content creator, who has more than 1 million followers on her platform, talks to Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, a national anti-abortion organization, and contends that anti-abortion medication is “poisoning” the water.
The claim isn’t new. For decades, anti-abortion advocates have argued that abortion medications, primarily mifepristone, pollute the environment and put pregnant people’s health at risk. But the argument has now become part of a widespread and often coordinated effort to create federal and state policy that further suppresses abortion access.
On June 5, 14 Republican state attorneys general and 19 GOP lawmakers in Congress urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to classify and regulate mifepristone as a water contaminant. In two concurrent letters, officials argued that the abortion medication, part of a safe and effective two-drug regimen to terminate pregnancies, is “a growing threat to the country’s waterways” and violates the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Alaska attorney general among those urging EPA to classify mifepristone as water contaminant
One letter was signed by attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. The other letter, led by Republican Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, made similar claims and was signed by 18 other GOP lawmakers.
Environmental health experts have consistently said there is no scientific evidence that abortion medication causes harm to the environment — or to humans. Both reproductive rights advocates and environmental scientists have said that the argument co-opts environmental policy as a pathway to weaponize and stigmatize health care.
“This is really part of a broader effort to restrict access to medication abortion,” said Anna Bernstein, principal federal policy adviser at the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports reproductive rights. She said anti-abortion activists are increasingly turning to “every lever they can” as medication abortion has become the largest share of abortion care nationwide. Medication abortion accounted for 63 percent of all abortions in the United States in 2023, according to Guttmacher Institute data.
Does oral abortion medication really end up in drinking water?
Anti-abortion advocates contend that over 50 tons of medical waste “including blood, placental tissue, and human remains” are flushed into water systems each year as a result of these drugs. They argue high concentration of the elements of mifepristone in water, specifically a hormone called progesterone, disrupts and reduces fertility in women. They also say that previous results of federal testing of mifepristone’s environmental impact are outdated.
Environmental health experts dismiss these claims. These experts consistently point out that there is no scientific basis for treating mifepristone or other abortion medication as a water contaminant. Nathan Donley, the environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, pointed out that mifepristone is used by a small fraction of the population and is typically taken as a one-time dose. By comparison, many pharmaceuticals taken daily by tens of millions of Americans enter wastewater systems in far greater quantities. He also noted that mifepristone was not included among nearly 700 pharmaceutical compounds the EPA previously screened for potential water contamination concerns.
Instead, Donley described the effort as an attempt to use environmental concerns as a pretext for limiting reproductive rights. He noted that while proponents are seeking to add mifepristone to the EPA’s 6th Contaminant Candidate List (CCL6), a preliminary list of substances that could potentially be considered for future drinking water regulation, placement on the list would not itself regulate the drug but could begin a lengthy review process.
Donley added that focusing on mifepristone distracts from well-documented water quality threats, including PFAS — known as forever chemicals — pesticides, lead and nitrate contamination.
“There are legitimate water quality threats that we need to attack and rectify in a regulatory manner. And then there are things that are out in the left field that just distract people,” Donley said.
Where did this argument come from and why is it gaining traction again now?
In 1996, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tested for the environmental effects of mifepristone and found “no significant impact.” In the June letter, lawmakers cite the FDA study, and urge “reconsideration” of potential harm to the environment.
Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, opponents have increasingly focused on limiting access to abortion medication and prescribing it through telehealth, which has become a critical pathway for people living in states with abortion bans.
But anti-abortion groups have ramped up efforts during the second Trump administration to advocate for the official classification of mifepristone as a water contaminant.
Last November, Students for Life of America (SFLA), a national anti-abortion group, met with the EPA to advocate for adding mifepristone to the CCL6 as the agency carried out a routine update to a separate list of health benchmarks for pharmaceuticals that must be tracked in drinking water.
The coordinated letters in June were timed toward the EPA’s 60-day comment period, which began in April and allowed members of the public to submit their thoughts on draft proposals to be reviewed by the agency.
“SFLA asks that mifepristone be tracked, given the reasonable cause for concern that regular and ongoing exposure to a progesterone blocker is impacting public health, endangered species, and the environment,” the anti-abortion group said in a statement on their website, adding that the group plans to take on the issue in every state. “You don’t have to be pro-life to want clean drinking water. You don’t have to be pro-life to be concerned that we are being ‘microdosed’ by progesterone blockers, which are a factor in rising infertility.”
The SFLA said it collected over 1,700 public comments to send to the EPA, and helped spearhead the 14-state campaign of letters from attorneys general to the EPA ahead of its public comment period for the CCL6.
The draft for the CCL6 received nearly 22,000 public comments before closing on June 5, public records show.
How are lawmakers trying to change environmental abortion policies?
In 2025, anti-abortion policymakers introduced nine bills in seven states tying medication abortion to water pollution, according to the Guttmacher Institute. That same year, 25 members of Congress sent a similar letter asking the EPA to monitor for environmental harms of mifepristone. This March, U.S. Rep Mary Miller, a Republican from Illinois, introduced a Clean Water for All Life Act, citing similar claims of environmental degradation from abortion medication.
According to Bernstein and Guttmacher state policy adviser Kimya Forouzan, some proposals would require state agencies to test wastewater for abortion medications. Others would require patients to use so-called “catch kits” and medical waste bags to collect and return pregnancy tissue after taking abortion medication. Some bills would create liability for drug manufacturers if abortion medications were detected in wastewater.
While the bills vary, abortion rights advocates say they share a common goal: creating additional barriers to medication abortion access.
“The CCL is one part of a broad regulatory process. This draft list is then used to inform another list, which determines which contaminants are monitored and regulated, but the surveillance really does happen at a municipality and then state level,” Bernstein said, adding: “So this would be setting federal benchmarks for localities to monitor in their wastewater.”
To date, neither President Donald Trump nor EPA chief Lee Zeldin have explicitly spoken to any health risks of mifepristone in water. But the president and leading administration officials’ decision to stay silent on the issue may increase pressure from anti-abortion advocates, according to Bernstein.
“We anticipate that disinformation campaigns surrounding mifepristone, including these false claims on the environmental impact, will continue to escalate — particularly as abortion opponents are frustrated at a perceived lack of action by the Trump administration,” Bernstein told The 19th. “We know, however, that restricting access to abortion is politically unfavorable, and candidates may be hesitant to focus on these efforts before the midterm elections.
What are the stakes for pregnant people?
As abortion rights and access have shrunk, Forouzan said that medication abortion has become a “lifeline” for many people seeking care after Dobbs, particularly through telehealth providers operating under shield laws, which are state-by-state legal protections to safeguard practitioners from being sued by states with abortion bans. As a result, anti-abortion officials at the state and federal level have increasingly focused on restricting the remaining ways people can access abortion care.
Forouzan said the push to monitor abortion medication in wastewater contributes to a broader “culture of surveillance” surrounding abortion. She said proposals to test wastewater for mifepristone raise concerns about how such monitoring data could eventually be used and whether it could increase scrutiny of people who obtain medication abortions.
Do these claims have the potential to impact federal policy?
The potential of environmental harms continues to shape policy for abortion and anti-abortion advocates. On the anniversary of Dobbs, Rep. Brittany Pettersen, a Democrat from Colorado, submitted a resolution to address the disinformation campaign, saying that water systems should “not be weaponized for the purposes of surveilling, tracking, or detecting use of, stigmatizing, and further restricting access to medication abortion care.”
Advocates also point to what they see as a contradiction in the campaign. Many of the same advocates and elected officials who support mifepristone monitoring have opposed other environmental hazard regulations. For example, in Indiana, where the state’s attorney general co-signed the letter, state lawmakers recently passed legislation to deregulate the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, an agency in charge of limiting pollution in the state’s air, water and soil.
The EPA has already taken action to recommend states begin testing drinking water for abortion medications. In April, the agency released a list of 374 drugs that states should monitor. While it does not include mifepristone, it does include other medications used in abortions such as misoprostol and methotrexate, commonly used in daily birth control and the NuvaRing contraceptive. It’s the first time the agency has designated pharmaceuticals as a contaminant group, according to an April press release.
The EPA did not respond to The 19th’s request for comment.
The EPA’s comment period allowed 60 days for the public to weigh in on the list before agency staff began reviewing the feedback and finalizing. Now that the June comment period has closed, whether the agency will ultimately add the medication to the list remains uncertain. However, when federal regulators previously reviewed environmental concerns related to mifepristone, they found no evidence warranting restrictions, according to Bernstein.
Bernstein and Forouzan said that anti-abortion states and lawmakers often learn from each other in order to pass bills in their respective states. Forouzan added these efforts work “parallel” to federal bill proposals, both with the same goal: to restrict further access.
“Its really just to restrict access to mifepristone and specifically to roll back requirements to force in-person dispensation, which would really limit access to a lot of folks.”
Four years after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, reproductive advocates say the evolution of anti-abortion campaigns continue to “severely restrict” access to care across the country. Thirteen states currently enforce total bans, and 6 explicitly prohibit telehealth use to provide abortion pills, according to Guttmacher Institute.
“It’s contributing to this culture of surveillance around medication abortion at a time when that is already increasing, and folks, especially in banned states, are facing increasing fear of criminalization,” Bernstein said. “There are concerns whether it will be eventually used for the criminalization of patients, in addition to creating a broader restriction of mifepristone and perpetuating these myths.”
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.