What counts as “powerhouse fruits and vegetables” or PFVs?

41 fruits and vegetables, ranked by disease-fighting potential

In order, their nutrient density scores were:

Controversy over Reform UK candidate Robert Kenyon’s past comments about women has damaged his campaign in the tightly fought Makerfield by-election, according to new polling that suggests the contest could be too close to call.

Research conducted by Opinium for Forward Democracy, found that reports about Mr Kenyon’s comments, which have previously been described as ‘misogynistic’, are now widely known among voters and are having a significant impact on his candidacy.

Mr Kenyon’s previous posts included him responding to insulting comments directed at television presenter Carol Vorderman. As a result of the unearthed social media, Vorderman described Mr Kenyon as a ‘little coward’ and sent a letter to 6,000 female voters across the constituency.

The Opinium survey of 543 voters, conducted between 3 and 11 June using a mixed online and face-to-face methodology, puts Burnham on 46 per cent and Kenyon on 41 per cent. However, the five-point gap is within the poll’s margin of error of just under five percentage points, meaning the race remains highly competitive.

The data also shows Mr Kenyon’s past comments appear to have cut through in the constituency.

When voters were asked whether things candidates had said or done during the campaign made them more or less likely to support them, Kenyon recorded a net score of minus eight points, with 30 per cent saying that they were less likely to vote for him compared with 22 per cent who said they were more likely to do so. By contrast, Labour candidateAndy Burnham recorded a small positive net score of plus two points.

The polling found that 73 per cent of voters had heard reports about Kenyon’s comments, including around 80 per cent of both Labour and Reform supporters. Among voters aware of the controversy, 45 per cent said it made them less likely to vote for him, compared with just 11 per cent who said it made them more likely to support him.

The effect was particularly pronounced among younger voters and among those backing Burnham, while women were more likely than men to say the reports made them “much less likely” to support the Reform candidate.

You can read the full story HERE.

Starbucks’ South Korean operation has announced it will close all its stores nationwide early on June 22 for mandatory history and social sensitivity training. The initiative comes after the coffee chain faced backlash for a marketing campaign widely perceived as mocking victims of a brutal military crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in 1980.

Shinsegae Group, which owns a 67.5 per cent stake in Starbucks Korea, confirmed that group executives and employees at Starbucks Korea’s headquarters will attend training led by history and sociology professors this Wednesday. All Starbucks stores across the country will close at 3pm next Monday, enabling staff to watch a recording of the session, according to a statement from Shinsegae.

The coffee chain triggered an uproar when it attempted to promote a series of stainless-steel tumblers it called “SS Tank” by declaring May 18 to be “Tank Day.” The date marks the anniversary of the 1980 pro-democracy uprising in the southern city of Gwangju. It was violently suppressed by Seoul’s military government at the time, which deployed troops, tanks and helicopters, leaving hundreds dead or injured.

The campaign further fueled outrage by using the slogan “Thwack it on the table!” which many read as a reference to a notorious 1987 police statement that attempted to cover up the torture death of student activist Park Jong-chol. Authorities had falsely said Park died after investigators “hit the desk with a thwack.”

With the promotion sparking immediate backlash, Shinsegae canceled it within hours and fired the chief executive of Starbucks Korea. Shinsegae Chairman Chung Yong-jin later issued a nationally televised apology as police opened an investigation following complaints from relatives of the victims of the Gwangju crackdown. Chung will undergo separate training with the chief executives of Shinsegae affiliates on June 24.

Shinsegae said the decision to close all Starbucks stores early for the first time since the chain’s 1999 launch in South Korea and require companywide training shows “how seriously it views the marketing controversy and its determination to prevent a recurrence.”

The crackdown in Gwangju came months after General Chun Doo-hwan seized power in a coup in late 1979. Government records show about 200 people died in Gwangju, but activists say the true death toll was much higher. Chun’s government also imprisoned tens of thousands, saying it was rooting out social evils.

Public anger over Chun’s dictatorship led to massive nationwide protests in 1987, forcing him to accept a constitutional revision introducing direct presidential elections, which is widely seen as the start of South Korea’s transition to democracy.

Michelle shared new snaps of herself out and about with her little girl

Michelle Keegan has seemingly revealed an exciting milestone for her daughter, Palma, as her return to the small screen was also teased.

While the actress and her husband, Mark Wright, largely keep their daughter out of the spotlight, over the weekend, Michelle did share new snaps of herself out and about with their little girl.

It was in March that the couple celebrated a year since they welcomed their daughter, Palma Elizabeth Wright, into the world. Fans may recall that the couple revealed to the world that they were expecting their first child together in a sweet pregnancy announcement just after Christmas 2024, which featured Michelle debuting her blossoming baby bump on a Spanish beach.

Michelle and Mark, both 39, then later announced they’d welcomed their daughter into the world on March 12, almost a week after she was born, as they confirmed their unique name for the first child.

And it seems Palma may soon be giving her parents the runaround, as in a number of photos posted to her Instagram Story on Sunday (June 14), Michelle could be seen holding her daughter’s hand as she toddled along next to her, hinting she has reached a special walking milestone.

Meanwhile, Michelle has been seen for the first time in her ‘gripping’ new drama. The Stockport-born actress will be starring as DI Emma Crane in the new ITV crime drama, The Blame. Her character will investigate the death of a teenage figure skater, starring alongside Douglas Booth as DI Tom Radley.

According to ITV: “Set to air this autumn, The Blame is a gripping new series set to have audiences on the edge of their seats. Produced by acclaimed Quay Street Productions (part of ITV Studios), written, developed for television and executive produced by Megan Gallagher (All Her Fault, Wolf), the drama dives into secrets, suspicion, and systemic corruption – all under the surface of the seemingly quiet town, Wakestead.”

The six-part series is centred around DI Emma Crane and DI Tom Radley investigating a tragic murder in the fictional town of Wakestead. They quickly identify their main suspect, but as the case progresses, an unexpected lead comes to light. As Emma and Tom dig deeper, they uncover a web of lies, institutional cover-ups and moral compromise, which forces Emma to question the people closest to her.”

Who may still need vitamin D supplements in spring?

What if I’m not sure whether I need vitamin D?

How much vitamin D should I take?

Neil and Katya Jones took to social media to detail the loss of their beloved dog, Crumble

Two Strictly Come Dancing stars have revealed that they have suffered a heartbreaking joint loss, years after their marriage came to an end.

Fans of the BBC One dance show will already be aware that Neil and Katya Jones were once in a relationship. The two professional dancers married in August 2013, but after six years of marriage, in August 2019, they announced their separation.

The statement at the time read: “As our fans and loyal supporters, you are really important to us, and so we wanted to let you know some news. After 11 years, we have made the mutual decision to separate. We will always love each other, just in a different way as friends. This will never change what a great team we make and we are really proud of everything we have achieved together.

“Our shared love of dance means we will keep working and dancing together as well as exploring individual projects. No matter what we do we will always support and respect each other. We wish one another every happiness and we will remain the best of friends. We are really looking forward to getting back to the ballroom and can’t wait to keep on dancing. Lots of love from us both.”

The former couple have remained on good terms, continuing to work and perform together on Strictly, and they have also continued to share owner of their pet dogs, Chorizo and Crumble. An Instagram page for the pups reads: “Crumble -Chi x shit x poo SHE/HER, Chorizo (adopted) Chihuahua mix HE/HIS, parents @mr_njonesofficial and @katyajones.”

But it was over the weekend that Neil confirmed the devastating death of Crumble. Alongside pictures of the adorable pooch, he shared: “Today we said goodbye to Crumble. She may have been small, but she had the biggest personality and brought so much joy to everyone who knew her.

“She loved cuddles, belly rubs, and being close to the people she loved.” He added: “She will be missed more than words can say, but we find comfort in knowing she is finally at peace and no longer in pain. Sleep tight, Crumble.”

The post was quickly flooded with messages of love and support. Fellow dancer Karen Hauer said: “Oh Neil. I’m so sorry .. so sad .. she was a beautiful little girl. Sending all the love,” while Joanne Clifton replied: “It’s SO sad .. Sending love.” Former Strictly contestant Gemma Atkinson commented: “I’m so sorry Neil.”

Katya, meanwhile, shared a video to her Instagram Story of Crumble, and told her followers: “I know you are the sassiest girl up there [heart emoji].” She then shared pictures of her and her 2025 Strictly partner Lewis Cope back dancing together and commented: “Danced my way through this heartbreaking weekend [dog emoji].”

What is the portfolio diet?

How can I follow a portfolio diet?

With the Makerfield byelection approaching, polling suggests that Andy Burnham has a lead over Reform UK’s candidate Robert Kenyon. That lead, it appears, is stronger among women than men. Among women, Burnham’s lead stretches to 17 points, while among men is just two points.

One factor behind this may be the social media campaign being run by Reform. Analysis suggests that the party’s posts are targeted at (and seen more often by) men. And among voters aged 25 to 65, Kenyon’s campaign adverts have been seen far more often by men.

This is not surprising – research shows that men consume more political news and media than women, partially due to a “child penalty”, which can reduce the amount of news that mothers consume. As such, Reform’s campaign may be cutting through to more men.

However, the women of Makerfield do seem to have noticed one key claim about Kenyon – and it’s not something they view favourably. His old social media posts included a number of sexually explicit comments, as well as sexist language. This included a post in which he described women who had an abortion as “cowardly”.

On a special edition of the BBC’s Question Time programme recorded in Makerfield, one female audience member stated: “I’d rather have a career politician than a plumber who’s a sexist.”

Previous research shows that holding sexist attitudes and voting for a rightwing party in the UK are associated. This is relevant to understanding not just women’s choices when it comes to the byelection, but also men’s. Men who do not hold sexist attitudes will also be unlikely to lend their support to Reform.

But it’s important not to give too much weight to Reform’s choice of candidate or social media campaign as the causes of the gender differences seen in this recent polling. It is well understood that women are now less likely to vote for rightwing parties than men. This is especially the case when it comes to populist or far-right parties.

Women are more likely to vote for leftwing parties than men, a pattern that played out in the UK’s 2024 general election. The polling in Makerfield is consistent with this trend.

Yet the women of Makerfield, the choice of candidates by both parties, and Kenyon’s controversial comments are likely to play an important role in support for Labour at the byelection. Labour and Burnham, currently mayor of Greater Manchester, must consolidate the left vote in the constituency, and make sure their voters turn out on the day. Reform’s choice of Kenyon as its candidate may just help them to do this.

A candidate who has displayed controversial attitudes about women and issues around gender may make women who favour a third party, such as the Green party, more likely to prioritise keeping Reform out. They may see a vote for Labour as the best way to do this.

How might anger affect the vote?

One problem for Labour nationally is that the left vote has fragmented even further since 2024, with support increasing for the Green party. Support for the Greens among younger, educated women is now particularly strong.

While the Greens won only 4% of the vote in Makerfield at the last general election, if this were to increase it could be a real issue for Labour. This is not because the Greens are a threat to win the constituency, but because they could take support away from Burnham.

In the last byelection in Greater Manchester – Gorton and Denton – there were competing claims from Labour and the Greens about who was best placed to keep Reform out. Then, Reform had fielded a different candidate with controversial attitudes to gender issues. This may have contributed to a Green win, with late-deciding women potentially playing a role in the result.

In Makerfield, unlike in Gorton and Denton, it is much more obvious that women should consolidate behind Labour if they want to keep out a controversial Reform candidate. This may help Labour and bring back women who have voted (or have considered voting) Green.

On top of this, Reform’s decision to stick with a candidate with attitudes that seemed to make women in the Question Time audience visibly angry may motivate women to turn out and vote.

This could also spill over into households. It’s well established that when one person in a household votes, others in that household are more likely to do so. This goes alongside any influence Labour-voting women might have on the voting choices of those around them.

Of course, this influence could also work against Labour. My own research has shown that, in the UK, people who discussed politics with a Labour or a Liberal Democrat supporter were less likely to go on to vote Remain. And those who discussed politics with a Ukip backer were more likely to vote Leave.

The contest in Makerfield may be decided in part by how well Labour can persuade leftwing voters, who are disproportionately women, to vote for Burnham to keep out a controversial Reform candidate. Then the question will be whether these women can also mobilise those around them to do the same.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is expected to announce the proposed ban at a Downing Street press conference scheduled for 8am.

The move comes in response to overwhelming support during a government consultation, which found that 91% of parents backed raising the minimum age for social media access to 16.

The proposed UK ban would apply to platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Threads, Facebook, X, YouTube, Snapchat, and Reddit.

Children under 16 to be banned from social media apps

Sir Keir said: “This is a choice about whose side we’re on: families across the country, or a status quo that isn’t working.

“People rightly expect action, and this Government will always stand up for parents and put children first.

“As a dad, I know every parent wants their child to grow up safe and happy.

“That’s why we will call time on a system that’s failing our kids and take bold action to give every child the best possible start in life.”

It is expected that the ban will go further than similar measures in Australia by also banning under-16s from accessing romantic or sexual AI chatbots and limiting their ability to chat with strangers on gaming platforms, according to The Sunday Times.

Other measures under consideration include daily time limits for under-18s to prevent late-night scrolling.

This government will not stand by while children are put at risk online.

Today I am calling on the tech companies to introduce device-level controls to prevent children from taking, sharing or viewing nude images.

And if they don’t act, we will.

Advertisement

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) June 8, 2026

The consultation on the proposals closed on May 26 and drew about 116,000 responses, making it the second-largest in history.

More than 83% of parents who responded said the risks of social media outweigh the benefits for children.

Among younger respondents, 62% said restricting high-risk features would improve their safety online.

However, 72% expressed concerns about feeling left out if such restrictions were introduced.

Sir Keir’s announcement follows his recent ultimatum to Apple and Google, giving them three months to make it technologically impossible for children to take, share or view nude images on their smartphones.

Not everyone agrees with the proposals.

The U.S. embassy in London, responding to the consultation, warned the UK against a blanket ban, favouring more targeted requirements instead.

They raised concerns that strict age verification could place disproportionate compliance burdens on American tech companies.

Domestic critics have also voiced their concerns.

The Molly Rose Foundation, established after the death of 14-year-old Molly Russell, argued that a simple age ban will not address the underlying product safety risks.

Andy Burrows, the foundation’s chief executive, said: “A majority of children will continue to use high-risk sites that will have no incentive to implement robust protections.

“This is not what online safety experts believe will work and is necessary.

“Keir Starmer has chosen to abdicate responsibility for tackling harmful algorithms and his legacy will be setting back children’s safety by years.”

However, Conservative figures who campaigned for tougher online protections for children welcomed the new direction.

Lord Nash, a former education minister, said: “The Government now has an opportunity to draw a line in the sand and end tech companies’ uncontrolled experiment with children’s safety.

“They must deliver in full on their pledge to raise the age limit to 16 for harmful platforms and features, with robust age verification to ensure it is properly enforced.

“Only by doing this can they begin to end the catastrophic harm being done to a generation.

“Let’s give our children their childhood back.”

Labour MP Feryal Clark, co-chairwoman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for digital creators, said: “High-quality, creator-led educational video content is a critical public resource and is not the same thing as social media.

“For example, many young people use it to revise for GCSEs, to learn a language or a musical instrument.

“Any legislative intervention must capably address this distinction.”

Do you agree with a social media ban for under-16s? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said it was looking into whether the airline’s policy, which the watchdog said typically led to a fee of £8 each way, was “unfair” under consumer law.

It said Ryanair’s terms and conditions state a parent must sit with their child if aged between two years and 11.

This is done through what the airline calls a “mandatory family seat” that the parent must pay a fee for.

Ryanair called the investigation “bogus” and insisted its family seating policy “fully complies with all relevant laws”.

The airline said that it does not charge any fee for children to sit beside their parent or accompanying adult.

However, parents and guardians must pay a booking fee to be seated next to them, The Guardian reports.

Why is Ryanair being investigated?

The CMA is looking at whether the airline’s “approach to seat reservations may mean parents are being charged for the airline to meet its child safety and disability‑related obligations as set out under aviation rules – and will investigate to determine whether or not this practice is in line with consumer law”.

The watchdog said it understood that Ryanair was the only major airline flying from the UK to impose such a charge, BBC News reports.

It said other airlines offered to seat children next to a parent or guardian without a fee, or allocate seats together automatically during booking for free.

The CMA added that its investigation had just started, and it had “reached no conclusions about whether Ryanair has broken the law”.

Ryanair said adults travelling with children pay one reserved seat fee, “but can select reserved seats beside them for up to four children on the same booking FREE OF CHARGE”.

In a statement, the airline said: “This means that parents travelling with children pay for only one (adult) reserved seat but pay nothing for the four other reserved seats for their children travelling with them.

“This bogus CMA investigation is a failed effort by the Starmer Govt to pretend it cares about consumers when it has failed to abolish APD [Air Passenger Duty] which would immediately deliver lower fares for all consumers and growth for the UK aviation, tourism and wider economy.

“Ryanair looks forward to disproving these false CMA claims during this bogus investigation.”

Recommended reading:

Consumer rights body Which? welcomed the investigation.

Rory Boland, travel editor at Which?, said: “Which? has repeatedly highlighted Ryanair’s harsh approach to separating families and making parents pay a fee to sit next to children as young as three, so it’s good to see the regulator investigating the airline’s behaviour.”

He added: “Ryanair doesn’t have to wait for the outcome of the CMA’s investigation, it could stop charging these unreasonable fees today and we would encourage them to do that.”

What’s your opinion on the Ryanair seating charge? Let us know in the comments.