Cream cheese and ready-to-eat deli-style salads are facing a recall over potential listeria contamination.

New York-based Made Fresh Salads, Inc. issued a recall this week for all of its cream cheese products and Ready-to-Eat Deli Style Salads in response to the listeria risk.

Made Fresh Salads’ recalled cream cheese items include 5-pound and 30-pound tubs of various flavors, such as 5-pound apple cinnamon cream cheese, 5-pound tofu vegetable spread, 30-pound whipped cream cheese and 30-pound scallion cream cheese.

The company also recalled dozens of ready-to-eat salad products, including 5-pound chickpea salad, 5-pound bowtie pesto, 30-pound macaroni salad and 30-pound potato salad.

MORE THAN 1,500 POUNDS OF PORK RECALLED OVER LISTERIA CONTAMINATION RISK

Cream cheese and ready-to-eat deli-style salads are facing a recall over potential listeria contamination. (iStock / iStock)

The company’s 7-pound chocolate pudding, 6-pound vanilla pudding, 12-piece crab cakes and 12-piece potato croquettes were also subject to the recall.

Affected items have expiration dates ranging from Sept. 3 to Sept. 18.

The salads and cream cheese items were distributed in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx in New York City in 5-pound and 30-pound white plastic tubs with a Made Fresh Salads label or Northside label and half-size aluminum pans.

DOG SUPPLEMENTS RECALLED OVER POTENTIAL SALMONELLA CONTAMINATION

Made Fresh Salads, Inc. issued a recall this week for all of its cream cheese products and Ready-to-Eat Deli Style Salads. (Getty Images / Getty Images)

The products may have been repacked by retail locations in deli-style or other retail packaging, according to the company, although retail packaging and coding can vary based on purchase location.

The recall was initiated following environmental sampling by the company and the Food and Drug Administration, revealing that some areas of the facility tested positive for Listeria monocytogenes. The company has ceased production and distribution of the products as it continues to investigate, along with the FDA, what caused the contamination.

A listeria infection can cause symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, as well as miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recall was initiated following environmental sampling by the company and the Food and Drug Administration. (iStock / iStock)

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO

It can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and others with weakened immune systems.

No illnesses have been reported thus far in connection with the recalled products.

Consumers who purchased the affected items are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Dental implants in Albania are typically around €600 ($700; £516) per tooth, similar in price to what is charged in Turkey, which has long been the main overseas destination for people in western Europe who are seeking much cheaper dental work than they can get at home.

The same treatment in the UK, France or German can easily cost four times as much.

For Hook the appeal was irresistible. He made his first visit to Tirana to watch England’s footballers play Albania last year – but then found himself intrigued by all the signs for dentists. That nudged him into doing something about his missing teeth.

He thought he’d go to Albania rather than Turkey, because he was concerned by media coverage of dental or hair transplant work in Turkey that had gone wrong.

In fact, even the UK Foreign Office warns that it is “aware of seven British nationals having died in Turkey in 2025 following medical procedures”., external It adds that “some British nationals have also experienced complications [after surgery in Turkey], and needed further treatment or surgery following their procedure.”

Hook says he wouldn’t go to Turkey “because I have heard so many bad things”, adding that he investigated thoroughly before taking the plunge in Tirana.

“I went onto the internet and looked into it properly. It took me two days to research it because I’m not one for jumping into anything.”

Several return trips later, Anthony now has a mouthful of impressive implants – and, unsurprisingly, he is all smiles. “I’d come here once a month for a holiday if I could,” he chuckles.

Elite Dental is one of the biggest clinics in Tirana. It is fully licensed by the Albanian health authorities – and so are all of its 15 resident dentists.

The man who runs the place, Ardtur Dema, says he is “not in favour of damaging proper teeth for aesthetics”. Instead he says the priority is “changing people’s lives” through restoring their ability to chew, and indeed – to smile.

Dema believes that as long as Albania remains outside the EU, prices for treatment are likely to remain low. At the same time, low-cost airlines have greatly expanded their flight network to and from Tirana, meaning that he is as likely to see a patient from Turin as he is from Tirana.

But Dema is concerned that the explosion of tourism could lead to less scrupulous operators ruining the business for everyone. He is a member of the newly-established Albanian Medical Tourism Association – but many others are not, at least not yet.

Albania’s Prime Minister, Edi Rama, tells the BBC that the government is playing catch-up after five years that have seen overall international arrivals to Albania more than double. Some sort of official seal of approval for medical tourism facilities is a possibility – but the government has yet to sort out the details.

“It’s a new industry that is within the tourism industry umbrella that is showing a big potential and where there are very good people,” says Rama.

He adds that the government wants to help all the reputable providers “survive”, and to guard against any informal “bad competition”.

This article was written by

Follow

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

While this article may sound like financial advice, please observe that the author is not a CFA or in any way licensed to give financial advice. It may be structured as such, but it is not financial advice. Investors are required and expected to do their own due diligence and research prior to any investment.

Short-term trading, options trading/investment, and futures trading are potentially extremely risky investment styles. They generally are not appropriate for someone with limited capital, limited investment experience, or a lack of understanding for the necessary risk tolerance involved.

I own the European/Scandinavian tickers (not the ADRs) of all European/Scandinavian companies listed in my articles. I own the Canadian tickers of all Canadian stocks I write about.

Please note that investing in European/Non-US stocks comes with withholding tax risks specific to the company’s domicile as well as your personal situation. Investors should always consult a tax professional as to the overall impact of dividend withholding taxes and ways to mitigate these.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

A virtual CFO in Singapore helps foreign companies analyze financial performance, translate accounting results into actionable insights, and adapt budgets for accurate management decisions without full-time employment.

Understanding the Role of a Virtual CFO

A virtual CFO acts as a senior finance partner for Singapore companies, bridging the gap between accounting operations and management. For foreign investors, this role leverages financial data to evaluate performance, liquidity, and financial commitments without the need to hire a full-time CFO, making it a cost-effective solution.

Enhancing Management Accountability Through Financial Analysis

Management accounts enable companies to compare actual results against budgets and identify key performance areas by business line, customer, product, or project. This detailed insight allows for a better understanding of profitability factors and operational efficiency, guiding strategic decisions and resource allocation.

From Accounting Results to Strategic Management

In Singapore subsidiaries, annual budgets often tie into broader group planning, setting targets for revenue, staffing, and investments. The CFO’s role becomes crucial when actual results diverge from plans, prompting adjustments in forecasts and strategic responses to revenue dips, hiring delays, or increased costs, ensuring proactive financial management.

A UK organisation deploying AI in 2026 answers to three regimes at once, and they don’t agree on a method. Westminster has passed no AI statute; it asks existing regulators to apply a set of principles within their current remits.

Brussels legislated, and the EU AI Act follows UK firms across the Channel whenever their systems reach EU users. Alongside both sits the ICO, which treats most corporate AI as personal-data processing under UK GDPR. A credible list of the best AI governance tools for the UK has to start from that split, because a platform that shines against one regime can leave you exposed under the other two.

Most published advice on this subject comes from the US and treats Brussels as the one regulator worth naming. The five picks below face a different test: do they map controls to the rules a British firm answers to, and can they show a regulator or an enterprise buyer the evidence? The list opens with Scytale, whose answer to all three regimes is the same: turn AI governance into certifiable audit evidence rather than a shelf of policy PDFs.

Three regimes, one governance programme

Tool selection follows from the ground rules, so the ground rules come first.

• The UK’s principles-based approach. The 2023 white paper from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) chose supervision through existing regulators over a new statute. Five cross-sector principles, from safety through to contestability and redress, guide how bodies such as the ICO and the FCA police AI within their current powers. The FCA, for its part, supervises AI in financial services through its existing rulebook, which means firms under its scrutiny should prioritise audit-trail depth when they shortlist.
• The EU AI Act’s extraterritorial reach. Brexit didn’t put UK firms outside the Act. It binds any provider placing an AI system on the EU market, and it reaches UK firms whose system outputs land in front of EU users. A Manchester SaaS company with customers in Dublin carries EU AI Act obligations, and for high-risk systems the duties in force from 2026 include technical documentation and human-oversight records that an assessor can inspect.
• ICO expectations under UK GDPR. Where AI consumes personal data, the ICO’s guidance on AI and data protection applies. It expects a lawful basis settled before processing begins and a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) wherever the risk runs high. It also expects organisations to explain automated decisions to the people on the receiving end.

One standard cuts across the whole picture. ISO/IEC 42001 defines an AI management system an organisation can certify against, and the certificate travels: it demonstrates the accountability the UK’s principles ask for while supporting the documentation the EU AI Act demands. That’s why certifiable-framework support carries so much weight in the order below.

The best AI governance tools for the UK at a glance

The table gives the short version; the entries that follow give the reasoning.

The 5 best AI governance tools for UK organisations in 2026

Capability and pricing notes draw on vendor documentation and published third-party coverage, current as of July 2026, with sources named wherever a claim rests on someone else’s reporting. Few vendors here publish prices; the Cost lines say so when that’s the case.

1.    Scytale

Scytale approaches AI governance as compliance work with a finish line; the AI GRC platform treats a framework as something you evidence, not something you file. It covers the EU AI Act and ISO/IEC 42001 within a catalogue of more than 80 supported frameworks, and it automates the evidence those obligations generate: the platform gathers proof from connected systems and holds it against the relevant controls, so audit preparation stops being a screenshot exercise.

Two capabilities matter most for the UK buyer. The first is AI security questionnaires: when an enterprise customer sends an AI assurance questionnaire during procurement, the platform drafts responses from compliance data it holds, with human review before anything goes out. The second is evidence automation for EU AI Act obligations. Scytale maps the Act’s requirements as controls and collects supporting evidence through the same connectors, so a UK firm selling into the EU can show its conformity work rather than describe it. Controls mapped for one framework serve the next, which shortens the road from an existing ISO 27001 certification to ISO 42001 readiness, with dedicated GRC professionals on hand across the programme.

Scytale operates on frameworks and evidence rather than live model telemetry, so teams with high-risk systems in production will want an observability partner from further down this page. Budget holders should know the company keeps pricing off its website, and that certain capabilities sit in the upper plans.

Suited to: UK organisations that need to demonstrate AI governance to someone else, whether an auditor or an enterprise customer, and want the evidence gathered for them.

Cost: On application; budgeting starts with a scoping conversation rather than a public rate card.

2.    Credo AI

Credo AI runs governance from a central registry that logs every model and AI initiative an enterprise operates. Policy Intelligence Packs translate regulation into ready-made requirements, with mappings that span the EU AI Act and ISO/IEC 42001 among others, and netwrix.com describes a policy-as-code engine that stops a non-compliant model from shipping. domo.com credits GAIA with putting autonomous agents under the same oversight, agent inventories and tool-use permissions included.

For a UK buyer the appeal is documentation depth. The platform outputs the documents assessors ask for first, impact assessments and model cards among them, per reco.ai, which is the paperwork an EU AI Act conformity review or an ICO enquiry will want to see. Deployment options stretch from public cloud to self-hosting for data-sensitive environments.

The scope has edges. netwrix.com reports that coverage extends to models an organisation builds and manages itself, leaving third-party vendor AI outside the fence, and that full deployment wants a capable technical team behind it. strac.io adds that it sits at the expensive end next to usage-focused alternatives.

Suited to: Regulated enterprises coordinating AI oversight across legal and data science teams at once.

Cost: Contract terms only; reco.ai reports procurement through AWS Marketplace or direct agreements.

3.    Holistic AI

Holistic AI began in London, which makes it the nearest thing this category has to a home-grown UK option, though the product aims at multinationals rather than the domestic mid-market. Its command centre gives one view of an organisation’s AI estate, with an inventory that sweeps up shadow deployments and a risk-classification engine that sorts systems into EU AI Act tiers, as domo.com describes.

Regulation is the product’s organising idea. It watches rulebooks across jurisdictions and flags what’s coming before it lands, a capability domo.com singles out, and its bias auditing draws on a bank of validated fairness metrics, per reco.ai, which speaks to the fairness principle UK regulators supervise. Automated model cards and audit evidence round out the compliance output, per netwrix.com.

netwrix.com sounds two cautions. The audit tooling assumes technical depth, so governance teams without it face a slower start, and newer jurisdictions can need custom configuration before the mappings fit.

Suited to: Enterprises holding AI portfolios across several jurisdictions, with the technical staff to match.

Cost: On application; reco.ai notes a demo stands between you and a number.

4.    OneTrust

OneTrust extends a privacy platform many UK compliance teams know well into AI territory. The AI governance module inventories AI systems and records what sits behind each one, down to the models and third-party APIs involved. Ready-made assessments align with the EU AI Act and with ISO 42001, netwrix.com reports, and regulatory mapping flags documentation gaps before an assessor finds them.

The strongest UK argument is the assessment machinery. DPIAs sit alongside the AI risk templates, per domo.com, so a team that owes the ICO an impact assessment for high-risk processing can produce it from the same system that inventories the AI estate. Privacy and AI oversight end up on one surface instead of two.

domo.com notes the AI module is younger than the privacy core it grew from, and that buyers get the most from it inside OneTrust’s wider platform. truefoundry.com draws a sharper line: with no model access controls or inference logging, it serves legal and privacy teams better than engineering ones.

Suited to: UK teams running OneTrust for UK GDPR compliance who’d rather extend one platform than buy a second.

Cost: On application; the vendor routes every pricing enquiry through sales, per zapier.com.

5.    IBM watsonx.governance

IBM watsonx.governance treats the category as model risk management at industrial scale. One catalogue holds every model together with its lifecycle stage, and automated mapping lines systems up against ISO/IEC 42001, with EU AI Act coverage alongside; IBM’s own product pages claim more than 200 frameworks in total. netwrix.com describes a Guardrail Manager that scans prompts for injection and leakage attempts, plus monitoring for agentic AI workloads.

The deployment story travels well in the UK. Banks and insurers that keep workloads on-premise can run governance there too, since the platform spans SaaS, on-premise and hybrid setups. For a firm under FCA scrutiny, the documentation output anchors the audit trail existing rules expect, and a FedRAMP option exists for the US side of a transatlantic estate, per netwrix.com.

The costs of that depth are the usual IBM ones. domo.com calls implementation complex, with real ecosystem investment assumed, and finds the platform over-engineered where needs run simpler. truefoundry.com adds that capability thins once workloads leave IBM’s stack, with a steep learning curve on the way in.

Suited to: Large regulated enterprises, above all existing IBM shops with hybrid estates and formal model-risk teams.

Cost: IBM prices the software by virtual processor core; reco.ai records an Essentials SaaS plan billed at USD 0.60 for each resource unit.

Which AI governance tools serve UK organisations best in 2026

Match the tool to the regime that binds you. An engineering team with models in production needs specialized observability whatever else it buys. For the larger group of UK firms whose exposure arrives through enterprise procurement, EU market access and regulator scrutiny, the best AI governance tools for the UK are the ones that convert principles into evidence, and on that ground the strongest answer is Scytale: certifiable frameworks, automated proof and questionnaire answers drawn from real compliance data. The UK’s principles-based experiment won’t stand still, and Westminster has kept the option of legislation open. Every rule added from here raises the value of governance you can prove rather than describe, so buy the evidence engine first and the dashboards second.

AI governance in the UK: your questions

Does the UK have an AI law equivalent to the EU AI Act?

No. The UK chose a principles-based route: the DSIT white paper asks existing regulators, the ICO and FCA among them, to supervise AI within their current powers instead of creating a single statute or a new AI regulator. UK obligations therefore sit spread across regimes firms know, UK GDPR first among them, rather than gathered in one act. The approach can change, and ministers have kept legislation on the table, but as of 2026 no UK equivalent of the EU AI Act exists.

Do UK companies need to comply with the EU AI Act?

Many do. The Act reaches beyond EU borders: a UK provider placing an AI system on the EU market falls in scope, and so does a UK firm whose system output ends up in front of EU users. Brexit changed nothing about that reach. Firms in scope face documentation and oversight duties for high-risk systems, and an AI GRC platform like Scytale turns those duties into mapped controls with evidence collected against them, which is easier to show a conformity assessor than a folder of policies.

What does the ICO expect from companies using AI under UK GDPR?

The ICO treats AI that processes personal data as its own business. Its guidance on AI and data protection expects a lawful basis settled before processing begins, and a DPIA wherever the risk runs high. It also expects organisations to explain automated decisions to the people on the receiving end, and to show their working when asked. Documented controls and retained evidence keep that conversation short; improvised answers stretch it out, and the ICO’s enforcement powers under UK GDPR give it the last word.

What does ISO 42001 mean for UK firms?

ISO/IEC 42001 is the international standard for AI management systems, and what sets it apart for UK firms is that an accredited body can certify against it. The certificate demonstrates the accountability the UK’s principles call for while supporting EU AI Act conformity work in the same stroke, and it shortens enterprise security reviews because a certificate answers what a questionnaire would otherwise ask. Scytale supports ISO 42001 readiness with automated evidence collection and GRC expert support, so a UK team can reach certification without building a governance department first.

The boss of the biggest UK-headquartered tech firm has said that artificial intelligence will find a cure for cancer that humans cannot in our lifetimes.

Rene Haas, chief executive of Cambridge-based chip designer Arm Holdings, said while modelling how a DNA marker is impacted by cancer was currently “too complex” a problem, computers are “going to solve it” in the future.

Haas also told the BBC that AI would lead to widespread humanoid robots in the next five years, but that its current rapid growth was being held up by a shortage of chips needed to build data centres.

However, he was sceptical about the idea chips could be manufactured in the UK in the future.

Arm designs the brains or CPUs of microchips already used in hundreds of billions of phones, cars, smartwatches and gadgets across the globe.

Earlier this summer, the company’s peak share price amid the AI boom made it, in cash terms, the most valuable UK-based company in history.

Haas, who stepped down from the board of British pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca in April, told the BBC’s Big Boss Interview podcast: “AI is going to… find a cure for cancer that today you and I, other humans [could] not in our lifetimes. I believe in our lifetime, AI will help cure cancer.

“Modelling a cell, modelling a human, modelling how a DNA marker is impacted by cancer – it’s too complex a problem, not only for humans today, but the computers that run AI.

“However, going forward, as we feed more and more of the models into these computers, and the computers get more sophisticated to run the models, they’re going to solve it,” said Haas, who also holds a key role in Arm’s main owner, the Japan-based Softbank, which has a range of investments in tech including in OpenAI.

Prof Chris Bakal, from the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and CEO of Sentinal4D, said the real question was no longer whether we use AI, it’s what we feed it.

He said in labs like his, they are training AI on data generated themselves from patient samples.

“It is not scraped from the internet. It does not need a giant data centre to run. The future of medical AI will not belong to whoever builds the biggest computer. It will belong to whoever has the right measurements.

“That kind of prediction could cut years from the time it takes to develop new treatments. This is where AI delivers real benefit to patients.”

The widow of a man killed in Sunday’s fiery Amazon jet crash in Miami has filed a wrongful death lawsuit accusing the retail giant and its aviation partners of negligence and a string of dangerous landing mistakes. 

Yaraisi Santiso Morejon alleged the disaster was caused by pilot error, inadequate personnel training and the use of an unairworthy aircraft, according to the complaint reported by Courthouse News.

Her husband, Yoel Rodriguez Naranjo, was among five people killed when the Boeing 767 overran a runway at Miami International Airport and slammed into two vehicles before erupting in flames.

Morejon also alleged that the flight was conducted under hazardous conditions, citing an active thunderstorm in the area, the outlet reported. 

DATA SHOWS AMAZON JET’S KEY BRAKING SYSTEMS DID NOT DEPLOY DURING DEADLY MIAMI CRASH: NTSB

Aerial view showing the long debris path and perimeter damage from the runway overrun. (National Transportation Safety Board / Fox News)

“This disaster was not an unavoidable accident,” Morejon said. 

The complaint named the pilots as Captain Joseph Carroll, 55, and co-pilot Jaime Felipe Silva Molina, 37, accusing them of touching down far past the safe zone on the runway.

The plane reportedly landed more than 40 knots, or 46 mph, faster than the recommended speed, touched down 4,000 feet past the target zone and failed to perform a proper nose-flare maneuver, in which the pilot gently raised the aircraft’s nose just before touchdown to slow its rate of descent.

When the approach became unstable, the pilots failed to execute a mandatory go-around or declare an emergency, the suit alleged.

The jet ultimately plowed through the perimeter fencing and overran the runway by about 1,300 feet.  

VICTIMS IDENTIFIED IN FATAL AMAZON CARGO JET CRASH AT MIAMI AIRPORT

Investigators assess a crushed white van struck near the cargo jet crash. (National Transportation Safety Board / Fox News)

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) on Tuesday said investigators are still working to determine what happened during the crash and have not released an official cause. 

Flight operator 21 Air was also accused of inadequately training its pilots, providing poor crew supervision and imposing demanding flight schedules.

Prior safety complaints from former employees were also ignored or suppressed, according to the outlet. 

Crews were reportedly pushed to fly without proper rest, pilots with limited English skills were allowed to fly and aircraft remained in service despite ongoing problems, the suit alleged. 

In a statement to Fox Business, Amazon said every jet operated on its behalf was flown by an FAA-certified air carrier under FAA-approved operations and maintenance programs. 

“The FAA actively oversees each carrier’s programs and any changes are individually reviewed and approved by the FAA,” the company said. “These programs require: licensed individuals to perform regulated activities, recurrent training of licensed personnel, and routine aircraft inspections and maintenance at regular intervals.”

A destroyed vehicle sits near evidence markers in front of the downed Amazon Air freighter. (National Transportation Safety Board / Fox News)

After the incident, 21 Air issued a statement extending its condolences to those impacted. 

“Our deepest condolences are with the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives. Our immediate priorities are supporting those affected, assisting the authorities, and ensuring that accurate information is communicated as it becomes available,” the operator said. 

AMAZON CARGO PLANE OVERRUNS MIAMI AIRPORT RUNWAY AND STRIKES ‘MULTIPLE’ VEHICLES; 5 DEAD, 5 INJURED

Officials inspect the charred engine assembly on the side of the Amazon Prime Air fuselage. (National Transportation Safety Board / Fox News)

Meanwhile, the aircraft owner, Atlas Air, was accused of supplying an aging 32-year-old plane and failing to ensure that critical stopping systems were fully operational and safe. 

Authorities on Tuesday revealed that key braking systems, including speed brakes and thrust reversers, were not deployed during landing, citing available recorded data recovered from the crash. The NTSB said investigators will continue analyzing the circumstances of the incident. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Amazon was also named in the suit for allegedly failing to adequately oversee the operations. 

In a statement, the retail giant expressed its sympathies to those affected by the crash and said it was working with investigators and its operators on the matter. 

Amazon added that using independent air carriers was “standard practice in commercial aviation.” 

“Major U.S. (and foreign) passenger airlines also contract with independent carriers to operate flights under their brand but as separately certificated and regulated air carriers,” Amazon said.