Prosecutors have asked Indiana State Police to investigate the recent deaths of at least eight dogs from heat-related injuries while being transported in an uncooled box truck

John Goodman showed off his dramatic weight loss transformation over the weekend, but his weight loss journey didn’t “happen overnight”. The Big Lebowski star, who turned 71 on 20 June, recently attended the 2023 Monte-Carlo Television Festival in Monaco on Sunday (18 June) where he debuted his slimmed-down figure on the red carpet. In photos from the event, Goodman looked sharp in a navy blue double-breasted suit and khaki pants, which he paired with a yellow tie, brown loafers, and round-framed sunglasses. The actor’s transformation is the result of more than a decade of hard work, after he reportedly started working on his health back in 2007. In a new interview with Rolling Stone published on 17 June, Goodman revealed that he has lost a total of 200 pounds, ever since he first revealed to David Letterman in 2011 that he was “pushing 400” pounds when he was at his heaviest. “I’d get off of Roseanne every spring. I’d lose 60 pounds every spring [but] I’d gain it back and then some, every year,” he told the late-night host at the time. At the start of his journey, Goodman hired health coach Mackie Shilstone who helped him to give up sugar and work out six days a week. The actor, who’s been open about his struggles with alcoholism in the past, also stopped drinking after checking into a rehabilitation center in 2007. “It takes a lot of creative energy to sit on your a** and figure out what you’re going to eat next,” he said in an interview with People in 2010. “I wanted to live life better.” Five years later, Goodman’s health coach revealed to the New York Post that the Roseanne star had lost 100 pounds through a combination of diet and exercise. Goodman unveiled his 100-pound weight loss transformation at the premiere of his film Trumbo in 2015. “This didn’t happen overnight – it’s been an ongoing process,” Shilstone told the Post. He introduced Goodman to a “Mediterranean-style eating plan,” which heavily leaned on a diet of fish, nuts, olive oil, vegetables, and fruit. The Monsters, Inc actor also racked up 10,000 to 12,000 steps a day, along with getting in some miles on the elliptical bicycle and treadmill. At the time, Goodman’s then-100 pound weight loss took around two years. In an interview with ABC News, Goodman revealed that he decided to make a change to his habits after he would look in the mirror and not like what he saw in his reflection. “I just got tired, sick and tired of looking at myself. You’re shaving in the mirror and you don’t want to look at yourself. It gets dangerous,” he told ABC’s Peter Travers in 2016. Goodman also explained that his weight loss journey was made easier after he “just stopped eating all the time”. “I’d have a handful of food and it’d go to my mouth,” he said. “In the old days, I would take three months out, lose 60 or 70 pounds, and then reward myself with a six-pack of Bud or whatever and just go back to my old habits.” “Then this time I wanted to do it slowly, move, exercise. I’m getting to the age where I can’t afford to sit still anymore. And it gives me the energy to work, ‘cause work is very draining.” These days, John Goodman has been busy balancing his ongoing health journey with his many roles in television – reprising his role from Roseanne as beloved father Dan Conner in ABC’s The Conners, and televangelist patriarch Eli Gemstone in the HBO comedy, The Righteous Gemstones. Speaking to Rolling Stone, Goodman detailed that he stays active by “getting out and walking the dogs” amidst his busy schedule. Before production began on The Conners in 2018, Goodman said he spent much of his time boxing too. “I was boxing up until then and I haven’t been able to do that since Covid because I’m lazy,” he shared. “I haven’t been exercising, but I’m going to start a routine again this summer where I can get some stuff done. I’ve just let everything go just because I haven’t had the energy because of the jobs.” The iconic Hollywood actor also opened up about his past struggles with alcohol and “anger as a younger man,” which he admitted was “fuelled by fear”. “But I was probably born an alcoholic,” he joked. “But most of the anger’s gone. If I don’t watch the news, I’m cool.” Read More John Goodman weight loss: Fitness expert explains how actor lost 100lbs Scientist behind Ozempic says drug can make life ‘so miserably boring’ What to know about prescription drugs promising weight loss What are the symptoms of laryngitis and how long does it take to recover? What is egg freezing and how does it work? Regular napping could be good for brain health, research suggests

Amber Husain was cooking dinner for a friend when she suddenly realised the meat she was preparing was a corpse. She looked at the chicken in front of her and was overcome with a visceral sense of disgust. Instead of food, she saw “a carcass – plucked, beheaded, and fleshy”. Husain was 26 when she had this epiphany, and it served as a wake-up call not just for her stomach but her mind, too – as her personal tastes shifted away from meat products, her political outlook on the meat industry and food production more broadly also altered and expanded. Five years later, that moment of revulsion forms the opening of her new book, Meat Love, in which she scrutinises the idea of “ethical” meat consumption, and dares to ask how the contemporary middle classes have come to criticise “the worst violence against animals” while still happily feeding on their flesh. Why, for example, has well-heeled, middle-class London gone nuts for slurping bone marrow from the shin bones of baby cows? Why is offal on so many trendy menus? How has contemporary culture at large come to accept that factory farms are monstrous, but that if animals are cared for, cherished and loved while alive, we should feel better about killing them for our carnivorous pleasures? “For ages, I was one of those carnivores who felt mildly bad about eating meat but just turned that into this inane, self-consciously sadistic part of the pleasure of it all,” Husein tells me. “The more my diet started to revolve around stuff that wasn’t meat, the weirder meat started to feel. Interestingly, once my stomach had been radicalised, I found I had a much greater intellectual openness to thinking about the politics of meat.” Having freed herself from the conflict of eating meat but also feeling bad about it, she found she was able to go beyond those questions of morality – which she suggests can be “stifling” – and think politically. “Now that I have no desire to eat animals, there’s nothing to stop me reckoning with what it means that the meat industry [consists of] an underclass of both humans and animals who are exploited and – in the animals’ case – killed for pleasure and profit.” This is the essential crux of Husain’s argument, and it’s something often lacking in discussions around the “ethics” of meat consumption. For Husain, the question is not, “how can humans eat meat responsibly?” but “how are certain lives devalued to an extent that their suffering can be written off, in order to ‘make a killing’?” What she’s saying, in other words, is that whether the meat on the table has come from a factory farm or an organic farm, or whether you’re tucking in at Burger King or the River Cafe, the path to the plate is still paved with violence. And, while current cultural trends may claim it is better to love and respect an animal before killing and consuming it, perhaps what this cultivates is the ability to embrace exploitation “in a spirit of virtuous indulgence”. What does it really mean, for all living beings, if love is imagined as compatible with killing? “To slide your buttery hand between the flesh and skin of a thing that, if only for a moment, you have re-learnt to perceive as a corpse, is to give an invigorating massage to your sense of political possibility,” Husain writes in Meat Love. By the slim book’s end, her invigorated “sense of political possibility” has led to “a ravenous hunger – a desire for a different culture, a different society”; a new world “in which no one, neither animal, immigrant, worker, woman, or peasant, was considered a thing to be owned, controlled, killed, or left to die”. For many, the leap from a chicken breast on a plate to the exploitation of oppressed people around the globe might seem like a vast one. Yet, it certainly seems clear that there has been a marked shift in the way meat is conceived and consumed – among the middle classes, at least. Since the turn of the millennium, foodie figures like Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall have been promoting “seasonal, ethically produced food” as part of a broader commitment to caring for the environment. At the same time, a distinctly carnivorous spirit has taken hold – one that professes to be an “honest”, “grounded” and “down to earth” ethos. “Good food, good eating, is all about blood and organs, cruelty and decay,” Anthony Bourdain wrote at the start of the 1999 New Yorker article that would, eventually, catapult him into global foodie fame. I find it easy to laugh at Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and people like that, but I’m not totally convinced that they’re really the bad guys Lewis Bassett Then there’s Fergus Henderson and St John – the illustrious London restaurant, born in 1994 on the premises of a former bacon smokehouse, which popularised “nose to tail” dining. This offal-centric “no waste” approach is neatly summed up in Henderson’s oft-quoted phrase: “If you’re going to kill the animal, it seems only polite to use the whole thing.” Traditionally “cheap cuts” are “elevated” from a source of sustenance for the working classes, to a source of virtue for the urban bourgeois. According to its own cookbook, St John dishes combine “high sophistication with peasant roughness” – that winning aesthetic formula that also sees middle-class urbanites flocking to farmers’ markets and chugging natural wine. In a sharp and searing piece for food and culture newsletter Vittles, writer Sheena Patel dubs this “Rich Person Peasantcore”, asking: “Why are these influencers pretending that they themselves till the land and eat like 17th-century French peasants when in fact their chopping boards cost more than most people’s rent?” In the face of swathes of small plates adorned with offal, and slices of ham served for upwards of £20, it seems like a pertinent question not just for influencers, but also for today’s trendiest restaurateurs and diners. Lewis Bassett is a chef and the host of The Full English podcast, which, over its two seasons, has dived into everything from the birth of “modern European” cuisine to high food prices, factory farms, and why Britain is in love with Greggs. “It’s interesting the way we create these fantastical worlds for us to eat within,” he says. “It is clearly a fantasy to imagine that you can have the rural experience of a peasant in France or Italy, in modern-day Britain.” Yet, he also says that this trend is far from new. The current “rustic” style – typified by “nose to tail eating” – is, he suggests, “intimately tied with what you could call a culinary and broader cultural movement that appears in the wake of countercultural movements in the Sixties, and eventually finds its way into food, especially as some of those countercultural people get a bit older and a bit more affluence”. Essentially, “it’s the same thing that manifested in places like Habitat,” he says, of the homewares and furnishings brand founded in 1964 by Terence Conran. Both design and dining were transformed, offering experiences to the middle classes that were both refined and casual at the same time. Alongside that cultural shift, and “that fashion for pared-down forms of eating out”, Bassett notes the arrival of a broader awareness of environmental and animal welfare concerns. “It’s obviously easy to ridicule these middle-class forms of culture,” he says, “but these concerns are ones I certainly share and I think should be considerations for everyone. I find it easy to laugh at Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and people like that, but I’m not totally convinced that they’re really the bad guys.” So is there a danger that legitimate backlash to the “thrifty rural”, “nose to tail” trend – and bourgeois “peasantcore” more broadly – could spill over into an attack on all food industry attempts at sustainability? “I think people don’t want stuffy fine dining experiences,” Bassett says, “but at the same time, having the kind of pared-down, rustic, ‘peasant food’ – like, having ham served to you at St John costs you 20 quid – maybe people are slightly sick of that.” He quickly adds, though, that he is “not saying it can come any cheaper than 20 quid, because when you spend a lot of time and effort rearing animals properly, and paying chefs properly, and paying rents in your restaurants, that racks up”. It seems there is a tension, then, between practical and immediate ethical matters – such as paying food industry staff liveable wages or reducing food waste – and broader questions about what kind of society we wish to live in or create. Is the question of “ethical” meat consumption, as Husain suggested, “beyond morality” – a question of politics only? Or is it still, at heart, a moral dilemma, based on people’s personal sense of “right” and “wrong”? Summing up Husain’s attitude towards animals in Meat Love, Bassett suggests “she’s saying that, if you love them so much, why are you killing them? I suppose where Amber Husain and I would slightly disagree is that I’m not convinced that killing an animal is inherently wrong.” Away from the carnal appreciation and “peasantcore” of contemporary restaurant culture, meat-eating often seems to be conceived as either a “guilty pleasure” or a “grim necessity”. In all these cases, however, there appears to be an overriding sense that there is “no alternative” to a meat-eating status quo. The late cultural critic Mark Fisher famously used similar terms to define “capitalist realism”, meaning that capitalism is the only viable economic system, and thus there can be no imaginable alternative. Is it possible we’re also stuck in a kind of “carnivorous realism”? If so, it might be because the two are so interlinked. As Husain puts it, “meat is the inevitable outcome of an economic system that relies on cheap labour and cheap life. But that doesn’t mean meat is a necessity, it means a new economic order is a necessity.” Perhaps taking the leap from a vegetarian diet to full-scale social and economic revolution still seems unthinkable to many. But, in nasty, brutish and austere times, it has also perhaps never been more necessary to seriously consider who can eat, and who is made meat. “I think we need an avalanche of political will from within the food justice, land justice, climate justice and labour movements to radically transform society,” Husain says. With that as the goal, she believes it isn’t helpful “for us to be clinging to the idea of meat as a pleasure”: “If we can’t imagine something other than animal flesh to eat for dinner we might struggle to imagine an entirely different society.” ‘Meat Love: An Ideology of the Flesh’ by Amber Husain is out now Read More Between Brexit and Covid, London’s food scene has become a dog’s dinner – can it be saved? It’s time for booze bottles to have health warning labels Should I give up Diet Coke? With aspartame under suspicion, an addict speaks Food portion sizes on packaging are ‘unrealistic and confusing’, says Which? In Horto: Hearty, outdoorsy fare in a secret London Bridge garden Zero-fuss cooking: BBQ pork ribs and zingy Asian slaw

Hunting down the best Prime Day sales can be exhausting. Limited-availability Lightning Deals often sell

Ever wanted to call someone on Twitter (sorry, X)? Soon, you'll get your chance. According

This week’s new entertainment releases include country superstar Chris Stapleton’s fifth studio album, Michael Fassbender playing a hitman in David Fincher’s “The Killer” and Tim Allen putting on his Santa suit for season two of “The Santa Clauses.”

A lineup of post-pandemic music concerts, from Coldplay to Blackpink, has driven more Indonesians to turn to fintech

A video claiming to show food going to waste at Starbucks has gone viral, despite the company previously pledging to donate all unsold food. Aidan Stockin, who works at the coffee chain, alleged that throwing away “perfectly good food” has become common practice at Starbucks. In a clip that has been viewed 2.2m times and liked by more than 189,000 viewers, the 23-year-old showed food waste allegedly left over at the end of his shift. “It’s not just one restaurant, it’s all of them,” the biology student from Massachusetts told NeedToKnow.co.uk. “I’ve worked in several over the past seven years and every single one says that they have a food donation service, then turns around and throws out a substantial amount of food daily. “It made me feel sick to be forced into throwing out so much perfectly good food when the homeless shelter is 10 minutes down the road.” In the video, he began by showing a shopping cart being filled with different packaged food items. He then revealed another trolley filled to the brim with pastries, before showing a picture of all the alleged waste in total. Users have taken to the comments to share their reactions, with many left upset and confused. “Nooo why can’t they donate it,” one viewer asked, while another said: “I would legit cash app you right now for those chocolate croissants.” “Just call your local Salvation Army to pick it up,” someone else suggested, while another viewer claimed the food waste should be “illegal”. In 2016, Starbucks announced its “FoodShare” programme, where it said it would donate unsold food from 100 per cent of the US stores. In 2020, it was alleged that Starbucks locations were throwing away unsold food, as investigated by the New York Post. According to Aidan, food is allegedly still being thrown away in 2023. Referring to the incident in the TikTok, he said: “The exact same scenario happened with our savoury sandwiches two days prior, in which two full carts were thrown away. In total, five carts were thrown out in less than three days. “I felt trapped and conflicted because if it were up to me, I would have loaded the food into the back of my car and drove it straight down to the homeless shelter.” Jam Press contacted Starbucks for comment. A company spokesperson said: “At Starbucks, our goal is to donate 100 per cent of approved to donate food, including perishable items like salads and sandwiches, furthering Starbucks resource positive commitment to reduce waste by 50 per cent by 2030. “Since 2016, Starbucks has been committed to supporting hunger relief through its innovative Starbucks FoodShare food donation program in partnership with Feeding America, Second Harvest Canada and other hunger-relief organisations. “Expanding our efforts to rescue food and divert from landfills is key to helping us reach our aspirations. We have developed a process which enables us to donate our fresh, ready-to-eat food items in addition to the pastries that we have been donating for years. Our commitments and FoodShare programming are carried out in company-owned stores. We encourage our licensed store partnerships to include Starbucks donations in their existing food waste reduction and donation programs.” Read More How can you save money on your wedding food? Woman praised for telling guests not to eat the food at her sister’s wedding 7 TikTok food hacks that actually work Schoolboy almost dies from swallowing magnets for TikTok challenge Woman shares honest review of New York City apartment TikTok mom slammed after making 5-year-old son run in 104 degree heat

Top corn importer China could cancel more purchases of the grain from the US because the country can

As inflation continues to strain family budgets, forcing consumers to prioritize purchasing daily necessities over discretionary buys, popular footwear maker Keen is lowering prices on its products to provide some relief to weary consumers.

George Russell believes Max Verstappen’s imminent third world title will carry less satisfaction than his 2021 championship triumph over Lewis Hamilton because he has not been cornered into a proper fight. The imperious Dutchman, in his all-conquering Red Bull machine, has failed to win just three of the 16 rounds so far, and he is expected to sew up his latest championship in Saturday’s sprint round in Qatar. A sixth-placed finish in the 19-lap dash round the Lusail International Circuit is all he needs. Verstappen saw off Hamilton in a title battle for the ages two years ago before following up his controversial maiden world crown with a second last year. But on the eve of his third coronation, Russell, labelled a “d***head” by Verstappen after an on-track row in Azerbaijan earlier this year, said the lack of firm competition has allowed his rival to excel. “When it comes to any great in any sport, if the pressure is not turned up, you are in for a comfortable ride,” Russell told the PA news agency ahead of this weekend’s Qatar Grand Prix. “And I am sure the 2021 championship fight was more satisfying for him because it was a true battle. “He has been exceptional this year, and there is no doubt about that. Week-after-week he has performed at such a high level. “But we see the strategy review before every race, and the prediction every weekend, is of him going off into the distance. He can drive at 90 per cent and still win with 10 seconds to spare, and he knows that.” Russell, 25, only five months younger than Verstappen, excelled in his first season with Mercedes in 2022. He landed the team’s only pole position, sole win, and out-scored team-mate Hamilton. But heading into the final six rounds of this campaign, he is eighth in the standings, 75 points and five places adrift of his fellow Englishman. Russell was close to tears after he allowed a rare opportunity to win slip through his fingers in Singapore – a race where he crashed out on the last lap – before he was embroiled in a number of spiky radio exchanges at the previous round in Japan as he duelled with Hamilton. Russell, on a different strategy to his team-mate, was ultimately ordered aside. However, the younger Briton insists Hamilton, 38, is not owed preferential treatment. He is also adamant that he can beat the seven-time world champion in a title fight if Mercedes provide him with the tools to do so. When it comes to any great in any sport, if the pressure is not turned up, you are in for a comfortable ride. George Russell “Absolutely,” said Russell, who will be paired with Hamilton until at least the end of 2025. “When you are going up against the best of all time, you are testing yourself. “People can easily criticise me, but every single Formula One driver has a direct comparison to their team-mate, and my judgement is against the best driver ever, so that is why I don’t mind what people say. “I took pride in last year’s performance. I took pride in taking the team’s only pole and only win, and I took pride when, at the start of the year in my first six races with the team, I was ahead of him (Hamilton) in almost every single qualifying session. “But that is not why I’m here. If I end my career tomorrow, I am not going to be singing and dancing about finishing ahead of Lewis Hamilton in the championship. “I am here to win world titles and I am here to fight. There is an equal respect between the two of us and we are on equal terms. It doesn’t matter if you are Lewis, who is a seven-time world champion and has been here for 10 years, or me who is 18 months into my time with Mercedes. “We are on a level playing field and you only gain that respect by the performances you show on track and that respect has been earned.” Hamilton may be on the longest losing streak of his career – 39 races have passed since he last entered the winner’s circle at the penultimate round in Saudi Arabia nearly two years ago – but he remains the grid’s biggest star. “It is challenging for him when there are always the lights and cameras around, and rightly so,” added Russell, speaking in the Mercedes motorhome with Hamilton a few tables away. “But we have had many occasions where we have just been one-on-one. Even in Suzuka last week we sat down and had dinner together for about two hours and chatted about things that two blokes would speak about down the pub. I feel like a normal person and when you take him out of the crazy environment he is just a normal person. “It can be difficult to let your hair down. You are always on guard. And he is obviously very conscious of that. But when you are in a safe environment he is a great bloke, we get along, and it feels very normal.” And what of next year? Will Russell, Hamilton and Mercedes be able to stop the Verstappen juggernaut? “There was quote from (four-time world champion) Sebastian (Vettel) where he said ‘enjoy it, because it doesn’t last forever’,” concluded Russell. “We will get our chance and we have to be ready for it. “What are Red Bull are going to do? Who knows? Of course they are favourites for next year. But it is down to us to wake up every morning, look in the mirror, and say ‘we need to bring our A-game every single day’, and if we do that we can give them a run for their money.” Read More Fernando Alonso lauds Max Verstappen as best F1 driver since Michael Schumacher Fernando Alonso lauds Max Verstappen as best F1 driver since Michael Schumacher Max Verstappen pips Oscar Piastri to pole after tense qualifying for Japanese GP Lando Norris narrows gap on Max Verstappen at final practice in Japan How Qatar plans to make F1 grand prix their ‘new World Cup’ Aston Martin boss reacts to Andretti’s bid to become 11th F1 team

We're only halfway through 2023, and it's already been a wild — and amazing —