• Strauss Zelnick, the CEO of Take-Two Interactive, said he prefers working out to playing video games.
• He is a longevity buff, deep into fitness and anti-aging habits.
• In a candid conversation with Business Insider, he said skip the peptides, and try these 7 things instead.

Media mogul Strauss Zelnick spends his days hyper-focused on making the most creative, innovative, best video games in the world.

As the CEO and Chairman of video game-maker Take-Two Interactive, he's readying to release Grand Theft Auto 6 next month.

At home though, he doesn't play games. He prefers to spend his time working out and staying healthy for a long time.

At Business Insider's "The Long Play" event on Thursday, Zelnick said his formula for healthy aging is both simple and effective.

While he calls biohacker Bryan Johnson, the man behind the "Don't Die" movement, a friend, he said trying to live forever is a pretty silly strategy.

"There's almost no evidence that anything anyone is doing will increase your lifespan," he told Business Insider's Senior Leadership & Workplace Correspondent, Sarah Needleman. "How many of us really want to increase our lifespan from like 96 to 101? Look, that is not on my bucket list, thank you very much."

Instead, Zelnick, who wrote a book on "Becoming Ageless" in 2018, focuses on the same core behaviors for "taking care of yourself" that longevity experts around the world swear by for maintaining health and happiness for the long haul.

1: Do not smoke

"Smoking is the factor most highly correlated with a short, unhealthy, and frankly, unhappy life," Zelnick said. "Don't smoke."

2: Don't abuse alcohol and drugs

These lead to "a bad old age, or no old age," he said.

3: Get some exercise

Zelnick said: "You don't have to do what I do," with 6 a.m. wakeup calls for group training sessions, or twice-a-day workouts.

"I do what I do because I love it, it's my passion," he said. "If you walk 30 minutes a day, four or five days a week — just walk — you're like 80% of the way there."

4: Eat a "responsible" diet

Zelnick says he doesn't have an "insanely healthy diet," but he tries to maintain some balance. "I eat a lot of vegetables and salads and protein — I also like sweets, and I do eat carbs."

5: Sleep at least 7 hours a day

Zelnick says he treats this as a non-negotiable for his business.

"If you're getting less than six hours, you're making bad decisions," he said.

6: Have "some kind of emotional or spiritual life"

Longevity experts stress this is key for mental health, and establishing a sense of purpose in the world.

7: Find community

Zelnick said it's critical to get support from "people who love you."

8: Skip overhyped health hacks

Zelnick says don't waste your time with all the overhyped, unproven health hacks.

"All the other stuff, like, peptides? A: No," he said. "We have an FDA for a reason. Don't take something that is not double-blind tested."

And, he said, be careful with some of the internet's most famous longevity gurus. He name-checked controversial Harvard professor David Sinclair, who has made bold promises about the anti-aging effects of unproven supplements, including resveratrol, a plant polyphenol found in grapes and red wine, and NMN, which is a precursor to NAD, the vital coenzyme that's in every cell of our body.

"A medical doctor actually is a degree: M-D, an MD degree," Zelnick said. "Not a David Sinclair degree, he is not actually a doctor."

For more than half a century, federal officials have classified drugs into legal categories that determine who can manufacture, prescribe, or study them, and who goes to prison for possessing or selling them. Those classifications carry enormous consequences. They also reflect decades of political pressure, moralization, myth, and stigma.

Rep. Steve Cohen (D–Tenn.) proposes to change that. His Public Health and Research Reforms in Controlled Substances Act of 2026 would substantially overhaul federal drug scheduling, shift key decisions from law enforcement to health officials, ease research restrictions, deschedule marijuana, and reduce mandatory prison penalties.

While the proposal preserves too much of the drug prohibition infrastructure, it represents a major step toward a more rational, evidence-based, and humane drug policy.

The Controlled Substances Act currently combines judgments about a drug's potential for abuse with judgments about its medical usefulness. Congress vested scheduling authority in the attorney general, who generally exercises it through the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) evaluates the scientific and medical evidence, but the DEA makes the ultimate legal determination of whether a drug has a "currently accepted medical use" for scheduling purposes, as the Justice Department explained in a 2024 legal opinion. Schedule I, the most restrictive category, includes substances deemed to have a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use. These restrictions impede research, while officials cite insufficient evidence of medical usefulness to justify continued restrictions.

Cohen's bill would transfer authority to assess medical usefulness and drug-related risks—and to make scheduling decisions—from law enforcement to HHS, where those judgments more rationally belong. Under the new system, controlled substances would receive two classifications: a Roman numeral, I through IV, reflecting risks associated with misuse, substance use disorder, and threats to public health; and a letter, A through E, reflecting therapeutic value.

A substance could therefore be classified as high risk while still recognized for substantial medical benefits. That reflects an everyday reality of medical practice. Fentanyl, for example, can cause fatal respiratory depression and remains an indispensable anesthetic and analgesic. A drug's dangers do not erase its benefits.

The bill would also replace the vague "potential for abuse" standard for adding substances to the schedules with a standard based on the potential to develop a substance use disorder, expressly excluding isolated or occasional nontherapeutic use. Taking a substance for pleasure would no longer, by itself, satisfy that threshold.

Among the proposal's most consequential provisions is a requirement that officials consider whether scheduling a substance would itself threaten public health, including by encouraging people to substitute other drugs. They must also consider whether people use a substance to help control problematic use of another scheduled drug, as well as the harms associated with that other drug.

That would force federal officials to confront consequences that drug warriors routinely ignore. Banning a substance does not eliminate demand. Consumers may turn to underground suppliers, face uncertain potency and contamination, or switch to more dangerous products. Making a particular drug harder to obtain can leave its users worse off.

These requirements could be critical in disputes over kratom and its alkaloids, such as 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), which some consumers report using for pain or to reduce their use of other opioids. Such reports should be part of an honest assessment of what consumers stand to lose when the government closes a legal supply channel.

An expert committee would evaluate each substance and publish its evidence and reasoning, making scheduling decisions more transparent and easier to challenge.

HHS would also assume from the DEA responsibility for registering researchers who study controlled substances. Qualifying researchers would gain an expedited registration pathway, with faster decisions for eligible small preclinical pilot studies. Federal officials currently demand evidence that these drugs have medical benefits while imposing restrictions that make it harder for researchers to obtain the drugs and conduct the studies needed to generate that evidence.

Cohen would require officials to reconsider existing classifications, setting a two-year deadline for 32 named substances and an eight-year deadline for most others. If officials miss those deadlines, statutory fallback classifications would apply.

The bill would also repeal the legal obligation of the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the "drug czar," to oppose specified legalization efforts—a remarkable requirement for an office supposedly focused on evaluating drug policy.

Marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols (THCs) would come off the controlled substance schedules altogether. The bill expressly makes that change retroactive, extending it to past offenses, pending cases, convictions, and juvenile adjudications.

Its sentencing reforms also merit praise. The proposal would remove the quantity-based trafficking provisions that impose five- and 10-year mandatory minimums and eliminate specified mandatory penalties when death or serious injury results. The bill would also limit certain repeat-offender sentencing enhancements to prior convictions that meet the narrower definition of a "serious drug felony." Among other requirements, the person must have served more than a year in prison and been released within 15 years of the new offense. Eligible prisoners could receive reduced sentences, and the Bureau of Prisons would be required to identify them, notify them, and file motions on their behalf.

These changes could spare people years of imprisonment. They deserve support even from those of us who would go much further.

The shortcomings remain significant.

First, the bill preserves criminal penalties for peaceful conduct involving drugs that remain controlled. It leaves the general federal simple-possession statute intact, including mandatory minimum jail terms for repeat offenses. Congress would continue to authorize imprisonment for possessing a substance without government permission.

Second, transferring power to HHS offers no guarantee against political interference. The secretary would appoint the expert committee in consultation with the drug czar. Its required membership emphasizes addiction medicine, toxicology, and substance-use services, without expressly reserving seats for pain patients, ordinary consumers, or civil liberties advocates.

The bill would allow emergency scheduling to bypass the new expert committee's review. It would also retain features of the current system: Temporary restrictions could last two years, with a possible one-year extension, and the statute would expressly exclude those orders from judicial review.

The bill would also transfer production quotas to HHS rather than abolish them. As I have argued before, presuming to know how much of each opioid more than 320 million Americans will need in the coming year exemplifies what economist Friedrich Hayek called the "fatal conceit." These quotas have contributed to shortages of injectable opioids in hospitals, jeopardizing care for surgical patients and those on ventilators. Transferring that power to a health agency does not solve the underlying knowledge problem. Congress should abolish the quotas.

The proposal substantially increases many maximum fines even as it reduces mandatory prison penalties. For an individual convicted of Schedule I or II trafficking without a qualifying prior conviction, the fine ceiling would rise from $1 million to $10 million. Congress should question this punitive expansion.

Finally, marijuana descheduling would leave Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority intact. The bill expressly preserves the agency's powers under federal food and drug law, allowing it to regulate cannabis products that qualify as drugs, foods, or other products within its jurisdiction. It provides no explicit protection for a recreational cannabis market from FDA restrictions.

Those weaknesses warrant amendments. Scientific evidence can help people understand risks, but it cannot, by itself, justify depriving competent adults of the freedom to decide which risks they will accept. Autonomous adults should remain free to make informed choices about what they put into their bodies.

Cohen, who is retiring from Congress at the end of his term, is unlikely to see this sweeping reform pass during the brief post-election lame duck session. But his proposal can serve as a benchmark for reforming the Controlled Substances Act in the next Congress. Providing his successors with a framework that places greater weight on scientific evidence, recognizes the harms of prohibition, and reduces unjust punishment would leave Cohen with a substantial drug policy reform legacy.

The post Rep. Steve Cohen Thinks the DEA Shouldn't Be Practicing Medicine appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will let pharmacies produce and sell treatments involving six peptides that aren't specifically approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The move is meant to provide a "controlled alternative" to buying peptides from possibly sketchy foreign pharmacies, HHS said.

Under the new HHS policy, the agency will not "take enforcement action against a State-licensed pharmacy, Federal facility, or licensed physician compounding a drug product" using one of six named "peptide bulk drug substance[s]."

This is a major win for peptide proponents, compounding pharmacies, and health freedom—and hints that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may be feeling frustration with the slow pace of things at the FDA.

The six peptides in question—BPC-157, Epitalon, KPV, MOTS-c, Semax, and TB-500—were the subject of a summer meeting of the FDA's Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee (PCAC).

Up for debate was whether these six "bulk drug substances" and another, Emideltide, should be put on the FDA's Section 503A Bulks List. That list governs which substances licensed physicians and specialty pharmacies can compound into drug products without them being a component of an already FDA-approved drug or having "an applicable United States Pharmacopeia (USP) or National Formulary (NF) monograph."

In July, the panel voted to put six of the seven peptide-related substances under consideration (all except Emideltide) on the bulks list. But the panel's vote is not binding.

It's ultimately up to FDA authorities to decide whether they accept the advisory committee's recommendations. So far, no decision has been released.

But yesterday, HHS unveiled an "Enforcement Discretion Policy Regarding 503A Compounding Using Certain Peptide Bulk Drug Substances." And it effectively puts the committee's recommendations into practice by proxy.

Kennedy can't ensure FDA approval, of course. But he can—and will—stop HHS from taking action against physicians or pharmacies that compound and distribute these substances under his prescribed rules.

In an explainer about the new policy, HHS notes that "compounded drugs are not FDA-approved, which means FDA does not review their safety, effectiveness, or quality before they are marketed." Nonetheless, "compounded drugs can serve an important medical need for certain patients" and "there is significant interest in the use of these peptides in compounding," it says.

Opponents of allowing more peptide-based treatments to be compounded by licensed U.S. pharmacies often focus on the fact that these products don't have FDA approval and may not have the extensive experimental backing required of FDA-approved treatments.

But people are already taking BPC-157, MOTS-c, and other peptides anyway, buying them from companies selling them under "for research use only" labels or obtaining them from foreign distributors. Peptides can even be found on discount everything-marketplaces like the China-based AliExpress.

Allowing licensed physicians and pharmacies in the U.S. to compound these substances without fear of being punished gives people access to safer options than they might otherwise have.

Pharmacies compounding peptide-based products under the rules set forth by federal law still have to be licensed in the states where they operate and follow certain rules, including a requirement that active ingredients used for compounding must be "accompanied by valid certificates of analysis" and "be compounded based on the receipt of a valid patient-specific prescription." Per the new HHS policy, they must also follow several other rules regarding the packaging and labeling of these peptides.

"The Secretary of HHS has determined that this limited enforcement-discretion policy will discourage the continued, widespread use of certain research-use-only peptides supplied by foreign manufacturers that pose a safety risk to US patients," notes the HHS explainer. "By allowing limited compounding of the substances addressed in this guidance under appropriate safeguards, the policy provides patients with a more controlled alternative."

It's an astoundingly reality-based policy for government health officials, who often act as if matters like this come down to a binary between perfect health and safety on one hand and certain danger on the other.

Rather than relegating peptides to gray or black markets until they (may be) pronounced all clear by the FDA, RFK Jr.'s HHS has chosen to balance safety with "patient choice and freedom," as the HHS states.

The post RFK Jr. Institutes Backdoor Approval of 6 Peptides appeared first on Reason Magazine.

People diagnosed with ADHD and those travelling with them can get a third off their train tickets with disabled railcards, it has emerged.

The post People With ADHD Get Third Off Train Tickets appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Keira Callaghan says being prepared should be a public health measure, not a privilege, and Chris Rotheram is experiencing prescription anxiety. Plus five more letters in response to the Be Ready campaign

The Be Ready campaign may offer sensible advice in principle (Every Briton should stockpile water and food supplies, government advises, 22 October), but as a midwife working in Tower Hamlets, one of the poorest boroughs in London, I can see first-hand that its practical recommendations risk excluding precisely those families who are already most vulnerable.

For families living in a single room in a shared house, storing nine litres of water per person alongside three days’ worth of essential supplies may simply be unrealistic. When families are already struggling with the cost of food, heating and everyday necessities, buying additional emergency provisions may also be financially impossible.

A dramatic reduction in opioid prescriptions and addiction and overdose deaths is being accomplished during the Trump administration, according to new analysis announced this week by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The post EXCLUSIVE — RFK: Trump Administration Making Historic Wins in Battle Against Opioid Crisis, Lowest Deaths in a Decade appeared first on Breitbart.

A recent study found that roughly 75% of deceased NFL players had at least some case of CTE.

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a progressive, degenerative brain disease linked to repeated head impacts rather than a single injury, according to the Mayo Clinic.

The study from Boston University researchers consisted of more than 2,300 deceased former players aged 80 or older who died between 2008 and 2023, nearly 400 of whom were donors.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK SPORTS COVERAGE

Out of the 396 who donated their brains to research, 93.5% of them were diagnosed. Researchers estimated that former NFL players with clear cognitive symptoms were roughly five times more likely to donate their brains than those without such symptoms.

Donors also died younger on average - 67 years old compared to almost 75.

CTE can only be diagnosed after death and is identified in four stages, with stage 4 being the worst.

"Many cases may have been early stage at the time of death and possibly symptom free," the study noted.

The study also estimated that 27.2% of the players had a history of all-cause dementia during life, but it did not conclude whether dementia was caused by CTE.

JUSTIN TUCKER SIGNS WITH CHIEFS AFTER SERVING 10-GAME SUSPENSION OVER SEXUAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: REPORTS

A study released in August found that at least 1 in 4 people who have played in the NFL might expect to end up with CTE at some point in their lives.

The symptoms found in those with CTE include memory loss, mood swings, erratic behavioral actions and more.

While the disease was first found in boxers, it has become associated with football players in this modern era due to the repeated blows to the head sustained on every snap of the ball. It has, however, also been found in athletes participating in hockey, rugby and other sports.

But its connection to football became public when beloved players like Junior Seau, Mike Webster, Frank Gifford and others were diagnosed with CTE after their deaths. Webster was dubbed "Patient Zero" after Dr. Bennet Omalu examined his brain and became the first to diagnose an NFL player with CTE, jump-starting a concussion crisis within the game.

SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY OUTKICK NEWSLETTER

There were 168 documented in-game concussions during the 2025 NFL season, which was a 30% increase from the 129 recorded during the 2024 campaign. There were a total of 538 evaluations and 26 medical timeouts as well.

OutKick's Scott Thompson contributed to this report.

There may be a promising new treatment on the horizon for advanced breast cancer patients, according to developing research.

Researchers are studying the cancer-killing drug trastuzumab rezetecan for those with ERBB2-low metastatic breast cancer, whose tumors have low levels of HER2, a protein that can help cancer cells grow.

A phase 3 clinical trial called HORIZON-Breast06 sought to determine whether the drug works better than standard chemotherapy for patients with this cancer type.

SHIFT IN CANCER SCREENING GUIDANCE HAS EXPERTS CLASHING OVER NEW GUIDANCE

The researchers analyzed 551 female patients across 73 hospitals in China who were randomly assigned to receive either the drug intravenously every three weeks, or the physician’s choice of chemotherapy. The study period lasted from June 2023 to August 2025.

The drug significantly delayed cancer progression compared with chemotherapy, giving patients more than a year before their cancer began growing again.

The median time without tumor growth was 16.4 months compared to 6.8 months with chemo.

FDA APPROVES ONCE-DAILY PILL FOR DEADLY CANCER AFTER PATIENTS' SURVIVAL RATES NEARLY DOUBLE

Patients who received trastuzumab rezetecan were 73% less likely to have their cancer worsen or die during the study than patients who received chemotherapy.

The drug appeared to delay cancer progression in patients with both hormone receptor-positive and hormone receptor-negative breast cancer.

The results were published in JAMA.

Tumors shrank in 75.5% of patients who received the drug, compared with 41.2% of those who received chemotherapy.

At the 12-month mark, 90.6% of trastuzumab rezetecan patients were alive, compared to 81.4% of chemo patients.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER

The authors concluded that trastuzumab rezetecan provided "significant progression-free survival benefit over physician’s choice of chemotherapy in patients with ERBB2-low advanced breast cancer."

Loren Rourke, a Texas-based breast surgical oncologist and author in Texas, called the results "incredibly encouraging."

"When you're talking about women living with advanced breast cancer, those months matter," Rourke, who was not involved in the study, told Fox News Digital. "They represent more time when the cancer is being held in check and potentially more opportunities to enjoy life without the disease getting worse."

What makes these findings especially exciting, according to the oncologist, is that the treatment showed benefits across different types of breast cancer.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES

"It's another important step forward, and it gives us genuine reason to be hopeful," she said. "A treatment that can keep cancer from progressing for a longer period has the potential to make an enormous difference in a patient's life."

While the drug may cause fewer serious lung problems than similar treatments, it was linked to other side effects, including anemia and other blood-related problems.

Serious side effects occurred in more than 84% of patients who received the new drug, compared with nearly 68% of those who received chemotherapy.

Rourke emphasized the importance of considering the side effects, "because more time without cancer progression doesn't automatically mean better quality of life."

"We need to better understand the side effects, particularly the significant decreases in blood counts that can lead to fatigue, anemia and increased risk of infection," she said.

The researchers acknowledged that toxicity occurred more frequently and often required dose modification, although they said these effects were "generally manageable."

TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ

The experts agreed that more research is needed.

"As exciting as these findings are, there are still important questions we need to answer," Rourke told Fox News Digital. "We know this treatment delayed cancer progression, but we don't yet know whether it will help patients live longer. That's an important distinction."

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"It's important to celebrate meaningful progress while making sure we're asking the right questions about what comes next."

• I was diagnosed with ADHD at 38. I spent most of my life masking things I didn't know were ADHD.
• Instead of pretending I'm fine, I tell my sons when my brain is full and my battery is running low.
• I'm teaching them that everybody has different limits and it's important to know and respect them.

There are nights when I look at my two boys, 13 and 10, and announce, "My battery is at 1%."

They know what this means.

I get much quieter. The pile of clothes I told myself I was going to fold gets moved to the floor and becomes tomorrow's problem. Video game sounds that normally wouldn't bother me suddenly send my whole system into overdrive. If both kids are talking to me at once, I sometimes have to say, "I can't process what either one of you is saying right now."

Eventually, I can hit what feels like an actual wall. I go into a burnout shutdown where decision-making becomes almost impossible. My brain feels frozen. I know there are things I should be doing, but I can't organize them into a next step. If I'm overstimulated enough, I can barely formulate a cohesive thought.

Sometimes the only thing that helps is going into my room, closing the door, and sitting in complete silence.

I don't hide this from my kids. I let them see it on purpose.

I spent most of my life not knowing my brain worked differently

I was diagnosed with ADHD at 38. Until then, I genuinely didn't know other people's brains worked the way mine did. The best way I can describe my brain is that there are three musicals happening on three different stages at the same time. There are songs, conversations, ideas, and a constant stream of thoughts all competing for my attention.

From the outside, I looked highly functional. I was an A+ student. I worked hard. I got things done. I became an entrepreneur.

Internally, I was exhausted to the point that it sometimes felt like an existential level.

I remember hitting this same wall when I was around the same age as my sons. My parents didn't understand what was happening, and why would they? ADHD wasn't something anyone was considering for me. I wasn't physically hyperactive. All of the pinging was happening inside my head. So I learned to push through it and, eventually, to look calm while doing it.

In our family, we talk about our batteries

Our family therapist gave us an analogy that has become part of our language: Everybody is like a cell phone. Our batteries drain differently, and they recharge differently.

My older son is an introvert like me. We can love being around people and still need significant quiet afterward. For me, recharging means real quiet — a chunk of time when nobody is talking to me, asking me a question, or needing me to make a decision.

My younger son, who also has ADHD, is almost the opposite. I always say he's fueled by people. Talking to friends and being around other people can actually charge him. I love that distinction because even people whose brains are wired similarly don't necessarily need the same things.

There isn't one correct way to recharge.

I want my kids to know before they're 38

Being a single parent means I can't disappear into silence every time my battery gets low. Sometimes the video game is still playing. Somebody still needs something. Life keeps happening.

I've stopped believing that being a good mother means hiding the fact that I have limits. I'm not asking my children to take care of me. I'm letting them know me.

I want them to understand that people who love each other get to be human in front of one another. You can say, "I need quiet." You can say, "I need people." You can say, "My brain is too full right now." Limits aren't character flaws, and rest isn't something you earn only after you've completely depleted yourself.

For most of my life, I thought strength meant pushing through until nobody could tell I was struggling. I'm trying to teach my kids something different: learn what drains your battery. Learn what charges it. Tell the people you love what you need. And don't wait until you're at 1% to plug yourself back in.

The nation’s biggest outbreak in Illinois has sickened close to 1 million chickens

The nation’s biggest outbreak in Illinois has sickened close to 1 million chickens

The nation’s biggest outbreak in Illinois has sickened close to 1 million chickens

• I'm a dietitian and let my two kids enjoy Halloween candy without making them feel guilty.
• After trick-or-treating, I let them each choose five favorite pieces of candy to save for later.
• The Candy Fairy takes the rest and leaves a small toy, making the exchange fun rather than a punishment.

Editor's note: Do you let your kids keep all their Halloween candy? Do you have them pick a few they can keep? Share in the comments what your approach is.

Every Halloween, I know exactly what's coming: two excited kids, costumes, a neighborhood full of candy, and by the end of the night, bags that seemingly weigh almost as much as they do.

They look forward to trick-or-treating for months. Every year it's the same: despite my annual request that they wait until we get home to start eating their haul, more candy than I'd like gets eaten while we're still walking around the neighborhood.

I'm a registered dietitian, but I'm also a mom. Halloween is supposed to be fun, the kind of event that becomes a core childhood memory. I want my kids to feel "normal" in the best sense of the word. I want them to run from house to house, trade candy, and enjoy the same traditions as their friends without feeling like they have different rules because their mom happens to be a dietitian.

At the same time, I want them to understand balance.

When we get home, they may each have a few more pieces. Then we dump everything out, and they choose about five favorite pieces to save for later.

The rest goes to the Candy Fairy.

My kids write letters to the Candy Fairy

The Candy Fairy takes the extra candy and leaves a small toy in exchange. My kids even write her letters and put them in the mailbox. It turns getting rid of the excess into something fun instead of a punishment.

They still get the excitement of collecting candy and choosing the pieces they really love, while having some control over what stays. I'm not deciding which candy they're allowed to keep or telling them what they should like. They get to decide which pieces are worth saving and which ones they're ready to give up. I get to avoid having a ridiculous amount of candy sitting in the house until Thanksgiving.

My daughter may be starting to outgrow the tradition now, at 9 years old, but my son probably has a few more Candy Fairy years left. Eventually, though, I hope the tradition evolves with them.

Instead of sending the candy to a fairy, we can donate it to an organization they feel good about supporting. They'll still get that sense of pride and reward, only by then, the Candy Fairy will just be Mom, celebrating an act of kindness.

I want them to still enjoy their candy

There's also a practical reason this approach works for our family: our food environment matters. One phrase I often use is, "In house, in mouth." When I say that, I mean that food is harder to ignore when it's staring you in the face every time you open the pantry.

Halloween creates a strange kind of stress for parents. We don't want to teach our kids to fear candy, but we also don't want pounds of treats sitting in the house for weeks on end.

For me, it simply isn't worth that mental energy. I'm OK with having less Halloween candy around for a few days. Another family might feel fine keeping it for a month, and some may hardly be affected by it at all. There isn't a one-size-fits-all correct deadline.

I don't believe promoting a healthy relationship with food means pretending every food serves the same purpose. My kids know candy doesn't nourish their bodies the way the foods we eat every day do. It's a treat, a "fun food." Halloween is an occasion to enjoy those treats. I want my kids to enjoy their candy and not feel guilty about it. What I don't want is one night of celebration quietly stretching into a month simply because we happened to collect too much.

To me, teaching balance means holding both ideas at once: something can be enjoyable without needing to be available in unlimited amounts. That's the middle ground I'm trying to teach my kids. To me, food freedom includes structure. Boundaries simply make expectations clear.

The extra candy doesn't have to go in the trash

Families can look for local donation programs. Soldiers' Angels runs Treats for Troops, which collects Halloween candy for service members, veterans, and military communities. Some dental offices and community organizations may also serve as collection sites, so it's worth checking local options. Some families might freeze a few favorite chocolates or save candy for baking.

The point is not that there is one perfect way to handle it.

Our rule is simple: Enjoy Halloween. Eat some candy. Pick a few pieces you really love. Then let the Candy Fairy, or a good cause, handle the rest. For our family, that feels like the right balance.

My kids get to be kids, participate like everyone else, get excited about costumes, have fun with their friends, enjoy the candy on Halloween night, and learn that food freedom and boundaries can exist together.

Akel will not support bills to bring nurses in from outside the EU unless private hospitals sign collective agreements with their staff, MP Marina Nikolaou told the House health committee on Thursday.

“Since you refuse to implement collective agreements, which could keep wages within certain safe limits, then from us it is ‘no’,” she said.

Nikolaou said her party would reject any government amendment that harmed nurses’ rights or pay.

Committee chairwoman and Disy MP Savia Orphanidou likewise told private hospitals the committee could not see “how we will be able to reconcile the opinions”.

“I do not see how it can proceed without collective agreements, for me this is the red line,” she said.

Disy MP George Pamboridis said hospitals would not find the staff they wanted unless they paid to bring back about 1,300 nurses who have left the profession.

“Collective agreements cannot be imposed by anyone, other than the market, which is shouting at you that you are not paying enough,” he said.

He supported the tougher language requirement and said he disliked “double standards” given what is asked of doctors.

Diko MP Andreas Apostolou said the law cannot force anyone to sign an agreement.

Two bills are before the committee; one raises the standard of Greek required of nurses and midwives, while the other removes a provision that conflicts with other legislation and has blocked nurses and midwives from third countries from applying to join the professional register.

The health ministry wants the Greek requirement raised by two levels, to B1, while the private hospitals’ association (Pasin) wants a rise of one level, to A2, with a review after four years rather than two, citing the difficulty of attaining fluency in Greek.

Its president, Marios Karaiskakis, said a provision for English could also be considered.

He opposed the rule limiting foreign nurses to 10 per cent of a hospital’s nursing staff, calling it a “free gift” given the scale of the shortages.

A representative of the employers’ federation (Oev) proposed that nurses start at A1 and sit A2 exams within two years.

He said private hospitals cannot work at full capacity without more nurses.

“If there were Cypriot nurses available, we would be the first to want them,” he said.

He put the average weighted salary of a nurse in Cyprus at €3,000 a month and rejected claims of poor conditions.

The government plan would permit hospitals to employ some 150 nurses from third countries on two-year licences, which the health ministry has called a “temporary solution”.

Nurses would normally require two years of prior experience and could not work as shift managers.

Sax Institute is recruiting for 18 and Up, an intergenerational study of wellbeing and ageing that follows its landmark 45 and Up study

• Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast

Researchers hope to better understand the drivers of major health challenges facing younger people, such as mental illness and rising cancer rates, through the recruitment of 100,000 people for Australia’s largest intergenerational study of wellbeing and ageing.

The independent and not-for-profit research institute the Sax Institute on Thursday launched the 18 and Up study, which will follow the health of those aged 18 to 45 throughout their lives.

• Ariel Grunberg was unhappy with his appearance at 72 and decided to do something about it.
• He opted for plastic surgery, including a facelift, a lower blepharoplasty, and a neck lift.
• The grandad is pleased with the results, and said some people think he's in his fifties.

This story is based on an interview with Ariel Grunberg, 72, a semi-retired real estate owner and manager from New York City. It has been edited for length and clarity.

My eyes bothered me the most as I got older. I always felt they were drooping too much, and if I didn't do anything about them, they would cover my vision.

One of the turning points was attending a presentation when the speaker had eyes similar to mine and peered upward in an exaggerated way.

I remember thinking, "Why doesn't he get them fixed?" Sure enough, when I saw him again, I noticed that he'd had his eyelids lifted. You could see a lot more of his eyes, and he no longer had that mannerism of looking up.

In February 2026, I consulted the New York cosmetic surgeon, Dr. John Layliev, who came highly recommended, to discuss my options. He suggested eye surgery and a brow lift.

As we got talking, I mentioned how much I didn't like my turkey neck, which made me think about my age.

People had remarked about how young and fit I looked — I did triathlons, including a half IronMan — but I was still self-conscious.

The total cost was around $60K

In the end, we settled on a deep plane facelift, neck lift, brow lift, lower blepharoplasty procedure, facial fat grafting, and fat-based liquid rhinoplasty.

I thought that, if I were under anesthesia anyway, I might as well get more than my eyes and brow done. The total cost was around $60,000.

My girlfriend was supportive, but I only told my two daughters about two weeks beforehand. I suspected they'd say I didn't need it, but they said it was up to me.

I'm not the nervous type, so I wasn't worried ahead of the operation on July 31. It took around eight hours, and I stayed in the hospital overnight.

My face felt very stiff afterward, which I'd expected. I had a spinal surgery a year earlier, and my body had temporarily stiffened, too.

There is less of a stigma about men having cosmetic surgery

There was very little pain or puffiness, but I stayed inside for three weeks, though it probably wasn't necessary.

I'm not very good at keeping secrets, and I thought there was no point. There is less of a stigma these days about men and cosmetic surgery.

In fact, I told everyone who cared to listen.

I think the results are exceptional, as I don't have as many wrinkles or as much facial drooping. I recently visited a new dentist, who said I looked 50. A taxi driver guessed my age at 55.

My younger brother used to joke with restaurant waiters when we were together that I was his dad. He can't do that anymore, and it's a good thing.

I'm considering veneers

I know 72 is relatively mature for a facelift, but I feel I'm less likely to need another one in the future. I'm considering veneers on my teeth, but I'll leave it at that.

I didn't go ahead with the surgery for my girlfriend, but she is delighted by my rejuvenated look. The feeling is certainly mutual.