Boar’s Head to indefinitely close plant at center of deadly listeria outbreak
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
(JARRATT, Va.) — The Boar’s Head plant in Virginia at the center of a deadly listeria outbreak is indefinitely closing, the company announced on Friday.
Boar’s Head also said it has decided to permanently discontinue the sale of liverwurst, the deli meat tied to the multistate outbreak.
“We regret and deeply apologize for the recent Listeria monocytogenes contamination in our liverwurst product,” Boar’s Head said in a press release on Friday. “We understand the gravity of this situation and the profound impact it has had on affected families. Comprehensive measures are being implemented to prevent such an incident from ever happening again.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(NEW YORK) — For the first time in its history, Instagram on Tuesday announced the launch of accounts designed specifically for teenage users with built-in privacy protections.
The new accounts, called “Teen Accounts,” will be automatic for all Instagram users under the age of 18, both for teens already using the app and for those signing up.
By default, Instagram users younger than 16 will need a parent’s permission to change their account settings.
The changes — expected to impact tens of millions of users — were announced by Instagram head Adam Mosseri in a live interview on ABC News’ Good Morning America.
“They’re an automatic set of protections for teens that try to proactively address the top concerns that we’ve heard from parents about teens online,” Mosseri said on GMA. “Things like who can contact them, what content they see and how much time they spend on their device … all without requiring any involvement from the parent.”
Mosseri said the rollout of Teen Accounts starts Tuesday with new users signing up for the app, while existing teen users will see their accounts switch to the new Teen Accounts model within 60 days.
Among the changes put in place by Instagram include a new privacy setting that, by default, places all teen users in private accounts. In order to switch to a public account, teens under age 16 will need a parent’s permission.
Under the private account setting, teens will need to accept new followers and only people whom they accept as followers can see their content and interact with them.
In addition, teen users will now automatically only be able to message with people they follow, or are already connected to, and parents will have a new tool in their settings that allows them to see with whom their teen has recently been messaging.
With the new accounts, teens will have the power to choose the age-appropriate topics they want to see more of on Instagram, like sports or art, and parents will also be able to see the topics their teens choose.
In order to limit the amount of time spent on Instagram, all Teen Accounts will be placed in “sleep mode” between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., while parents can also adjust their child’s time settings — including limiting access completely overnight — in the parental supervision tool.
Another change for Teen Accounts is that they will automatically be placed in more restrictive content settings, which will limit the content they see in search functions like Reels or Explore from accounts they don’t follow, according to Instagram.
Antigone Davis, vice president and global head of safety for Meta, the parent company of Instagram, told GMA the company is also implementing new ways to verify users’ ages.
“We are building technology to try to identify if you’ve lied about your age and then move you into those stricter settings,” Davis said. “This is a challenging area for industry, which is why, on top of building that technology that will try to identify age liars and put them into those protective settings, we also will have moments where, if we get a strong signal, we will ask you to age verify.”
Davis said that parents will be able to monitor their teens’ account and adjust their settings from their own Instagram accounts.
“The idea is to really make it simpler, so they [parents] have their own center that they can go and look and see what the privacy setting is for their teen,” she said.
Changes spurred by parents and teens
The changes for teen Instagram users come amid mounting evidence showing the dangers of social media for young users.
Social media use is linked with symptoms of depression and anxiety, body image issues, and lower life satisfaction for some teens and adolescents, research shows. Heavy social media use around the time adolescents go through puberty is linked with lower life satisfaction one year later, one large study found.
U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy, who previously issued an advisory highlighting a crisis in youth mental health, has said he believes being on social media “does a disservice” to kids early in their teen years. Noting the crisis among kids, the American Psychological Association last year issued the first guidance of its kind to help teens use social media safely.
In January, while testifying at a Senate hearing, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, publicly apologized to parents, caregivers and loved ones of young people who they say were harmed due to social media use, telling them, “It’s terrible. No one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered.”
In his apology, Zuckerberg also emphasized Meta’s efforts on safety, adding, “This is why we invest so much and are going to continue doing industry-leading efforts to make sure that no one has to go through the things your families have had to suffer.”
Davis said the newly-announced changes to Instagram for teen users came after conversations with parents and teenagers around the world.
She said the company focused on making it simpler for parents to know how, when, and with whom their teens are engaging on Instagram.
“We’ve had these incremental changes along the way as we’ve been working back and forth with parents and experts,” Davis said of previous safety changes for teen users. “What we’re really trying to do here is standardize a lot of this approach.”
She added of the new features, “There are these broad protections that we have in place, and if your teen wants to change them, and they’re under the age of 16, they have to come to you for permission, they’ve got to invite you in. It’s just a different way of thinking about things.”
Parents and caregivers as well as teens can learn more about Teen Accounts by visiting Instagram.com/teenaccounts.
Doug Mills/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Voters across the country tuned in to the ABC News presidential debate on Tuesday night to see Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump discuss issues and share their visions for the country.
Many were looking to see how Harris defined herself on the debate stage, especially given that she entered the race relatively late as a presidential candidate.
Some undecided or formerly undecided voters spoke with ABC News both before and after the debate.
Before the debate, they shared what they were hoping to see — and after, if they thought Harris made the case for herself as a presidential candidate as well as their thoughts a potential second debate between Trump and Harris. These voters also previously spoke with ABC News earlier in the election cycle, including before President Joe Biden dropped out of the race.
Patrick O’Rourke, a retired scientist and independent voter from Georgia, said ahead of the debate that he did not trust Harris to be a “unifier” for the country.
“If I can force myself to vote for VP Harris, it will be with the hope of [split-party control between the presidency and Congress] … I hope for a president who can respect the constitution and earn the respect of our country,” he told ABC News by text.
At 10:09 p.m. ET, as the debate was still on air, he texted ABC News that he had turned off the debate.
“Former President Trump has forced me into voting for VP Harris,” he said. The reasons: because of how Trump discussed Ashli Babbit — a Trump supporter who was fatally shot during the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol — whom the former president said “was shot by an out-of-control police officer;” and after Trump promoted being endorsed by Hungarian leader Viktor Orban, who is considered an authoritarian leader.
That doesn’t mean he thinks Harris made a strong positive case or defined herself enough, though.
Asked how he felt about her performance, O’Rourke said, “Still don’t know who she is other than not Donald Trump. Right now, that’s enough.”
Many voters feel they could benefit from more information about Harris and her platforms. A recent New York Times/Siena College poll found that 28% of likely voters said they feel they need to still learn more about Harris, while only 9% of likely voters felt that way about Trump.
O’Rourke said on Wednesday morning that he’s also not interested in another debate.
“One is enough for this cycle. I do not need to see another debate … I don’t need the candidates telling me what the other one’s policies are,” O’Rourke said.
But he said he’d like to see interviews with the candidates where they talk about economic policy, foreign affairs and civil justice priorities.
Rebecca Bakker, a registered nursing professor who lives near Grand Rapids, Michigan, told ABC News by text ahead of the debate that she was still undecided — although she had said beforehand she was not supporting Trump.
She was hoping to hear Harris “drill down on a clear economic message,” as well as clarity from her on how she would solve foreign policy and border issues.
Bakker told ABC News after the debate that the showing solidified her decision to not vote for Trump, who did not come across to her as “presidential” or as outlining clear policies.
“I think Harris did a great job to bait him so he [would] unravel during the debate and this worked to her advantage,” she said by text, but she felt Harris was still a bit “murky” on how her positions on some issues have changed.
“I remain undecided- she didn’t sway me enough (yet) to vote for her but for sure [Trump] swayed me enough NOT to vote for him,” Bakker wrote.
Bakker said she would like another debate to see if either candidate “reframes their narrative to address specifics on policies without ‘one of them’ losing focus and returning to childish behavior,” she wrote, adding she wants to see Harris discuss the economy and border issues more directly.
“So far, I don’t have a clear idea of her plan to address these areas.”
Karen Hughes, an independent voter and retired parole and probation specialist from Nevada, had previously been undecided but had decided to begrudgingly vote for Biden before he left the race in July. Ahead of the debate, Hughes told ABC News by text she was “hoping to see some policy discussions tonight. I’m interested in hearing Trump’s (final) position on abortion, and Harris’s explanation for why she won’t ban fracking.”
The debate affirmed her choice to vote for Harris, Hughes said on Wednesday, as she felt Harris “presents as competent, positive, and very sure of herself. I felt she knew exactly to get into Trump’s head and he fell for it every time,” Hughes said — although she said she felt Harris was still unclear about the shift in her position on fracking. Hughes also criticized Trump’s invocation of “wild conspiracy theories.”
But she’s not looking for another debate: “I think this one was good enough.”
Ian Mackintosh, a voter from Pennsylvania who lives in the Pittsburgh area, also said he hoped ahead of the debate to hear about policy. On Wednesday, he told ABC News by text, “Honestly, I thought it was a complete waste of 90 minutes. If anything, it moved me away from both candidates.”
While he said he understands the challenges of going in depth on complex policy stances in two minutes, it “could have been more substantial” with “less baiting and intentionally riling up the other candidate.”
Mackintosh said he is also disillusioned by Harris’ stance on Israel and Gaza, which he feels is the same as Biden’s.
He said he would not be interested in watching a second debate, and added, “After last night’s debacle I will probably only vote down-ballot.”
Brendan Fitzsimmons, a physician from Wyoming who is a Republican but does not support Trump, told ABC News by text before the debate that he did not expect much from the candidates, “although I would enjoy it if there is a lot of entertainment to it,” he said.
Fitzsimmons admitted that going into the debate, he didn’t feel sold on Harris: “I think she’ll be a terrible president, but I hope she wins,” calling her the “lesser of two evils.”
The morning after the debate, Fitzsimmons said the night changed how he was feeling about Harris.
“I enjoyed the debate and I thought they were both fairly strong, but all in all, Harris was stronger and won the debate and I think showed to a lot of people that she can be president … I am very concerned about foreign affairs, and I think she may be OK in that way,” he told ABC News by text.
Matthew Labkovski, a Republican voter from Florida who supported former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley during the Republican presidential primaries, told ABC News by text before the debate that he hoped to see the candidates discuss policy, and not engage in personal attacks. He said Tuesday evening that he was currently not planning on voting for president.
After the debate, Labkovski said on Wednesday, “I think it actually convinced me not to vote for Donald Trump. All I saw was fear mongering from him and what seemed to be a stretching of the truth,” he said, particularly when it came to Trump’s false claims about abortion and about a false conspiracy theory over immigrants eating pets.
“I am still not convinced though with Harris, as I didn’t get enough policy with her in this debate. To be honest, I would love another debate to see if I was actually comfortable in voting for her,” he said.
Labkovski also criticized Harris’ laughter during the debate, saying that he wished she had remained more even-keeled.
He added that he would have liked her to discuss how she would implement the policies she was talking about.
“How is she going to fight inflation? How is she going to bring peace? That’s what I was hoping the debate would bring … I needed more from her to actually sway from not voting in the presidential slot.”
