fine

Raise your pretend glasses, Kyle Juszczyk and Jake Ferguson, and chug the imaginary beverages of your choice. Your recent five-figure fines have been rescinded!

The NFL and the NFL Players Assn. released a joint statement Wednesday to clarify some of the on-field celebrations that are and are not allowed during NFL games.

Of particular significance to San Francisco 49ers fullback Juszczyk and Dallas Cowboys tight end Ferguson is this sentence: “Recent celebrations imitating drinking a beverage will not be considered violations or result in discipline.”

Juszczyk had been fined $29,852 after celebrating two catches during a Sept. 20 win over the Miami Dolphins by pantomiming the act of drinking a beverage, something he’s done for years. The league initially ruled it an “imitation of chugging a beer” that “constituted an offensive demonstration and could reasonably be construed as being in poor taste.”

“I wasn’t drinking beer in my celebration,” Juszczyk told reporters on Sept. 24. “I think you guys all know my nickname is Juice. I have Juice on my pads. The stadium yells ‘Juice!’ when I catch the ball. When I celebrate, I celebrate by drinking juice, and it’s been that way for years. So I was surprised as anybody when I got a fine this week.”

Ferguson was fined $13,611 for a similar celebration during a Cowboys win over the Washington Commanders also on Sept. 20. The fifth-year player later said that his invisible drink was actually Gatorade.

The fines to Juszczyk and Ferguson had been reported as rescinded before the joint statement from the league and its players union came out. Colts offensive lineman Matt Goncalves also should be off the hook for his fine of $8,847 for a similar celebration during a game against the Kansas City Chiefs on the same day. His fake beverage of choice for that particular celebration, Goncalves has said, was Coke.

It seems like the NFL realized players could claim to have been demonstrating their love for anything from water to a wild huckleberry mint mojito mocktail and decided to let this one go. As for the still-prohibited celebrations, those include gestures that depict violence (including the use of guns/weapons and gang-related signs), imitate smoking or drug use, or are sexual in nature

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Officials said today ‘don’t try to smuggle them across the border in your luggage’

A new warning has been issued for anyone bringing food into the UK from the EU – even if it was bought at the airport. In an update today the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs issued an alert for anyone going to Eurpean hotspots like Spain, France, Greece and Italy this half term.

An outbreak of disease on the continent means that a number of foood items are banned – and there is a high chance anyone buying a sandwich, or bringing back produce will infringe the laws. Since last April, those arriving risk having goods seized at UK borders and may face penalties reaching as much as £5,000.

In a new post on X today DEFRA said: “Meat and dairy products from the EU can spread animal diseases. Stay faithful to our biosecurity and don’t try to smuggle them across the border in your luggage.” It’s against the law for travellers entering Great Britain from any EU country to carry items including sandwiches, cheese, cured meats, raw meats, or milk. Therefore, picking up a sandwich at a Spanish airport and taking it into the UK could get you into trouble.

Officials have confirmed that the new rules, which came into force last year, continue to apply as the holiday season gets underway with the start of June. The current legislation states that anyone discovered importing banned products such as sandwiches, cheese, cured meats, raw meats, or milk into Great Britain will face enforcement measures at customs.

These measures have been put in place following a foot and mouth disease outbreak affecting Europe. In a recent development, those travelling to Greece have been alerted to a newly identified outbreak in the country. This recent information confirms that the prohibition on all food products – including duty free purchases – will continue for an extended period.

Border officers will be on the lookout for illegal food products, with offenders given the option of handing over their items or having them seized and disposed of. Officials warn that “In serious cases, those found with these items run the risk of incurring fines of up to £5,000 in England.”

As confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease (FMD) continue to increase across Europe, the UK Government has introduced bans aimed at halting its spread.

The restrictions, intended to protect domestic animal health, farmers’ livelihoods and UK food security, prohibit the personal importation of meat and dairy products from cows, sheep, goats and pigs originating from the EU, reports Wales Online.

Authorities have confirmed that Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) presents no danger to humans, and there are currently no recorded cases within the UK. Nevertheless, it remains a highly contagious viral illness affecting cattle, sheep, pigs and other cloven-hoofed animals, including wild boar, deer, llamas and alpacas.

Labour MP Ben Goldsborough has questioned whether adequate steps are being taken to inform the public through a parliamentary written question. He asked Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary Emma Reynolds: “If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of funding public awareness campaigns, including advertisements at airports and ports, on (a) foot and mouth disease and (b) African swine fever.”

DEFRA minister Dame Angela Eagle detailed the extensive actions recently taken to publicise the ban: “Biosecurity is a priority for this Government. To protect UK farmers and animals from serious diseases like Foot and Mouth Disease and African Swine Fever, we used the Christmas period as an opportunity to remind the public about the personal imports ban on travellers from the EU and EEA countries bringing dairy and meat products to GB, that came into force last year.”

She further stated: “This included promoting awareness of the rules to the travelling public and extending our reach through partnership channels across Government and with industry. Our insights survey results indicate that over 90% of respondents are aware that they should not bring back meat and dairy products from these countries.”

Dame Angela added: “Any decisions on funding paid campaigns will be made based on the current threat level, evidence of effectiveness and available resources, ensuring maximum impact in protecting UK biosecurity.”

The outbreak on the continent represents a considerable threat to farming businesses and livestock. FMD can trigger significant economic losses through reduced production in affected animals, as well as restricted access to overseas markets for livestock, meat and dairy products.

Following confirmed outbreaks of FMD in Germany, Hungary, Slovakia and Austria earlier this year, the Government has already prohibited personal imports of cattle, sheep and other ruminants, pig meat and dairy products from those nations.

The new measures apply exclusively to travellers entering Great Britain, and will not be enforced on personal imports arriving from Northern Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey or the Isle of Man. Speaking at the launch, Farming Minister Daniel Zeichner said: “This government will do whatever it takes to protect British farmers from foot and mouth. That is why we are further strengthening protections by introducing restrictions on personal meat and dairy imports to prevent the spread of the disease and protect Britain’s food security.”

Restrictions on meat, dairy and animal products for human consumption

You cannot bring in any of the following:

• cheese, milk and dairy products like butter and yoghurt
• pork
• beef
• lamb
• mutton
• goat
• venison
• other products made from these meats, for example sausages

You can bring the following into Great Britain from any country without any restrictions:

• bread, but not sandwiches filled with meat or dairy products
• cakes without fresh cream
• biscuits
• chocolate and confectionery, but not those made with a lot of unprocessed dairy ingredients
• pasta and noodles, but not if mixed or filled with meat or meat products
• packaged soup, stocks and flavourings
• processed and packaged plant products, such as packaged salads and frozen plant material
• food supplements containing small amounts of an animal product, such as fish oil capsules

Dr Jorge Martin-Almagro, UK Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer for international and trade affairs, issued a stark warning: “Following the detection of foot and mouth disease in EU countries resulting in a rising risk of introduction into Great Britain, we have extended restrictions on the personal imports of food products that pose a risk in FMD transmission.”

He went on to emphasise the Government’s preparedness, adding: “Robust contingency plans are already in place to manage the risk of this disease to protect farmers and Britain’s food security. This biosecurity measure combined with all others we have implemented are critical to limit the risk of FMD incursion. I would urge livestock keepers to continue exercising the utmost vigilance for signs of disease, ensure scrupulous biosecurity is maintained and to report any suspicion of disease immediately to the Animal and Plant Health Agency.”

Nevertheless, Dr Martin-Almagro points out that certain exceptions to these restrictions do exist, explaining: “A limited set of exemptions from these rules in place. For example, a limited amount of infant milk, medical foods and certain composite products like chocolate, confectionery, bread, cakes, biscuits and pasta continue to be allowed.”

For further details click here.

Few pubs boast a more idyllic setting. As I emerge from the woods after a 15-mile hike, The Bridges, on the banks of the Onny River, in the rolling south Shropshire hills, glistens in the late afternoon sun. Inside it’s all wooden beams, with light streaming through stained glass and huge bunches of homegrown flowers adding splashes of colour. There’s time for a pint before general manager Sam Thompson shows me to my room in the recently converted stables.

I’m here exploring part of the 185-mile (297km) Shropshire Way, on a two-day Heart of the Hills hike – one of the county tourist board’s new Rail-Ready Short Breaks. Designed for people who don’t have time to tackle the whole route, the itineraries focus on loops that are easy to access by train, with illustrated PDF downloads, GPX files, accommodation suggestions and highlights of what to do along the way. My route will take me from Shrewsbury to Bishop’s Castle via Ratlinghope – about 27 miles, perfect for a weekend.

Shrewsbury itself is worth lingering in – the historic market town is crammed with independent shops and restaurants (I loved Csons for its creative small plates) and impressive Tudor architecture. But I’m most intrigued to learn that beavers have been reintroduced here by the council and the Shropshire Wildlife Trust. The first kit in the county in 400 years was born late last year and the Trust’s Tom Freeland shows me around the site, the Old River Bed nature reserve, just two miles north of the town centre. A boardwalk crossing wetlands allows an up-close view of the rewilding project. Although we don’t spy the elusive creatures (we see heron and plenty of moorhen), there’s still lots to learn. “It’s been a great success in inspiring the community to find out more about our local wildlife,” says Tom. Nature talks and guided tours of the beaver enclosure are in the pipeline, too.

Back at my base, the 16th-century Lion + Pheasant townhouse hotel, I dine on pan-roasted trout in the beamed restaurant (there’s a popular wine and tapas bar on site too) and the next morning set off to walk the first leg to Ratlinghope. Crossing the River Severn, the city soon peters out and quiet country lanes lead to Lyth Hill Country Park where expansive views open up across Shropshire.

It’s a steady climb to Wilderley Hill, past fields of rape, bright patches of yellow in a sea of green, and I stop under an oak tree to picnic. There’s no one around, just the songs of wren and chaffinch filling the air. The landscape changes on the approach to Ratlinghope as the route traces a brook, crosses wooden bridges and winds through pretty woodland. Just off the path lies the 12th-century St Margaret’s Church, the burial place of 19th-century farmer Richard Munslow, the last known “sin-eater”, whose job it was to eat bread and drink ale over corpses to absorb their sins.

I enjoy a drink instead in the pretty beer garden at The Bridges. The seven immaculate, minimalist rooms are round an adjacent courtyard – and guests have access to a lounge above the pub, too. The food in the bar includes Guinness rarebit and duck terrine, while the light-filled restaurant focuses on organic fare from the owners’ regenerative farm on the Linley Estate and the Welsh Marches. I feast on huge radishes with anchoïade, and hake with fennel, capers and crispy polenta. Breakfast the next morning – homemade granola and poached rhubarb – is equally delicious. It’s such a lively, friendly place I’m tempted to move nearby for the pub alone. They’ll even drive locals home if they’ve had one too many, Sam tells me.

Blue skies and gentle sunshine greet me for day two of the hike, a 12-mile yomp across rugged moorland and pastures to Bishop’s Castle. The pub lies on the edge of the Long Mynd, a heath and moorland plateau, but I’m heading north to the Stiperstones, a national nature reserve with a wild, dramatic ridge of quartzite rock formations that pierce the ground. I climb higher, passing Devil’s Chair tor, watching skylarks and buzzards soar overhead.

It’s a beautiful walk. After several hours, a magnificent avenue of Linley Beeches line the descent into Bishop’s Castle, a pretty town of half-timbered houses. Bank House B&B, a Georgian renovation with an oak-panelled drawing room and five antique-filled rooms, is my home for the night. I pop into the Poetry Pharmacy where prescriptions are poems chosen to spark specific emotions, to be “taken” when required (I leave with a bottle of Joy). Although little remains of the medieval castle that once stood here and gives the town its name, the grand Castle Hotel, with its pretty gardens and welcoming restaurant, is worth a visit.

With more time, I could, of course, carry on and add another loop of the trail. But the train back home beckons – Craven Arms station is a short bus or taxi ride away – and I leave feeling pleased to have dipped my toe into a small segment of the Shropshire Way. As far as rambling weekends go, it’s ticked all the right boxes, and whetted my appetite to discover more.

The trip was provided by Visit Shropshire and train travel from London to Shropshire was by Visit England. The Bridges has rooms from £120 a night. The Lion + Pheasant has rooms from £140 a night. Bank House B&B has rooms from £110 a night. Luggage transfer was provided by Silver Sherpa and costs from £30 a day for 1-3 bags

In California’s Sacramento Valley, a grower was cited for multiple pesticide safety violations in a stone fruit orchard.

In the sweeping farmlands near the Central Coast, a seed supplier that cultivates peppers, vegetables and fruit was hit with more than two dozen pesticide safety violations, some of them serious offenses that caused health or environmental hazards.

And in the San Joaquin Valley, an agricultural retailer with a history of pesticide safety violations was cited for failing to provide protective equipment for workers and post emergency medical information in the fields.

In all, nearly 18,000 regulatory actions were taken by county pesticide safety inspectors across California from the start of 2020 through June 2025. Fewer than 30% resulted in fines, though, according to state enforcement records.

When regulators did levy penalties, they were often as low as $50 to $250, and they varied widely from county to county for the same violations, according to an analysis of more than 40,000 state enforcement records obtained through public records requests.

The regulatory system designed to protect farmworkers from pesticides is enforced haphazardly across California. Even in cases where regulators found that companies endangered workers or committed multiple violations, few were penalized for all their citations. Instead, they received warnings or notices to correct problems for cases in which they were not penalized, an investigation by Capital & Main has found.

In interviews, dozens of farmworkers reported suffering from nausea, burning eyes or irritated throats due to chemical-laced fields. Most said they didn’t report the problems because they feared retaliation or lacked confidence in the regulatory system.

“Yes, there are laws,” said Jesus, his face wrinkled from years of harvesting garlic, pruning grape vines and picking blackberries in the sun-baked San Joaquin Valley.

“But unfortunately, at times the law favors the powerful — it sides with the wealthy,” he added, asking that his last name not be used for fear of reprisal from his bosses.

Autonomous tractors, which are used to apply pesticides, line a field in Fresno County. The machines are operated remotely and spray crops including pistachio and almond trees. A scarecrow overlooks a field of corn at La Huerta de Cantua Creek.

Labor and community activists who track pesticide safety issues contend that lenient penalties, as well as warning letters and written notices, fail to deter violators, especially repeat offenders and larger businesses that can absorb the costs of fines.

State records show that warning letters and written notices were issued more than twice as often as penalties, “[raising] serious questions about accountability and deterrence,” said Bianca Lopez, co-founder and project director at Valley Improvement Projects, which monitors pesticide safety in the northern San Joaquin Valley.

The findings come as state officials are proposing to overhaul decades-old pesticide regulations to toughen enforcement and standardize penalties. Those proposals are strongly opposed by groups representing growers, retailers and providers of agricultural services.

Current regulations are enforced by county agricultural commissioners, who police pesticides in their jurisdictions and also promote California’s $61-billion agricultural industry.

In a statement, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation acknowledged the need to improve regulation and ensure it is applied consistently in every county.

Department spokesperson Amy MacPherson said officials are also proposing new regulations that would increase fines for violations that affect people’s health. This can include cases in which toxic chemicals drift into neighboring fields or communities and sicken people.

MacPherson said county agricultural commissioners have discretion in deciding which enforcement tools — warning letters, written notices, fines — to use in a given situation, depending on the “nature and severity of the violation.”

Paola Lopez, who has harvested raisins in the central San Joaquin Valley, supports stronger regulations.

On a Saturday in late September 2025, the 40-year-old mother of four was loading crates of grapes onto a forklift in a Fresno County field. A tractor pulling a pesticide sprayer passed by on a street just a few yards away. She remembers a loud blast — then a toxic spray covered her face and arms.

“It was a little hard for me to breathe, and my eyes started burning a lot,” she said in Spanish, recounting the incident to a reporter. “I could hardly see.”

Disoriented, she called local activist Nayamin Martinez, executive director of the Central California Environmental Justice Network. Lopez had received pesticide safety training from the organization.

Martinez told Lopez to go to a hospital and said she would file a complaint with the Fresno County agricultural commissioner’s office.

“She started vomiting and became dizzy,” the local activist wrote of Lopez in the complaint.

Paola Lopez, 40, harvests raisins in the San Joaquin Valley and cares for her four children when she is not working in the fields. In September 2025, she was exposed to toxic pesticides and required emergency medical treatment. The county agricultural commissioner investigated the incident and found multiple state pesticide safety violations. Above, Lopez at home with two of her children on April 4.

A reporter reviewed copies of safety notices required by federal law that detail the hazardous chemicals that were mixed into the pesticide load that sprayed Lopez.

“Harmful if inhaled,” one notice says. “Causes skin irritation.”

“Danger … Causes serious eye irritation,” a second document adds.

“May cause cancer,” it warns.

California, unlike other states, has a split system of pesticide oversight. The Department of Pesticide Regulation is charged with statewide enforcement and provides guidance and training for 55 county agricultural commissioners, who police their jurisdictions.

State officials do not supervise the agricultural commissioners, who are appointed by and report to their elected boards of supervisors.

In interviews, commissioners lauded California’s enforcement system, saying they think it’s important to have discretion when applying regulations because crops, growing seasons and pesticide use vary from county to county. They said their work has improved safety in the fields.

The flexibility “gives us the ability to closely work with growers and … keep our communities safe,” said Juan Hidalgo, agricultural commissioner for Monterey County, one of the top farming counties in the nation with a gross agricultural production value of $4.8 billion in 2025.

Last year, a Capital & Main investigation found that companies with violations in multiple counties across California were not fined for hundreds of those offenses — many involving worker safety.

In 2023, a federal audit flagged serious pesticide incidents in half a dozen counties and uncovered patchwork oversight by agricultural commissioners. The county regulators interpret pesticide safety laws differently, are not required to justify fines and are not mandated to check a company’s statewide compliance history, the audit found.

The Department of Pesticide Regulation in late 2025 unveiled searchable county and statewide data breakdowns for regulatory actions taken by agricultural commissioners from the start of 2020 through the end of June 2025.

During that period, commissioners took 17,742 regulatory actions for pesticide violations of all types, but only 4,885 resulted in fines or referrals to district attorneys for possible prosecution, according to the data.

The treatment of violators, including repeat offenders and companies cited for serious infractions, varied depending on the county, according to the analysis by Capital & Main, which examined 40,150 state enforcement records detailing investigations, violations and civil penalties from 2018 through early 2024.

In one county, for instance, an agricultural commissioner fined a farmer $2,000 for failing to provide safety training for workers who applied pesticides in fields. In another county, a grower was fined $200 for the same violation.

1

2

1. A farmworker, 43, who is not identified for her safety, picks grapes that will be sold as raisins in southwest Fresno County on Sept. 3. She works from 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. and is paid 36 cents for each paper sheet she fills. 2. A grape farm in Fresno County.

Failure to provide pesticide safety training for workers who handle pesticides is one of the most common violations in California, according to state regulators. Such training is crucial for all field workers because pesticides have different safety requirements and can pose serious health risks.

Many farmworkers who were interviewed, including Lopez, who was sprayed in the raisin field, said employers did not provide pesticide safety training.

According to the analysis, more than 240 businesses were cited for at least 1,268 violations in multiple counties across California, but they paid no fines for nearly half of these citations — many involving worker safety.

Labor advocates who have studied pesticide regulation say the oversight gaps and failures to impose stiffer fines underscore the need for more vigilant enforcement. They note that rural and predominantly Latino communities are disproportionately affected.

“We need much stronger and more consistent enforcement to protect workers and communities,” said Anne Katten, director of the Pesticide & Work Health & Safety Project for the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.

In June, the Department of Pesticide Regulation unveiled proposed changes to state pesticide regulations. The approval process will take months and has involved public comment; revised rules are expected to be adopted next year, officials said.

To address uneven enforcement, the new rules would require agricultural commissioners to check whether companies were cited for violations in other counties, officials said. Commissioners would also have increased reporting requirements when they don’t impose fines. Minimum levels for penalties would be raised and stiffer fines would be imposed for repeat offenders.

But individual farmers as well as more than a dozen associations that represent growers, agricultural retailers and firms that spray pesticides have voiced opposition to the changes. They argue that current regulations are effective, that agricultural commissioners need flexibility to investigate violations and that more training is needed to help growers understand the rules, according to written comments obtained through California Public Records Act requests.

“A one-size-fits-all enforcement approach fails to account for California’s agricultural diversity,” said a letter sent to state officials in December that was signed by groups such as the California Strawberry Commission and California Agricultural Aircraft Assn.

“Maintaining county-level discretion,” the letter says, “ensures that enforcement decisions reflect on-the-ground realities and local expertise.”

Some supporting the overhaul say it doesn’t go far enough to protect workers and communities.

Violations of reporting requirements, including those involving pesticide spraying near schools, would trigger only minor, optional fines, said Yanely Martinez, an organizer with Safe Ag Safe Schools, which monitors pesticide safety in the Salinas and Pajaro valleys.

In early June, the investigation into the pesticide exposure case involving Paola Lopez was closed.

Officials found five violations, including failure to have an emergency medical plan for workers, failure to protect people and wildlife from pesticide drift and failure to have pesticide safety records on file, according to a copy of the investigative report obtained through a public records request.

The agricultural commissioner’s office referred the case in June to the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office for possible criminal prosecution. As of mid-September, the case was still under review and there was no timeline for a decision regarding potential criminal charges, said Taylor P. Long, spokesperson for the district attorney.

1

2

3

1. Crates stacked at a grape farm in Fresno County. 2. Crates of raisins dry in the sun in Caruthers in Fresno County. 3. Sweet Harvest Church is surrounded by agricultural fields in an area of Fresno where many low-income families live and work.

If prosecutors reject the case, it would go back to the agricultural commissioner’s office, which would determine the severity of the violations and how much the fines would be, said Mario Reeves, Fresno County’s assistant agricultural commissioner.

Lopez was at her apartment in the prosperous farmland known as the “Raisin Capital of the World” when a reporter told her about the investigation’s findings and the timeframe for penalties.

She expressed frustration that months would pass before anyone is held accountable.

“How many more people will be exposed? … How many more people will get injured?” she said.

Lopez’s medical bills are covered by workers’ compensation insurance, but her health has worsened and her doctor has referred her to specialists who deal with respiratory and nervous system disorders, she said.

She had gone back to the raisin fields days after she was exposed, even though her throat was sore and she was coughing, because she needed the money. “We cannot afford the luxury of just walking away from a job,” she said.

She lasted less than two days before becoming too sick to work. She has not returned.

Lopez is an independent journalist and fellow at the McGraw Center for Business Journalism. Data journalist Cherry Salazar analyzed state pesticide records for this report.