Archive by Author

The kids are not all right — copycat cannabis edibles risk their safety

Copycat cannabis edibles, which have colorful packages that mimic popular snacks and candy, have come under scrutiny. Media coverage reveals an apparent rising trend of accidental ingestion by children that has led to severe symptoms, in some cases requiring hospitalization. We need a multi-pronged approach to keep copycat edible cannabis packaging from the market and out of the hands of children.

In our recent study, we found that packaging for 8 percent of 267 edibles closely resembled 13 snack products popular among children, including Sour Patch Kids and Nerds Rope candies and Doritos chips. Although copycat cannabis products were a minority in the packages analyzed in this study, these copycat edibles tended to claim to have levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) — the main psychoactive chemical in cannabis — that far exceed the limits set by state cannabis regulations, raising the dangers of serious harms to children if accidentally ingested.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued a public health warning to consumers about accidental ingestion by children of food products containing THC. Between January 2021 and April 24, 2022, the FDA received 100 adverse event reports related to children and adults who consumed edible products containing THC. Seven of these reports described accidental ingestion of copycat cannabis products resembling popular brands of children’s candy, including Cocoa Pebbles, Nerds Rope, Skittles, Sour Patch Kids and Starburst. The 2020 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System reported more than 3,000 exposures to edible cannabis products involving children ages 12 and younger, with most of these occurring among children 5 and younger.

Major food companies including PepsiCo, General Mills and Kellogg’s recently urged U.S. senators and members of Congress in a joint letter to broaden language in the SHOP SAFE Act aimed at deterring online retailers from using a “famous or counterfeit” mark in the advertising, sale and distribution of copycat cannabis products. The rationale for this action, they said, is “a gap in existing law — the widespread online sale of packaging that leverages these famous brands.”

The truth is, this is much more than an issue about copyright infringement law, and large food corporations are not the main victims here. Copycat edibles packaging poses a significant threat to public health and safety among children who are too young to distinguish the difference between a package of a familiar snack and that of cannabis edibles. Relying on food brands to take legal action against cannabis companies for copyright infringement will not stop copycat products from appearing in the market. This is akin to a Whac-A-Mole game because they are quickly replaced by unregulated sellers and the availability of empty copycat product packages sold online. 

Instead, we need a coordinated policy and public education approach at local, state and national levels to make an impact in protecting children from accidentally ingesting copycat edibles.

First, we urgently need policies to require plain packaging of all cannabis products. Research following Canada’s legalizing of non-medical cannabis nationally indicates that plain packaging, without brand logos but with health warnings added, reduces the appeal of products to youths.

Second, funding from legalized cannabis tax revenues should be utilized to support public education campaigns, pediatricians and primary care providers to inform parents to keep children safe from edible products. Parents and caregivers should avoid having these products at home. If they do bring such products home, they should avoid purchasing edibles in packaging that resembles children’s candy and store all cannabis products in locations separate from regular food items that are out of reach of their children. They also should not use edibles in view of children, which could increase kids’ curiosity and modeling.

Third, training and education programs for cannabis product producers, dispensary owners, managers, staff and independent sellers, as well as packaging manufacturers, should address edible packing specifically. These programs should cover best practices for safe packaging of cannabis products, cannabis packaging regulations, and patient/customer education.

To be clear, we are not calling for restricting the sale of legalized cannabis edibles in states that have legalized medical and adult use of cannabis products. We believe that responsible adult use of cannabis products can and should be compatible with preventing children from accidental ingestion and harms by taking specific actions. Children’s safety is an important priority, and it depends on our collective action.

Danielle C. Ompad, Ph.D., is a professor of epidemiology at the New York University School of Global Health and deputy director of the Center for Drug Use and HIV|HCV Research (CDUHR) at the New York University. Her study of cannabis packaging was funded by CDUHR, which is funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Andy Tan, Ph.D., MBBS, MPH, MBA, is an associate professor at the Annenberg School for Communication and senior fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania. He directs the Health Communication Equity Lab and is a collaborator on the cannabis packaging study.

Source: TEST FEED1

ESPN anchor Elle Duncan on mass shooting victims: 'LOOK AT THEM'

ESPN personality Elle Duncan urged viewers on Wednesday to not “grow numb” to the recent string of mass shootings in the U.S., and to look at the victims and imagine they are their own loved ones.

During her nightly “Sportscenter” broadcast on Wednesday, Duncan described the “sense of dread” she felt dropping her own 4-year-old son off at school that morning.

“We put our kids to bed at night and we have an expectation that they’re going to make it to morning right under our protection and love, only to send them into a reality where you just have to hope they’re faster to the hiding places than the other kids at school,” she added. “You know, good luck.”

“If we won’t do anything else to protect the innocents from the reality that we have created for them, then we owe them, at the very least, the respect of acknowledgement, no matter how disruptive to our peace of mind,” an emotional Duncan said, attempting to hold back tears. 

“So please, I implore you — and I mean it — look at them. And then look at everyone in the room with you, and imagine it’s their faces on that screen.”

“LOOK AT THEM,” she wrote in a tweet with the clip.

Duncan’s remarks come after 19 schoolchildren and two teachers were killed and 17 other people were injured on Tuesday in Uvalde, Texas when a gunman opened fire inside of a fourth-grade classroom at Robb Elementary School.

Duncan described the U.S. as “a society that makes willingness to stand in front of an assault rifle, a job requirement for a fourth-grade teacher, who by the way, is making 30 grand a year,” referring to Eva Mireles and Irma Garcia, the schoolteachers who lost their lives protecting their students. 

Duncan, who has become a prominent host for ESPN in recent years, also garnered attention and acclaim for her emotional eulogy for basketball legend Kobe Bryant and his daughter, Gianna, who were among the nine individuals killed in a helicopter crash in January 2020. 

The shooting in Uvalde came days after another mass shooting at a Buffalo, N.Y., grocery store, in which the suspected shooter allegedly sought to kill as many Black people as possible.

The Uvalde school shooting is the deadliest since a gunman shot and killed 26 students and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut in 2012.

Source: TEST FEED1

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may harden US Indo-Pacific allies

Russia’s war against Ukraine has up-ended decades of entrenched defense policy in Europe. The effects of the war stretch worldwide as countries monitor Ukraine’s unfolding tragedy to glean possible lessons for their own security. Halfway around the world, two of America’s staunchest allies, Australia and Japan, are closely watching the situation, actively supporting Ukraine and the West’s efforts to stop Russian aggression.

At the same time, Russia’s actions may serve as a warning to U.S. allies in the region, which see a possible future crisis in the Indo-Pacific brought on by China. Understanding how Australia and Japan are perceiving the Ukraine conflict could be critical for allied strategy in the region going forward. 

Consider first Australia. Leading into the recent federal election, Australia’s response to Russia’s invasion had been partly influenced by a conservative government seeking to look tough on national security and take a leadership role in foreign affairs. Australia has applied sanctions against Russian enterprises, agreed to send a modest number of armored troop carriers to Ukraine and pledged around $65 million in humanitarian aid.

Australia also provided temporary humanitarian visas to Ukrainian citizens. With Russia and Australia on opposite geographic poles and virtually no trade to speak of, Australia has felt freer to criticize Moscow with impunity — unlike China, where its criticism carries a much greater cost. Australia is likely to maintain its political and practical support to Ukraine and its current hardline approach to Russia. 

Compared to Australia, Japan has more skin in the game with Russia, but has adopted a similar approach regarding Ukraine. Despite being relatively new to office, Japan’s prime minister, Kishida Fumio, has been tough and resolute in his response. For a country that historically does not rely on economic sanctions, Kishida surprised many by imposing harsh financial and economic sanctionsagainst Russia, a sharp contrast to Japan’s tepid response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. 

Kishida’s decision came at a cost, promptinging Russia to declare it was abandoning peace treaty talks over disputed territory with Japan (that were not really going anywhere anyway). The Kishida government also recently released its annual Diplomatic Bluebook that, for the first time in almost two decades, declared the Southern Kuril island chain (northern territories in Japan) as “illegally occupied by Russia.” And, like Australia, Japan provided limited defense assistance to Ukraine: bulletproof vests, helmets, protective masks and clothing against chemical weapons, and other nonlethal equipment.

In addition to similar responses, the conflict has affected security discussions in these countries in common ways. In Japan, it has not led to a fundamental rethink in Japan’s defense priorities. For example, discussions on issues such as “counterstrike capabilities” and increased defense spending have precedents that predate Russia’s attack. Even the recent debate about “nuclear-sharing” is not new. But the war has made discussions on Japan’s security a more widely public one, arguably leading to advancements in the public discourse on ways the government should defend Japan and involve itself in regional security. 

Importantly, Japan’s contribution of non-lethal military aid represented a change, marking the first of such type of assistance from Japan. What is unclear is how the war will impact the revisions taking place to Japan’s National Security Strategy and National Defense Program Guidelines. With the first war in Europe in decades, along with fears of how this could manifest in the Indo-Pacific, it is unclear what lessons Japanese policymakers are drawing on to inform their new strategy.

In Australia, an unprovoked, conventional war in Europe, overlayed with China’s creeping defense presence in the Indo-Pacific, have given greater public justification to the government’s hard security push — whether it’s the AUKUS agreement, accelerated defense acquisitions or public admonishing of China. Although AUKUS attracted both supporters and detractors when announced (and continues to do so), criticism of Australia’s large increase in defense spending and its potential to provoke China and others has abated as the harsh realities of conventional war sink in. While Australia’s trend towards building more robust defense capabilities pre-dates Russia’s invasion, instability in Europe and Chinese coercion across domains are raising public threat perceptions more in line with government policy.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has hardened Australia and Japan’s defense trajectories and resolve. Although far outside of the European theater and from different defense, strategic and military experiences, Australia and Japan have a shared concern that what they are witnessing in Europe could set a precedent elsewhere, including the Indo-Pacific.

Should allied nations fail to punish a powerful neighbor like Russia for attempting to change the status quo through force, it could send the wrong signals to autocratic countries elsewhere, which may be tempted to use force as a viable means of obtaining a national security objective. In both their cases, the overriding concern is China being tempted to use force to obtain Taiwan. It is through this lens that their active support of Ukraine can be better understood. It also might explain more vigorous defense debates and both allies advocating for enhanced alliances with the United States and their strategic ties with each other. 

While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine drove both Canberra and Tokyo to recalibrate their foreign policy priorities, it has confirmed the defense trajectories they have been following for some time. Both countries responded to the crisis through close coordination with the United States and their European partners. Similarly, both countries sought policies to support the international status quo. While it remains unknown what lessons Beijing is drawing from Russia’s invasion, it seems to have already galvanized two of the United States’s closest allies in their commitment to bolster their defenses and work closely with like-minded allies.

Now, Australia and Japan will likely weigh the potential merits of maintaining course in order to work to ensure the Indo-Pacific avoids further comparisons with Europe.

Jeffrey Hornung is a senior political scientist at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation. Hayley Channer is a senior policy fellow with the Perth USAsia Centre and a Fulbright Scholar with the Hudson Institute.

Source: TEST FEED1

People can get used to a low-salt diet: study

Sodium intake can affect overall health, such as by increasing blood pressure. Healthier diets might include getting people to eat less salty food. In a new study presented at a heart health conference, researchers educated a small group of participants about sodium and how it affects health and also implemented an intervention to try to get them to eat less salt. 

The study included 29 participants who have hypertension with an average age of 63. Over the course of 16 weeks, participants were given information and follow ups with a nurse. The researchers also provided a tool to help measure the saltiness of food. The results were presented at the ACNAP-EuroHeartCare Congress 2022 in Madrid, a scientific congress of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). 

“One of the major barriers to sticking to a low salt diet is that people do not like the taste, but few studies have addressed this issue,” says study author Misook Chung of the University of Kentucky in a press release. “Our pilot study in patients with high blood pressure shows that it is possible to change taste perception and learn to like food with less salt.” 

The team measured sodium from urine samples at the beginning and end of the study. They also asked about preference for salty food and enjoyment of food on a 10-point scale. The people in the intervention group reduced their sodium intake by 1,158 mg per day, or a 30 percent reduction from baseline. Interestingly, although they still preferred salty food, enjoyment of a low-salt diet increased in this group from 4.8 to 6.5. 

There was a trend of decreasing average systolic blood pressure among the intervention participants, but it was not a statistically significant change. These results are promising, but because it was a small study might not allow researchers to make conclusions on the intervention’s impact. 

But, with larger studies in the future, we could understand more how lowering salt intake could affect blood pressure and whether the intervention could work long term. “Our study indicates that we can retrain our taste buds to enjoy low sodium food and gradually reduce the amount of salt we eat,” says Chung. “The gradual taste adaptation programme has the potential to control blood pressure but needs to be tested in a larger trial with longer follow up.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Appeals court rules Trump must testify in NY probe

Former President Trump must provide testimony in the New York attorney general’s probe into his business practices, a state appeals court ruled Thursday, rejecting his challenge to a subpoena.

A four-judge panel for the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Trump’s appeal in the case, dismissing the former president’s arguments that the subpoena is part of a politically motivated investigation.

“OAG began its investigation after public testimony of a senior corporate insider and reviewed significant volumes of evidence before issuing the subpoenas,” the panel wrote in its decision, using an acronym for the Office of Attorney General. “Appellants have not identified any similarly implicated corporation that was not investigated or any executives of such a corporation who were not deposed. Therefore, appellants have failed to demonstrate that they were treated differently from any similarly situated persons.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), who’s conducting a civil investigation into potential fraud at the Trump Organization, applauded the decision.

“Once again, the courts have ruled that Donald Trump must comply with our lawful investigation into his financial dealings,” James said in a statement. “We will continue to follow the facts of this case and ensure that no one can evade the law.”

Trump had appealed a lower court ruling ordering him to provide testimony and documents to James’s office. Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump in contempt earlier this month for failing to comply with the order to provide to business records to the investigators.

DEVELOPING…

Source: TEST FEED1

Texas broadcast of Jimmy Kimmel's Uvalde shooting monologue cut short

Late night television host Jimmy Kimmel said his monologue was cut short by a Dallas ABC affiliate channel following the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, that left 19 children and two adults dead.

“To my friends in Dallas who are asking: I do not know whether our ABC Network affiliate WFAA cut away from my monologue tonight intentionally or inadvertently but I will find out,” Kimmel said in a tweet with a link to his full monologue for those who “didn’t get to see.”

In the monologue, Kimmel called the failure of lawmakers to take action on the issue “indefensible.”

“A bipartisan bill passed in the House. It’s been stalled in the Senate for over a year now,” Kimmel said, referring to H.R. 8, a bill that would require background checks for all gun sales.  

“They won’t pass it because our cowardly leaders just aren’t listening to us. They’re listening to the NRA. They’re listening to those people who write them checks, who keep them in power, because that’s the way politics work,” he said.

“I say this tonight with the hope — not with an expectation but with the hope — that people like Ted Cruz and Greg Abbott and John Cornyn, people who are elected by Texans, will actually listen to it instead of going right to gun control laws don’t work and we need armed teachers and guards at schools. If your solution to children being massacred is armed guards, you haven’t been paying attention to what’s going on,” he added, citing the presence of armed guards at mass shootings in Buffalo, N.Y., Parkland, Fla., and Uvalde. 

“We want limits on who could walk around with an AR-15, and it damn well shouldn’t be a teenager who works at a fast food restaurant. If we can’t agree on that, forget it,” Kimmel said before the Texas affiliate station cut away. 

After a few advertisements, the station cut back in to show a video from Everytown for Gun Safety, which aired as the final part of Kimmel’s monologue.

In response to Kimmel’s tweet, WFAA tweeted that the cut was the result of “technical difficulties” and apologized for the error on its website. 

Pete Freedman, who is the director of digital content at WFAA, said the decision was due to additional Uvalde coverage. 

“We’d made the decision earlier in the day to extend our 10 o’clock news to include *extra* Uvalde coverage in our broadcast, it had nothing to do with your monlogue. We’re on the same team,” Freedman tweeted, adding that he would “personally ensure we share your monologue again on our website in the morning.”

TEGNA referred The Hill to a tweet from the WFAA.

Following the explanation, Kimmel said that the mistake was made “unintentionally.”

“I’ve known the staff at @wfaa personally and professionally for almost 20 years and believe this mistake was made unintentionally. Thanks for reposting and for correcting this error. Sending love to all my friends in Texas,” Kimmel tweeted Thursday morning.

Updated 11:49 a.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Schumer vows to force vote on gun-control legislation after Memorial Day recess

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) told colleagues Thursday morning that they should be prepared to vote on gun-control legislation when they return to Washington next month after the Memorial Day recess, promising a showdown with Republicans after mass shootings in Buffalo and Texas left 31 people dead.  

Schumer said he’s not scheduling a vote this week on two House-passed bills to expand background checks because he wants to give Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and other colleagues more time to negotiate a deal with Republicans on background check or red-flag legislation.  

But the Democratic leader is giving the talks little chance of succeeding.  

“If these negotiations do not bear any fruit, the Senate will vote on gun safety legislation when we return. But our hope, even amidst our deep skepticism, is that during this week Democrats and Republicans at long last will come to agree on something meaningful that will reduce gun violence in a real way in America,” Schumer said on the floor.  

Schumer’s statement on the floor clarified his remarks from Wednesday morning, when he said he did not plan to take legislation to the floor immediately because Republicans have made clear they oppose gun control.  

“I believe that accountability votes are important but sadly, this isn’t a case of the American people not knowing where their senators stand. They know. They know because my Republican colleagues are perfectly clear on this issue, crystal clear. Republicans don’t pretend that they support sensible gun safety legislation,” he said Wednesday.  

But progressive Democrats quickly rejected the idea of not forcing Republican senators to vote on expanded background checks or red-flag legislation just because the GOP has consistently rejected gun-control measures.  

“I’m always in favor of putting people on the record. We don’t have a single Republican vote for any movement on gun safety and in the wake of what happened this week in Texas and last week in New York, I think Republicans ought to own up to their shameful, extremist position,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told The Hill Wednesday.  

Other Democratic senators, however, say there’s “fatigue” about holding failed votes on proposals that are popular with the Democratic base.  

Senate Democrats have painful memories about the last time the Senate held an extended debate on expanded background checks and other gun-violence measures in the Spring of 2013.  

Their proposals failed and the party suffered an intense voter backlash the following year when Republicans picked up nine seats and captured the majority in the 2014 midterm election.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Amid the cryptocurrency debacle, it’s time to give the dollar its due

The collapse of the TerraUSD stablecoin this month is reverberating throughout the cryptocurrency world at a time when the market capitalization of Bitcoin and other digital currencies has fallen by about 65 percent from a peak of $3 trillion in November.

While heightened volatility is nothing new to the cryptocurrency market, the sudden plunge in Terra carries implications for the financial system. The reason: Stablecoins are considered integral parts of “DeFi” – decentralized finance – that are designed to protect investors from the inherent volatility of cryptocurrencies.

Terra was designed to retain a value of $1 at all times, but it was de-pegged on May 9, when Luna – a cryptocurrency that backed it – collapsed to nearly zero. At its peak, Luna was worth $40 billion and supported $18 billion of Terra.

The debacle has caused some commentators to question whether stablecoins could pose a threat to the financial system. At this juncture, this seems unlikely considering that they are only a small fraction of U.S. financial assets.

Others favor increased regulation of cryptocurrencies and disclosure requirements so that purchasers can be protected against fraud. For example, stablecoins would have to disclose which assets back them, where they are held and who owns them.

Still others would ban cryptocurrencies altogether. But as The Economist notes, “a draconian crackdown would put at risk the benefits that crypto eventually promises.”  They include new financial products that bypass banks, innovations in property rights and the possibility of a less centralized financial system.

While these issues will be debated for years to come, this is a good time for investors to review the experience of cryptocurrencies since the inception of Bitcoin in 2008 and to glean lessons from it. 

As Michael del Castillo of Forbes observes, crypto’s history has been defined by five resets — in 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020 and today. He finds that “each reset not only led to price-market increases, they also cleared the way for rapid innovation.” Del Castillo believes the current reset may be the most important test.

One reason for optimism by crypto enthusiasts is that Tether – the largest stablecoin that is hosted on the Bitcoin and Ethereum blockchains and which claims to have adequate dollar reserves – quickly recovered near its parity of $1 after briefly dropping to 95 cents. But a Barclays strategist has warned that it could be vulnerable if holders rush to sell it, and that this would have an even greater impact than Terra’s collapse.

My own take is that the biggest risk to the cryptocurrency market is aggressive monetary tightening by the Federal Reserve. The reason: The phenomenal rise of cryptocurrencies has occurred almost entirely in an environment in which interest rates were at or near zero. The run-up in interest rates this year already is dampening demand for cryptocurrencies. The risk, moreover, is that their prices could fall further if the Fed raises rates by more than what is currently priced into markets.

Consider, for example, what would happen if yields on Treasuries were to rise to 4 percent to 5 percent next year. Why would an investor prefer to hold a crypto asset that has no backing, yields nothing and is highly volatile?

Second, the main appeal of cryptocurrencies is for traders (or gamblers) who believe they can make money by taking advantage of their high volatility. But many people who own crypto assets do not understand how they are created or how to trade them successfully.

The challenge for investment professionals is that there is no way to compute the intrinsic value of crypto assets. During an annual shareholder meeting, Warren Buffett remarked that he wouldn’t pay $25 for all the bitcoins in the world. In short, cryptocurrencies ultimately are worth what people are willing to pay for them, but their price can change on a dime.

Third, claims that cryptocurrencies are a good inflation hedge because their quantities are constrained are unsubstantiated. They were asserted during a period of low inflation when there was no way to validate them. But since inflation took off in the second half of last year, cryptocurrencies have all plummeted in value.

Fourth, claims that cryptocurrencies will supplant the U.S. dollar are also far-fetched.  Advocates such as Jack Dorsey believe skeptics do not understand what makes cryptocurrencies desirable. But they appear clueless about why the U.S. dollar has been the world’s premier currency throughout the post-World War II era.

As I have noted in a previous commentary, the U.S. was widely viewed as a safe haven after the war and there was a global shortage of dollars in the 1950s. The eurocurrency market took off in the early 1960s when he U.S. government enacted the Interest Equalization Tax (IET) and the dollar increasingly was used as a unit of account outside the U.S. 

The main challenge to the dollar’s status as the world’s key reserve currency occurred in the 1970s, when U.S. inflation surged and the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates gave way to flexible exchange rates. Thereafter, the dollar weakened against the key currencies, and the issue of whether the dollar could retain its status was debated in official circles. The dollar then rebounded in the first half of the 1980s when the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker raised interest rates to record levels to rein in inflation.

Today, as the Fed once again has recognized the urgency of bringing inflation under control, the U.S. dollar has risen to 20-year highs against both the Euro and the Japanese yen. It has also been the best performing investment vehicle this year while financial assets and digital currencies have suffered steep declines.

In light of all that has happened this year, it’s time for the most ardent crypto enthusiasts to finally give the dollar its due.

Nicholas Sargen, Ph.D., is an economic consultant and is affiliated with Fort Washington Investment Advisors and the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business.  He has authored three books, including “Investing in the Trump Era: How Economic Policies Impact Financial Markets.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Kevin Spacey faces new sexual assault charges in UK

Kevin Spacey is facing sexual assault charges against multiple men in the United Kingdom.

The former “House of Cards” actor is being charged with four counts of sexual assault against three men, the U.K.’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced Thursday.

The 62-year-old performer has also been charged with “causing a person to engage in penetrative sexual activity without consent,” Rosemary Ainslie, head of the CPS’s special crime division, said in a statement to ITK.

“The charges follow a review of the evidence gathered by the Metropolitan Police in its investigation,” Ainslie said.

The spokeswoman said, “The Crown Prosecution Service reminds all concerned that criminal proceedings against Mr. Spacey are active and that he has the right to a fair trial.”

Last year, Spacey was ordered to pay nearly $31 million to the production company behind “House of Cards” after an arbitrator determined the show’s star breached his contract by violating the company’s sexual harassment policy.

Last week, Spacey was seen in a trailer for the movie “Peter Five Eight,” his first film role since the 2017 sexual harassment and misconduct accusations.

Source: TEST FEED1