• The Too Good To Go app aims to help consumers save money and reduce food waste.
• I tried it for a week to see how much I could save.
• I found it was most useful for fresh produce, but the pastries weren't always great.

Everything is expensive right now. It's rare that I ever leave the grocery store having spent less than I wanted to.

I've heard of apps like Too Good To Go, which sell surplus food at a discount, but never gone much further than signing up.

To test it out, I spent a week in early December only buying food from the app. I wanted to see if it was a viable way of saving money, sticking to a budget, and learning to be a bit more flexible with my cooking.

I also want to be more mindful about the groceries I buy and, unfortunately, sometimes waste.

Too Good To Go's CEO, Mette Lykke, told me in a recent interview that the app now operates in 19 countries across North America, Europe, and Australia, and covers 170,000 stores.

Lykke said the company hopes to inspire people "to make that the first step in a journey toward having a more responsible relationship with food."

"If we look at the state of the planet and the climate crisis, then it's pretty clear that something needs to change," Lykke said.

It was fun trying out new places in my city, London. While the pastries I received were hit-and-miss, the fresh produce from local stores was a real highlight.

Monday

Monday was largely spent figuring out the platform. I found that its map feature was the best way to find local cafés and stores.

I saw that an expensive café on my local high street offered pastries, so I opted for that — £3.90 ($4.95) for a blueberry muffin, chocolate chip cookie, and slice of banana bread.

After the sugar rush I was still hungry, so I chose a bag of sandwiches and pastries from my local Costa Coffee for £3.50 ($4.44).

I got a slightly stale pan au raisin and two sandwiches — one seasonal turkey feast, and a BLT which my boyfriend took for lunch the next day.

In total, I spent £7.40 ($9.39) on items worth at least £22.90 ($29.08), so the week was off to a good start.

Tuesday

On Tuesday, I switched things up by trying out fresh produce from a couple of local stores. They offered "surprise bags" of groceries for £4 ($5.08) each.

While I was slightly overwhelmed with what to do with it all, it was an absolute hit with my boyfriend, who is always thrilled to be met with a culinary challenge.

One of the bags had Padron peppers, garlic, tomatoes, mushrooms, radishes, and beets. I also received three packets of pita bread, a sourdough baguette, a fruit bar, some buttermilk, and fresh herbs.

The multivitamin patches were a curveball, which I have to admit I didn't try.

In the other bag, I got a melon, some Greek yogurt, lettuce, butter, rainbow chard, and sausages.

The sausages went in the freezer, but almost everything else was used to make a pasta sauce, roasted peppers, sauteed mushrooms, buttermilk pancakes, and basil oil. The beets got pickled.

The only thing we ended up having to waste was the watercress, which was already looking past its best.

In total, I spent £8 ($10.16) on items worth at least £24 ($30.48).

Wednesday

Tuesday's groceries went further than expected, so I bought another pastry bag to satisfy my snackiness during the day.

I'm not convinced the sourdough loaf and pastel de nata (which I squashed) I got for £4.09 ($5.19) truly had a full sale value of £12 ($15.24), but they were both pretty good.

The server recommended putting the loaf in the freezer and toasting the slices, which was a great tip that lasted me the rest of the week.

Thursday

I knew I was out for dinner with friends on Thursday so I picked up some Starbucks pastries on the way. This was the biggest letdown of the experiment.

Throughout the week, I realized that several cafés don't offer anything until quite late in the day, by which time the food has been sitting out for hours. This makes sense from their perspective, but it does mean that some of the food isn't at its best.

But for £2.50 ($3.18), a muffin, cookie, cinnamon bun, and cheese stick is certainly better than nothing.

In total, I spent £2.50 ($3.18) on items worth at least £7.50 ($9.52).

Friday

I'd been eyeing up a nearby Bangladeshi restaurant all week, so knowing I had a night in alone on Friday, I went for the £4.09 ($5.19) curry bag they were offering.

I got a few bhajis, some chicken and rice, two veggie curries, more rice, some okra, and what I thought was probably cabbage.

It was all good and spicy, though the bhajis were slightly stale.

In total, I spent £4.09 ($5.19) on items worth at least £12 ($15.24).

The results

For the whole week, I spent £26.08 ($33.11) on £78.40 ($99.54) worth of food.

Not every bag felt like amazing value. But some, especially the grocery bags, were genuinely impressive.

The experience taught me a lot about how to be flexible. I'm now committed to focusing less on "use by" dates on food and sticking to the safety assessment Lykke taught me — "look, smell, taste, don't waste" — before throwing things out.

My advice for anyone downloading Too Good To Go is to use it with foresight. The app is great for saving money for those on a strict budget who are OK with some compromises.

Too Good To Go is available in huge stores in the UK (such as Asda) and the US (including Whole Foods), so there are plenty of places to try.

Lykke told me the nice thing about Too Good To Go is you don't have to give anything up, and she's right. From a quick scan of my area, there is bubble tea, ice cream, Turkish food, burgers, doughnuts, and more. You don't get to choose exactly what you want, but as long as you don't mind a bit of a surprise, it's worth a try,

"You actually get good food, it's a good deal, and you do something good," Lykke said. "It's win-win for businesses, for consumers, and for the planet."

The Washington Commanders never lost hope and were able to dig out from five turnovers to turn around and stun the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday, 36-33.

Jayden Daniels had five touchdown passes in the game, three of which came in the fourth quarter. The Commanders were down 27-14 as the final quarter started. He threw a 4-yard touchdown pass to Olamide Zaccheaus to inch the team closer.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

The Commanders forced the Eagles to punt on their next drive. Daniels then found Zaccheaus for a 49-yard touchdown pass to take the lead. For another six minutes, Washington was in control but back-to-back field goals from Eagles kicker Jake Elliott gave Philadelphia a lead with under two minutes to go.

Daniels then led Washington down the field on nine plays and found wide receiver Jamison Crowder with enough space in the end zone to make the go-ahead grab with six seconds left in the game. The Commanders took the three-point lead and they won the game.

Daniels was 24-of-39 with 258 passing yards. Along with his five touchdown passes, he also threw two interceptions.

TEXANS’ CJ STROUD TURNS TO FAITH FOLLOWING TANK DELL’S DEVASTATING LEG INJURY: ‘ALL YOU CAN DO IS REALLY PRAY’

Commanders running back Brian Robinson Jr. had two fumbles lost and wide receiver Dyami Brown had one, contributing to the large turnover number.

But Washington ultimately benefited from Philadelphia losing quarterback Jalen Hurts in the first quarter due to a concussion. Kenny Pickett subbed in for him and had 143 passing yards, a touchdown pass, an interception and three sacks.

Eagles running back Saquon Barkley had 150 rushing yards and two touchdowns. But the Eagles’ offense looked a bit anemic after scoring 21 points in the first quarter.

A.J. Brown led the team with eight catches for 97 yards and a touchdown.

Washington improved to 10-5. It’s their first 10-win season since 2012. The Eagles fell to 12-3.

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

• A secretary bought three shares of her company's stock for $60 each in 1935.
• Grace Groner reinvested her dividends for 75 years, and her stake ballooned to $7.2 million.
• Her employer, Abbott, shared Groner's story in a recent website post.

A secretary paid $180 in 1935 for three shares of her employer's stock. By the time she died in 2010, her investment had mushroomed to $7.2 million.

Abbott, a pharmaceutical company, gave a shout-out to the former employee in a recent post on its website.

"As we celebrate 101 years of dividend payouts, we're remembering one of the earliest Abbott investing success stories, that of Grace Groner, who worked as a secretary at Abbott for over 40 years," the post reads.

"In 1935, Groner bought three shares of Abbott stock for $60 each. She consistently reinvested her dividend payments and quietly amassed a $7.2 million fortune. Groner passed away in 2010, at the age of 100, and it was only then that her multimillion-dollar estate was discovered."

She gifted her entire fortune to a foundation she'd established in support of her alma mater, Lake Forest College. She earmarked the money to finance internships, international study, and service projects for students.

Groner hung onto her Abbott shares for over 75 years without selling a single one, despite several stock splits, and used her dividends to bolster her stake.

She was likely able to leave her nest egg intact for so long because of her simple lifestyle. She lived in a one-bedroom house, bought her clothes at rummage sales, and didn't own a car, the Chicago Tribune reported in 2010.

Her shares would be worth north of $28 million today, excluding dividends, given that Abbott's stock price has roughly quadrupled since 2010. The drugmaker's market value has risen to around $200 billion, meaning it now rivals Disney, PepsiCo, and Morgan Stanley in size.

• As the eldest sibling, I felt pressure to spend money on my family during past holidays.
• It made me happy, and I wanted to be seen as successful. This year, I'm not making as much money.
• My financial position gave me anxiety, and I needed to find a solution.

I take the role of being the "eldest sibling" seriously. As the oldest sibling, I want to be a good example for my younger brother, look out for my family's needs, and be reliable and responsible.

For me, financial success is the best way to fulfill this role. In 2023, I stayed true to my role while making a decent monthly income. After monthly expenses, I could save some part of my salary. I'd spend that on my family when I visited over the holidays. But in July 2024, I turned to freelancing. My income wasn't stable, and I felt more financial pressure than ever.

As the holidays neared, I grew more anxious about money. I was still finding my footing in the freelancing world, and my savings were drying up. If I wasn't earning well, I couldn't spend well, either.

I worried about whether I could afford holiday expenses this year. I wanted to live up to what I expected of myself and what I felt my family expected of me. I also wanted to avoid the mistakes I'd made during the holiday season last year.

This year, I'm not in the same financial position as I was last year

When I went home for the holidays last year, thanks to my stable income, I wasn't worried about spending or having a holiday budget. However, I realized I should have set a spending limit when I returned. I had gone overboard.

My "eldest daughter syndrome" had kicked in several times. Treating my family to dinners, arranging celebrations for cousins, buying last-minute gifts — I wanted to take care of everything. I wanted to be reliable.

This year, my heartbeat quickened at the thought of going home. Whenever my brother called me to plan a dinner or a trip with the cousins, I would instantly check my account and wonder how I would afford it.

I didn't have the same financial privileges I'd had the year prior. Freelancing seemed promising, but I hadn't yet gotten in the groove of onboarding regular clients and earning a consistent income. I wouldn't get paid for 1-2 months after submitting one-off assignments and had to rely on my savings for expenses.

The whole month before I went home to see my family, my anxiety was through the roof. I needed a plan to navigate my financial anxiety. But first, I had to understand why it exists.

I had to look at why I felt so much pressure to pay for everything

I had a few fears. I was afraid I'd run out of money because of last-minute expenses, like dinners and gifts. I was afraid that my family would have to cover me if that happened. Lastly, I feared they would judge me if they had to cover me. I also didn't want anyone paying my way; after all, I felt like I was supposed to look out for my family, not the other way around.

I realized that spending money on my loved ones wasn't just a way to fulfill my role as the eldest sibling. It also gave me immense pleasure and was important to me. Whether it was a small gesture or a cozy dinner, I wanted to offer it.

As I explored further, I thought about how I spent every holiday since I'd started earning my own money. My parents, my cousins, everyone would offer to pay for things or contribute, but I'd insist on taking care of it. I'd go to great lengths to make sure I was the one paying. Once, I argued with my mom to let me pay for her new sweater, in front of the cashier.

When I thought back, I realized that though I enjoyed paying for things in the past, no one else expected it from me. I wanted to do it because I wanted to be perceived as responsible. In reality, I realized that I was adding unnecessary pressure on myself, especially when I was struggling to earn well.

Once I identified the problems, it was easier to look for solutions.

I figured out ways to alleviate pressure on myself

First, I allotted money to a holiday budget and decided to take on a couple of extra freelance projects to make sure sticking to it wouldn't strain me financially. I also installed a savings app that automatically transferred a fixed amount from my bank account daily. I could withdraw those savings if I went over my predetermined budget.

I noticed that the idea of unplanned holiday expenses like last-minute gifts was freaking me out. I started looking for gifts a month in advance so I'd have time to choose things that fit my budget.

Next, I examined the pressure I always felt to pay for outings with my family. I realized that I didn't have to pay for everything while struggling to build a career — and, further, no one expected me to.

Once I gained control of my holiday budget, I started to feel more confident. I also realized that I don't — and can't — always have it all together as the eldest sibling. I had to come to terms with the fact that I can't pay for everything this year. I can foot the bill for a couple of dinners with my family and cousins, but not all of them.

Letting someone else pay might challenge how I thought of myself in my role as the older sister, but keeping up that perception for myself just isn't worth it. I decided to be open to others contributing or offering to pay. I'm trying to make my peace with it.

I also reassure myself that my budget is restricted only for this holiday and that there are many more lavish holidays to come.

EXCLUSIVE: Senate Republicans are demanding answers on whether confidential human sources from Justice Department agencies beyond the FBI were used on Jan. 6, 2021, while also questioning whether Inspector General Michael Horowitz thoroughly reviewed classified and unclassified communications between handlers and their sources, warning that without that review, there may be a "major blind spot" in his findings. 

Horowitz last week released his highly anticipated report that there were more than two dozen FBI confidential human sources in the crowd outside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but only three were assigned by the bureau to be present for the event. Horowitz said none of the sources were authorized or directed by the FBI to "break the law" or "encourage others to commit illegal acts." 

But now, Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., are demanding further information from Horowitz, writing to him in a letter exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital that it is "unclear" if his office reviewed the use of confidential human sources by other DOJ components during the Capitol riot. 

DOJ IG REVEALS 26 FBI INFORMANTS WERE PRESENT ON JAN. 6

"This IG report was a step in the right direction, but Senator Johnson and I still have questions the Justice Department needs to account for," Grassley told Fox News Digital. "The American people deserve a full picture of whether Justice Department sources from its component agencies, in addition to the FBI, were present on January 6, what their role was, and whether DOJ had knowledge of their attendance." 

Grassley told Fox News Digital that Horowitz and his team "must redouble its efforts to make sure it has reviewed all relevant information and provide a sufficient response to our inquiry." 

Johnson told Fox News Digital he believes the report made public last week "may have only provided a fraction of the story regarding the presence and activities of confidential human sources or undercover federal agents in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021." 

"I urge the Inspector General’s office to be fully transparent about their work to ensure that Congress and the public have an accurate and complete understanding about what it actually reviewed," Johnson said.

DOJ INSPECTOR GENERAL DOES NOT DENY FBI INFORMANTS WERE AMONG JAN 6 CROWD

In their letter to Horowitz, Grassley and Johnson noted that the inspector general’s office received more than 500,000 documents from the Justice Department and its components as part of its investigation. 

"According to the report, your office obtained: CHS reporting, thousands of tips provided to the FBI, investigative and intelligence records from the FBI case management system, emails, instant messages, and phone records; contemporaneous notes of meetings and telephone calls; chronologies concerning the lead-up of events to January 6; after-action assessments; training materials and policy guides; and preparatory materials for press conferences or congressional testimony as well as talking points," they wrote. 

Grassley and Johnson told Horowitz "it is vital" that his office "more precisely explain what records it sought and received from all DOJ component agencies." 

Grassley and Johnson are demanding answers on whether Horowitz obtained evidence on whether other DOJ component agencies had tasked or untasked undercover confidential human sources in the Washington, D.C., area or at the Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021. 

TRUMP SAYS WRAY RESIGNATION 'GREAT DAY FOR AMERICA,' TOUTS KASH PATEL AS 'MOST QUALIFIED' TO LEAD FBI

They are also asking if all communications were obtained between DOJ component agency handlers and confidential human sources or undercover agents present in the D.C. area, and whether he has received classified and unclassified non-email communication platforms used by the FBI. 

Grassley and Johnson are also demanding Horowitz share all FD-1023 forms, or confidential human source reporting documents, used in the investigation with them. 

As for his initial report, Horowitz "determined that none of these FBI CHSs was authorized by the FBI to enter the Capitol or a restricted area or to otherwise break the law on January 6, nor was any CHS directed by the FBI to encourage others to commit illegal acts on January 6." 

The report revealed that the FBI had a minor supporting role in responding on Jan. 6, 2021 – largely because the event was not deemed at the highest security level by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

Horowitz, though, said the FBI took significant and appropriate steps to prepare for that role. 

According to the report, there were a total of 26 confidential human sources in the crowd that day, but only three of them were assigned by the bureau to be there. 

One of the three confidential human sources tasked by the FBI to attend the rally entered the Capitol building, while the other two entered the restricted area around the Capitol. 

If a confidential human source is directed to be at a certain event, they are paid by the FBI for their time.

• Drone sightings across the US have captivated many Americans and sparked widespread speculation.
• The sightings have also put a spotlight on airspace management strategies in the US.
• Experts say the focus should be on improved regulation and countermeasures instead of hysteria.

A recent wave of mysterious drone sightings across the US has, to a certain extent, kick-started a long-overdue discussion on drone technology and airspace management.

These drone sightings have captured national attention, and the public is now paying more attention to drone activity near US military bases. Federal agencies are talking to the public about drone issues. And there's more public discussion of congressional legislation to boost federal authority as the government says it's hamstrung in its ability to respond to drone threats.

"There's a fundamental notion that drones present a very, very new expanded type of threat," Doug Birkey, executive director of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, told Business Insider, noting that the US largely lacks "the tactics and the procedures to deal with this."

Birkey said many people are "overplaying" the mystery behind the latest drone sightings. But the resulting buzz is driving conversations about counterstrategies and systems that "should have happened a long time ago."

Officials from the White House, FBI, DHS, DoD, and the FAA have urged Congress to "enact counter-UAS legislation when it reconvenes that would help extend and expand existing counter-drone authorities to identify and mitigate any threat that may emerge." This has been a recurring topic in press briefings in recent weeks.

"The good news is that technology largely exists" to address the challenges presented by drone tech, Birkey said. "We just have to get serious about going after it and then having the procedures down to be smart about it."

The latest drone drama

In mid-November, unidentified aircraft were first seen flying over New Jersey. They drew national attention as reported sightings extended to Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York, among other states, this month.

It wasn't until worry and wild speculation about the drones reached a fever pitch that agencies began a more organized effort to communicate. In the initial absence, others filled the void with conspiracy theories, a major one being that the drones were launched from an Iranian drone mothership off the US East Coast.

The federal government has shot many of these assertions down, saying they're not of foreign origin and not a threat.

The White House, FBI, Homeland Security, Pentagon, and FAA have said that all the evidence available indicates the drone sightings are a mixture of "lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones, and law enforcement drones, as well as manned fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and stars mistakenly reported as drones."

Though not nefarious, US officials said they "recognize the concern among many communities" and the "irresponsible" nature of the drone activity near restricted airspace and infrastructure, including military bases and civilian airports.

Things have "sort of moved to a point of hysteria," said Stacie Pettyjohn, the director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security. She said that "the public has gotten really agitated because of the perceived novelty of drones or the danger associated with them."

She said "people seeing drones everywhere" are "starting to conflate just normal air traffic and anything in the sky and assuming that something nefarious or strange is happening."

But even as the government has attempted to quell concerns, skepticism remains, leading some to push for greater clarity on this issue so that drones can be discussed rationally.

William Austin, a drone expert and president of Warren County Community College, said the federal government needs to be clear with the public in this situation.

He wrote in a recent op-ed that "the public needs clear, authoritative communication: there is no credible evidence of large drones operating over New Jersey,"

Austin argued in his article that "the drone industry has too much to offer — cutting-edge technology, job creation, and life-saving applications — to be derailed by myths." He said, "We need facts, not speculation."

Drones are becoming prolific

Surging interest and investment in new drone tech have catalyzed rapid advancements, transforming the technology at an unprecedented pace in recent years.

Increasing competition in the global market is making drones more accessible, affordable, and user-friendly, expanding their use beyond traditional military and defense applications to sectors like agriculture, logistics, and recreation.

"It's part of the changing technological landscape that extends beyond just the military," Pettyjohn said. "It's not just the realm of the government anymore to have really sophisticated capabilities. It's just part of everyday society."

Commercial and civilian drones only began to emerge in the early 2000s, leaving the general public largely unaccustomed to encountering them in their daily lives.

The high-profile Chinese spy balloon incident last year that ended with it being shot down by a US fighter jet spotlighted aerial surveillance as a potential threat to public safety and national security. Terrorist and insurgent operations, as well as the widespread use of drone warfare in Ukraine, have also heightened fears regarding their possible weaponization.

And there are real risks, regardless of whether drone activity is malicious. As drone technology proliferates further, activities around military bases and airfields are becoming a "huge problem" for the US, Mark Cancian, a defense expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a retired US Marine Corps colonel, recently told BI.

A US military base in Ohio briefly closed its airspace after small drones were spotted in the area, and the runways at a New York airport were also briefly shut down due to nearby drone activity.

Sociologist and New York Times columnist Zeynep Tufekci wrote that the hysteria and drama of the recent drone situation aside, "unauthorized drones are a problem, and there does need to be better regulation and technology to deal with them. Let's hear about that, then, rather than this mindless dangerous panic."