MIL Submissions Engine

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Clear, Lecturer in Constitutional and Administrative Law, and Public Procurement, Bangor University

Peter Mandelson has stepped down from the House of Lords over fresh revelations about his links to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. These now include emails suggesting thousands of pounds were sent to Mandelson’s husband, that Mandelson lobbied against US bank reforms on behalf of Epstein while he was a UK government minister, and that he shared sensitive information with him. The prime minister, Keir Starmer, had signalled that he wanted him out of the Lords “by hook or by crook”.

He is lucky that Mandelson took the hint and resigned because the prime minister doesn’t currently have the power to remove members of the Lords. And while Mandelson is leaving the House, he will keep his title. He remains Lord Peter Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool, even though the prime minister has said he does not think it right that he should use the title.

Prior to reforms brought in by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2014, removing a member of the House of Lords was virtually impossible. Erskine May (the authoritative guide to parliamentary practice) states that membership of the House was effectively for life.

Prior to the changes, life peers could not resign, and could, in theory, stop attending indefinitely without losing their seat in the Lords. Even imprisonment did not, technically, end their membership of the house. The House of Lords couldn’t expel its own members. It could only, temporarily, suspend them.

Death was the only automatic membership termination. Peers who wanted to retire could not, those who never attended remained, and those guilty of serious crimes or misconduct could not be permanently removed.

The 2014 reforms brought in some options, including voluntary resignation or retirement by giving written notice, automatic removal if a peer fails to attend the House at all during an entire parliamentary session (unless they have approved leave of absence) and expulsion if convicted of a serious criminal offence and sentenced to more than one year in prison.

Further reforms in 2015 also made it possible to expel or suspend a peer following a report by the Lords’ Conduct Committee for serious misconduct.

But as it stands, removal from the House of Lords cannot be instigated by the prime minister, UK government, or the king.

This was all a grave concern for the government as allegations continued to flow about Mandelson. Had he not stepped aside – or been convinced to step aside behind closed doors – there would have been little Starmer could have done to remove him through government powers alone.

What about the title?

The issue surrounding Lord Mandelson’s title is more complex. Removal from the chamber does not automatically mean removal of the title. As described in Gadd’s Peerage Law, once the Crown has granted a peerage it is “very difficult to deprive the holder of it” .

Unlike membership of the House of Lords, a peerage title cannot be relinquished. Not even the Crown has the power to cancel one once created by “letters patent” – a legal document issued by the sovereign and adorned with the Great Seal.

The government confirmed last year that an act of parliament is required to remove a peerage title once conferred. This has happened before, under the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, which removed the peerages of members who had aided Brtain’s enemies during the War. The need for an Act of Parliament has also been reaffirmed recently with the removal of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s titles.

Given these complexities, it has been reported that the prime minister’s office believes it is “exceptionally constitutionally difficult” to remove Mandelson’s title, even with a large Commons majority. Even though Starmer has called for action to be taken, it’s not entirely clear how this will happen.

Mandelson’s resignation enables the Lords and government to avoid having to take action to expel a peer for now, but it’s worth noting that the 2024 Labour manifesto promised to make it easier to remove disgraced members.

That said, this needs to be a matter for the Lords first to consider internally. If the prime minister tries to award himself the power to remove members, this could further weaken constitutional safeguards in the future and jeopardise the system of check and balance that the House of Lords offers against the power of the UK government, albeit in a subordinate way.

Any future reform in this area must be mindful of the precedent it creates, and what that might mean for future governments’ decisions surrounding who sits in the House of Lords, and, importantly, who is forced out.

Stephen Clear does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Peter Mandelson steps down from the House of Lords – but he still has his title – https://theconversation.com/peter-mandelson-steps-down-from-the-house-of-lords-but-he-still-has-his-title-275023

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Manal Mohammed, Senior Lecturer, Medical Microbiology, University of Westminster

Scientists are calling for urgent action on free-living amoebas – a little-known group of microbes that could pose a growing global health threat. Here’s what you need to know.

Free-living amoebas are single-celled organisms that don’t need a host to live. They are found in soil and water, from puddles to lakes.

What makes them remarkable is their ability to change shape and move using temporary arm-like extensions called pseudopodia – literally “false feet”. This allows them to thrive in an astonishing range of environments.

What is the ‘brain-eating amoeba’ and how dangerous is it?

The most notorious free-living amoeba is Naegleria fowleri, commonly known as the “brain-eating amoeba”. It lives naturally in warm freshwater, typically between 30°C and 40°C – lakes, rivers and hot springs. But it is rarely found in temperate countries such as the UK, due to the cold weather.

The infection happens when contaminated water enters through the nose, usually while swimming. From there, the amoeba travels along the nasal passages to the brain, where it destroys brain tissue. The outcome is usually devastating, with a mortality rate of 95%-99%.

Occasionally, Naegleria fowleri has been found in tap water, particularly when it’s warm and hasn’t been properly chlorinated. Some people have become infected while using contaminated tap water to rinse their sinuses for religious or health reasons.

Fortunately, you cannot get infected by drinking contaminated water, and the infection doesn’t spread from person to person.

Why are these amoebas so difficult to kill?

Brain-eating amoebas can be killed by proper water treatment and chlorination. But eliminating them from water systems isn’t always straightforward.

When they attach to biofilms – communities of microorganisms that form inside pipes – disinfectants like chlorine struggle to reach them, and organic matter can reduce the disinfectants’ effectiveness.

The amoeba can also survive warm temperatures by forming “cysts” – hard protective shells – making it harder to control in water networks, especially during summer or in poorly maintained systems.

What is the ‘Trojan-horse effect’ and why does it matter?

Free-living amoebas aren’t just dangerous on their own. They can also act as living shields for other harmful microbes, protecting them from environmental stress and disinfection.

While amoebas normally feed on bacteria, fungi and viruses, some bacteria – like Mycobacterium tuberculosis (which causes TB) and Legionella pneumophila (which causes legionnaires’ disease) – have evolved to survive and multiply inside them. This helps these pathogens survive longer and potentially become more dangerous.

Amoebas also shelter fungi such as Cryptococcus neoformans, which can cause fungal meningitis. It can also shelter viruses, such as human norovirus and adenovirus, which cause respiratory, eye and gastrointestinal infections.

By protecting these pathogens, amoebas help them survive longer in water and soil, and may even help spread antibiotic resistance.

How is climate change making the problem worse?

Climate change is probably making the threat from free-living amoebas worse by creating more favourable conditions for their growth.

Naegleria fowleri thrives in warm freshwater. As global temperatures rise, the habitable zone for these heat-loving amoebas has expanded into regions that were previously too cool. This potentially exposes more people to them through recreational water use.

Several recent outbreaks linked to recreational water exposure have already raised public concern in multiple countries. These climate-driven changes – warmer waters, longer warm seasons, and increased human contact with water – make controlling the risks more difficult than ever before.

Are our water systems adequately checked for these organisms?

Most water systems are not routinely checked for free-living amoebas. The organisms are rare, can hide in biofilms or sediments, and require specialised tests to detect, making routine monitoring expensive and technically challenging.

Instead, water safety relies on proper chlorination, maintaining disinfectant levels, and flushing systems regularly, rather than testing directly for the amoeba. While some guidance exists for high-risk areas, widespread monitoring is not standard practice.

Beyond brain infections, what other health risks do these amoebas pose?

Free-living amoebas aren’t just a threat to the brain. They can cause painful eye infections, particularly in contact lens users, skin lesions in people with weakened immune systems, and rare but serious systemic infections affecting organs such as the lungs, liver and kidneys.

What’s being done to address this threat?

Free-living amoebas such as Naegleria fowleri are rare but can be deadly, so prevention is crucial. These organisms don’t fit neatly into either medical or environmental categories – they span both, requiring a holistic approach that links environmental surveillance, water management, and clinical awareness to reduce risk.

Environmental change, gaps in water treatment and expanding habitats make monitoring – and clear communication of risk – more important than ever.

Keeping water systems properly chlorinated, flushing hot water systems, and following safe recreational water and contact lens hygiene guidelines all help reduce the chance of infection. Meanwhile, researchers continue to improve detection methods and doctors work to recognise cases early.

Should people be worried about their tap water or going swimming?

People cannot get infected with free-living amoebas like Naegleria fowleri by drinking water, even if it contains the organism. Infection occurs only when contaminated water enters the nose, allowing the amoeba to reach the brain. Swallowing the water poses no risk because the amoeba cannot survive or invade through the digestive tract.

The risk from swimming in well-maintained pools or treated water is extremely low. The danger comes from warm, untreated freshwater, particularly during hot weather.

What can people do to protect themselves?

People can protect themselves from free-living amoebas by reducing exposure to warm, stagnant water. Simple steps include avoiding putting your head underwater in lakes or rivers during hot weather, using nose clips when swimming, choosing well-maintained pools, and keeping home water systems properly flushed and heated.

Contact lens users should follow strict hygiene and never rinse lenses with tap water. For nasal rinsing, only use sterile, distilled, or previously boiled water.

Awareness is key. If you develop a severe headache, fever, nausea, or stiff neck after freshwater exposure, seek medical attention immediately – early treatment is critical.

Manal Mohammed does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why are scientists calling for urgent action on amoebas? – https://theconversation.com/why-are-scientists-calling-for-urgent-action-on-amoebas-274455

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Bradley Elliott, Reader in Ageing Physiology, University of Westminster

Why do some people live to 100 while their sibling dies decades earlier? Is it luck, lifestyle, or something written into their DNA?

Relative to many other species, humans are particularly long lived, but there is an ongoing argument about how much of our long lifespan is shaped by our genes and how much to our environment. It’s the old “nature versus nurture” debate.

Researchers have repeatedly used large population studies to estimate how much genetics influences longevity. Historically, these studies have found relatively modest effects, typically around 25% to 33%, with some estimates as low as 6-16%.

A recent study published in Science challenged this trend, revising the estimate upward to about 50% by accounting for changes in external causes of death – such as accidents and infectious diseases – and separating the effects of genetics and environment in large historical cohorts of twins.

We know that individual genes affect lifespans in different species. A single mutation in the gene coding for the insulin sensor of worms would cause them to double their lifespan. Since that 1993 discovery, scientists have experimentally extended the lifespans of flies and mice, and even found hints of similar effects in long-lived humans.

However, the effect of this single gene variation seems to be lessened as the species becomes more long lived, so don’t expect a single gene mutation to suddenly cause 200-year human life expectancies. Also, these were gene mutations affecting the sensitivity of insulin and insulin-like growth factor hormones – in other words, the mutations seem to mimic the metabolic effects of a healthy diet and regular exercise.

Perhaps an obvious statement to make, but many of our body’s traits, including longevity, are the sum of all our inherited genes, not just a single gene. But how much is genetics and how much is lifestyle is the open question.

This amount is more than an interesting number. If genetics mostly controls how long we live, then new anti-ageing treatments and lifestyle changes won’t help much. But if genetics plays a smaller role, then what we do and the treatments we use could make a bigger difference in how long we live.

Nature’s perfect experiment

To tackle this question, the authors of the Science paper used data from the Swedish Adoption/Twin Study of Ageing. Because it includes a rare set of twins raised apart, the data makes it easier to tease apart the effects of genes and environment, creating something close to a natural experiment in humans.

By studying monozygotic (“identical”) twins, or people with identical genomes born between 1900 and 1935 and attempting to correct for rapidly changing external influences of health and mortality during this period, the authors conclude that the inherited influence of lifespan is about 50%.

Put another way, about 50% of your potential lifespan is given to you by your parents, and the other 50% is the environment you live in. Things such as exercise, nutrition, sleep, stress, pollution and infectious disease exposure all fall into this external category.

The researchers then validated their models using data from populations in Denmark and the US. However, this also means the study populations were largely white, wealthy and European. Including more diverse populations will be important for determining how well these findings apply to humanity as a whole.

The reason that the authors put forward for their number being so much higher than others is their accounting for the effects of changing external influences on longevity, things such as improving sanitation and medication.

Indeed, if they don’t correct for external causes of death, their model finds numbers in the 20-30% range, or much closer to prior estimates. As the authors note, many health traits seem to be about 50% heritable, so there’s an internal logic of longevity as a trait following this trend.

These estimates could still change. Longevity studies in humans are time consuming, relying on historical records or following populations over roughly 100 years as people live their normal lives. As the authors note: “Heritability is a statistic that applies to a particular population in a particular environment at a particular time.”

This doesn’t mean that your personal actions aren’t helping you – this debate probably isn’t over yet. This is the largest estimate of the effect of genetics on longevity to emerge recently in the scientific literature, but even if genes account for about half our lifespan’s story, the other half is still being written every day.

Bradley Elliott receives funding from the Physiological Society, the British Society for Research on Ageing, the Altitude Centre, and private philanthropic individuals, and has consulted for industry and government on longevity research. He is on the Board of Trustees of the British Society for Research on Ageing.

– ref. What new twins study reveals about genes, environment and longevity – https://theconversation.com/what-new-twins-study-reveals-about-genes-environment-and-longevity-274763

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ed Hawkins, Professor of Climate Science, University of Reading

The world is warming. This fact is most often discussed for the Earth’s surface, where we live. But the climate is also changing from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean. And there is a clear fingerprint of humanity’s role in causing these changes through greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels.

Over the last several decades, satellites have monitored the Earth and measured how much heat enters and leaves the atmosphere. Over that time, as greenhouse gas concentrations have increased in the atmosphere, there has been less heat escaping to space, causing an imbalance with more heat being retained.

The consequence is a rapidly heating planet.

The “warming stripes” are one striking and simple way of visually highlighting the resulting variations in Earth’s surface temperature using shades of blue and red for cool and warm, with one stripe per year.

One billion individual measurements of a thermometer combine to produce the clearest picture of our warming planet from 1850 to 2025. The last 11 years have been the warmest 11 years on record and this sequence is unlikely to end anytime soon.

We recently extended this concept upwards through the atmosphere and downwards into the ocean, although the available datasets are shorter.

Satellites have monitored the temperature of different layers of the atmosphere since 1979. The warming stripes for the troposphere (the lowest layers of the atmosphere, within which commercial flights operate) are very similar to the warming stripes of the surface, with the warmest years predominantly occurring over the last decade. Instead of using surface temperature measurements from thermometers, the atmospheric temperature is measured by instruments on satellites called radiometers that detect how much infrared radiation is emitted from air molecules. These satellite-based estimates help corroborate the surface warming that we have already observed.

Higher up in the atmosphere, the picture changes.

The warming stripes over the upper atmosphere (the part called the stratosphere that’s above typical airline cruising height) reveal a cooling trend, with the warmest years around 1980 and the coolest years over the past decade. This feature may appear surprising. If the atmosphere is gaining heat, shouldn’t the stratosphere be warming too?

Actually, this feature is a clear fingerprint of how human activities are the direct cause of our changing climate.

Why is there this pattern of temperature change? The concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased throughout the atmosphere, making the atmosphere more efficient at absorbing and giving off heat. In the lower atmosphere, this effect acts as a blanket, retaining more heat and warming the surface.

Higher up, where the air is thin and very little heat arrives from below, extra carbon dioxide allows the stratosphere to lose more heat to space than it gains, so the stratosphere cools. Another factor is the destruction of stratospheric ozone by substances known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which produces cooling in the lower stratosphere.

This human-caused fingerprint of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere was first suggested by scientists as a consequence of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the 1960s, long before the cooling stratosphere was observed. Importantly, this pattern would not be seen if, for example, changes in the sun’s brightness were the primary cause of global warming, which instead would lead to warming throughout the atmosphere.

Beneath the surface

Warming stripes for different depth levels in the ocean reveal a broadly similar warming trend as at the surface, with the warmest years occurring over the past decade. The timing of the warming also suggests the heat moves downwards into the ocean from the surface, again consistent with a human influence.

This uptake of heat by the ocean is important, as otherwise there would be a much greater rise in surface air temperature. Globally, the ocean accounts for around 90% of the extra heat stored by the planet. We also see sea levels rising due to sea water getting warmer and expanding, and because land ice is melting and entering the ocean as extra water.

All these observations tell a very clear story. The burning of fossil fuels increases the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The physics of why such an increase should warm the surface was understood in the 1850s, before the warming was observed. And the pattern of change observed from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean indicates that greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause.

But, what happens next? Because our emissions are causing the climate to change, our collective global choices about future emissions matter.

Rapid action to reduce emissions will stabilise global surface temperatures but delayed action means worse consequences. Which choice will we make?

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Ed Hawkins receives funding from UKRI NERC grants and is supported by the National Centre for Atmospheric Science.

Ric Williams receives funding from UKRI NERC grants and works at University of Liverpool.

– ref. Climate ‘fingerprints’ mark human activity from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean – https://theconversation.com/climate-fingerprints-mark-human-activity-from-the-top-of-the-atmosphere-to-the-bottom-of-the-ocean-274659

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Biggin, Professor of Geomagnetism, University of Liverpool

While we have sent probes billions of kilometres into interstellar space, humans have barely scratched the surface of our own planet, not even making it through the thin crust.

Information about Earth’s deep interior comes mainly from geophysics and is at a premium. We know it consists of a solid crust, a rocky mantle, a liquid outer core and solid inner core. But what precisely goes on in each layer – and between them – is a mystery. Now our research uses our planet’s magnetism to cast light on the most significant interface in the Earth’s interior: its core-mantle boundary.

Roughly 3,000km beneath our feet, Earth’s outer core, an unfathomably deep ocean of molten iron alloy, endlessly churns to produce a global magnetic field stretching out far into space. Sustaining this “geodynamo”, and the planetary force-field it has produced for the past several billions of years (protecting Earth from harmful radiation), takes a lot of energy.

This was delivered to the core as heat during the Earth’s formation. But it is only released to drive the geodynamo as it conducts outwards to cooler, solid rock floating above in the mantle. Without this massive internal heat transfer from core to mantle and ultimately through the crust to the surface, Earth would be like our nearest neighbours Mars and Venus: magnetically dead.

Enter the Blobs

Maps showing how fast seismic waves (vibrations of acoustic energy) that traverse Earth’s rocky mantle change in its lowermost part, just above the core. Especially notable are two vast regions close to the equator beneath Africa and the Pacific Ocean, where seismic waves travel more slowly than elsewhere.

What makes these “big lower-mantle basal structures”, or “Blobs” for short, special is not clear. They are made of solid rock similar to the surrounding mantle, but may be higher in temperature, or different in composition, or both.

Strong variations in temperature at the base of the mantle would be expected to affect the underlying liquid core and the magnetic field that is generated there. The solid mantle changes temperature and flows at an exceptionally slow rate (millimetres per year), so any magnetic signature from strong temperature contrasts should persist for millions of years.

From rocks to supercomputers

Our study reports new evidence that these Blobs are hotter than the surrounding lower mantle. And this has had a noticeable effect on Earth’s magnetic field over the last few hundreds of millions of years at least.

As igneous rocks, recently solidified from molten magma, cool down at Earth’s surface in the presence of its magnetic field, they acquire a permanent magnetism that is aligned with the direction of this field at that time and place.

It is already well known that this direction changes with latitude. We observed, however, that the magnetic directions recorded by rocks up to 250 million years old also seemed to depend on where the rocks had formed in longitude. The effect was particularly noticeable at low latitudes . We therefore wondered whether the Blobs might be responsible.

The clincher came from comparing these magnetic observations to simulations of the geodynamo run on a supercomputer. One set was run assuming that the rate of heat flowing from core to mantle was the same everywhere. These either showed very little tendency for the magnetic field to vary in longitude or else the field they produced collapsed into a persistently chaotic state, which is also inconsistent with observations.

By contrast, when we placed a pattern on the core’s surface that included strong variations in the amount of heat being sucked into the mantle, the magnetic fields behaved differently. Most tellingly, assuming that the rate of heat flowing into the Blobs was about half as high as into other, cooler, parts of the mantle meant that the magnetic fields produced by the simulations contained longitudinal structures reminiscent of the records from ancient rocks.

A further finding was that these fields were less prone to collapsing. Adding the Blobs therefore enabled us to reproduce the observed stable behaviour of Earth’s magnetic field over a wider range.

What seems to be happening is that the two hot Blobs are insulating the liquid metal beneath them, preventing heat loss that would otherwise cause the fluid to thermally contract and sink down into the core. Since it is the flow of core fluid that generates more magnetic field, these stagnant ponds of metal do not participate in the geodynamo process.

Furthermore, in the same way that a mobile phone can lose its signal by being placed within a metal box, these stationary areas of conductive liquid act to “screen” the magnetic field generated by the circulating liquid below. The huge Blobs therefore gave rise to characteristic longitudinally varying patterns in the shape and variability of Earth’s magnetic field. And this mapped on to what was recorded by rocks formed at low latitudes.

Most of the time, the shape of Earth’s magnetic field is quite similar to that which would be produced by a bar magnet aligned with the planet’s rotation axis. This is what makes a magnetic compass point nearly north at most places on Earth’s surface, most of the time.

Collapses into weak, multipolar states, have occurred many time over geological history but they are quite rare and the field seems to have recovered fairly quickly afterwards. In the simulations at least, Blobs seem to help make this the case.

So, while we still have a lot to learn about what the Blobs are and how they originated, it may be that in helping to keep the magnetic field stable and useful for humanity, we have much to thank them for.

Andrew Biggin receives funding from the Natural Environment Research Council.

– ref. How giant ‘Blobs’ of rock have influenced Earth’s magnetic field for millions of years – new research – https://theconversation.com/how-giant-blobs-of-rock-have-influenced-earths-magnetic-field-for-millions-of-years-new-research-272378

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Meera Iona Inglis, Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Glasgow

Campaigns like Veganuary (an initiative that encourages people to eat a plant-based diet in January) have been hugely successful in raising awareness about the climate and the health benefits of eating this way. However, making the switch longer term is not always easy – especially when there are usually limited meat-free options in workplaces.

For our recent study, my colleagues and I worked with Derek Bell (professor of environmental politics at Newcastle University) to identify public institutions like hospitals, universities and local councils as key players in the move towards a more sustainable food system. They account for a significant amount of the food that is sold in the UK – 5-6% of all food sales or £2.4 billion annually. They can also influence our dietary choices and help shift social norms around food consumption.

However, getting caterers to become more plant-based can be controversial. Some argue that public institutions should not limit our freedom of choice when it comes to what we eat, or that it is insensitive to the cultural preferences of staff and clients.

Our work tries to tackle these concerns. While eliminating or reducing the offering of meat and dairy might limit options, public institutions already limit our choices in various ways to promote health and sustainability. Also, norms and expectations can change. The 2006 public smoking ban initially faced considerable resistance, but support for it has since greatly increased, including among smokers.

Thoughtful catering

When introduced thoughtfully, plant-based catering has proved popular. In 2021, New York City Health + Hospitals, the largest municipal health system in the US, made plant-based food the default option for its inpatient meals. Their menus are both nutritionally balanced – assuaging worries about poorly designed vegan and vegetarian menus – and offer users a diverse range of choices. The menu includes Moroccan vegetable tagine, Spanish vegetable paella and a pad Thai noodle bowl.

Read more:
Here’s how far people want the government to limit their freedoms for the sake of the planet – new research

This shows how plant-based catering can take into account different dietary needs, while respecting a range of cultural backgrounds and not restricting the ability of people to choose. As many as 95% of eligible patients did not request alternative meals, and 90% reported being satisfied. Many patients reported that they would continue to eat vegetarian meals at home. This shows the power of defaults, and the influence public institutions can have on our actions.

New York City Health + Hospitals has also shown tangible environmental and economic gains. Its food-related carbon emissions fell by 36%, while food bills also went down: these meals cost roughly 59 cents (£0.43) less per tray than meat-based alternatives.

We’re seeing changes happening elsewhere too. In the UK, a growing number of universities are gradually shifting towards more plant-based catering. Sometimes this is being encouraged by students: at the universities of Kent, Lancaster and University College London, student unions have voted in favour of lobbying their university to adopt more sustainable and healthy catering options. In 2021, the four universities in Berlin successfully changed their menus to 68% vegan, 28% vegetarian and just 4% meat dishes. Like the New York City hospitals, they offer a wide range of nutritionally balanced meals with flavours from around the world.

Providing the right kinds of plant-based foods is an effective way of countering worries that people have about the health risks of going vegetarian or vegan, and about restricting their dietary preferences. In short, a well planned menu can keep plant-based foods on the table beyond Veganuary.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Meera Iona Inglis is affiliated with the RSPB. This piece is based entirely on her academic research and is not funded by the RSPB or representative of the organisation’s views.

Andrew Walton and Johannes Kniess do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How to keep plant-based foods on the table now that Veganuary is over – https://theconversation.com/how-to-keep-plant-based-foods-on-the-table-now-that-veganuary-is-over-274131