Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Marguerite Xenopoulos, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Global Change of Freshwater Ecosystems, Trent University
Fifty years ago, winter didn’t just visit the Great Lakes — it took up residence. If you blinked too slowly, your eyelashes froze together. Standing on the ice at the edge of Lake Superior, just after an early January snowstorm, everything was white and still, except for the lake. The wind had swept across it revealing ice cracked along thunderous fractures.
Usually by Christmas, Lake Huron’s Saginaw Bay would be locked in — thick enough for trucks, ice shanties dotting the horizon like little wooden cities. People hauled augers and bait out before dawn, thermoses of black coffee steaming in the cold.
The air, wet and gray, hovered above freezing. The ground was muddy. Kids tried sledding on dead grass. Businesses that rented shanties stayed shuttered and people wondered if this is how winters would be going forward.
The environmental and social consequences of warming winters are impacting lakes globally. Despite these clear signs, most Great Lakes monitoring occurs during warmer, calmer weather.
As professors researching winter and members of the International Joint Commission Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, we’ve developed evidence-based advice for policymakers in Canada and the United States on water quality priorities and co-ordination. To strengthen international monitoring co-operation, we recommend adding winter monitoring to fully understand what ails the lakes.
In the Great Lakes region, businesses, visitors and more than 35 million residents see winter warming symptoms year-round. Shifting seasons increase nutrient runoff, fuelling algal blooms that foul summer beach days.
Winter is changing the most, but studied the least
We are losing winter on the Great Lakes before fully understanding how the season affects the ecosystem and communities. Our review of recent literature shows winter is understudied.
Researchers have limited understanding of the physical, biological and biogeochemical processes at play. Changes to these processes can affect water quality, ecosystem and human health, and the region’s social, cultural and economic well-being, yet understanding them is difficult without the necessary background.
Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Canadian and American agencies monitor and report water quality and health indicators. The agreement establishes objectives for Great Lakes water quality, including keeping them safe for drinking, recreation and consumption of fish and wildlife. However, current efforts focus on warm months.
Expanding to winter would address key data gaps. Ad-hoc studies already show winter warrants systematic monitoring. In 2022, a dozen Canadian and U.S. universities and agencies collected under-ice samples across the basin in the Great Lakes Winter Grab.
Teams travelled by foot or snowmobiles and drilled through the ice to collaboratively gather a snapshot of lake life and water quality conditions across all five Great Lakes.
What followed was a grassroots Great Lakes Winter Network of academics and government researchers to better understand how rapidly winter conditions are changing, with the aim to improve data sharing, resource co-ordination and knowledge exchange.
Annual maximum ice coverage on the Great Lakes from 1973 to 2025. Despite significant variance year to year, ice coverage on the lakes has declined by roughly 0.5 per cent annually since 1973. (NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory)
Impacts on communities
Warmer winters are linked to increased drownings from unstable ice. Greater nutrient runoff fuels harmful algal blooms and complicates drinking water treatment.
Winter also shapes cultural identity and recreation. From snowshoeing to skating on frozen lake waters, residents and visitors to the Great Lakes region can share happy memories of wintertime activities. Its loss can erode community ties, traditions and livelihoods.
Collecting samples on Lake Erie to study wintertime conditions in the lake. This research was conducted as part of the 2022 Great Lakes Winter Grab. (Paul Glyshaw/NOAA)
Strengthening Great Lakes winter science
Data collection in cold-weather conditions poses logistical challenges. Researchers need specialized equipment, trained personnel and co-ordinated approaches for safe, efficient observations. Expanding Great Lakes winter science requires more resources.
Our new report highlights knowledge gaps in winter processes, socioeconomic and cultural impacts of changing conditions, and how to strengthen Great Lakes winter science.
The report also cites infrastructure limits, calling for more training so scientists can work safely in cold conditions, such as the 2024 Winter Limnology Network training workshop. Better data management and sharing are also needed to maximize the value of collected information.
Great Lakes winter science is growing, but improved capacity and co-ordination are essential to keep pace with changing conditions. These changes affect not only ecosystems but also communities. Strengthening winter science will help safeguard the health and well-being of those who live, work and play across the Great Lakes basin.
Marguerite Xenopoulos receives funding from Canada Research Chairs and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.
Michael R. Twiss is affiliated with the International Association for Great Lakes Research.
La lecture d’un texte à voix haute l’enrichit d’une interprétation et d’une dimension émotionnelle. Mais dans quelle mesure l’écoute d’un livre en format audio aide-t-elle à mieux comprendre un texte ? Peut-elle concurrencer des pratiques de lecture classiques dans un cadre scolaire ?
Qu’il s’agisse de documents présents dans les manuels scolaires ou de fictions narratives étudiées en cours de lettres, la lecture de textes reste un pilier des apprentissages. Mais l’essor du livre audio ouvre de nouvelles possibilités d’approches.
Peut-on envisager d’écouter des œuvres littéraires au programme plutôt que de les lire de manière classique ? Et, en ce cas, l’écoute d’un texte permet-elle la même compréhension que sa lecture ?
Lire ou écouter : des différences limitées en apparence
Dans une méta-analyse publiée dans la Review of Educational Research et prenant en compte les résultats de 46 études menées entre 1955 et 2020, incluant au total 4 687 participants enfants et adultes, Virginia Clinton-Lisell, enseignante-chercheuse en psychologie de l’éducation à l’Université du Dakota du Nord, constate que les niveaux de compréhension ne diffèrent pas significativement lorsque les mêmes textes sont lus ou écoutés.
Ce résultat peut être rapproché d’une étude de Madison Berl et de ses collègues, publiée en 2010 dans le journal Brain and Language, montrant que des enfants âgés de 7 ans à 12 ans activent des régions cérébrales communes lors de l’écoute et de la lecture d’histoires. Ces régions comprennent notamment un réseau fronto-temporal impliqué dans des traitements sémantiques et syntaxiques partagés entre les deux modalités d’exploration, que les auteurs qualifient de « cortex de la compréhension ».
Un réseau comparable, auquel s’ajoutait la région pariétale, était également activé par des adultes qui écoutaient ou lisaient la même histoire dans l’étude de Fatma Deniz et de ses collègues, publiée en 2019 dans The Journal of Neuroscience.
Adapter son rythme avec la lecture classique
Cependant, la méta-analyse de Clinton-Lisell souligne aussi que la compréhension devient meilleure en lecture qu’en écoute lorsque les participants peuvent lire à leur propre rythme. La lecture offre en effet la possibilité d’ajuster librement sa vitesse : ralentir face à une difficulté, revenir en arrière ou vérifier une information. Ce contrôle cognitif n’est pas possible lors de l’écoute d’un texte dont le rythme est fixé, sans possibilité de retour en arrière aussi naturelle.
De plus, la lecture s’avère plus efficace que l’écoute lorsque la compréhension générale et inférentielle est évaluée, alors que cette différence ne se retrouve pas pour la compréhension littérale.
L’écoute, qui impose un rythme et une structure sonore, rend plus difficiles la mise en œuvre de stratégies de compréhension et la génération d’inférences – c’est-à-dire de liens entre les idées issues du texte et les connaissances et souvenirs dont dispose chacun. La lecture, au contraire, offre une plus grande liberté d’organisation mentale et favorise une créativité interprétative, soutenue par des processus de régulation attentionnelle et de contrôle cognitif.
Lorsqu’il s’agit d’amener les élèves à développer une réflexion plus approfondie, la lecture demeure la modalité la plus efficace. Elle stimule la création d’inférences, essentielles pour établir la cohérence du texte – gage d’une compréhension fine et profonde.
Avec l’écoute, une dimension émotionnelle
L’écoute d’un texte présente toutefois certains avantages, notamment sur le plan de l’expérience vécue.
Elle implique la perception de voix, d’intonations et de prosodies qui, pour les personnes qui y sont sensibles, apportent une dimension affective et émotionnelle plus directe que la lecture silencieuse. Elle peut également faciliter l’accès au texte pour des élèves en difficulté de lecture, en réduisant la charge visuelle et en soutenant la continuité de l’attention.
Cependant, l’écoute sollicite aussi l’attention auditive, qui constitue en soi une compétence spécifique, mobilisant à la fois la mémoire de travail et l’attention soutenue. Elle demande de maintenir une vigilance soutenue face à un flux verbal continu, ce qui peut représenter un défi pour certains élèves, notamment ceux ayant des difficultés de concentration ou de traitement auditif. L’écoute favorise alors une immersion auditive susceptible d’améliorer la compréhension globale du récit, même si elle n’offre pas toujours le même degré de contrôle sur les détails du texte.
Cette mise en voix peut renforcer l’engagement de l’auditeur et enrichir la réception d’un texte narratif, en accentuant la présence des personnages et le rythme du récit. La lecture, de son côté, permet une forme de dialogue intérieur et une suspension du temps propice à la réflexion.
L’anthropologue Michèle Petit décrit très subtilement, dans son ouvrage Lire le monde (2014), la force de l’expérience de la lecture à tout âge. Dans le chapitre intitulé « À quoi ça sert de lire ? », elle évoque plusieurs vertus de la lecture, parmi lesquelles la capacité à se retirer du tumulte, à s’ouvrir à d’autres mondes et à se construire soi-même. La section « Lever les yeux de son livre » illustre particulièrement bien cette expérience singulière : celle d’une lecture qui permet de suspendre le fil du texte pour laisser naître une pensée, une image ou un souvenir – ce que l’écoute, plus linéaire, favorise moins.
Former un assemblage cognitif vertueux
La professeure de littérature Katherine Hayles propose dans plusieurs de ses ouvrages – le plus récent étant Bacteria to AI: Human Futures with Our Nonhuman Symbionts (2025) – le concept d’« assemblage cognitif » pour désigner les systèmes hybrides dans lesquels les humains interagissent avec des technologies qui prolongent leurs capacités mentales. Si ce cadre concerne d’abord la relation entre humains et ordinateurs, il peut être élargi à la manière dont nous faisons corps avec les supports de la lecture et de l’écoute.
Lire un texte ou l’écouter relève de formes distinctes d’assemblages cognitifs, chacun mobilisant différemment nos sens, notre attention, notre mémoire et nos émotions. Apprendre à reconnaître ces différences – et à choisir la modalité la plus adaptée selon le but visé (lecture approfondie ou écoute immersive) et selon nos préférences (exploration plutôt visuelle et tactile, voire olfactive, ou auditive) – revient à former un assemblage cognitif vertueux, capable de tirer parti de la richesse de chaque mode d’interaction avec le langage et la culture.
Pour l’école, l’enjeu n’est donc pas de choisir entre lecture et écoute, mais d’apprendre aux élèves à reconnaître la valeur propre de chaque mode et à les combiner de manière réfléchie.
Cette prise de conscience des modalités d’exploration des textes participe d’une pédagogie différenciée, attentive aux styles d’apprentissage. Elle invite à développer une véritable éducation à la métacognition : apprendre à observer sa manière d’apprendre, à ajuster son rythme et à choisir le support le plus adapté selon le contexte.
Savoir quand lire, quand écouter et comment passer de l’un à l’autre – voire combiner les deux modes –, c’est apprendre à ajuster sa manière d’apprendre, et, plus largement, à penser par soi-même.
Frédéric Bernard ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
Source: The Conversation – France in French (3) – By Elizabeth Sheppard Sellam, Responsable du programme « Politiques et relations internationales » à la faculté de langues étrangères, Université de Tours
Recours aux forces fédérales sur le territoire des États-Unis, désignation de l’opposition politique comme « ennemi intérieur », démantèlement de nombreuses agences, remise en cause de nombreux droits sociétaux… Depuis son arrivée au pouvoir en janvier, l’administration Trump met en œuvre un programme d’une grande dureté, qui correspond largement aux préconisations du « Project 2025 », document publié en 2023 par le groupe de réflexion de droite ultraconservatrice l’Heritage Foundation.
La controverse survient quelques jours seulement après un discours prononcé par Donald Trump à Quantico (Virginie) devant un immense parterre de hauts gradés de l’armée. Le président y a déclaré, à propos de plusieurs grandes cités dont les maires sont issus du Parti démocrate, citant San Francisco, Chicago, New York ou encore Los Angeles :
« Nous devrions utiliser certaines de ces villes dangereuses comme terrains d’entraînement pour notre armée. »
Et d’ajouter :
« Nous subissons une invasion de l’intérieur. Ce n’est pas différent d’un ennemi étranger, mais c’est à bien des égards plus difficile, car ils ne portent pas d’uniformes. »
Ces initiatives n’ont rien d’improvisé : elles reprennent les orientations du « Project 2025 », le manuel de gouvernement conçu par le think tank Heritage Foundation, qui préconise un renforcement de l’autorité présidentielle et une redéfinition des menaces intérieures.
Le Project 2025, de manifeste à manuel de gouvernement
Lorsque l’Heritage Foundation – traditionnellement considérée comme un groupe de réflexion conservateur mais qui, ces dernières années, a pris un tournant de plus en plus radical – a présenté, en 2023, son Project 2025, le document a suscité un mélange de curiosité et d’inquiétude. Il consiste en près de 900 pages de recommandations visant à renforcer le pouvoir présidentiel et à réduire l’autonomie des contre-pouvoirs institutionnels – notamment le Congrès, la « bureaucratie » fédérale et certaines instances judiciaires.
En France comme en Europe, le Project 2025 reste presque inconnu. Le débat public retient davantage les outrances de Donald Trump que les textes programmatiques qui structurent son action. Or, depuis le début du second mandat de ce dernier, ce document s’impose en coulisses comme une feuille de route opérationnelle. Il ne s’agit plus d’un manifeste théorique, mais d’un manuel de gouvernement, conçu par l’un des think tanks les plus influents de Washington, déjà célèbre pour avoir fourni à Ronald Reagan une grande partie de son programme économique et sécuritaire, dans les années 1980.
Du texte à la pratique : des décisions qui ne doivent rien au hasard
Le bras de fer entre Donald Trump et plusieurs gouverneurs démocrates, de la Californie à l’Illinois, a déjà montré que la Maison Blanche est prête à employer la force fédérale à l’intérieur du pays. Mais ce n’est qu’un aspect d’un mouvement plus vaste.
Ainsi, l’administration a récemment qualifié Tren de Aragua, une organisation criminelle vénézuélienne, de « combattants illégaux ». En invoquant le Alien Enemies Act de 1798, rarement mobilisé, Donald Trump a transformé une organisation criminelle transnationale en adversaire militaire à traiter non plus comme un réseau mafieux, mais comme une force armée hostile. Ce glissement conceptuel, déjà prévu par le Project 2025, brouille volontairement la frontière entre sécurité intérieure et guerre extérieure.
Cette orientation trouve également son incarnation dans une figure clé du trumpisme : Stephen Miller. Chef de cabinet adjoint chargé de la politique à la Maison Blanche, celui-ci pilote les orientations actuelles en matière d’immigration. Dans ses discours, il n’hésite pas à qualifier le Parti démocrate d’« organisation extrémiste », désignant ainsi l’opposition politique comme une « menace intérieure ». Cette rhétorique illustre les principes du Project 2025 : un exécutif tout-puissant et une présidence qui assimile ses opposants à des ennemis.
Au-delà des axes déjà évoqués, l’administration Trump a engagé une multitude d’autres efforts inspirés du Project 2025, trop nombreux pour qu’il soit possible ici d’en rendre compte de manière exhaustive. Citons-en toutefois certains, qui illustrent la diversité des chantiers ouverts.
Dans le domaine éducatif, l’Executive Order 14191 a redéfini l’usage de plusieurs programmes fédéraux afin d’orienter une partie des financements vers l’école privée, confessionnelle ou « à charte ». En parallèle, l’Executive Order 14190 a imposé un réexamen des contenus jugés « radicaux » ou « idéologiques ». Ces mesures s’inscrivent dans une perspective plus large explicitement évoquée dans Project 2025 : la réduction drastique du rôle fédéral en matière d’éducation, jusqu’à l’élimination pure et simple, à terme, du Department of Education.
Dans le champ des politiques de santé reproductive, l’Executive Order 14182 est venu renforcer l’application de l’amendement Hyde, en interdisant explicitement toute utilisation de fonds fédéraux pour financer l’avortement, tandis que la réintroduction de la Mexico City Policy a coupé le financement d’organisations non gouvernementales étrangères facilitant ou promouvant l’avortement.
Par ailleurs, plusieurs décrets présidentiels – tels que l’Executive Order 14168 proclamant le « retour à la vérité biologique » dans l’administration fédérale, ou l’Executive Order 14187 qui interdit le financement fédéral des transitions de genre pour les mineurs – témoignent d’une volonté de redéfinir en profondeur les normes juridiques et administratives autour du genre et de la sexualité.
Enfin, au plan institutionnel, la Maison Blanche a imposé des gels budgétaires et des réductions de programmes qui s’inscrivent dans une stratégie de recentralisation du pouvoir exécutif et de mise au pas de la bureaucratie fédérale.
Des relais stratégiques et une duplicité assumée
Derrière Donald Trump, plusieurs figures issues des cercles conservateurs les plus structurés œuvrent à traduire Project 2025 en pratique. Le plus emblématique est Russ Vought, directeur de l’Office of Management and Budget lors du premier mandat de Donald Trump, poste qu’il a retrouvé lors du second mandat, et l’un des principaux architectes du document.
Lors de son audition de confirmation, plusieurs sénateurs l’ont présenté comme le stratège du projet et l’ont pressé de dire s’il comptait appliquer ce programme au gouvernement fédéral. Vought a soigneusement évité de s’y engager, affirmant qu’il suivrait la loi et les priorités présidentielles. Pourtant, ses initiatives depuis son retour à la Maison Blanche – notamment en matière de réorganisation administrative – reprennent directement les recommandations du manuel.
Capture d’écran d’une vidéo générée par IA, postée par Donald Trump sur son compte Truth Social, où Russ Vought est présenté comme « The Reaper » (« le Faucheur », en référence à la Grande Faucheuse, c’est-à-dire une allégorie de la Mort) qui détruit impitoyablement l’administration fédérale. Compte de Donald Trump sur Truth Social
Un scénario similaire s’est joué avec d’autres nominations. Paul Atkins, nommé à la tête de la Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC, l’organisme fédéral de réglementation et de contrôle des marchés financiers), a été interrogé en mars 2025 sur sa participation au chapitre du projet appelant à la suppression d’une agence de supervision comptable créée après le scandale Enron (la Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, PCAOB). Devant les sénateurs, Atkins a botté en touche, affirmant qu’il respecterait la décision du Congrès. Mais une fois en poste, il a engagé une révision conforme aux orientations du texte.
Le Project 2025 n’est plus un manifeste idéologique mais une feuille de route appliquée par l’équipe au pouvoir. Porté par l’Heritage Foundation et incarné par Vought et Miller, il structure désormais la pratique présidentielle : renforcement sans précédent de l’exécutif, militarisation de la sécurité intérieure, délégitimation de l’opposition. Cette orientation réduit l’emprise des contre-pouvoirs et accélère le basculement autoritaire des États-Unis.
Ce qui se joue à Washington dépasse les frontières états-uniennes. Car ce modèle assumant la confrontation avec ses opposants constitue un précédent séduisant pour les populistes européens. Ceux-ci disposent désormais d’une vitrine : la démonstration qu’une démocratie peut être reconfigurée par un projet idéologique préparé de longue date, puis appliqué une fois au pouvoir. La question demeure : combien de temps les contre-pouvoirs, aux États-Unis comme en Europe, pourront-ils résister à cette tentation autoritaire ?
Elizabeth Sheppard Sellam ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
FEMA’s buyout program helped homeowners in Houston after Hurricane Harvey’s widespread flooding in 2017.AP Photo/David J. Phillip
Dangerous flooding has damaged neighborhoods in almost every state in 2025, leaving homes a muddy mess. In several hard-hit areas, it wasn’t the first time homeowners found themselves tearing out wet wallboard and piling waterlogged carpet by the curb.
Wanting to rebuild after flooding is a common response. But for some people, the best way to stay in their community, adapt to the changing climate and recover from disasters is to do what humans have done for millennia: move.
Researchers expect millions of Americans to relocate from properties facing increasing risks of flood, fire and other kinds of disasters in the years ahead.
What people do with those high-risk properties can make their community more resilient or leave it vulnerable to more damage in future storms.
We study floodresilience and have been mapping the results of government buyout programs across the U.S. that purchase damaged homes after disasters to turn them into open space.
Our new national maps of who relocates and where they go after a flood shows that most Americans who move from buyout areas stay local. However, we also found that the majority of them give up their home to someone else, either selling it or leaving a rental home, rather than taking a government buyout offer. That transfers the risk to a new resident, leaving the community still facing future costly risks.
FEMA’s buyout program at risk
Government buyout programs can help communities recover after disasters by purchasing high-risk homes and demolishing them. The parcel is then converted to a natural flood plain, park or site for new infrastructure to mitigate future flood damage for nearby areas.
FEMA has been funding such efforts for decades through its property buyout program. It has invested nearly US$4 billion to purchase and raze approximately 45,000 flood-prone homes nationwide, most of them since 2001.
Those investments pay off: Research shows the program avoids an estimated $4 to $6 in future disaster recovery spending for every $1 invested. In return, homeowners receive a predisaster price for their home, minus any money they might receive from a related flood insurance payout on the property.
Young trees along Briar Creek in Charlotte, N.C., are part of a successful local flood plain buyout program to purchase property in flood-prone areas and return it to nature. Eamon Queeney/The Washington Post via Getty Images
But this assistance is now in jeopardy as the Trump administration cuts FEMA staff and funding and the president talks about dismantling the agency. From March to September, governors submitted 42 applications for funding from FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which includes buyouts – all were denied or left pending as of mid-September.
Our recommendation after studying this program is to mend it, not end it. If done right, buyouts can help maintain local ties and help communities build more sustainable futures together.
The maps were created using individual data, down to the address level, from 2007 to 2017, across more than 550 counties where FEMA’s buyout program operated nationally.
Zoomed out, they show just how many places the program has helped across the U.S., from coastal cities to inland towns. And, when zoomed in, they reveal the buyout locations and destinations of more than 70,000 residents who moved following FEMA-funded buyouts in their area.
FEMA’s buyout programs have helped homeowners and communities across the U.S., in almost every state. James R. Elliott, CC BY
The maps also show which people relocated by accepting a federal buyout and which ones relocated on their own. Nationwide, we see the vast majority of movers, about 14 out of every 15, are not participants in the federal buyout program. They are neighbors who relocated through conventional real estate transactions.
This distinction matters, because it implies that most Americans are retreating from climate-stressed areas by transferring their home’s risk to someone else, not by accepting buyouts that would take the property out of circulation.
Selling may be good for homeowners who can find buyers, but it doesn’t make the community more resilient.
A map of buyouts in Sayreville, N.J., shows most people didn’t move far away. James R. Elliott, CC BY
Lessons for future buyout programs
Our interactive map offers some good news and insights for buyout programs going forward.
Regardless of how they occur, we find that moves from buyout areas average just 5 to 10 miles from old to new home. This means most people are maintaining local ties, even as they relocate to adapt to rising climate risks.
Nearly all of the moves also end in safer homes with minimal to minor risk of future flooding. We checked using address-level flood factors from the First Street Foundation, a nonprofit source of flood risk ratings that are now integrated into some online real estate websites.
But many homes in risky areas are still being resold or rented to new residents, leaving communities facing a game of climate roulette.
How long that can continue will vary by neighborhood. Rising insurance costs, intensifying storms and growing awareness of flood risks are already dampening home sales in some communities − and thus opportunities to simply hand over one’s risk to someone else and move on.
The U.S. can create safer communities by expanding federal, state and local voluntary buyout programs. These programs allow communities to reduce future flood damage and collectively plan for safer uses of the vacated lands that emerge.
Giving residents longer periods of time to participate after the damage could also help make the programs more attractive. This would provide property owners more flexibility in deciding when to sell and demolish their property, while still taking risky property off the market rather than handing the risk to new residents.
James R. Elliott has received funding from the National Science Foundation.
Debolina Banerjee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Imagine a city street at dusk, silent save for the rising sound of a collective guttural moan. Suddenly, a horde of ragged, bloodied creatures appear, their feet shuffling along the pavement, their hollow eyes locked on fleeing figures ahead.
A classic movie monster, the zombie surged in popularity in the 21st century during a time of global anxiety – the Great Recession, the specter of climate change, the lingering trauma of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the COVID-19 pandemic.
As a public health epidemiologist and an amateur zombie historian, I couldn’t help but notice the striking parallels between what epidemiologists do to stop infectious disease outbreaks and what horror movie heroes do to stop zombies. The key questions posed in any zombie narrative – how did this start, how many are infected, how to contain it – are the identical questions that epidemiologists ask during a real infectious disease outbreak or pandemic.
In 2011, in fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a zombie apocalypse preparedness guide that explained how readying oneself for a zombie apocalypse can prepare people for any large-scale disaster. The zombie is more than just a monster; it is a powerful, public health teaching tool.
The oldest written reference to creatures similar to modern zombies is found in “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” which was etched on stone tablets sometime between 2000 and 1100 B.C.E. Enraged after Gilgamesh rejects her marriage proposal, the goddess Ishtar tells him, “I shall bring up the dead to consume the living, I shall the make the dead outnumber the living.” This ancient terror – the dead overwhelming the living – has a direct parallel to the concept of an out-of-control epidemic in which the sick quickly overwhelm the healthy. Hollywood has readily adopted this concept in many zombie movies.
The creatures in George Romero’s 1968 classic ‘The Night of the Living Dead’ were the first flesh-eating zombies in Hollywood. Wikimedia Commons
The origins of the flesh-eating corpse on screen date back to George Romero’s 1968 classic “The Night of the Living Dead.” You won’t hear the word “zombie” in Romero’s film, however – in the script, he called the creatures “flesh eaters.” Similarly, in Danny Boyle’s 2002 film “28 Days Later,” the terrifying creatures were called the “infected.” Both these terms, “flesh eaters” and “infected,” directly echo public health concerns – specifically, the spread of disease via a bacteria or virus and the need for quarantine to contain the afflicted.
According to Vodou, when a person experiences an unnatural, early death, priests can capture and co-opt their soul. Slave owners capitalized on this belief to prevent suicide among the enslaved. To become a zombie – dead yet still a slave – was the ultimate nightmare. This cultural concept speaks not just to disease but to societal trauma and the public health crisis of forced labor.
Zombie-like creatures around the world
Across the globe, other reanimated corpses crop up in local folklore, often reflecting fears of improper burial, violent death or moral wickedness. Many tales about these eerie creatures don’t just convey how to avoid becoming one of them, but also detail how to stop or prevent them from taking over. This focus on prevention and control is at the heart of public health.
In Scandinavia, the draugr – meaning “again walker” or “ghost” – was a creature bent on revenge. According to lore, draugrs typically emerged from mean-spirited people or improperly buried corpses. Like zombies, they could turn regular people into draugrs by infecting them. They would attack their victims by devouring flesh, drinking blood or driving victims insane. Draugrs’ contagious nature is a model for disease transmission. What’s more, their seasonal activity – they most often appear at night in winter months – is similar to seasonal trends in infectious disease transmission.
The draugr’s ability to ‘infect’ people can be seen as an example of disease transmission. Kim Diaz Holm, CC BY-SA
In medieval times, meanwhile, legend had it that creatures called revenants – corpses that came out of their graves – stalked northern and western Europe. According to 12th-century English historian William of Newburgh, these creatures emerged from the lingering life force of people who had committed evil deeds during their lives or who experienced a sudden death. Clerics fueled people’s fears of becoming a revenant by claiming these creatures were created by Satan. The recommended but gruesome prevention method for this fate was to capture and dismember these creatures and to burn the body parts, especially the head.
Archaeological evidence from a medieval village in England suggests that communities heeded this advice. Archaeologists excavated the village’s burial grounds, and among human remains from the 11th to 13th centuries they found broken and burned bones with knife marks. They show how a community may have taken extreme measures to control a perceived contagion or threat to public safety, mirroring a modern-day quarantine or eradication protocols.
Perhaps the most striking similarity between these historical monsters and Hollywood zombies is that so many of them are created by an infectious agent of some kind. After an outbreak occurs, control is difficult to regain, underscoring the necessity of a rapid public health response.
Tom Duszynski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Grace Nsomba, Researcher at Centre for Competition, Regulation and Economic Development, University of Johannesburg
Countries in east and southern Africa have continued to experience high and volatile food prices despite good harvests in 2025. This is especially alarming as climate-related weather shocks will be deeper and more frequent.
Yet the region does not lack the potential to expand agriculture. Parts of the region have abundant arable land and water resources.
The G20 Food Security Task Force convened by South Africa as part of its G20 presidency has recognised the wide and persistent extent of hunger and malnutrition in most sub-regions of Africa. The task force highlighted excessive price volatility and food inflation despite sufficient global food production.
the commitment to facilitate open, fair, predictable, and rules-based agriculture, food and fertiliser trade and reduce market distortions.
Evidence from the African Market Observatory, however, points to action – not words – being required. The prices for food products such as maize meal, rice and vegetable oil are very high across the region. So are those of inputs such as fertilizer.
The African Market Observatory provides market information, including prices, for key food products at the wholesale and producer levels in east and southern Africa. This data is essential in evaluating whether prices are fair and markets are working well for smaller producers and other market participants.
Countries in east and southern Africa have a combined population of over 600 million. As a whole the region is a substantial net importer of staples such as wheat, rice and vegetable oil. This despite the potential for the region to expand production.
But to expand production, countries would need to develop sustainable agro-industrial strategies. Such strategies include initiatives to improve yields, value-adding and the creation of fair regional markets. Improved water management and farming methods are essential along with investing in storage, logistics and processing.
Countries would also need to address the issue of agricultural commodity markets in the region. The variance in commodity prices across the region are evidence that markets are working very badly.
Prices vary across countries
Maize prices vary tremendously across the region, with extremely high prices in Kenya and Malawi. This should not be the case. When production from other parts of the region is taken into account, the region has more than enough maize to meet demand. There have been good rains this year after El Nino affected countries like Malawi and Zambia in 2024.
Prices in Kenya have been above US$450/tonne while prices in Zambia from April to June 2025 after the harvest were around US$200/tonne. Tanzania and Uganda have also had good harvests with prices under US$300/tonne in producing areas. Transport costs can account for around US$80/tonne of the difference, at most (less from Uganda and Tanzania).
Zambia maintained export restrictions until August, which meant farmers received low prices and the traders who bought up the harvest made windfall profits when the restrictions were lifted.
There have been similar differences in soybeans between what farmers receive and prices paid by customers. Soymeal from beans is essential for animal feed to expand poultry and fish farming to improve nutrition of low-income households.
An inquiry in 2024 by the Competition Authority of Kenya into animal feed identified obstacles in cross-border markets. The government opened up to soymeal imports from India to provide an alternative source and prices fell 20% in early 2025. Kenya is surrounded by countries that could and should be ramping up their own soybean production for expanded regional trade.
Solutions
It bears repeating, east and southern Africa is the best area in the world to expand production of crops such as maize and soybean. The expansion would mean some of the lowest instead of the highest prices internationally and lay the foundation for downstream food processing.
The G20 ministers adopted the African philosophy of ubuntu, “I am because you are”, to envision food systems which recognise interdependence across communities, borders and generations.
It means a complete change from the current situation where countries practise “beggar thy neighbour” policies such as restricting trade when a neighbour is facing drought.
Market monitoring is a crucial part of rebuilding cooperation instead of division. The G20 points to the Agricultural Market Information System, an inter-agency platform to enhance food market transparency and policy response for food security launched in 2011 by G20 Ministers of Agriculture. The platform provides data on global food supply and prices. But the platform has no data on markets in sub-Saharan African countries except South Africa and Nigeria.
Without data, countries can’t address hunger and food insecurity. As shocks become more frequent and severe, this work needs to massively accelerate.
Our analysis of market outcomes and factors influencing prices points to a straightforward set of measures.
First, regional monitoring of food markets is essential to guard against market manipulation. Monitoring needs to cover pricing, trade flows and associated barriers, and changes in market structure for a more robust understanding of markets. It is especially important in light of climate-related shocks.
Second, improved governance of food value chains to address food security and supply needs to be accompanied by enforcement of clear rules against abuse of company power that transcends national borders. Competition authorities need to be effective referees.
Third, investments in infrastructure such as storage facilities and appropriate irrigation are essential to adapt to the effects of climate change, improve resilience and yields, and safeguard against volatile markets.
Fourth, financing should be mobilised for small and medium scale producers who form the backbone of agricultural production across the region.
A critical question, of course, is about the political will to take these measures forward.
Grace Nsomba acknowledges funding from the Shamba Centre for Food and Climate, Open Society Foundation, COMESA Competition Commission and Competition Commission South Africa for research on food and agriculture markets.
Simon Roberts acknowedges funding from the Shamba Centre for Food and Climate, Open Society Foundation, COMESA Competition Commission and Competition Commission South Africa for research on food and agriculture markets.
Source: The Conversation – France in French (3) – By Benjamin Morel, Maître de conférences en droit public à Paris 2 Panthéon-Assas, chercheur au CERSA et chercheur associé à l’Institut des sciences sociales du politique (ISP), Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas
In his policy speech to lawmakers in the National Assembly on Tuesday, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu – who was reappointed by President Emmanuel Macron on Friday after submitting his resignation just days before – announced the suspension of pension reform, which a previous government forced into law without a vote in 2023. The reform raised the retirement age from 62 to 64, and also raised, depending on one’s year of birth, the number of working years required to 43. It had sparked mass protests even before it became law.
Lecornu’s announcement was key to obtaining an agreement from France’s once-mighty Socialist Party, which has 69 members and affiliated members in the 577-member Assembly, that it would not support a potential vote of no-confidence. How will the Socialists position themselves as the government’s finance bill comes up for debate? Is a parliamentary logic of consensus gaining ground? An interview with political scientist and French constitutional expert Benjamin Morel.
The Socialist Party (PS) has agreed not to back a no-confidence vote. Is Lecornu’s government guaranteed to remain in power?
Benjamin Morel: It takes 289 MPs not to vote in favour of the motion of no-confidence for the government to remain in power. At this stage, a motion of no-confidence is unlikely due to the number of political groups that have given instructions not to vote in favour of it. However, some groups, notably LR (Les Républicains, a right-wing party) and PS, are prone to dissent, and there are unknowns on the side of the non-attached members of LIOT (Libertés, indépendants, Outre-mer et territoires, a centrist group). Will there be more than 20 dissidents, which would allow the government to be censured? It’s not impossible, but it is unlikely.
Is a dissolution of parliament, which would be effected by President Emmanuel Macron, also unlikely?
B.M.: If the Lecornu government does not immediately lose a confidence vote, dissolution is probably out of the question. Indeed, if dissolution were to take place in November or early December, there would no longer be any MPs in the National Assembly to vote on the budget or pass a special law allowing revenue to be collected: this would then be a major institutional problem. If dissolution were to occur later – in the spring – it would take place at the same time as municipal elections, which PS and LR mayors would oppose because they could suffer from a “nationalisation” of local contests. Dissolution after the municipal elections? We would be less than a year away from the presidential election, and dissolution would be a considerable hindrance to Macron’s successor. For all these reasons, it is quite likely that dissolution will be ruled out.
If Lecornu’s government does not immediately lose a confidence vote, the next step will be a vote on the budget. What are the different scenarios for the budget’s adoption? What position will the PS take?
B.M.: Lecornu has announced that he will not invoke Article 49.3 (the constitutional rule that allows the government to pass a law without a vote) for the budget: this means that the budget can only be adopted after a positive vote by a majority of MPs, including the Socialist Party’s. However, we can expect the Senate, which has a right-wing majority, to push for a more austere budget before it goes to a joint committee and back to the Assembly. For the budget to be adopted, the Socialists would therefore have to vote in favour of a text that they do not really agree with, under pressure from the rest of the left, just a few months before the municipal elections. Lecornu’s general policy speech was considered a triumph for Socialist Party leader Olivier Faure and the PS. This is true, but the PS is now in a very complicated political situation.
The second scenario is that of a rejected budget and a government resorting to special laws. The problem is that these laws do not allow for all public investments to be made, which would have real economic consequences. In this case, a budget would have to be voted on at the beginning of 2026 with an identical political configuration (in the Assembly) and municipal elections approaching, which will further exacerbate the situation.
The final scenario is that after 70 days, Article 47 of the Constitution, noting that parliament has not taken a decision, allows the government to execute the budget by decree. There is uncertainty regarding Article 47 and the decrees, as they have never been used. Legal experts think that it is the last budget adopted that is submitted by decree – so, in principle, it would be the Senate’s budget, probably a very tough one – with the possible exclusion of funds earmarked for the suspension of pension reform.
Ultimately, the Socialists could face a real strategic dilemma: adopt a budget they will find difficult to support, bear the cost of special laws, or accept the implementation by decree of a budget drafted by the Senate’s right wing. All of this will likely lead to further crises.
How can we understand the change of direction by the Lecornu government, which is moving from an alliance with LR to an agreement with the PS?
B.M.: The PS became vital because the Rassemblement National (the far-right National Rally, or RN) entered into a logic where it wanted a dissolution in the hope of obtaining an absolute majority in the Assembly. As a result, the PS became the only force that allowed Lecornu to remain in place. The PS was able to take full advantage of this situation. Another factor in the PS’s favour is recent polls showing that, in the event of a dissolution, the Socialists would do well while the centre bloc would be left in tatters. This fundamentally changes the balance of power. To avoid losing a confidence vote and then facing dissolution, the government had to offer a big concession: the suspension of the pension reform.
How should we interpret this agreement between the central bloc and the PS? Is the parliamentary logic of consensus finally gaining ground?
B.M.: This political development is not based on parliamentary logic but on a balance of power. In a parliamentary system, the president does not pull a prime minister out of a hat, saying ‘it’s him and no one else’. He looks within parliament for someone capable of forming a majority. Once this majority has been found, a programme is drawn up and finally a government is appointed. The logic of consensus would have required a comprehensive agreement, a joint government programme between LR and PS. This is not the case at all.
Macron is not really asking Lecornu to find a majority; he is asking him to try not to lose a confidence vote, even though this PM is supported by only a minority of MPs – just under 100, from (central bloc parties) Renaissance and MoDem – which is unheard of in any parliamentary democracy. The result is that the balance of power is extraordinarily fragile and crises are recurrent. However, these obstacles will have to be overcome, and we will have to get used to relative majorities, because the polls do not necessarily suggest that a new majority would emerge in the event of a dissolution of parliament or even a new presidential election.
Interview conducted by David Bornstein.
A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!
Benjamin Morel ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
Source: The Conversation – in French – By Marie Asma Ben-Othmen, Enseignante-chercheuse en Economie de l’environnement & Agroéconomie, Responsable du Master of Science Urban Agriculture & Green Cities, UniLaSalle
Le « bio » : une étiquette clairement identifiable et souvent rassurante. Pourtant, les réalités derrière ce label mondial divergent. Alors que les normes en Europe sont plutôt strictes, elles sont bien plus souples en Amérique du Nord. Dans les pays émergents, ce sont les contrôles qui sont inégaux. Autant d’éléments à même d’affecter la confiance accordée au bio par les consommateurs. Comment s’y retrouver ? L’idéal serait d’harmoniser les règles d’un pays à l’autre. Petit tour d’horizon.
Le « bio » est un label mondial qui peut s’appliquer à des produits venus d’Europe, de Chine ou d’Amérique du Sud. Il n’a pourtant rien d’universel. Derrière l’étiquette rassurante, on ne retrouvera pas les mêmes normes en fonction des pays de production.
Par exemple, alors que l’Europe impose des règles plutôt strictes, les États-Unis se montrent beaucoup plus souples. Dans certains pays émergents, comme le Brésil, ce sont les contrôles qui sont souvent moins sévères. Nous vous proposons ici un bref tour d’horizon, qui vous permettra, nous l’espérons, de mieux orienter vos choix de consommation.
L’absence de pesticides derrière le succès du bio français
En France, la consommation de produits biologiques a connu une croissance fulgurante. En 2023, après vingt années de progression continue, ce marché a été multiplié par 13 par rapport à son niveau initial.
Ce label demeure toutefois une construction réglementaire qui dépend fortement du contexte national. Cette dynamique positive se heurte aujourd’hui à des évolutions législatives à même de la fragiliser. La loi Duplomb, adoptée le 8 juillet 2025, illustre combien les choix politiques peuvent ébranler la confiance accordée à l’agriculture en réintroduisant la question des pesticides au cœur du débat. Cette loi propose en effet des dérogations à l’interdiction d’utiliser des produits phytopharmaceutiques contenant des néonicotinoïdes.
Même si elle loi ne concerne pas directement les producteurs biologiques, elle risque d’avoir des effets indirects sur le secteur. En réintroduisant des dérogations à l’usage de substances controversées, elle ravive la défiance du public envers l’agriculture conventionnelle. Dans ce contexte, les filières bio pourraient apparaître comme une valeur refuge pour les consommateurs, renforçant leur rôle de repère de confiance dans un paysage agricole fragilisé.
Dans l’Union européenne, un label bio garanti sans OGM
L’Union européenne (UE) a établi une réglementation stricte pour l’agriculture biologique dès 1991. Au-delà de la question des pesticides, qui se pose, comme on l’a vu plus haut, plus intensément en France, celle des organismes génétiquement modifiés (OGM) offre également une clé de lecture intéressante à l’échelle européenne.
En effet, le label bio européen interdit totalement le recours à OGM dans les produits labélisés bio, à toutes les étapes de sa chaîne de production. Cela signifie qu’il est interdit d’utiliser des semences OGM pour les cultures bio, pas d’alimentation animale issue des OGM pour l’élevage bio et pas d’ingrédients issus des OGM pour les produits transformés bio.
En outre, le cahier des charges européen du bio impose des pratiques agricoles strictes en limitant le recours aux intrants de synthèse. Ceci inclut les engrais azotés, les pesticides, les herbicides et les fongicides de synthèse. Seuls certains intrants naturels ou minéraux sont autorisés, à l’instar du fumier, compost et engrais verts. Ceci reflète la philosophie du bio, basée sur la prévention des maladies et des déséquilibres agronomiques, par le maintien de la fertilité des sols, la biodiversité et les équilibres écologiques.
Logos français et européen relatifs à l’agriculture biologique. JJ Georges, CC BY-SA
En France, le label français AB s’appuie ainsi sur le règlement européen, tout en ajoutant quelques exigences propres, comme un contrôle plus rigoureux de la traçabilité et du lien au sol.
Si les deux labels restent alignés sur les grands principes, le bio français se distingue par une mise en œuvre généralement plus stricte, héritée d’une longue tradition d’agriculture biologique militante.
Le bio en Europe se heurte aussi à un certain nombre d’enjeux actuels, notamment agronomiques. Il s’agit par exemple du besoin de renforcer la recherche sur les alternatives aux pesticides et autres intrants de synthèse, comme le biocontrôle, une sélection variétale adaptée et la gestion écologique des sols.
Afin de garantir la fiabilité du label, l’UE a mis en place un système de contrôle centralisé et harmonisé de supervision des chaînes de valeur alimentaires. Celles-ci englobent les producteurs, les transformateurs, jusqu’aux distributeurs. Ces contrôles reposent sur des règles précises définies par le règlement européen 2018/848.
De son côté, le consommateur retrouvera les différents labels de certification bio, tels que le label européen EU Organic, le label national AB en France ou encore le Bio-Siegel en Allemagne. Même si tous ces labels reposent sur la même base réglementaire européenne, leurs modalités d’application (par exemple, le type de suivi) peuvent varier légèrement d’un pays à un autre. Chaque pays peut en outre y ajouter des exigences supplémentaires. Par exemple, la France impose une fréquence de contrôle plus élevée, tandis que l’Allemagne insiste sur la transparence des filières.
Une labélisation plus souple en Amérique du Nord
En Amérique du Nord, l’approche du bio est plus souple que celle de l’Union européenne. Aux États-Unis, le label USDA Organic, créé en 2002, définit les standards nationaux de la production biologique. Il se caractérise par une certaine souplesse par rapport aux standards européens, notamment en ce qui concerne l’usage des intrants, puisque certains produits chimiques d’origine synthétique sont tolérés s’ils sont jugés nécessaires et sans alternatives viables. Ceux-ci incluent, par exemple, certains désinfectants pour bâtiments d’élevage et traitements antiparasitaires dans la conduite de l’élevage.
Le Canada, de son côté, a mis en place sa réglementation nationale des produits biologiques – le Canada Organic Regime – plus tardivement que les États-Unis. Ce système est équivalent à celui des États-Unis, dans la mesure où un accord bilatéral de reconnaissance mutuelle permet la vente des produits bio canadiens aux États-Unis et vice versa.
Les deux systèmes présentent ainsi de nombreuses similitudes, notamment en ce qui concerne la liste des substances autorisées et leur flexibilité d’usage. Cependant, ils divergent du modèle européen sur plusieurs points.
Tout d’abord, alors que l’UE applique une tolérance quasi nulle vis-à-vis des OGM, les États-Unis et le Canada tolèrent, de façon implicite, la présence accidentelle de traces d’OGM dans les produits bio. En effet, selon le règlement de l’USDA Organic, l’utilisation volontaire d’OGM est strictement interdite, mais une contamination involontaire n’entraîne pas automatiquement la perte de la certification si elle est jugée indépendante du producteur. Le Canada adopte une position légèrement plus stricte, imposant des contrôles renforcés et une tolérance plus faible.
Cette différence a suscité des controverses au moment de l’accord de reconnaissance mutuelle, certains consommateurs et producteurs canadiens craignant de voir arriver sur leur marché des produits bio américains jugés moins exigeants sur la question des OGM. Celles-ci concernaient également les conditions d’élevage. En effet, alors qu’en Europe les densités animales sont strictement limitées et que les sorties en plein air sont très encadrées, en Amérique du Nord, certains systèmes de production biologique peuvent être beaucoup plus intensifs, menant à de véritables fermes industrielles biologiques, ce qui entraîne une perte de proximité avec l’idéal originel du bio.
Enfin, un autre contraste concerne les productions hors sol. Aux États-Unis, les fermes hydroponiques – qui cultivent les plantes hors sol – peuvent être certifiées USDA Organic, à condition que les intrants utilisés figurent sur la liste autorisée. En revanche, en Europe, l’hydroponie est exclue car elle ne respecte pas le lien au sol, considéré au cœur de la philosophie agroécologique.
Dans les pays émergents, du bio mais selon quels critères ?
Dans les pays émergents, la question du bio se pose différemment. En effet, celle-ci dépend fortement des dispositifs et des critères mis en place par ces pays pour en garantir la crédibilité. À titre d’exemple, en Inde, au Brésil ou en Chine, les labels bio nationaux sont assez récents (la plupart ont été mis en place entre 2000 et 2010) et moins contraignants que leurs équivalents européens.
Alors que, dans l’UE, les contrôles sont effectués par des organismes certificateurs tiers accrédités et indépendants, au Brésil, les producteurs peuvent être certifiés via un système participatif de garantie (SPG), qui repose sur l’auto-évaluation collective des agriculteurs. En conséquence, ces labels peinent à construire une véritable confiance auprès des consommateurs.
Par ailleurs, dans de nombreux cas, les certifications biologiques sont avant tout conçues pour répondre aux standards des marchés internationaux afin de faciliter l’exportation vers l’UE ou l’Amérique du Nord, plutôt que pour structurer un marché intérieur. C’est, par exemple, le cas en Inde.
Cette situation laisse souvent les consommateurs locaux avec une offre limitée et parfois peu fiable. Dans ce contexte, les organismes privés de certification internationaux, comme Ecocert, Control Union ou BioInspecta occupent une place croissante. Ils améliorent la reconnaissance de ces produits, mais renforcent une forme de dépendance vis-à-vis de standards extérieurs, ce qui soulève des enjeux de souveraineté alimentaire mais aussi de justice sociale dans ces pays.
Le bio, un label global… mais éclaté
L’absence de reconnaissance universelle mutuelle entre les différents systèmes de certification biologique engendre de la confusion chez les consommateurs. Il crée également de fortes contraintes pour les producteurs.
En pratique, un agriculteur qui souhaiterait exporter une partie de sa production doit souvent obtenir plusieurs certifications distinctes. Par exemple, un producteur mexicain doit ainsi être certifié à la fois USDA Organic pour accéder au marché américain et EU Organic pour pénétrer le marché européen.
Cette multiplication des démarches alourdit les coûts et la complexité administrative pour les producteurs, tout en renforçant les inégalités d’accès aux marchés internationaux.
Du côté des consommateurs, l’usage généralisé du terme « bio » peut donner l’illusion d’une norme universelle, alors qu’il recouvre en réalité des cahiers des charges très différents selon les pays. Cette situation entretient une certaine ambiguïté et peut induire en erreur, en masquant les disparités de pratiques agricoles et de niveaux d’exigence derrière un label apparemment commun.
Comment s’y retrouver en tant que consommateur ?
Pour s’y retrouver dans la jungle du « bio », il faut donc aller au-delà du simple logo affiché sur l’emballage et s’informer sur la provenance réelle du produit et sur le cahier des charges du label précis qui le certifie.
Il est aussi essentiel de garder à l’esprit que bio ne signifie pas automatiquement « local » ni « petit producteur ». Certains produits certifiés biologiques proviennent de filières industrielles mondialisées.
Enfin, le consommateur peut jouer un rôle actif de « citoyen alimentaire », pour encourager davantage de transparence et de traçabilité, s’il favorise les circuits de distribution qui donnent accès à une information claire et détaillée sur l’origine et les modes de production. Il soutient alors une alimentation plus démocratique et responsable. C’est précisément cette implication citoyenne dans le système alimentaire qui peut favoriser l’essor d’une culture de l’alimentation locale et durable, fondée sur la confiance, l’attachement au territoire et la coopération entre producteurs et consommateurs.
Pour que le bio livre son plein potentiel en termes de transformation agroécologique des systèmes alimentaires mondiaux, peut-être faudrait-il, demain, envisager une harmonisation internationale du bio. C’est à cette condition qu’on pourra en faire un véritable langage commun pour les consommateurs, qui signifie réellement la même chose d’un pays à l’autre.
Marie Asma Ben-Othmen ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
At first, there might not seem to be any immediate similarities between a devastated Nagasaki after the US atomic bombing in 1945 and Gaza today, aside from massive destruction.
But in considering Gaza’s recovery from war – should the current ceasefire hold – much may be gleaned from Nagasaki’s experience and how it managed the painful process of starting over and rebuilding from virtually nothing.
Damage and destruction
The estimates of those killed from the atomic bombings in 1945 range widely from 70,000–140,000 at Hiroshima and 40,000–70,000 at Nagasaki.
In Gaza, the Palestinian health authorities say more than 67,000 Palestinians have died, with many more perhaps buried in the rubble.
In 1945, the US Army dropped an atomic bomb close to the centre of Hiroshima. But in Nagasaki’s case three days later, the plutonium bomb fell a few kilometres to the north of the city in a suburb called Urakami.
The bombing destroyed an area that was socio-economically less well-off, which had an impact on Nagasaki’s recovery, compared with Hiroshima.
Many of those who lived there were minorities, including colonised Korean people, Catholics and outcasts known as buraku.
And just as in Gaza, much of the city infrastructure was decimated. An atomic archive estimates that in Nagasaki, around 61% of city structures were damaged in the bombing, compared with 67% in Hiroshima.
The aftermath of the bombing shows just how great the needs of the people were in Nagasaki. I conducted an oral history survey with bombing survivors between 2008 and 2016. Twelve of them – mostly children from Catholic families close to Ground Zero at the time of the bombing – detailed their experiences before and after.
After the bombing, many said the unburied dead was a confronting aspect, both physically and spiritually “dangerous”. One survivor, Mine Tōru, told me:
The dead bodies were piled in carts used for rubbish collection and dumped out in an outer area.
Barrels were placed at intersections for the collection of ashes and bones. Meanwhile, the occupying US Army cleared Urakami with bulldozers.
In Swedish journalist Monica Brau’s book, a man named Uchida Tsukasa remembered those bulldozers driving over the bones of the dead in the same way as sand or soil. When someone tried to take a photo, a soldier pointed his gun and threatened to confiscate the pictures. Brau argued that US censorship grossly impaired the recovery in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The clean-up and retrieval of human remains took time. Some six months after the bombing, bones were still being pulled out of the river by a Buddhist Ladies’ Association.
This process is beginning in Gaza today, too. According to news reports, scores of bodies have already been pulled from the rubble since the ceasefire took hold. Estimates suggest there could be as many as 14,000 bodies in the rubble, many of which will never be recovered.
The political challenges of rebuilding
In rehabilitating Gaza, those overseeing the process will also need to ensure the civil liberties of the poor – children and women, in particular – are not infringed upon.
In Nagasaki, some bomb survivors were forced to live in caves that had previously been bomb shelters, including three of those I interviewed.
Fukahori Jōji, who was 16 at the time of the bombing, lost his whole family, including three siblings and his mother. He told me that after the bombing, urban revitalisation and road-widening took over part of his family’s land.
Nagasaki officials were alleged to have used the reconstruction to “clean up” an outcast community.
A writer, Dōmon Minoru, explained how land was acquired compulsorily and cheaply by the council, forcing many residents out: “the Urakami burakumin (outcasts) were neutralised”.
US historian Chad Diehl’s powerful book about the rebuilding highlighted the “disconnect” between the American occupiers and Nagasaki residents.
The rebuilding took decades. Diehl explained there are two words for recovery often used in Nagasaki, saiken (reconstruction), which usually refers to the physical rebuilding, and fukkō (revival), which refers to wellbeing – psychological, social and physical.
The wellbeing recovery will surely take even longer than the rebuilding of the physical infrastructure in Gaza.
Hope among the rubble
Another important aspect in recovery from war: the people need to have agency over the process. They shouldn’t just be thought of as survivors of a tragedy – they are integral to the revival of their communities.
Reiko Miyake, a teacher who was 20 at the time of the Nagasaki bombing, told me she returned to teaching at her elementary school a few months later. Only 100 of the 1,500 students at the school survived, and just 19 showed up on the first day.
As holders of memory, these people took on new roles of service for their communities. They were storytellers and rebuilders seeking hope in the face of unbearable loss and ongoing lament.
May such stories of the past encourage the difficult task of recovery in what is a bereft Gaza today.
Gwyn McClelland is the former recipient of a National Library of Australia Fellowship and a Japan Foundation Fellowship. He is the president of the Japanese Studies Association of Australia.
In a series of four lectures, Silicon Valley tech billionaire Peter Thiel has been opining on the Antichrist.
Thiel’s amateur riffing identifies the Antichrist with anyone or any institution that he dislikes – from environmental activist Greta Thunberg to governmental attempts to regulate artificial intelligence.
Thiel’s overall definition of the Antichrist “is that of an evil king or tyrant or anti-messiah who appears in the end times”.
Thiel is aligning himself with a long tradition of identifying the Antichrist as a despotic world emperor who would arise at the end of the world.
By the ninth century, influenced by the Christian idea of the Antichrist, Islam and Judaism each had their own Antichrist figures who would come at the end of history – in Islam, al-Dajjal (the Deceiver), in Judaism, Armilus.
The Christian Antichrist
Drawing together 800 years of earlier Antichrist speculations, the Benedictine monk Adso of Montier-en-der wrote the first life of the Antichrist 1,100 years ago. According to Adso, the Antichrist would be a tyrannical evil king who would corrupt all those around him.
The Antichrist was the opposite of everything Christ-like. According to Christianity, Christ was fully human yet absolutely “sin free”. The Antichrist, too, was fully human, but completely “sin full” – not so much a supernatural being who became flesh as a human being who became completely demonised.
Born in Babylon (present day Iraq), the Antichrist was destined to come at the end of the world and rule over the earth from Jerusalem until he and his supporters were defeated by the forces of Christ at the battle of Armageddon.
Al-Dajjal, the Muslim Antichrist
Although the Dajjal does not appear in the Qur’an, he plays an important role in later Muslim understanding of the end of the world in the Hadith literature – the later collections of the sayings and deeds of Muhammad.
Dajjal was large and stout, of a red complexion, blind in one eye that appeared like a swollen grape, and had big curly hair. His most distinctive feature was the word Kafir (disbeliever) written on his forehead.
There is no declaration in the Hadith literature that the Dajjal would be Jewish, but it was said he would be followed by 70,000 Jews of Isfahan in Iran wearing Persian shawls.
According to the longest of the accounts of the Dajjal in the Hadith, called Sahih Muslim (c.850), he would appear somewhere between Syria and Iraq and spread trouble in all directions. He would stay on the earth for one year and ten weeks.
The Hadith literature is the later collections of the sayings and deeds of Muhammad. This copy was published in Saudi Arabia in the16th century. Wikimedia Commons
For those who accepted him, there would be bountiful food. For those who rejected him, there would be drought and poverty. He would walk through the wasteland and say “bring forth your treasures” and they would appear before him like a swarm of bees. He would then call a young man, strike him with a sword and cut him in pieces.
Then, God would send Jesus Christ. He would descend with his hands resting on the shoulders of two angels at the white minaret on the Eastern side of Damascus. Every non-believer would perish at his breath. He would search for the Dajjal, capture him at the gate of the city of Ludd (Lydda) in Israel and kill him.
Armilus, the Jewish Antichrist
Like al-Dajjal, you would recognise Armilus instantly. According to the medieval Prayer of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai, he was born in Rome, the child of Satan and a stone in the shape of a beautiful girl.
He was more monstrous in appearance than either the Muslim or the Christian Antichrists. He was a giant, 5.5 metres tall. In several sources, he was reported as having two skulls.
Zerubbabel, depicted in this etching from c.1850, received biblical visions of the apocalypse. Rijksmuseum
One mid-eighth century tradition reported his hair was dyed, another that it was red, and another that his face was hairy and his forehead leprous. Several reports had him as bald. His eyes were variously malformed – small, deep, red and crooked, one eye small and the other big.
According to the earliest Jewish account of Armilus in Sefer Zerubbabel (or the Apocalypse of Zerubbabel), from between the seventh and ninth centuries, his hands hung down to his green feet. Another text had his right arm only as long as a hand and his left one metre long.
Like the Christian and Muslim Antichrists, he too would come in the end times. Sefer Zerubbabel tells us all those who see him will be terrified. But the Messiah will come “and will blow into his face and kill him”. The Messiah will then gather the Jews in Israel and usher in the Messianic age.
The Antichrist now?
The idea of the Antichrist in Judaism, Christianity and Islam has played a significant role in the histories of these three religions, each asserting its belief in the final victory of good over evil.
The image of the Antichrist remains a powerful one. It speaks to the continuing belief among both believers and non-believers that the course of human history is still to be understood in terms of a world-wide struggle between those on the side of God and the rest on the side of evil.
This division of the world into the good and the evil, patriots and terrorists, angels and demons, whether within or between countries, is one that can never bring any peace to the earth. Best if Thiel – and the rest of us – consign it to history.
Philip C. Almond 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.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
