Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefano Kaburu, Senior Lecturer in Conservation Biology, Nottingham Trent University

Drinking more than you intended may be something that many humans do, but now research is showing that a taste for alcohol is surprisingly common among animals. In fact a new study has found that chimpanzees may ingest the equivalent of two alcoholic drinks a day from eating fermented fruit.

In the last ten years or so, there has been growing evidence that the ingestion of alcohol might be more widespread across the animal kingdom than previously thought. Fruit flies, for example, lay their eggs in alcohol-rich fermented fruits, which offer the newly hatched larvae nutrients to feed on.

In 2015, scientists observed groups of chimpanzees in west Africa drinking large amounts of raffia palm alcoholic sap harvested by the local villagers. More recently, in April 2025, a population of chimpanzees at Guinea-Bissau were recorded feasting on ripe African breadfruits which contained high concentrations of alcohol.

The published studies mark a shift because evidence of alcohol consumption in wild animals tends to rely more on anecdotal observations. In Sweden, a moose made the news in 2011 when it was found stuck in a tree, apparently drunk from eating fermented apples.

And vervet monkeys in St Kitts, whose ancestors were brought there with enslaved people from west Africa, are often spotted stealing fruity cocktails from tourists.

The new study, led by biologist Aleksey Maro of the University of California, Berkeley, offers insights into how much alcohol is in the ripe fruits favoured by two wild chimpanzee communities living in eastern and western Africa.

Having spent almost a year studying chimpanzees in the wild myself, I have always been mesmerised by how excited they get when they spot their favourite fruits. Chimpanzees go crazy for fruit. They rush over to grab them and stuff their mouths full, all while making joyful noises of appreciation.

In their research, Maro and his colleagues collected more than 200 fruits from about 20 of chimpanzees’ favourite trees. They found large variation in alcohol content with some having zero or nearly zero alcohol content. But some of the fruits most enjoyed by the chimps, such as figs and plums, tend to have a very high alcohol content.

This suggests that chimps may intentionally select fruits for their high levels of alcohol. Because of the large quantity of fruits chimpanzees can eat every day (up to 4kg), the authors worked out that both female and male chimps consume roughly 14 grams of alcohol per day. This corresponds to a standard US alcoholic drink (UK standard drinks contain eight grams of alcohol).

But it’s not fair to directly compare these numbers between humans and chimps since the effect of alcohol depends on how big an individual is. Alcohol tends to be less potent in bigger people.

With an average weight of around 40kg, chimps tend to be smaller than humans. So the amount of equivalent alcohol that chimps consume actually corresponds to two American standard drinks per day. It sounds like chimps know how to have a party.

The drunken monkey hypothesis

Twenty-five years ago, Robert Dudley, who is one of the authors of the new study, proposed the “drunken monkey hypothesis”. This suggests that alcohol consumption in humans might have an ancient history. Dudley’s idea is that ingesting alcoholic fruits might have given an evolutionary advantage to animals. The alcoholic content in fruits can, for example, indicate to animals which ones are rich in energy and sugar.

Drinking alcohol can be good for health. Fruit flies, for example, ingest alcohol to kill parasites. Even in humans, studies have shown that low levels of alcohol consumption may reduce the risk of heart disease.

Support for the drunken monkey hypothesis came from research showing that the proteins humans need to break down alcohol in their body was already present in the common ancestor we share with gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos that lived 10 million years ago.

This was a time when African forests started shrinking, and apes started coming down from the tree, adopting a more land-based lifestyle. It’s possible that these apes gained an advantage in eating ripe fermented fruits that had fallen onto the ground, avoiding the competition with other fruit-eating animals who could eat unripe fruit on trees.

Researchers also think that alcohol might make them more sociable. Chimpanzees in west Africa, for example, were observed in April 2025 eating and drinking fermented fruits together.

However, according to Dudley, in addition to having the same human protein that breaks down alcohol, chimpanzees may drink alcohol in low concentrations due to the high volume of liquid and food they ingest. So their stomach may fill up before alcohol reaches intoxicating levels.

This would explain why, in the 11 months that I spent watching chimps in Tanzania, I didn’t once see them wobbling around the forest, clutching a juicy fruit while laughing uncontrollably.

Stefano Kaburu 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. Chimpanzees ingest more than the equivalent of one alcoholic drink a day – new research – https://theconversation.com/chimpanzees-ingest-more-than-the-equivalent-of-one-alcoholic-drink-a-day-new-research-265644

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Vitaly Kazakov, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Manchester

If you were to read this: “Unity through music: top artists from across the globe come together on one stage to inspire and unite millions” you could be forgiven for thinking it’s an advertising blurb for next year’s Eurovision. But it isn’t. On the contrary, it’s the slogan for this year’s Intervision song contest, which takes place in Moscow on September 20.

Intervision was initially conceived during the cold war as a “counterweight” to Eurovision, but it never really caught on and was discontinued in 1980. Russia subsequently took part in Eurovision between 1994 and 2021, and it was ultimately expelled after the invasion of Ukraine. It recorded its only win in 2008, and hosted the contest in 2009.

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, issued a decree in February this year announcing that Intervision would be revived “to further develop international cultural and humanitarian cooperation”. This year’s contest will feature artists from 23 countries, including representatives from China, Africa, Asia, Latin America, Central Asia and the Middle East. Interestingly, the US will also have an entry – although the original artist pulled out “for family reasons” on September 17. His place has been taken by an Australian singer who is resident in the US.

Intervision is a prime example of the way in which, in today’s highly febrile geopolitical situation, popular cultural and sporting events are being weaponised.

This is nothing new, nor is it exclusive to contemporary Russia. In the sporting world, many people saw Qatar’s enthusiasm for hosting the 2022 World Cup as a way of cementing its position as an important regional hub in the Middle East. In the sports world, the use of major events to project soft power is known as “sportswashing” – and everyone does it. Think of the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics which was directed by the multi-award winning film-maker Danny Boyle.

Now, analysts are examining the way the Putin administration is using music to further its political end and calling it “songwashing”.

Intervision is clearly being taken very seriously by the Kremlin. The deputy prime minister, Dmitry Chernyshenko – who presided over the planning for the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014 – is chair of the organising committee. Konstantin Ernst, head of Russia’s Channel One TV network and mastermind behind the Sochi 2014 opening ceremony, is also heavily involved.

In what appeared to be a direct snipe at Eurovision, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov – a close ally of Putin – said Intervision would be free from “perversions or affronts to human nature”. After Eurovision in 2024, the country’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, said the contest had “surpassed any orgy, sabbath, or ritual sacrilege”. This sort of
conservative messaging has been a staple of Moscow’s political communication to audiences at home and abroad for more than a decade.

The cultural boycott of Russia since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine has hurt the country’s efforts to reach audiences. Russia has been barred from an array of major sporting and cultural events such as the Olympics, the football World Cup and European Championships and Eurovision. Its ballet, opera companies and orchestra have been barred from many of the world’s most prestigious venues and works by Russian composers and playwrights have been blacklisted in many countries.

The Kremlin’s response has been to arrange its own versions of what is sometimes dubbed “mega-events”, albeit on a much smaller scale. In 2023, Putin announced Russia would host a World Friendship Games, to be held in Yekaterinburg the following year, “to ensure the guaranteed free access of Russian athletes and sports organisations to international sports activities, and the development of new formats for international sports cooperation”. The event was subsequently postponed over fears that it would not attract enough top competitors, despite a large prize pot on offer.

A Brics Games featuring competitors from 82 countries was held in Kazan in the Russian republic of Tatarstan in June 2024. Russia topped the medals table.

Likewise, the University International Sports Festival was Russia’s response to being barred from hosting the FISU 2023 World University Games.

Seeking new audiences for ‘Russian values’

Russia’s use of such sporting and cultural events has been described as a new form of “Potemkinism” – after the showcase villages built in Imperial-era Russia to impress visitors. Although, to be fair, projecting soft power in this way is in no way exclusive to Russia or any other authoritarian states.

Intervision is the same. It’s designed to appeal to both a domestic crowd, legitimising Putin’s regime, as well as projecting “Russian values” and cultural depth to the rest of the world (at least to those paying attention). These events signal to audiences at home and abroad that things are “normal” in Russia, despite the country being engaged in a bitter war with its neighbour Ukraine.

It dovetails with attempts to build anti-western coalition through its efforts on the diplomatic stage. It is also an effort to send a message about Russia and the state of the world to audiences which might be wary of what they regard as an all-pervasive US influence.

At first glance, these Soviet-era events may appear as a quirky manifestation of cold war nostalgia. But they are part of a push by countries like Russia, China and others to build a rival cultural and international order.

It’s highly unlikely that Intervision will send the Russian entry Shaman – a controversial, pro-war singer described as one of Russia’s chief propagandists – into the global pop stratosphere. But it’s worth keeping an eye on how global audiences respond, particularly those beyond the west. It may be that some people outside the joyously camp Eurovision bubble are receptive to Intervision’s more conservative messaging.

Vitaly Kazakov receives funding from the European Commission’s Horizon Europe programme.

– ref. Intervision: Russia’s bid to rival Eurovision song contest – but with more conservative values – https://theconversation.com/intervision-russias-bid-to-rival-eurovision-song-contest-but-with-more-conservative-values-265685

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Katherine Steele, Senior Lecturer in Sustainable Crop Production, Bangor University

Many Britons enjoy a curry served with a heap of fluffy white basmati rice, its delicate aroma balancing the heat of the dish. But few stop to think about the grain’s long journey. From the paddy fields of India and Pakistan, through regional markets and rice mills, then matured for a year in silos before being shipped in bulk to the UK.

It then passes through one of the country’s 16 processing sites before reaching supermarket shelves. The UK imports around 250,000 tonnes of basmati rice every year – making it one of the world’s biggest markets.

This summer, consumers got a glimpse of what could potentially happen when that supply chain goes wrong. Four people were arrested in late July after investigators found different types of rice in bags being passed off as a well-known basmati brand.

The National Food Crime Unit uncovered the alleged fraud when tests showed the wrong type of rice inside premium-brand packets. The operation began in Leicester, where police arrested a man suspected of repackaging ordinary rice into counterfeit basmati bags. Three more arrests followed in London. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) says the investigation is ongoing and no charges have been brought.

Basmati is a prestigious grain, prized for its nutty flavour and popcorn-like aroma. Alongside jasmine from Thailand and Italy’s arborio, it sits at the top of the speciality rice market. When shoppers buy a packet of basmati, they expect quality. If it falls short, they may feel cheated and think twice about buying that brand again.

To prevent this, the UK operates strict rules under the basmati code of practice. The code sets out which varieties can legally be called basmati, how they may be blended and what level of non-basmati grain is tolerated.

There must not be more than 7% of another rice variety in a packet. It’s a figure reduced from 20% two decades ago, but which cannot be lowered further because of the realities of handling multiple varieties in large mills.

This code was agreed by the Rice Association and the British Retail Association, and it applies across Europe. When exporters in India and Pakistan develop new basmati varieties, samples are sent to the Rice Association in London for approval.

An important tool in enforcing these rules is DNA testing. Every grain carries a genetic fingerprint that can confirm whether it belongs to one of the approved basmati varieties.

Public analyst laboratories regularly test shipments entering the UK and EU. The FSA also runs an annual survey of basmati products bought at random from retailers.

The current DNA test for basmati authentication was developed through collaboration between my colleagues and me at Bangor University, the FSA and public analysts.

We profiled hundreds of rice varieties and continue to refine the markers used to identify basmati. Before the method was approved, our team ran blind tests of results from known spiked mixtures of grains across different laboratories to ensure reliable results.

An age-old problem with modern costs

Food fraud is nothing new. For centuries, unscrupulous traders have substituted cheaper goods or mislabelled products.

While swapping rice is less harmful than adulterating food with toxic substances, it still matters. Consumers resent being duped, brands suffer reputational damage and companies that play by the rules lose out. The stakes are high because the UK rice industry is worth close to £1 billion a year.

There are points of vulnerability every time the grains get passed from one trader to the next. It is not known whether it mainly takes place overseas. Economic pressures may be making the problem worse. As the UK experiences sluggish economic growth, opportunities for food crime may be increasing.

Counterfeiting is easier to identify using DNA testing than when known mixtures of varieties are introduced further up the food chain. It is probable that some of the less well-known brands of rice sold in the UK may contain varieties that are not listed in the basmati code of practice. These could easily slip through the DNA test because complex mixtures can be made to contain all the right molecular signatures.

Even so, food sold in the UK is among the most closely regulated in the world because of the work done by the FSA. Their National Food Crime unit leads the fight against food crime as exemplified by the recent case of the counterfeit basmati, but consumers must be vigilant because there are still fraudsters about. This can include being wary of poorly printed packaging labels, misspellings, broken seals and unusual pricing. Because if the price seems too good to be true, it probably is.

Katherine Steele receives funding from UKRI, DEFRA and Food Standards Agency.

– ref. Why your basmati rice might not be what you think it is – https://theconversation.com/why-your-basmati-rice-might-not-be-what-you-think-it-is-264146

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Patrick Byrne, Professor of Water Science, Liverpool John Moores University

The amount of toxic “forever chemicals” flowing into the River Mersey in north-west England has reached some of the highest levels recorded anywhere in the world.

My team’s research links much of this contamination to old landfills, waste facilities and past industrial activity. Even if these chemicals were banned tomorrow, they would continue polluting our rivers for decades, possibly centuries.

But there is a path forward. We’ve developed a new method
to track and prioritise the largest sources for clean-up, giving regulators a clearer picture of where to act first.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), more commonly known as “forever chemicals”, are a large family of human-made chemicals found in everyday products like food packaging, water-repellent clothes and fire-fighting foams. They are valued for their ability to resist very high temperatures and to repel water and oil, but these same properties make them extremely persistent.

Once released, some PFAS could take thousands of years to break down. They accumulate in the environment, build up – with different compounds accumulating at different rates – inside the bodies of wildlife and people, and have been associated with harms to health. The most studied types have been linked to cancers, hormone disruption and immune system problems.

Last year, my research team discovered that the amount of two potentially cancer-causing PFAS chemicals washing off the land and into the Mersey was among the highest in the world. In our follow-on research, we travelled upstream to try and locate where these PFAS are coming from. But with hundreds of potential PFAS sources, how do we isolate the largest ones?

The secret is measuring something called the PFAS load – the total amount of PFAS flowing through the river at a given point, rather than just the concentration in the water.

Here’s why that matters: a small stream can have high concentrations but carry only a small total amount, while a large river with lower concentrations can be transporting far more PFAS overall. If we only look at concentration, we risk missing the really heavy polluters.

By measuring PFAS loads at multiple points along the Mersey system, we could see exactly where the largest increases occurred. That told us both the location and the scale of PFAS inputs.

We detected PFAS chemicals at 97% of our sample sites, even in supposedly pristine streams draining from the Peak District national park. But the big breakthroughs came when we matched the largest PFAS load increases to specific areas.

PFBS (a type of PFAS) was coming in huge amounts from land draining old landfills in the Glaze Brook watershed near Leigh, west of Manchester. PFOA, a globally banned and cancer-causing PFAS, appeared to originate from a waste management facility on the River Roch, north of Manchester. PFOS, another banned PFAS, was entering the River Bollin, with strong evidence pointing to historic firefighting foam use at Manchester Airport.

What’s most striking to me is that all these sources are rooted in the past – old landfills, waste sites or historic industrial use. These chemicals are no longer in production, but they are still escaping into the environment, decades later.

This is where PFAS load measurements make a real difference. Instead of chasing the highest concentrations – which might lead to cleaning up small streams that contribute little overall – we can target the sites releasing the largest total amounts of PFAS into our rivers.

It’s a simple idea with major implications. In a world where environmental regulators face tight budgets and limited monitoring capacity, knowing exactly which sites are the biggest sources is vital.

The Mersey is just one example. Around the world, PFAS contamination follows a similar pattern: numerous potential sources scattered across the landscape, many of them historical. The chemicals’ extreme persistence means they will continue cycling through rivers, soils and wildlife for generations unless active steps are taken to remove or contain them.

Our latest study shows that measuring PFAS load can help solve one of the toughest challenges in managing chemical pollution: working out where to start. By identifying and prioritising the biggest sources, regulators have a realistic chance of reducing the flow of forever chemicals into our rivers – and perhaps one day, making that nickname a little less true.

Patrick Byrne receives funding from the Natural Environment Research Council.

– ref. How I tracked the biggest hidden sources of forever chemical pollution in UK rivers – new study – https://theconversation.com/how-i-tracked-the-biggest-hidden-sources-of-forever-chemical-pollution-in-uk-rivers-new-study-261967

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Farr, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary British History, Newcastle University

Donald Trump’s first state visit to the UK, in June 2019, was an attempt by the British government to try to forestall the threat of Trumpism, a set of ideas and style of leadership that were not, in the end, embedded. The unprecedented second state visit of September 2025 has been an attempt to accommodate the second Trump administration – one already much more purposeful and consequential.

In one respect, the two visits are complementary: they feature an imperturbable president entreated by beleaguered prime ministers. Theresa May was humiliated publicly by Trump, and was gone the following month. Starmer has almost nothing in common with Trump except a quite unexpected, and largely inexplicable, personal chemistry.

Briefings on Air Force One, as it headed to the UK, would have been brief – the president is easily bored – and aimed at preparing him for what awaited: thousands of people in uniform choreographed to the inch to impress a mere dozen or so Americans, and one in particular.

There were issues of substance, some of which are very substantial indeed. A civil “nuclear partnership” almost complementing the 70-year-old military nuclear partnership. As they already do in the older partnership, the two sides will now recognise the other’s standards and safety assessments in civil nuclear projects. More was made of the vaunted “tech prosperity deal”.

These agreements are meaningful and had Lord Mandelson at their core, before his sacking. He would be justified in viewing – as he doubtless does – that the state visit was in part a posthumous monument to his ambassadorship.

State visits are a key part of national diplomacy, and particularly when royalty may be deployed. As ever, Trump tests norms to breaking point. In a constitutional monarchy such as Britain’s, the monarch acts on the advice of the government. But Trump is potentially so damaging by association for the government (and Starmer in particular) that the monarch was more central than ever.

Trump and his supporters will not admit publicly that so dominating a political actor makes people bend to their will. Faced with the most imperious president in the history of the imperial presidency, they seek to accommodate, pre-empt, cajole, appease. One exception is a king.

This state visit – and the likely return trip of Charles to the US for the 250th anniversary of US independence next year – is a card the British were suitably shameless in playing. There is a clear rapport between the two; indeed, a rapport that would have been unlikely – given their different personalities – with Elizabeth II. Charles III has proven to be an essential, rather than merely complementary, element of the special relationship.

For once, there’s a precedent for so singular a president. In November 2003 – after a million marched in London in opposition to the US-UK invasion of of Iraq – President George W. Bush scarcely left a barricaded Buckingham Palace.

Where a state visit ordinarily occasions – demands – an open-topped carriage ride along the Mall with the monarch, it is a unique irony that the leader of Britain’s closest ally had to travel by drone-shielded helicopter. No members of the public – who effectively paid for the visit – saw the president.

This time, Windsor suited much more than Buckingham Palace as the venue because, as one might hope from a castle, it is secure and can repel the unwanted.

Wednesday’s procession professing “Trump not welcome” was a relatively modest affair. The Stop Trump Coalition – an umbrella association of over 60 organisations including CND, Extinction Rebellion, Fossil Free London, Keep our NHS Public, and the National Education Union – may need to reconsider its founding imperative.

That the demonstration was significantly smaller than the one that greeted Trump in 2019 – notwithstanding the even more fevered and febrile public square – is testament to a sense of resignation occasioned by this repeat of history.

Opposites attract

Inasmuch as it’s possible with Trump, nothing was left to chance, apart from the press conference, where disagreement was minimal, though unusually clearly stated – a sign of confidence. Starmer and Trump were clearly reading from different hymn sheets on recognising Palestine and net zero. Trump’s suggestion that the UK follow his lead by sending the military out to deal with illegal immigration is more a disagreement of degree.

They were, however, news lines which were catnip to Starmer’s critics on the right, and in the weeks to come will receive repeated airings. As expected, the Mandelson/Jeffrey Epstein affair had receded in the press – if not the public mind. That Trump denied knowing Mandelson, despite their private meeting the week before, said much more about the president than it did the former ambassador.

Without any public presence whatsoever, the ceremonies and parades were for one person only. The risk of looking slightly desperate, however, proved one worth taking. US media coverage was minimal, meaning wider exposure was limited, and the president was clearly impressed.

The visit also demonstrated, more than ever, the value of royal diplomacy: that it can lubricate, augment, constitute a historical-cultural thread that impresses those a UK government may wish to impress. The extent to which that translates into material benefits is harder to test.

The state visit of President Trump to the UK mattered to both, but it mattered much more to one. Contrary to expectations, opposites so far have attracted. The special relationship has survived and even prospered in the face of uncertainty.

Its smooth passing may provide a locus for a natural – rather than yet another staged – reset. May’s fluffing of the 2017 general election was enough in Trump’s eyes, to condemn her, but so far Trump’s affection for Starmer has withstood the growing talk of the defenestration of a prime minister with a 22% approval rating. There remain three years to see how long that persists.

Martin Farr 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. Trump, Charles and Starmer: a successful state visit steadies an uncertain premiership – https://theconversation.com/trump-charles-and-starmer-a-successful-state-visit-steadies-an-uncertain-premiership-265597