Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Havovi Chichger, Professor, Biomedical Science, Anglia Ruskin University

Found in everything from protein bars to energy drinks, erythritol has long been considered a safe alternative to sugar. But new research suggests this widely used sweetener may be quietly undermining one of the body’s most crucial protective barriers – with potentially serious consequences for heart health and stroke risk.

A recent study from the University of Colorado suggests erythritol may damage cells in the blood-brain barrier, the brain’s security system that keeps out harmful substances while letting in nutrients. The findings add troubling new detail to previous observational studies that have linked erythritol consumption to increased rates of heart attack and stroke.

In the new study, researchers exposed blood-brain barrier cells to levels of erythritol typically found after drinking a soft drink sweetened with the compound. They saw a chain reaction of cell damage that could make the brain more vulnerable to blood clots – a leading cause of stroke.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Erythritol triggered what scientists call oxidative stress, flooding cells with harmful, highly reactive molecules known as free radicals, while simultaneously reducing the body’s natural antioxidant defences. This double assault damaged the cells’ ability to function properly, and in some cases killed them outright.

But perhaps more concerning was erythritol’s effect on the blood vessels’ ability to regulate blood flow. Healthy blood vessels act like traffic controllers, widening when organs need more blood – during exercise, for instance – and tightening when less is required. They achieve this delicate balance through two key molecules: nitric oxide, which relaxes blood vessels, and endothelin-1, which constricts them.

The study found that erythritol disrupted this critical system, reducing nitric oxide production while ramping up endothelin-1. The result would be blood vessels that remain dangerously constricted, potentially starving the brain of oxygen and nutrients. This imbalance is a known warning sign of ischaemic stroke – the type caused by blood clots blocking vessels in the brain.

Even more alarming, erythritol appeared to sabotage the body’s natural defence against blood clots. Normally, when clots form in blood vessels, cells release a “clot buster” called tissue plasminogen activator that dissolves the blockage before it can cause a stroke. But the sweetener blocked this protective mechanism, potentially leaving clots free to wreak havoc.

The laboratory findings align with troubling evidence from human studies. Several large-scale observational studies have found that people who regularly consume erythritol face significantly higher risks of cardiovascular disease, including heart attacks and strokes. One major study tracking thousands of participants found that those with the highest blood levels of erythritol were roughly twice as likely to experience a major cardiac event.

However, the research does have limitations. The experiments were conducted on isolated cells in laboratory dishes rather than complete blood vessels, which means the cells may not behave exactly as they would in the human body. Scientists acknowledge that more sophisticated testing – using advanced “blood vessel on a chip” systems that better mimic real physiology – will be needed to confirm these effects.

The findings are particularly significant because erythritol occupies a unique position in the sweetener landscape. Unlike artificial sweeteners such as aspartame or sucralose, erythritol is technically a sugar alcohol – a naturally occurring compound that the body produces in small amounts. This classification helped it avoid inclusion in recent World Health Organization guidelines that discouraged the use of artificial sweeteners for weight control.

Erythritol has also gained popularity among food manufacturers because it behaves more like sugar than other alternatives. While sucralose is 320 times sweeter than sugar, erythritol provides only about 80% of sugar’s sweetness, making it easier to use in recipes without creating an overpowering taste. It’s now found in thousands of products, especially in many “sugar-free” and “keto-friendly” foods.

Trade-off

Regulatory agencies, including the European Food Standards Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration, have approved erythritol as safe for consumption. But the new research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that even “natural” sugar alternatives may carry unexpected health risks.

For consumers, the findings raise difficult questions about the trade-offs involved in sugar substitution. Sweeteners like erythritol can be valuable tools for weight management and diabetes prevention, helping people reduce calories and control blood sugar spikes. But if regular consumption potentially weakens the brain’s protective barriers and increases cardiovascular risk, the benefits may come at a significant cost.

The research underscores a broader challenge in nutritional science: understanding the long-term effects of relatively new food additives that have become ubiquitous in the modern diet. While erythritol may help people avoid the immediate harms of excess sugar consumption, its effect on the blood-brain barrier suggests that frequent use could be quietly compromising brain protection over time.

As scientists continue to investigate these concerning links, consumers may want to reconsider their relationship with this seemingly innocent sweetener – and perhaps question whether any sugar substitute additive is truly without risk.

Havovi Chichger 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. A popular sweetener could be damaging your brain’s defences, says recent study – https://theconversation.com/a-popular-sweetener-could-be-damaging-your-brains-defences-says-recent-study-261500

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Havovi Chichger, Professor, Biomedical Science, Anglia Ruskin University

Found in everything from protein bars to energy drinks, erythritol has long been considered a safe alternative to sugar. But new research suggests this widely used sweetener may be quietly undermining one of the body’s most crucial protective barriers – with potentially serious consequences for heart health and stroke risk.

A recent study from the University of Colorado suggests erythritol may damage cells in the blood-brain barrier, the brain’s security system that keeps out harmful substances while letting in nutrients. The findings add troubling new detail to previous observational studies that have linked erythritol consumption to increased rates of heart attack and stroke.

In the new study, researchers exposed blood-brain barrier cells to levels of erythritol typically found after drinking a soft drink sweetened with the compound. They saw a chain reaction of cell damage that could make the brain more vulnerable to blood clots – a leading cause of stroke.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Erythritol triggered what scientists call oxidative stress, flooding cells with harmful, highly reactive molecules known as free radicals, while simultaneously reducing the body’s natural antioxidant defences. This double assault damaged the cells’ ability to function properly, and in some cases killed them outright.

But perhaps more concerning was erythritol’s effect on the blood vessels’ ability to regulate blood flow. Healthy blood vessels act like traffic controllers, widening when organs need more blood – during exercise, for instance – and tightening when less is required. They achieve this delicate balance through two key molecules: nitric oxide, which relaxes blood vessels, and endothelin-1, which constricts them.

The study found that erythritol disrupted this critical system, reducing nitric oxide production while ramping up endothelin-1. The result would be blood vessels that remain dangerously constricted, potentially starving the brain of oxygen and nutrients. This imbalance is a known warning sign of ischaemic stroke – the type caused by blood clots blocking vessels in the brain.

Even more alarming, erythritol appeared to sabotage the body’s natural defence against blood clots. Normally, when clots form in blood vessels, cells release a “clot buster” called tissue plasminogen activator that dissolves the blockage before it can cause a stroke. But the sweetener blocked this protective mechanism, potentially leaving clots free to wreak havoc.

The laboratory findings align with troubling evidence from human studies. Several large-scale observational studies have found that people who regularly consume erythritol face significantly higher risks of cardiovascular disease, including heart attacks and strokes. One major study tracking thousands of participants found that those with the highest blood levels of erythritol were roughly twice as likely to experience a major cardiac event.

However, the research does have limitations. The experiments were conducted on isolated cells in laboratory dishes rather than complete blood vessels, which means the cells may not behave exactly as they would in the human body. Scientists acknowledge that more sophisticated testing – using advanced “blood vessel on a chip” systems that better mimic real physiology – will be needed to confirm these effects.

The findings are particularly significant because erythritol occupies a unique position in the sweetener landscape. Unlike artificial sweeteners such as aspartame or sucralose, erythritol is technically a sugar alcohol – a naturally occurring compound that the body produces in small amounts. This classification helped it avoid inclusion in recent World Health Organization guidelines that discouraged the use of artificial sweeteners for weight control.

Erythritol has also gained popularity among food manufacturers because it behaves more like sugar than other alternatives. While sucralose is 320 times sweeter than sugar, erythritol provides only about 80% of sugar’s sweetness, making it easier to use in recipes without creating an overpowering taste. It’s now found in thousands of products, especially in many “sugar-free” and “keto-friendly” foods.

Trade-off

Regulatory agencies, including the European Food Standards Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration, have approved erythritol as safe for consumption. But the new research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that even “natural” sugar alternatives may carry unexpected health risks.

For consumers, the findings raise difficult questions about the trade-offs involved in sugar substitution. Sweeteners like erythritol can be valuable tools for weight management and diabetes prevention, helping people reduce calories and control blood sugar spikes. But if regular consumption potentially weakens the brain’s protective barriers and increases cardiovascular risk, the benefits may come at a significant cost.

The research underscores a broader challenge in nutritional science: understanding the long-term effects of relatively new food additives that have become ubiquitous in the modern diet. While erythritol may help people avoid the immediate harms of excess sugar consumption, its effect on the blood-brain barrier suggests that frequent use could be quietly compromising brain protection over time.

As scientists continue to investigate these concerning links, consumers may want to reconsider their relationship with this seemingly innocent sweetener – and perhaps question whether any sugar substitute additive is truly without risk.

Havovi Chichger 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. How a popular sweetener could be damaging your brain’s defences – https://theconversation.com/how-a-popular-sweetener-could-be-damaging-your-brains-defences-261500

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dipa Kamdar, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Kingston University

When we think about the side effects of medicines, we might think of nausea, fatigue or dizziness. But there’s another, lesser-known risk that can have lasting – and sometimes permanent – consequences: hearing loss. A wide range of prescription and over-the-counter drugs are known to be ototoxic, meaning they can damage the inner ear and affect hearing or balance.

Ototoxicity refers to drug or chemical-related damage to the cochlea, which affects hearing, and the vestibular system, which controls balance. Symptoms can include tinnitus (ringing in the ears), hearing loss (often starting with high-frequency sounds), dizziness or balance problems or a sensation of fullness in the ears.

These effects can be temporary or permanent, depending on the drug involved, the dose and duration and a person’s susceptibility.

The inner ear is highly sensitive, and most experts believe ototoxic drugs cause damage by harming the tiny hair cells in the cochlea or disrupting the fluid balance in the inner ear. Once these hair cells are damaged, they don’t regenerate – making hearing loss irreversible in many cases.

Around 200 medicines are known to have ototoxic effects. Here are some of the most commonly used drugs to watch out for:

1. Antibiotics

Aminoglycoside antibiotics like gentamicin, tobramycin and streptomycin are typically prescribed for serious infections such as sepsis, meningitis, or tuberculosis – conditions where prompt, aggressive treatment can be lifesaving. In these cases, the benefits often outweigh the potential risk of hearing loss.

These drugs, usually given intravenously, are among the most well-documented ototoxic medications. They can cause irreversible hearing loss, particularly when used in high doses or over extended periods. Some people may also be genetically more vulnerable to these effects.

These drugs linger in the inner ear for weeks or even months, meaning damage can continue after treatment has ended.

Other antibiotics to be aware of include macrolides (such as erythromycin and azithromycin) and vancomycin, which have also been linked to hearing problems, particularly in older adults or people with kidney issues.

2. Heart medicines

Loop diuretics like furosemide and bumetanide are commonly used to manage heart failure or high blood pressure. When given in high doses or intravenously, they can cause temporary hearing loss by disrupting the fluid and electrolyte balance in the inner ear. Around 3% of users may experience ototoxicity.

Some blood pressure medications have also been linked to tinnitus.

Read more:
That annoying ringing, buzzing and hissing in the ear – a hearing specialist offers tips to turn down the tinnitus

These include ACE inhibitors – drugs like ramipril that help relax blood vessels by blocking a hormone called angiotensin, making it easier for the heart to pump blood – and calcium-channel blockers like amlodipine, which reduce blood pressure by preventing calcium from entering the cells of the heart and blood vessel walls. While these associations have been observed, more research is needed to fully understand the extent of their effect on hearing.

3. Chemotherapy

Certain chemotherapy drugs, especially those containing platinum – like cisplatin and carboplatin – are known to be highly ototoxic. Cisplatin, often used to treat testicular, ovarian, breast, head and neck cancers, carries a significant risk of permanent hearing loss. That risk increases when radiation is also directed near the head or neck.

Up to 60% of patients treated with cisplatin experience some degree of hearing loss. Researchers are exploring ways to reduce risk by adjusting dosage or frequency without compromising the drug’s effectiveness.

Read more:
Chemotherapy can be a challenging treatment – here’s how to deal with some of the side-effects

4. Painkillers

High doses of common pain relievers, including aspirin, NSAIDs – non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen and naproxen, commonly used to relieve pain, inflammation and fever – and even paracetamol, have been linked to tinnitus and hearing loss.

A large study found that women under 60 who regularly took moderate-dose aspirin (325 mg or more, six to seven times per week) had a 16% higher risk of developing tinnitus. This link was not seen with low-dose aspirin (100 mg or less). Frequent use of NSAIDs as well as paracetamol was also associated with a nearly 20% increased risk of tinnitus, particularly in women who used these medications often.

Another study linked long-term use of these painkillers to a higher risk of hearing loss, especially in men under 60. In most cases, tinnitus and hearing changes resolve once the medication is stopped – but these side effects typically occur after prolonged, high-dose use.

5. Antimalarial drugs

Drugs like chloroquine and quinine – used to treat malaria and leg cramps – can cause reversible hearing loss and tinnitus. One study found that 25–33% of people with hearing loss had previously taken one of these drugs.

Hydroxychloroquine, used to treat lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, has a similar chemical structure and poses a similar risk. While some people recover after stopping the drug, others may experience permanent damage, particularly after long-term or high-dose use.

People with pre-existing hearing loss, kidney disease, or genetic susceptibility face higher risks – as do those taking multiple ototoxic drugs at once. Children and older adults may also be more vulnerable.

If you’re prescribed one of these medications for a serious condition like cancer, sepsis or tuberculosis, the benefits usually outweigh the risks. But it’s still wise to be informed. Ask your doctor or pharmacist if your medicine carries a risk to hearing or balance. If you experience ringing in your ears, dizziness, or muffled hearing, report it promptly.

Dipa Kamdar 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. From painkillers to antibiotics: five medicines that could harm your hearing – https://theconversation.com/from-painkillers-to-antibiotics-five-medicines-that-could-harm-your-hearing-260671

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Susan Ann Samuel, PhD Candidate, School of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds

Youth activist organisations including Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change and World Youth for Climate Justice recently coordinated massive online calls across two different time zones. These two global gatherings were in preparation for a coordinated global youth movement around the release of the most anticipated advisory opinion scheduled to be delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on July 23 2025.

An advisory opinion is a legal interpretation provided by a high-level court or tribunal with a special mandate, in response to a specific question of law. Simply put, an advisory opinion is not legally binding in the way a court judgement between two nations would be.

But it is authoritative. The opinion carries significant legal, moral and political weight: since states often refer to advisory opinions when shaping policies, judges cite them for decisions and they’re used by civil society to hold governments accountable. An advisory opinion can influence shifting governance and principles governing it. I like to think of it as a northern star — it won’t change the reality but can guide potential outcomes and pave the way for future change.

As one of hundreds of participants attending both the online meetings, plus in my capacity as a researcher investigating the role of youth in climate law and politics, this collective action feels momentous.

The movement for an advisory opinion to ICJ began in 2019 when a few brave young people from the Pacific Islands stood up for the world. Twenty-seven law students at the Vanuatu campus of the University of South Pacific convinced their nation to champion climate action and accountability to the entire world by bringing climate justice to the world court.

For these students in the Pacific, the climate crisis means losing their identity, their culture and their homes to the rising sea levels and weather catastrophes. To the young people across the globe — including me — the concern about not being heard by world leaders becomes a shared reality, even though it is our future at stake.

Four courts, four continents

It’s not just the ICJ that’s delivering an advisory opinion. The world is at a turning point. For the first time, four world courts or tribunals across four continents are being asked to clarify nations’ legal obligations in the face of the climate crisis. The ICJ’s advisory opinion is the centrepiece: but it sits within a broader push primarily by global youth and developing countries — to clarify what human rights, state responsibility and climate justice mean in law.

A “quartet” of advisory opinions now spans four judicial bodies: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the ICJ, and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. See the diagram below to check the timeline of each court proceeding.

In addition to the advisory opinions, there are currently 3,113 climate cases across the globe. These include many youth-led cases that bolster solidarity for climate action, call for futureproofing environmental governance, and evoke soft power around the legal proceedings.

These legal proceedings are the result of bold, persistent advocacy. These cases are not abstract. There’s a moral arc here: they primarily stem from advocacy from global youth movements, developing countries, civil society coalitions and frontline communities demanding legal recognition of climate harms and protection of future generations.

As such, the role of youth in bolstering moral power is massive. Their influence in empowering states across the globe to embody climate leadership is critical to pushing for political action, even amid geopolitical realities.

Tracing climate litigation patterns suggests that youth are changing the environmental governance space: as youth litigators (both young lawyers and youth-led cases), youth negotiators and youth activists. Youth across these three spheres — law, politics and activism — are mutually reinforcing each other in their advocacy, unlike ever before.

Themes of climate justice in litigation, negotiation, and social movements are deeply interconnected, rather than isolated from one another. Youth, who are active across all these spheres, often serve as key advocates, thereby reshaping governance dynamics in the process

The push for justice by youth is palpable, despite growing political concerns across the globe. Youth remains the common face of vulnerability, agency and promise. The call for justice is now.

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

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Susan Ann Samuel receives funding from Prof. Viktoria Spaiser’s UKRI FLF Grant MR/V021141/1 and is supported by the University of Leeds – School of Politics and International Studies.

– ref. How young people have taken climate justice to the world’s international courts – https://theconversation.com/how-young-people-have-taken-climate-justice-to-the-worlds-international-courts-261033

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Yvonne Skipper, Senior Lecturer in Psychology (Education), University of Glasgow

Misinformation is found in every element of our online lives. It ranges from fake products available to buy, fake lifestyle posts on social media accounts and fake news about health and politics.

Misinformation has an impact not only on our beliefs but also our behaviour: for example, it has affected how people vote in elections and whether people intend to have vaccinations.

And since anyone can create and share online content, without the kind of verification processes or fact checking typical of more traditional media, misinformation has proliferated.

This is particularly important as young people increasingly turn to social media for all kinds of information, using it as a source of news and as a search engine. But despite their frequent use of social media, teenagers struggle to evaluate the accuracy of the content they consume.

A 2022 report from media watchdog Ofcom found that only 11% of 11 to 17 year olds could reliably recognise the signs that indicated a post was genuine.

My research has explored what teenagers understand about misinformation online. I held focus groups with 37 11- to 14-year-olds, asking them their views on misinformation.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

I found that the young people in the study tended to – wrongly – believe that misinformation was only about world events and scams. Because of this, they believed that they personally did not see a lot of misinformation.

“[My Instagram] isn’t really like ‘this is happening in the world’ or whatever, it’s just kind of like life,” one said. This may make them vulnerable to misinformation as they are only alert for it in these domains.

There was also wide variation in how confident they felt about spotting misinformation. Some were confident in their skills. “I’m not daft enough to believe it,” as one put it.

Others admitted to being easily fooled. This was an interesting finding, as previous research has indicated that most people have a high level of confidence in their personal ability to spot misinformation.

Most did not fact-check information by cross-referencing what they read with other news sources. They relied instead on their intuition – “You just see it, you know” – or looked at what others said in comment sections to spot misinformation. But neither of these strategies is likely to be particularly reliable.

Relying on gut instinct typically means using cognitive shortcuts such as “I trust her, so I can trust her post” or “the website looks professional, so it is trustworthy”. This makes it easy for people to create believable false information.

And a study by Ofcom found that only 22% of adults were able to identify signs of a genuine post. This means that relying on other people to help us tell true from false is not likely to be effective.

Interestingly, the teens in this study saw older adults, particularly grandparents, as especially vulnerable to believing false information. On the other hand, they viewed their parents as more skilled at spotting misinformation than they themselves were. “[Parents] see it as fake news, so they don’t believe it and they don’t need to worry about it,” one said.

This was unexpected. We might assume that young people, who are often considered digital natives, would see themselves as more adept than their parents at spotting misinformation.

Taking responsibility

We discussed whose role it was to challenge misinformation online. The teens were reluctant to challenge it themselves. They thought it would not make a difference if they did, or they feared being victimised online or even offline.

Instead, they believed that governments should stop the spread of misinformation “as they know about what wars are happening”. But older participants thought that if the government took a leading role in stopping the spread of misinformation “there would be protests”, as it would be seen as censorship.

They also felt that platforms should take responsibility to stop the spread of misinformation to protect their reputation, so that people don’t panic about fake news.

In light of these findings, my colleagues and I have created a project that works with young people to create resources to help them develop their skills in spotting misinformation and staying safe online. We work closely with young people to understand what their concerns are, and how they want to learn about these topics.

We also partner with organisations such as Police Scotland and Education Scotland to ensure our materials are grounded in real-world challenges and informed by the needs of teachers and other adult professionals as well as young people.

Yvonne Skipper has received funding from the ESRC, Education Scotland and British Academy.

– ref. Teenagers aren’t good at spotting misinformation online – research suggests why – https://theconversation.com/teenagers-arent-good-at-spotting-misinformation-online-research-suggests-why-260445

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rin Ushiyama, Lecturer in Sociology, Queen’s University Belfast

Japan held elections for its upper house, the House of Councillors, on July 20. The vote proved a challenge for the conservative ruling Liberal Democratic party (LDP), which has been reeling from corruption scandals, rising prices and US tariffs on Japanese exports.

The ruling coalition, composed of the LDP and its junior partner, Kōmeitō, lost its majority in the house. While the centre-left Constitutional Democratic party maintained its position as the largest opposition group, the breakout success of the election was that of Sanseitō, an ultranationalist populist party.

Sanseitō successfully framed immigration as a central issue in the election campaign, with the provocative slogan “Japanese First”. The party won 14 seats in the 248-seat chamber, a substantial jump from the single seat it won in the last election in 2022.

Sanseitō calls itself a party of “ordinary Japanese citizens with the same mindset who came together”. It was formed in 2020 by Sōhei Kamiya, a conservative career politician who served as a city councillor in Suita, a city in Osaka Prefecture, before being elected to the House of Councillors.

Although Sanseitō was initially known for its stance against the COVID-19 vaccine, it has more recently campaigned on an anti-foreigner and anti-immigration platform. The party, which also holds three seats in the powerful lower house, has quickly gained seats in regional and national elections. It most recently won three seats in Tokyo’s prefectural elections in June 2025.

Sanseitō is “anti-globalist”, urging voters to feel proud of their ethnicity and culture. Polls suggest the party is popular among younger men aged between 18 and 30.

Throughout the most recent election campaign, Kamiya repeatedly spread far-right conspiracy theories and misinformation. This included arguing multinational corporations caused the pandemic, as well as that foreigners commit crimes en masse and can avoid paying inheritance tax. Social media has amplified Sanseitō’s xenophobic messaging.

Sanseitō’s electoral success is reminiscent of other right-wing populist parties across Europe and North America, which also place immigration as a core issue.

Kamiya denies being a xenophobe. But he has expressed support for the Republican party in the US, Reform in the UK, Alternativ für Deutschland in Germany and Rassemblement National in France. Echoing other right-wing populist leaders, Kamiya has promised tax cuts, home-grown industries, regulation of foreigners and patriotic education.

However, while Sanseitō rides the global wave of right-wing populism, it also has deeply Japanese roots. Following Japan’s defeat in the second world war, a distinct current of right-wing thought developed, defending “traditional values” and glorifying Japan’s imperial past.

Tensions have flared periodically over issues such as history education and official visits to Yasukuni Shrine, where those who died in service of Japan – including military leaders convicted of war crimes – are commemorated. There have also been disputes around the memorialisation of so-called “comfort women”, who were forced into sex slavery by Japanese forces before and during the war.

Building on these currents, Sanseitō represents a new generation of Japanese conservatism, not just an emulation of foreign populist leaders.

What happens next?

Sanseitō’s rise could have a pivotal influence on Japan’s political landscape. While the prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, has indicated he will not resign, the ruling coalition has now lost control of both houses. Ishiba may need to seek support from other parties and may face leadership challenges.

He also must respond to issues Sanseitō has raised. LDP policymakers are now aware of public anxieties surrounding migration, excessive tourism and cultural integration. Seeking to co-opt some of Sanseitō’s proposals, the government has already banned tourists from driving and set up a new government agency to address concerns about non-Japanese nationals. It has also pledged to reduce illegal immigration to zero.

But the government is facing steep economic and demographic challenges, such as US tariffs, a rapidly ageing and declining population, and a record-low birth rate. So it cannot afford to cut immigration dramatically. Policymakers will have to balance economic needs with hardening public attitudes towards foreigners.

It’s not just immigration that will be at stake. Ishiba will need to navigate wedge issues that could split the LDP’s conservative support base. These include same-sex marriage, the use of separate surnames by married couples, and female succession to the throne.

It’s too early to say whether Sanseitō can sustain its momentum. Numerous populist leaders in Japan before Kamiya have succeeded in turning mistrust of the political class into votes at the ballot box. However, few have been able to translate it into meaningful political change across multiple election cycles.

For instance, Shinji Ishimaru made headlines in 2024 after placing second in the race for Tokyo governor. But his Path to Reform party, which promised educational reform, struggled in the latest election. Reiwa Shinsengumi, the left populist party led by Tarō Yamamoto, also enjoyed success in previous elections but remains small.

Only time will tell if Sanseitō will become a major political party or yet another minority group on the fringes. But it’s clear anti-immigration populism has arrived in Japan. And it looks like it’s here to stay.

Rin Ushiyama 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. Rightwing populist Sanseitō party shakes Japan with election surge – https://theconversation.com/rightwing-populist-sanseito-party-shakes-japan-with-election-surge-261303