Category: The Conversation – Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Mu Zhu, Professor & Associate Dean, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo

When United States Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unveiled new dietary guidelines earlier this year to “Make America Healthy Again,” they received a mixed response.

Some organizations, including the American Heart Association, welcomed the renewed emphasis on vegetables, fruits and whole grains. Others were concerned about the promotion of red meat and whole-fat dairy or accused Kennedy of spreading “blatant misinformation that ‘healthy fats’ include butter and beef tallow.”

The word “misinformation” has become very common in media and popular discourse, sometimes for good reasons, because the lies that the word encapsulates can undermine democracy, impair health and fuel violence.

As associate dean of AI strategy in the faculty of mathematics at the University of Waterloo, I know many are especially worried that AI could worsen the spread of misinformation.

However, the word “misinformation” is also loaded. There seems to be a growing tendency for people to apply the label to just about anything that they may disagree with, rather than genuine lies.

As a professor of statistics, I think the inherent difficulty of assessing evidence may be partly to blame.

Is the die loaded?

Statements like “there is no evidence that eating red meat is harmful” or “there is evidence that full-fat dairy is bad for your health” are not so easy to substantiate.

This is partially because it’s often hard — though not impossible with advanced statistical techniques — to isolate the effect of a particular habit from a myriad of other entangled factors, whether genetic or lifestyle, that also affect health. This is why many research studies merely point to an “association” or a “correlation” between food consumption and health effect.

But even in clear-cut cases where no such entanglement exists, assessing evidence is still surprisingly difficult. For instance, suppose a die was rolled seven times and it showed an odd outcome (numbers one, three or five) on six of these occasions. In principle, odd and even outcomes are supposed to be equally likely.

Is the apparently skewed outcome evidence that the die may be loaded? Does this point to the possibility that someone may be cheating?

Using an evidential scale known as the p-value, one might argue “no,” since there is still a sizeable probability for a normal die to show an odd outcome from more than five of those seven rolls, so rolling six odd numbers is not as unexpected as it appears to be.

Using a different evidential scale known as the e-value, however, one could argue “yes,” since a die would be much more likely to show an odd outcome from six out of seven rolls if it were loaded than if it were not. So rolling six odd numbers is more consistent with the suspicion that the die may be loaded.

---

Read more:
Climate misinformation is becoming a national security threat. Canada isn’t ready for it

---

Scales of scientific evidence

Despite growing criticism, the p-value is still currently the most commonly used scale for judging scientific evidence. In other words, most scientists today have been taught in school that they should answer our question with “no, the die is not loaded.”

However, the opposite argument is not without merit. In fact, if I had made a fair bet that the die was loaded, the bookie would have had to reward me with a profit after observing the outcome of six odd numbers. This is what the e-value ultimately entails: a betting score. And if one can make a profit with such a bet, then the suspicion cannot be totally unreasonable.

But surely two opposite arguments cannot both be correct at the same time? Or can they? Both arguments require an implicit threshold to draw their respective yes, or no, conclusions. For the first argument, the threshold is: how big a probability — two per cent, five per cent or 10 per cent — is a “sizeable probability?” For the second, the threshold is: how much more likely — five times, 10 times or 25 times — is “much more likely?”

The two arguments are not fundamentally at odds with each other but, using different thresholds, one ends up saying “black” and the other “white” when reality is just a certain shade of grey. Indeed, their respective decision thresholds can be calibrated by statisticians so that they always reach the same conclusion.

Let’s use ‘misinformation’ for genuine lies

But the average human being isn’t very good at performing this type of calibration psychologically. We are prone to reacting very differently when the underlying scale changes.

Would you continue to consume a delicacy if you were told that those who eat it regularly are 25 times as likely to develop cancer later in life as those who don’t? What if you were told that doing so will increase your probability of cancer from 0.01 per cent to 0.25 per cent?

You may decide to change your diet because you are fearful of the elevated risk. You may choose to continue with your existing diet because even the elevated risk is still not all that high.

Neither choice is strictly right or wrong. But today, I’m afraid to say: “I see no need to change my diet given the risks.” If I did, those who are enthusiastic about changing theirs might come together and accuse me of spreading “misinformation.” Such madness has to stop, before it completely destroys our social discourse.

The word “misinformation” should be reserved for genuine lies only, not conclusions decided by subjective thresholds, even if they are standard choices. Declaring there is or isn’t evidence simply because the p-value is below or above the conventional threshold has already generated far too many irreproducible findings.

To call something “misinformation” based on that kind of shaky evidence, or the lack thereof, will only obstruct true scientific progress.

Mu Zhu receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

– ref. Truth, or misinformation? A statistician explains the challenge of assessing evidence – https://theconversation.com/truth-or-misinformation-a-statistician-explains-the-challenge-of-assessing-evidence-278161

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Adam Wei, Professor, Department of Earth, Environmental and Geographic Sciences, University of British Columbia

It’s a well-established fact that forests and water are deeply connected. For decades, paired-watershed experiments — a scientific method for evaluating land-use impacts on water quantity or quality — have shown that when we lose forests, the total amount of water flowing through our rivers tends to rise.

But a critical question has remained unanswered: does this extra water come from previous reserves, or is it simply “new” rain that the land is failing to hold?

In other words, is forest loss causing our watersheds to lose their internal integrity and leak like a sifter?

Our recent study at the University of British Columbia analyzed 657 watersheds across the globe. By using a tool called the Young Water Fraction, we found that forest loss significantly accelerates how fast precipitation travels through a landscape.

We estimate that for every one per cent of forest lost, the “young water” in our streams increases by about 0.17 per cent.

Crucially, our research reveals that it isn’t just about how many trees are cut down — it is also about the spatial patterns left behind. The way we arrange forest patches can either aggravate or mitigate this leakage.

Why watersheds are leaking

Young Water Fraction tells us what proportion of a stream is made up of rain that fell recently — typically within the last two to three months. Ideally, we want a low percentage of young water.

A low amount means the landscape is acting like a sponge, filtering rain through the soil and into groundwater, which sustains the river during dry seasons. A high amount of young water, however, suggests a “leaky” watershed that sheds new rain almost immediately.

The reasons for this leakage are tied to how we treat the land. When a forest canopy is removed, raindrops hit the ground with full force instead of being intercepted by leaves. Furthermore, heavy machinery and logging roads pack the soil tight, making it harder for water to sink in.

Lastly, without trees to breathe water back into the atmosphere through transpiration, the soil stays saturated. When the next rain comes, there is no room left to store it, forcing the water to run off quickly into the stream.

This loss of retention capacity is especially potent in watersheds with shallow groundwater. In these areas, the soil layers are thin, limiting how much rain can be stored. Any disturbance to the land cover lacks a buffer, immediately translating into altered, younger streamflow.

Forest edges

The most striking finding of our work is that the landscape pattern — the spatial configuration of the trees — matters just as much as the total area lost.

Imagine two scenarios: one large, solid block of harvested timber versus many small, scattered patches. Our work confirmed that even if the total area cut is the same, the hydrological impact is different.

We looked specifically at forest edges, the boundary where trees meet open clearings. Interestingly, as the density of these edges increases, the amount of young water tends to decrease.

This happens because these edges are more exposed to sunlight and wind. These “edge effects” can enhance the process of evapotranspiration, driving more soil water to leave the watershed as vapour rather than becoming quick runoff.

This regulative impact is especially powerful in sparsely forested watersheds with less than 40 per cent forest cover. This is because boosting evaporation requires openings large enough to allow sunlight to penetrate from the side and drive microclimatic changes.

In densely forested areas, increasing edge density fragments the remaining open space too much, resulting in smaller gaps that actually attenuate these edge effects.

Rethinking forest management

Our research reinforces the critical role of forests in water management. Beyond the obvious connection between forests and water, we now know more about how forest loss compromises a watershed’s hydrological integrity. The connection between our forests and our water is even closer than we previously expected.

This research also challenges the idea of binary forest management that focuses on either keeping or losing trees. This is particularly vital for regions where the timber industry is integral to the economy.

The direct lesson for the industry is that we should avoid uniform, regularly shaped clearcuts, which result in low edge density. Instead, we advocate for replicating the complex, irregular patterns found in nature. This can be achieved through silvicultural techniques such as variable retention harvesting, selective logging and continuous cover forestry.

Taking into account a forest’s landscape pattern provides a way to balance forest conservation with development: by optimizing how forests are managed, it’s possible to mitigate the negative hydrological impacts caused by logging.

By designing with the landscape in mind, we can help ensure our watersheds continue to function as sponges rather than sifters.

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

– ref. Why forest loss is making our watersheds leak rain – https://theconversation.com/why-forest-loss-is-making-our-watersheds-leak-rain-276867

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Nicholas A. R. Fraser, Senior Research Associate , Toronto Metropolitan University; University of Toronto

Almost a year ago, Canadian voters elected a government that promised a fundamental shift toward pragmatism. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s mandate was clear: achieve sustainable immigration levels and ensure that “government itself must become much more productive … by focusing on results over spending.”

But as the House of Commons prepares to review the Senate’s amendments to Bill C-12 — the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act — the government is at risk of violating its own evidence-based pledge.

While others have rightly commented on the human rights concerns (and there are many) raised by this legislation — including those on the United Nations Human Rights Committee — the argument that sacrificing immigrants’ rights will enhance administrative capacity is a bold claim worth investigating.

Controlling costs?

During House debates in February, the government argued that success should be measured by volume: a one-third reduction in new asylum claims. As Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab stated:

“We are also making significant changes and have introduced Bill C-12, which would curb the misuse of asylum. We will control costs, and we will truly protect those who are vulnerable, in line with our international and humanitarian obligations.”

Despite the government’s rhetoric about reducing the number of “unfounded” refugee claims, it’s based on the flawed notion that the true source of inefficiency is the procedural rights of applicants. If this were actually true, scaling them back should speed up the procedures that allow officials to clear the backlog of claims. My research shows the opposite.

Learning from the Harper government

Canada has been here before. In 2012, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government attempted similar reforms, specifically the Designated Countries of Origin (DCO) policy.

The rhetoric then was nearly identical to the rhetoric today: procedural restrictions would filter out “unfounded” claims made by applicants from “safe” countries and speed up the system.

Human rights concerns aside, did these deterrence policies meet their stated goal of making the system more efficient?

My SSHRC-funded study of 178,873 asylum claims filed between 2006 and 2017 — one of the largest independent analyses of the Canadian asylum system to date — reveals they did not.

As an expert witness cited in the Social Affairs, Science and Technology (SOCI) committee report on Bill C-12, I briefed the Senate on my study.

My research was based on a statistical analysis of asylum claims filed before and after the DCO policy came into effect (2006 to 2017) and interviews with immigration lawyers and adjudicators at the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) of Canada’s Refugee Protection Division. To date, mine is one of the few academic studies examining what makes Canada’s immigration procedures more or less efficient.

The Harper government rightly identified withdrawn and abandoned asylum claims as a key source of inefficiency. In my analysis, I found that these types of unfinished claims significantly contribute to application backlogs:

The DCO policy was designed, in fact, to make it harder for new applicants to file refugee applications in an attempt to speed up the adjudication of asylum claims.

Ironically, the DCO policy actually increased the likelihood that refugee applicants would withdraw their claims (by about 15 per cent).

The importance of legal counsel

Between 2006 and 2017, close to 90 per cent of asylum applicants had legal counsel. While safer conditions in source countries made applicants 25 per cent more likely to withdraw their claims, almost half abandoned their claims (about 46 per cent). Unrepresented applicants were most likely to withdraw their claims. Importantly, I also found that adding more adjudicators made little difference unless applicants had access to legal counsel.

Ethical and competent legal counsel also saves time and resources for board members in three ways.

First, lawyers informally pre-screen prospective refugee applicants and redirect those with weaker claims toward alternative routes to legal status. Second, in the hearing room, lawyers prepare applicants and summarize key parts of complex claims for busy adjudicators, regardless of whether the claim is accepted. Third, behind the scenes, the IRB’s own in-house lawyers give adjudicators advice that improves decision-making and reduces the likelihood of costly litigation.

More than 80 per cent of the board members members interviewed in a similar study agreed that specialized counsel makes the process more efficient. Lawyers help ensure claims are hearing-ready and reduce the need for lengthy proceedings.

The right to face adjudicators (extended to immigrants by the Supreme Court in 1985), plus a well-developed immigration law sector, motivates immigrants and adjudicators to seek counsel. In this way, access to legal counsel helps immigrants and adjudicators navigate the immigration system more quickly and effectively.

A road map for systemic efficiency

In its review of Bill C-12, the Senate noted a “paucity of data” available to evaluate the impact of proposed immigration reforms. This gap offers the federal government a critical opportunity to apply its “results over spending” mandate to reduce the current backlog of asylum claims.

My research shows that efficient immigration procedures depend on strong procedural rights and access to counsel for migrants.

By undermining these requirements, the DCO policy created redundant cycles in which applicants were more likely to file claims quickly without legal representation, contributing to backlogs and increasing costly litigation.

Canada’s asylum system relies on oral hearings and strong, front-end decision-making. By addressing migrant incentives and partnering with civil society, immigration processes can be both fair and efficient. In short, the evidence shows that rights and efficiency are not mutually exclusive — Canada can achieve both.

Nicholas A. R. Fraser receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Reserach Council of Canada (SSHRC).

– ref. Trading rights for efficiency: Why Bill C-12’s restrictive asylum measures will likely backfire – https://theconversation.com/trading-rights-for-efficiency-why-bill-c-12s-restrictive-asylum-measures-will-likely-backfire-278862

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Philippe Le Billon, Professor, Geography Department and School of Public Policy & Global Affairs, University of British Columbia

Delegates are meeting in New York for the third session of the preparatory commission (PrepCom 3) on the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), also known as the High Seas Treaty.

After nearly 20 years of negotiations, United Nations member states adopted the treaty in June 2023. When it opened for signatures that September, 67 countries signed immediately. In January 2026, Morocco and Sierra Leone then became the 60th and 61st states to ratify, triggering the treaty’s entry into force.

The treaty is now international law. At the time of writing, 145 countries have signed and 85 have ratified.

The third session of the preparatory commission must now work through how the treaty will actually function. A key question in corridor conversations is: who should host the secretariat?

Every international treaty needs an institutional home. The High Seas Treaty is no different. It requires a secretariat to co-ordinate between parties, service meetings and manage information.

For months, Belgium and Chile were the only contenders, their bids quietly taking shape in the background of treaty negotiations. Then, in January 2026, China submitted a formal bid with Xiamen as the proposed host city. That announcement changed the optics of the negotiations.

The geography of diplomacy

Where that secretariat sits may be seen as an administrative question, a matter of office space and convenience. It is not.

The location of secretariats, and diplomatic venues in general, shapes how they function in practice. It influences who gravitates toward the institution and which delegations can afford to attend. It sways what issues get quietly elevated and what institutional culture takes root. Location is a form of proximity and proximity is a form of influence.

Belgium has put forward Brussels, pointing to its dense ecosystem of international organizations and more than 300 diplomatic missions.

Chile has offered Valparaíso on an equity argument: Latin America has never hosted a universal-membership environmental secretariat and the Global South deserves a seat at the table.

China’s late entry adds a strong contender to the process.

Concerns about China’s influence

China has more at stake in how the high seas are governed than almost any other state. It has the world’s largest distant-water fishing fleet and has faced sustained international criticism over illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. It also holds more deep-sea mineral exploration contracts through the International Seabed Authority than any other nation.

It has been among the most assertive in defending its maritime claims, even when those claims have been rejected by international courts, including through declaring a “nature reserve” on the disputed Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea.

Though fishing controversially remains largely outside its scope, the BBNJ agreement intervenes in key pressure points, most notably through enforceable marine protected areas and new environmental standards for activities that have historically escaped meaningful oversight.

For some observers, that combination makes the secretariat bid difficult to reconcile. Lyn Goldsworthy, a veteran Southern Ocean researcher at the University of Tasmania, has pointed to China’s reluctance over the creation of marine protected areas in the Antarctic high seas. “If they are in that influential [position],” she told Dialogue Earth, “they can slow things down.”

Analysts at India’s National Maritime Foundation have raised the further risk of what they call procedural drift, the idea that formally neutral administrative practices can quietly embed particular governance norms over time.

However, the case is less clear-cut than it looks.

Giving China a stake in the treaty’s success

Skepticism about China’s bid is understandable, but the case against it is weaker than it first appears. Begin with the international picture. Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute, has described the bid as a “significant escalation” in China’s engagement with global governance, one that signals the Chinese want to play an active role in shaping international rules.

If China’s institutional credibility is visibly tied to BBNJ’s success, it has more reasons to want the treaty to function. China has ratified the agreement. It joined the Port State Measures Agreement, the principal instrument targeting illegal fishing, despite late accession and uneven implementation.

Its navy is the fastest-growing maritime force in the world. Its financial, infrastructural and human capacity to run a serious international institution is not in question.

There is possibly an even more important dimension. Scholars focused on Chinese fisheries governance have documented the persistent tension between central government policy and the behaviour of provincial authorities and distant-water operators, a gap that domestic regulation has struggled to close.

---

Read more:
China is struggling to control its provinces as they expand distant-water fishing

---

International treaty commitments can, in principle, function as a mechanism for central governments to exert leverage that internal channels cannot easily provide. Whether the BBNJ treaty might operate that way for China is an open question, but it is one worth taking seriously.

A China genuinely embedded in the framework may behave differently within it than a China left on the outside. The UN’s 30-by-30 target to protect 30 per cent of the world’s oceans by 2030 depends heavily on what happens in the high seas. So does any serious effort to crack down on illegal fishing or establish enforceable marine protected areas in international waters.

None of this is a straightforward argument for or against China hosting. It is a narrower claim: that the case against it is weaker than it first appears because it assumes that Chinese involvement would inevitably hollow out the treaty’s environmental ambition. That assumption is not obviously correct.

What conditions that would make the treaty work rather than fail are not mysterious. The secretariat would need genuine independence in its leadership. Governance structures would need to be transparent and enforceable. The treaty culture would need to be robust enough to resist pressure from the host state and to be responsive to all parties. These are demanding conditions. They are also conditions being negotiated right now.

What is actually at stake

The formal decision on where to locate the secretariat will be taken at the first Conference of the Parties, expected in early 2027. The institutional architecture being built at PrepCom 3 will shape what kind of institution the secretariat becomes before that vote is ever taken.

The governance rules and independence provisions being drafted now will determine whether the hosting question is a story about institutional capture or about the diligent implementation of a treaty that covers nearly half the planet.

The BBNJ agreement is a test of something larger than ocean governance. It is a test of whether international institutions can still function as common ground as the United States withdraws from international organizations and treaties.

Where the secretariat sits is not a technicality. It is about whether the high seas remain a global common in practice, not just in name, through an institution operating with independence, credibility and authority.

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

– ref. What does China’s host bid mean for the High Seas Treaty? – https://theconversation.com/what-does-chinas-host-bid-mean-for-the-high-seas-treaty-279317

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Arushan Arulnamby, Policy Analyst, National Institute on Ageing, Toronto Metropolitan University

NBA star Tyrese Haliburton was recently diagnosed with shingles. The news drew attention to an illness that many people rarely talk about but is far more common than many realize.

In Canada, 130,000 people develop shingles each year. The infection can cause a painful rash and, for some, long-lasting pain that can affect their quality of life for months.

Yet shingles cases are also largely preventable through vaccination. Despite the availability of a highly effective vaccine, fewer than four in 10 Canadian adults aged 50 and older report having received the shingles vaccine.

As researchers focused on aging and vaccination at Toronto Metropolitan University’s National Institute on Ageing, we study vaccine-preventable diseases, vaccination policies and opportunities to improve prevention in Canada.

What is shingles?

Shingles, also known as herpes zoster, is an infection that typically appears as a painful rash with blisters. The virus responsible for shingles is the same virus that causes chickenpox.

After a chickenpox infection, the virus remains in the body and can reactivate when the immune system weakens due to aging, health conditions or certain treatments. People who received the chickenpox vaccine can also develop shingles, but the risk is much lower.

Symptoms often begin with itching, tingling or pain, followed by a rash that usually appears as a strip on one side of the body, most commonly on the torso. In some cases, the rash can appear on the face.

While the rash typically clears within a few weeks, shingles can lead to serious complications. The most common is post-herpetic neuralgia, pain that lasts more than 90 days and can affect daily activities.

If shingles affects the eye and surrounding area, it can cause scarring and vision loss.

Antiviral medications can reduce symptoms, but they are most effective when started within 72 hours of the rash appearing.

Who is most at risk?

As shingles often occurs when the immune system weakens, the risk increases with age and certain medical conditions.

More than two-thirds of shingles cases occur in adults older than 50, and incidence rises with advancing age.

People who are immuno-compromised, meaning their immune systems are weakened by disease or treatment, are at higher risk. This includes those with conditions such as autoimmune diseases, cancer, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and those who have undergone transplants.

Chronic conditions like asthma, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have also been associated with higher shingles incidence.

For many people with these conditions, shingles infections may be more severe, with a greater risk of complications.

The shingles vaccine

There is currently one shingles vaccine available in Canada: Shingrix (generic name non-live zoster vaccine recombinant, adjuvanted), which is given in two doses.

Clinical trials have consistently shown this vaccine provides strong protection against shingles and its complications across multiple populations, with 97 per cent effectiveness against shingles among immuno-competent adults aged 50 and older over three years. The vaccine has also been found to be generally well tolerated among immuno-competent adults aged 50 and older and immuno-compromised adults aged 18 and older.

Recent research shows the vaccine remains highly effective even in the 11th year after vaccination, with 82 per cent effectiveness against shingles among immuno-competent adults aged 50 and older.

Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) strongly recommends Shingrix for adults aged 50 and older, including those who previously received the earlier shingles vaccine (Zostavax, generic name zoster vaccine live) or who have had shingles. NACI also strongly recommends Shingrix for immuno-compromised adults aged 18 and older.

The second dose of Shingrix is recommended two to six months after the first dose. For immuno-compromised adults, however, the second dose can be administered at least four weeks after the first dose.

Vaccine coverage remains low in Canada

Despite strong recommendations and a highly effective vaccine, shingles vaccination rates remain relatively low in Canada.

As of 2023, only 38 per cent of adults aged 50 and older reported having received at least one dose of the shingles vaccine. In some provinces and territories, vaccination rates are even lower, falling to around 25 per cent.

One reason is that public coverage for the shingles vaccine varies widely across Canada. Currently, eight of Canada’s 13 provinces and territories provide some level of public coverage for Shingrix, often limited to specific age groups or high-risk populations.

Only Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador provide coverage for all adults aged 50 and older. Newfoundland and Labrador also covers immuno-compromised adults aged 18 and older.

For those without public coverage, the two-dose vaccine costs roughly $300 to $400, which must be paid out of pocket or through private insurance.

Perception of risk may also play a role in low vaccination rates. One national survey found that 72 per cent of adults aged 50 and older in Canada either do not know or underestimate their risk of developing shingles.

In surveys of older Canadians, the most commonly reported reason for not receiving the shingles vaccine was the belief that vaccination was unnecessary.

Other factors related to vaccine delivery may also influence uptake, including barriers to pharmacist provision and a lack of recommendations from health-care providers.

Preventing this painful infection

Shingles is a common and often painful infection, but it is also largely preventable through vaccination.

Approaches to prevention include increasing awareness, improving vaccine access, encouraging health-care provider recommendations and urging those at higher risk to speak with a health-care provider about shingles vaccination.

These measures can help increase vaccination rates across Canada and prevent a disease that can unnecessarily have a negative impact on people’s overall quality of life.

Arushan Arulnamby is a Policy Analyst at the National Institute on Ageing based at Toronto Metropolitan University. Arushan Arulnamby is the lead author of a shingles white paper developed by the National Institute on Ageing. This report received funding in the form of an unrestricted educational grant from GlaxoSmithKline Inc., a manufacturer of shingles vaccines. None of the authors received personal compensation directly from GlaxoSmithKline Inc. Arushan Arulnamby represents the National Institute on Ageing in the Adult Vaccine Alliance, a coalition focused on improving adult vaccination access in Canada.

Dr. Samir K. Sinha is the Director of Health Policy Research at the National Institute on Ageing based at Toronto Metropolitan University. Dr. Sinha is the senior author of a shingles white paper developed by the National Institute on Ageing. This report received funding in the form of an unrestricted educational grant from GlaxoSmithKline Inc, a manufacturer of shingles vaccines. None of the authors received personal compensation directly from GlaxoSmithKline Inc. Dr. Sinha is also a PI on a number of other foundation and research council grants including CIHR, SSHRC and the Slaight Family Foundation.

– ref. What to know about shingles, a painful infection that vaccination can prevent – https://theconversation.com/what-to-know-about-shingles-a-painful-infection-that-vaccination-can-prevent-277961

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jennifer Brant, Associate Professor in Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

The recent news that Canadian writer Thomas King does not have Indigenous ancestry has prompted necessary conversations across literary communities about the need to vet accurate representations.

An award-winning author, King was positioned as one of the most widely taught Indigenous authors in North America. His work featured prominently on high school and university syllabi, and on library reading lists.

He has received the Order of Canada and the National Aboriginal Achievement Award for arts and culture, the latter of which he told the Globe and Mail he intended to return after learning there is no evidence he has Cherokee ancestry.

King’s work was often praised for its accessibility for broad audiences, particularly non-Indigenous readers encountering Indigenous literature and realities for the first time.

The widespread acceptance and celebration of King’s work stands in contrast to the experiences of many Indigenous authors and artists, whose work, while more culturally relevant, is often seen as less palatable.

---

Read more:
Sovereignty over stereotypes: The data behind false Cherokee identity claims in Canada

---

Insights from the Indigenous Literatures Lab

The Indigenous Literatures Lab at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto is a literary hub that seeks to build bridges between academic researchers, school practitioners and Indigenous communities.

As members of the lab, we’re interested in directing readers toward the vast field of Indigenous literature that expands, contradicts, integrates and challenges the western literary canon. Part of this means introducing new literary genres that are core to Indigenous philosophies, world views and understandings of non-linear time.

King’s legacy

In addition to replacing King’s works from reading lists, syllabi or bookshelves, we implore readers — including educators who may have selected his books to teach — to consider how King became so ubiquitous in the first place — and what gaps his teachings left unfilled as a result of his lack of lived experience.

We believe part of the answer lies in how King was so often framed as digestible and accessible to a non-Indigenous readership, including through his CBC Massey Lectures, The Truth about Stories: A Native Narrative.

---

Read more:
Thomas King: As we learn another ‘hero’ is non-Indigenous, let’s not ignore a broader cultural problem

---

The late Mohawk writer Beth Brant beautifully articulated the truth about stories in her 1994 work, Writing as Witness: Essay and Talk, a book released long before King shared his false truths at Massey Hall in 2003.

Brant’s work examines stories as inter-generational, transcendent of time, ceremonial, spiritual and relational. Was Brant too political to be a mainstream figure of reconciliation? Were her calls to justice not palatable enough for a settler audience?

We offer stories that are unapologetically Indigenous, complex, uniquely beautiful and rightfully palatable. Extending the work of Cree/Metis scholar Kim Anderson, these stories offer a true recognition of being. They holistically embody the nuances of Indigeneity and expand beyond the racial tropes and gender binaries imposed upon Indigenous Peoples.

We invite non-Indigenous readers to ethically engage through an anti-colonial reading lens that honours the spirit and intent of Indigenous writers.

A critical expansion and intervention

We recently launched a series of reading circles to support informed dialogue and praxis for engaging Indigenous literatures.

Our conversation around the allure of King’s work was prompted by our reading of Katherena Vermette’s 2025 novel, Real Ones. This novel was reminiscent of the experiences and harm that accompany false claims to Indigenous identity among celebrated icons.

Real Ones offers important reflections on the rippling effects of false claims to Indigenous identity and the ongoing harm inflicted when people appropriate and misrepresent the lived experiences of Indigenous Peoples.

Conversely, the situation underscores the importance of what Cherokee scholar Daniel Heath Justice has referred to as “good medicine” stories.

---

Read more:
Sovereignty over stereotypes: The data behind false Cherokee identity claims in Canada

---

Such stories are life affirming and extend community narratives of strength — whether they’re on cusp of fantastical and realist fiction or they’re breathtaking “wonderworks” that mark new worlds and trouble the settler colonial imaginary.

Reconceptualizing ‘the truth about stories’

Since the public news of King’s false identity claims, there have been numerous posts on social media pages that vet resources of Indigenous content. For instance, there’s been an uptake in posts seeking replacement texts for King’s Borders or The Inconvenient Indian in online discussions among teachers of Indigenous content.

---

Read more:
First Voices: New Grade 11 English courses can support reconciliation and resurgence by centring Indigenous literature

---

As our research continues to examine, there’s much to discuss when teaching Indigenous literature. Readers should not be limited by the literary themes forwarded by false identity claims.

We also know it’s not enough for teachers to simply introduce Indigenous literature. The texts must be accompanied by anti-racist teaching practices.

For these reasons, rather than offer “replacement” texts for King’s work, we reconceptualize “the truth about stories.”

In doing so, we recommend some that resist settler myths about Indigeneity and reclaim the creative intellectualism of Indigenous storytelling.

Recommended books

Joshua Whitehead’s Johnny Appleseed offers an Indigiqueer coming-of-age delight exploring Indigenous boyhood from a two-spirit lens and examines notions of maternal figures, love and kinship.

Sara General’s beautiful collection of short stories and other writings, Spirit and Intent, weaves in Haudenosaunee teachings alongside contemporary visions. The fantastical and imaginative connections to writers like Tolkien alongside the everyday experiences of Indigenous womanhood situate this collection in a wider body of literature concerned with Indigenous futures.

Drew Hayden Taylor’s Crees in the Caribbean is a story about “human connection across cultures … comic joy of love rekindled and self-discovery.” Taylor cites the sheer power, presence and quality of Indigenous humour as having immense influence.

Lee Maracle’s Ravensong is a timeless coming-of-age novel that centres the restoration of matriarchal authority — what the work of Jennifer Brant, founding director of the Indigenous Literatures Lab, has described as “matriarchal worlding.”

Alicia Elliot’s And Then She Fell is a riveting debut novel that weaves storytelling with the everyday contemporary realities of Indigenous womanhood. As a novel defined as realist fiction on the cusp of fantasy and horror, And Then She Fell shape-shifts between realism and the fantastical, and is a brilliant “wonderwork.”

The graphic anthology This Place: 150 Years Retold brings forward elements of wonderworks and speculative fiction, examining Canadian history over the last 150 years from the point of view of Indigenous authors and creatives.

We hope readers are inspired to select one of the many books championed here and on our thematically curated reading list, all of which provide thoughtful narratives that align with the lived realities of Indigenous readers.

Reimagining reading lists

We hope that readers and educators are now reimagining their reading lists and recommitting to Indigenous literature in the wake of the King controversy.

We celebrate that there’s no shortage of extraordinary Indigenous writers to choose from, whose work unsettles and expands literary study beyond broad accessibility.

“The truth about stories” is that Indigenous Peoples have been telling stories since time immemorial. As literature scholar Heath Justice notes, these ancient and contemporary literary traditions are “inclusive of all the ways we embody our stories” and include ceremonial teachings, social exchanges and pathways towards Indigenous futures.

Jennifer Brant receives funding from SSHRC.

Erenna Morrison, Gayatri Thakor, Jasmine Rice, and Miyopin Cheechoo do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The real truth about stories: Book recommendations from the Indigenous Literatures Lab – https://theconversation.com/the-real-truth-about-stories-book-recommendations-from-the-indigenous-literatures-lab-275982

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sadaf Mehrabi, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University

Every March, the United Nations marks World Water Day to raise awareness about water scarcity and inequality. This year’s theme — water and gender — focuses on how women and girls often face the brunt of water inequities.

Highlighting how unequal access to water impacts women and girls is essential, but even when issues of leadership and participation are acknowledged, the dominant narrative remains incomplete.

Gender inequity is still framed primarily as a problem of access and representation. It’s also a governance problem.

When people hear “water and gender,” a familiar image may come to mind: women and girls in the Global South walking long distances to collect water, missing out on education and employment as a result. That reality remains urgent but the conversation cannot stop there.

In high-income countries, gendered water inequities have not vanished but shifted into less visible forms embedded in governance, trust and crisis response. These inequities are not limited to moments of failure; they are built into how water systems are governed.

Modern water infrastructure creates an image of neutrality and efficiency. Water appears as a service delivered through pipes and utilities. However, even when systems function, decisions about risk, cost and communication are not neutral.

When systems fail and crises occur, gendered burdens become more visible in households: managing bottled water, protecting children, bearing financial and emotional strain and navigating institutions that may no longer be trusted.

Water burdens and governance

The years-long water crisis in Flint, Mich., made gendered inequities painfully clear. Residents experienced sustained stress, anxiety and financial hardship alongside a collapse in trust in public institutions. But for women in particular, the crisis meant more than inconvenience.

Research shows that when confidence in piped water collapsed, the burden of securing safe water shifted back onto households, disproportionately onto women as they navigated conflicting official advice and decided which water sources could be trusted for different household uses.

Water crises are not just technical malfunctions but governance failures that redistribute risk and responsibility downward.

Another example comes from Detroit, where households had their water supply shut off due to unpaid water bills. The shutoffs disproportionately impacted low-income and racially marginalized women and their families.

In Canada, nearly 40 long-term drinking water advisories persist in Indigenous communities where, often, women hold domestic responsibilities as water carriers and advocates for water stewardship.

These examples highlight how even in “developed countries” water inequity can emerge through health, systemic and policy issues. These outcomes are not accidental but produced by water system governance.

Water decisions are made by regulators, municipalities and other public agencies. These institutions determine which risks are prioritized, how problems are framed, and whose concerns are taken seriously, often compounding challenges for those at the intersection of gender, race, income and caregiving roles.

Those with the most power over water policy, from governments to the heads of international organizations, are still predominantly men. This shapes not only who is represented, but how risks are interpreted and decisions are made.

When leadership spaces remain narrow, so do the assumptions behind water policy. This is where gender becomes an issue. One way this becomes visible is in how people perceive and respond to water crises.

Research consistently shows that more diverse decision-making groups produce more effective, equitable and sustainable outcomes. This is a finding reflected in global governance frameworks such as those advanced by UN Women.

Yet, increasing diversity in these spaces is not just a matter of access or representation. It is also shaped by how majority groups respond to the threats embedded in water crises that can influence how underrepresented individuals are viewed, judged or heard.

Trust and decision-making in water relations

Water crises are often both technical and psychological problems. How these crises are framed can evoke fear. Decades of social psychology research has found that when people face existential threats, they tend to disengage, deny risk or gravitate toward those with similar identity and values, which creates distance from those who are different.

In our research, we found that these responses can reinforce gender biases in how water decision-makers are perceived and evaluated. People may be more likely to trust those who look like them, making it harder to diversify decision-making spaces precisely when diverse perspectives are needed most.

In systems where leadership is already concentrated, they can reinforce existing power structures and narrow whose expertise is trusted. If water governance is to be both effective and inclusive, these psychological dynamics cannot be ignored.

Importantly, other emotional responses bring opportunities for enhanced water relations. Awe, empathy and compassion can strengthen feelings of connection, belonging and trust. These are essential components for effective water governance and diplomacy.

Resilient water systems depend on more than engineering capacity. They depend on institutional legitimacy and public trust. Research on water reuse, one of the most contested areas of water policy, shows that public support varies widely depending on experience, perceived risk and confidence in water systems.

Towards gender equity in water governance

A serious water policy agenda should do at least three things:

First, move beyond diversity head counts. Utilities and regulators should track both representation as well as who holds decision-making authority, especially during crises.

Without transparency about who shapes operational, emergency and communication decisions, commitments to equity remain superficial.

Second, governments must consider women’s unequal burden in crisis planning. Water policy continues to assume uniform public behaviour and equal capacity and responsibility to adapt.

However, emergency frameworks should assess how crisis communication, compliance demands and service disruptions will affect different groups, especially those with care-giving responsibilities, low incomes or limited institutional trust.

Third, apply gender analysis where systems fail, not just where systems are measured. Analytical tools such as Gender-Based Analysis Plus help highlight all who are impacted by the issue or action at hand, identify and address challenges early, and call attention to ways in which actions can be tailored to meet diverse needs.

However, these tools should be used not only for access and representation but also for system governance, emergency response, affordability pressures, policy development and public communication. This is where governance decisions most clearly translate into unequal lived outcomes.

World Water Day’s focus on gender is a start, but it’s not enough. If gender inequity is treated only as an access issue, we miss how it shapes authority, trust and decision-making. Water policy may appear gender-neutral, but it’s not. Crises makes this visible. They do not create inequity but expose what governance has already produced.

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

– ref. World Water Day: Three steps towards gender equity in water governance – https://theconversation.com/world-water-day-three-steps-towards-gender-equity-in-water-governance-279048

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Daniel Heath Justice, Cherokee Nation citizen, Professor of Critical Indigenous Studies and English, University of British Columbia

From writers and academics to politicians and even convicted murderers, why are people who claim to be Cherokee so prominent in Canadian “pretendian” cases?

Although Métis, Mi’kmaq and Abenaki communities are the Nations most often targeted by unsubstantiated and false claims to Indigenous heritage in Canada, the controversies involving Cherokee claimants may surprise many Canadians.

This is not unexpected. In the United States, it’s so common for non-Native people to claim Cherokee heritage that a family history myth has taken root — one so pervasive that even Ancestry.com warns users against it.

The “Cherokee syndrome” is a phenomenon in which someone claims an unverified distant Cherokee ancestor as the sole foundation on which they build a shallow Indigenous identity.

The roots of ‘Cherokee syndrome’

Most discussions of this phenomenon point to a mix of motivations for these heritage claims.

They include the desire for white settler descendants to distance themselves from their heritage’s history of colonial violence, co-opting Indigeneity for personal or political purposes — often to support right-wing white grievance politics — and basic greed for resources and opportunities belonging to Indigenous Peoples.

In all cases vague, essentialist claims to supposed “blood” are asserted as being more important and more “real” than actual Indigenous cultural belonging, verifiable kinship or confirmed political status.

As a globally recognized Indigenous Nation with a long history of intercultural exchange and intermarriage with newcomers, Cherokees feature prominently in these questionable family mythologies more frequently than other Nations, but only because of stereotypes and visibility, not because of actual relations.

This is increasingly reflected in available data, including national census figures in the U.S. and Canada.

A mismatch between identity and reality

The U.S. Census Bureau has tracked Indigenous heritage claims for decades, and Cherokee is overwhelmingly the group identity most commonly appropriated by Americans.

For example, from 1970 to 2020, Cherokee identification on the U.S. census increased by 2,221 per cent — an astonishing rate far exceeding the general population increase of 63 per cent. This can only be attributed to significant changes in self-identification.

In 2020, “Cherokee” was the top-cited Indigenous affiliation in 35 states, although the three federally recognized Cherokee Tribal Nations and reservations are in only two: Oklahoma and North Carolina. In fact, in 2020, there were more than a million additional Americans who self-declared as Cherokee than there were actual Cherokee tribal citizens.

This is true on the local level as well. The Cherokee National Research Center in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, provides extensive genealogical support for those seeking evidence of Cherokee heritage. Of 4,005 total research requests from 2022 to 2024, only 80 people — two per cent — had any confirmed evidence of Cherokee heritage.

Legitimate Cherokee relations aren’t particularly obscure or difficult to trace. Actual Cherokee scholars like me know that we’re one of the best-documented peoples in the world, with an extensive and detailed documentary archive, as well as community genealogists and researchers who can assess relations with high reliability.

Collating available data from national, tribal and institutional sources indicates that only three to seven per cent of people in the U.S. who assert a public Cherokee identity have any verifiable relationship to living or historical Cherokee communities; 93 to 97 per cent of claimants do not.

This troubling pattern repeats in Canadian census figures as well. In the 2021 census, 10,825 people in Canada identified as being Cherokee. Of the three Cherokee Tribal Nations, the Cherokee Nation has the most inclusive citizenship criteria and the most comprehensive records for genealogical confirmation, yet our own official citizenship data show only 145 Cherokee Nation citizens in Canada.

Figures from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI) and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians (UKB) were unavailable, but would likely be 20 to 30 at most, given their significantly smaller base populations. Even accounting for potential EBCI and UKB figures and a small number of verifiable non-citizen descendants, we would find at most about two per cent of people who claimed Cherokee heritage in Canada having any substantiated relationship with actual Cherokees, past or present.

Tellingly, of the 10,825 “Cherokee” respondents, 5,660 — 52 per cent — are Canadians whose families have been in Canada for three or more generations. Entrenched claims to Cherokee heritage therefore run deep in a surprising number of Canadian families — troubling histories that are only just coming to light in an analysis of the impacts of self-Indigenization and pretendianism.

False claims undermine Indigenous sovereignty

Pretendianism is a direct attack on Indigenous sovereignty and the rights of Native Nations to determine their own protocols of citizenship and belonging.

Believing a quaint family story is one thing, but it becomes deception — and even criminal fraud — when used to unethically access Indigenous relationships and resources, and becomes violence when used to attack Indigenous rights and undermine policies meant to improve Indigenous lives.

The arts, politics, and academia are increasingly sites of fierce debate and even chilling litigation as questionable claims to Indigenous heritage come under increasingly scrutiny from communities, activists and researchers.

The number of Canadians who have used such claims in troubling ways is not insubstantial, and neither are their impacts. Long-celebrated Canadian writer Thomas King and the libertarian Alberta premier, Danielle Smith, are prominent “Cherokee” examples, but they are by no means alone. (Incidentally, Smith is also on record claiming “Métis from America’s Midwest” heritage while consistently pandering to reactionary anti-Indigenous attitudes.)

Cherokee sovereignty and Cherokee people experience real harm when the overwhelming majority of people who insist their unsupported claims are genuine have no actual relationship to Cherokees, no familiarity with or understanding of histories, cultures, languages, struggles or hard-fought rights; no investment in our Nation’s well-being, no respect for our Nation’s political sovereignty and legal orders and no care for or commitment to our actual families or relations.

Using unsubstantiated claims to assert a public Cherokee identity not only misrepresents the ongoing reality of legitimate Cherokee experience, but also deforms how Cherokee belonging and sovereignty are understood in the non-Indigenous cultural imagination, as well as in law and politics. And this, like all the poisonous fruits of colonial violence, is harmful to all Indigenous peoples, not just Cherokees.

Cherokee relations are profound, abiding and verifiable realities. They are far from the self-serving extraction fantasies of colonizers and their claimant descendants, regardless of which side of the 49th parallel they call home.

Daniel Heath Justice has received research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

– ref. Sovereignty over stereotypes: The data behind false Cherokee identity claims in Canada – https://theconversation.com/sovereignty-over-stereotypes-the-data-behind-false-cherokee-identity-claims-in-canada-275903

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Hannah Griebling, PhD Candidate in the Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Stewardship, University of British Columbia

Ever woken up to find that a crafty raccoon has overturned your garbage bin and spread the discarded contents of your life across the street?

Raccoons — sometimes referred to as “trash pandas” — are renowned as excellent innovators and problem-solvers who can often find their way through the trickiest barriers in their search for food.

So how do raccoons adapt their problem-solving strategies as tasks become more difficult? And will they still engage in problem solving even if it doesn’t lead to a food reward? We designed a research experiment to find out.

We were startled to discover that raccoons were intrinsically motivated to solve multiple puzzles within a 20-minute trial, even when finding a solution did not directly lead to an irresistible marshmallow.

Innovative brains, like primates

Raccoons often engage in problem-solving when foraging in human-dominated areas, and have several adaptations that allow them to do this.

First, they have a high number of neurons packed into a relatively small brain. Their neuronal density is more similar to that of primates than other carnivores.

They also have highly dexterous forepaws adapted for foraging in streams, and a generalist diet that allows them to eat nearly everything we throw away.

As researchers, we were curious to discover whether raccoons change their strategies as problems become more difficult. For example, what does a raccoon do if the garbage bin is open, versus if it has a lid or if that lid is locked?

We were also curious whether their problem-solving follows what we call an exploration-exploitation trade-off.

An irresistable marshmallow reward

To explore these questions, we gave raccoons a multi-access puzzle box. These boxes are used in animal cognition research to study problem solving and innovation. They have multiple problems to solve so the animal can access a single food reward.

Typically, researchers give the animal a multi-access box and let the animal solve a puzzle of their choosing to access the reward. Then, the researcher locks that solution and the animal must innovate a new way into the box.

Instead of locking the solutions on the box we asked a simple question: What would happen if we left the box unlocked and let the raccoons freely interact with it? Would they keep going back to the same solution type that they already knew how to use, or would they explore and open new solution types?

Would they open the box once, get their food reward — a single marshmallow — and be done? Or would they keep playing with the box even after the food
reward was gone?

Raccoons solve problems for fun

What the raccoons did was surprising. We expected them to find multiple solutions on the box. We did not expect them to continue looking for solutions after they found the single marshmallow inside the puzzle box.

They seemed to be intrinsically motivated to open multiple solutions within a 20-minute trial, even when solving the puzzle didn’t directly lead to a marshmallow reward.

In fact, the raccoons were discovering multiple solutions on the puzzle box even when the problems got more difficult to solve, and they could see and feel with their forepaws that there wasn’t another marshmallow in the box.

When the going gets tougher

As those problems became more difficult, the raccoons began to quickly hone in on a single solution to keep returning to.

This follows an exploration-exploitation trade off, where it’s more beneficial to exploit a single solution when the problems are more difficult, since solving them takes more time and effort from the raccoon.

Imagine standing on a city street, feeling hungry. You see your favourite restaurant, where you love the food, and you see an interesting new one next door. Where do you choose to eat?

Humans and non-human animals are faced with these decisions all the time: when to “explore” and try a new thing, and when to “exploit” our own knowledge.

If that new restaurant down the street is expensive, you might be less inclined to try it over your favourite dish served at your usual place.

Success in ever-changing cities

This propensity to innovate and problem-solve, even when it doesn’t directly lead to an extrinsic reward like food, might be familiar to most of us. It’s what drives our desire to solve a crossword puzzle or conquer a new video game.

This intrinsic motivation could help raccoons succeed in urban environments. In cities, resources are often changing rapidly — one night a raccoon might get into someone’s garbage, and the next night there’s a brick on top of the garbage bin to try and keep the raccoon out.

The more problems raccoons learn to solve, the more they might be able to access resources in ever-changing cities. Of course, that might annoy some of us, but we can admire raccoons’ ability to thrive alongside us.

Sarah Benson-Amram receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation, the University of British Columbia, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and the British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund.

Hannah Griebling 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. The raccoon raiding your garbage bin might just be solving a puzzle — for the fun of it – https://theconversation.com/the-raccoon-raiding-your-garbage-bin-might-just-be-solving-a-puzzle-for-the-fun-of-it-277942

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Brendan Daisley, Banting Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of Guelph

Every spring, Canadian beekeepers await the arrival of queen bees crucial to their industry. The queens that populate Canadian bee colonies through the season largely do not come from Canada at all.

Canada imports approximately 260,000 to 300,000 queen bees annually from warmer regions like Hawaii, California, Chile and New Zealand because it cannot meet domestic demand.

This system works for now, but it’s much more fragile than most Canadians might realize. Honey bees pollinate a huge share of what we eat (from blueberries and apples to canola and clover), sustaining billions of dollars in crop production in Canada each year. Yet the resilience of this system hinges on the health of a single individual, the queen.

Canadian honey bee colonies face multiple pressures. New research we conducted with colleagues found that while antibiotic use in Canadian beekeeping fell significantly following regulatory changes in 2018, the number of bees that died over winter each year rose in parallel.

That suggests that removing antibiotics without alternative ways of bolstering resilience may be quietly making colonies more vulnerable.

Our study also identified nitrogen dioxide, a common air pollutant from diesel exhaust, as a strong predictor of bee mortality, because it masks flower scents and makes foraging harder.

Why import queens?

Every honey bee colony is led by one queen: the sole reproducer, the source of the colony’s genetic makeup and a key regulator of the whole colony’s survival, immunity and social behaviour.

Her strength determines the colony’s longevity, population size, brood pattern and ultimately, its productivity. When queens fail, colonies fail. In surveys across Canada, poor queen health is consistently cited as a leading cause of colony losses, especially during winter.

---

Read more:
Worker honey bees can sense infections in their queen, leading to revolt

---

Queens can only be raised within a short window, April to September, with many not available until late May. Canada cannot currently produce enough high-quality queens to meet its beekeeping industry’s needs.

This leaves domestic producers unable to meet demand in spring. Importing queens fills the demand within those crucial early spring months, but it also introduces new problems: the queens typically come from warm, stable climates and are often ill-suited to Canadian winters.

Imported queens face challenges

Research shows that domestically raised queens are 25 per cent more likely to survive winter than imported ones. Some imported stock also shows higher rates of brood diseases like chalkbrood.

Over years of repeated importation, this can gradually dilute locally adapted genetics, making Canada’s national bee population progressively less equipped to handle the environment it lives in.

There is also a policy risk that rarely makes headlines. Canada permits queen imports from only a small number of approved countries.

A trade dispute, new disease outbreak or biosecurity concerns could cut off that supply almost overnight, leaving beekeepers queenless, with immediate consequences for the crops depending on those colonies.

Importance of the queen’s microbiome

Researchers have long focused on genetics, nutrition, diseases and pesticides when studying worker and queen bee health. But mounting evidence suggests another factor that has been overlooked: the microbiome, a community of beneficial microbes living inside the bees themselves.

Imagine it like the gut bacteria that influence human immunity and digestion. Over the last two decades, medicine has transformed the way human gut microbiomes can affect disease resistance and mental well-being.

Bee researchers are beginning to ask the same questions and finding that the balance of microbial communities does indeed affect bee health, longevity and agrochemical resiliency.

---

Read more:
Beyond honey: 4 essential reads about bees

---

Worker bee microbiomes often get disproportionate research focus compared to the queen microbiome, despite her immense role in overall colony success and reproduction.

However, early evidence suggests that queens have distinct microbiomes that can influence and are influenced in turn by lifespan, reproduction levels and immunity — all of which act as signals that regulate the colony. If queens are the foundational “gene engines” of colonies, their microbiomes may be the unrecognized microbial infrastructure that supports them.

Critically, those microbial communities can be shaped by environment and rearing practices, temperature and time of year and region.

An imported queen may arrive not only with genetics attuned to a warmer climate, but with a microbiome equally mismatched to Canadian forage plants, pathogens and seasonal stress. The mismatch may be more complex and more consequential than genetics alone suggests.

The Canadian Bee Gut Project

Our research group at the University of Guelph launched the Canadian Bee Gut Project — a nationwide effort to map the microbiomes of honey bee colonies from coast to coast, working with commercial beekeepers, breeders and provincial teams.

We are now expanding that work to focus specifically on queens, comparing the microbiomes of domestic and imported stock to identify which microbial communities are associated with successful overwintering in Canada.

The goal is to develop practical tools such as microbiome-informed rearing practices, targeted interventions to restore beneficial microbes and support domestic breeding programs that can produce cold-adapted queens resilient to disease.

Canada’s reliance on imported queens is understandable, but it isn’t sustainable in the long term.

Climate instability, border policy shifts, new disease threats and rising colony mortality rates all put pressure on our beekeeping and food production systems.

Building a more resilient food system means reducing that dependence. That requires better breeding and a deeper understanding of the biology that makes queens thrive or fail in Canadian conditions.

The answer to stronger, more self-reliant beekeeping in this country may be inside the bees themselves.

Brendan Daisley received research funding from Food from Thought at the University of Guelph, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, and a Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship.

Elizabeth Mallory 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. Importing queen bees won’t solve Canada’s beekeeping problems – https://theconversation.com/importing-queen-bees-wont-solve-canadas-beekeeping-problems-277739