Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Simon Avenell, Professor in Modern Japanese History, Australian National University

This year marks 80 years since Japan’s catastrophic defeat in the Asia-Pacific War. In 1945, the country lay in ruins. Millions had died in battle or in the devastating Allied bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and other cities. Across Asia and the Pacific, Japan’s bid to create a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere left millions violated, impoverished, or dead.

Backed into a corner, in August 1945 Emperor Hirohito defied his generals and accepted unconditional surrender under the Potsdam Declaration.

In his unprecedented radio broadcast on August 15, he urged the Japanese to bear the unbearable and endure the unendurable. With defeat, Japan’s empire dissolved, its “divine” emperor became mortal, and a nation that had pursued autonomy through conquest now faced a humbling occupation led by its former archenemy, Amerika.

Standing in the burnt-out fields of 1945, survivors could scarcely have imagined the Japan of today. The country has changed dramatically. In my research, I identify ten key factors that define this “postwar” era — a term that in Japan still refers to the entire period since surrender. The “post” of the postwar speaks to the drive to transcend the past, while the “war” to the enduring shadow of that past in memory, politics, and diplomacy.

1: Post-empire Japan. While Japan’s empire vanished in 1945, former colonies and violated regions could not and would not forget the past. Postwar leaders and their American backers promoted an image of a peaceful and ethnically homogeneous island nation, but wartime memories have repeatedly strained relations with South Korea, China, and others. In this sense, Japan has been as much “post-empire” as it has been “postwar” since 1945.

2: Ambiguous demilitarisation. After defeat, Japan’s wartime military –responsible for a trail of misery and havoc across Asia and the Pacific – was dismantled. The American-authored constitution renounced war and the maintenance of a military.

But with the Cold War, Washington backtracked, pushing Japan to create its Self-Defense Forces in the mid-1950s. Today Japan has a sophisticated military and it exports military equipment, but constitutional constraints constantly force leaders to make incremental reinterpretations over the legal status of the Self-Defense Forces and the scope of its activities. Some have claimed this constraint inhibits postwar Japan from being a normal country.

3: Bastion of democracy in the far east. Although democracy had prewar roots, it was consistently subject to oppression. The postwar constitution finally institutionalised freedoms of speech, assembly, and political participation, while codifying rights for women and others. The Japanese embraced these rights, flocking to polling booths, and organising political parties, unions, and countless civic movements. Long-term conservative rule repeatedly undercut democracy, but it became part of everyday life and survives to the present.

4: America’s embrace. The United States-led occupation ended in 1952, but Japan’s economy, security, and culture remain bound to America. Feelings towards the former archenemy are complex.

The American dream in brands such as Levis, Coca Cola, McDonalds, and Disney, have symbolised a bright and affluent future. But the continued US military presence and memories of the atomic bombings are constant reminders of Japan’s subservience. Nonetheless, the Japanese have never seriously considered breaking from their powerful trans-Pacific patron.

5: One party to rule them all? Politically, postwar Japan is an unusual democracy, with the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) ruling almost continuously since forming in 1955. The LDP offered political stability, but this was accompanied by recurrent scandal and corruption.

Opposition parties essentially gave up on winning government, remaining fractured and powerless. In fact, the larger story of postwar Japanese politics is one of increasing public disillusionment. Many Japanese see politicians as increasingly out of touch and, as was apparent in its most recent elections, search for radical alternatives.

---

Read more:
Young Japanese voters embrace right-wing populist parties, leaving the prime minister on the brink

---

6: Economic rollercoaster. Following defeat, the Japanese built an economy that stunned the world. By the 1970s, Japan was the second largest capitalist economy, powered by exports of cars, electronics, and steel. Rising incomes fuelled mass consumption and international travel, and observers spoke of “Japan as Number One.”

But the economic meltdown in the 1990s triggered an era of stagnation. The economy struggled to keep up with new competitors and technologies. The myth of shared prosperity gave way to widening generational and gender disparity. Ironically, there is a risk Japanese today may end up less well off than their parents.

7: Homogenisation and its discontents. Economic growth drew millions into a culture of mass consumption and standardised life, giving rise to a popular vision of Japan as a totally middle-class society. But this rose-colored vision was as much myth as reality. Homogenisation tended to mask differences while encouraging discrimination based on gender, age, ethnicity, and location. Since the 1990s, the myth of a middle-class nation has collapsed, with no compelling replacement on the horizon.

8: The demographic tsunami. The silent, yet perhaps most profound, factor of postwar Japan is demographic change. The era witnessed three great shifts here.

First, rural-to-urban migration in the late 1950s transformed Japan from an agrarian nation into one of the world’s most urbanised. Second, the fertility rate fell steadily, apart from brief baby booms in the late 1940s and early 1970s. Third, longevity rose to among the world’s highest.

Today, an ageing, shrinking population strains public finances and welfare, while youth face economic insecurity. Indeed, Japan may be the “canary in the coal mine” for other ageing societies.

9: Japan’s return to the world. Unable to project military power, after 1945 Japan used its economic, cultural, and diplomatic influence internationally. Even at the height of the Cold War, it maintained trade with China. Economic strength also helped Japan to restore ties in Asia and secure a respected place in global institutions.

But Japan’s return to the postwar world has been complicated. Leaders must juggle nationalist rumblings, American demands, and the responsibilities of global citizenship. As economic fortunes change and regional geopolitics transform, Japan must rethink its international posture.

10: Environmental laboratory. Economic growth brought prosperity, but also caused severe environmental damage. In the 1960s and 1970s, Japan experienced shocking cases of industrial pollution from methylmercury and other neurotoxins.

Earthquakes and tsunamis killed tens of thousands and, at Fukushima, bequeathed a nuclear catastrophe of generational proportions. Every year, climate change intensifies typhoons, floods, and heatwaves, but energy-vulnerable Japan still struggles to chart a low-emissions pathway to the future.

A universal story

For a country that has long been touted as exceptional, I am struck by the global resonances in this history, like grappling with the past, managing economic highs and lows, navigating demographic change, and confronting environmental crisis.

Japan’s postwar era certainly offers a portrait of one nation’s revival, but it may also represent a microcosm for tackling our own challenges.

Simon Avenell 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. Postwar Japan at 80: 10 factors that changed the nation forever – https://theconversation.com/postwar-japan-at-80-10-factors-that-changed-the-nation-forever-263039

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jan Lanicek, Associate Professor in Modern European History and Jewish History, UNSW Sydney

Everyone knows her photo. For some it shows the cheeky smile of a young girl, “Miss Quack Quack”. For others, the image represents an enigmatic veil of mystery, similar to Leonardo Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa.

Millions have read her diary, watched various renditions in theatres and on the screen, or visited exhibitions devoted to her story. Thousands queue in front of the house in Amsterdam, where she spent 760 days in the secret annex, hiding from the Gestapo and their Dutch collaborators.

People quote the most famous sentence from her diary, immortalised in the Hollywood film, saying that “in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart”.

The sentence was written in July 1944 by 15-year-old Jewish girl Anne Frank, three weeks before the capture of her family by the Nazis. It represents the innocence, perhaps naivety of an adolescent, who after the war became one of the most iconic symbols of the Nazi Holocaust.

The quote carries a universal message that good will eventually prevail. This has turned Anne’s legacy into an easily adoptable trope, serving activists and political agendas. But who, actually, was Anne Frank? And how did she differ from the “Anne Franks” that have emerged since the end of the war?

---

The Many Lives of Anne Frank – Ruth Franklin (Yale University Press)

---

Acclaimed author Ruth Franklin explores these probing questions in her newest book. She is to be commended for her sensitive treatment of a difficult subject and an attempt to get as close as possible to Anne’s personality and nature.

Franklin follows two paths. First, she reconstructs Anne’s life based on the diary and recollections of people who knew her. In the second part, she reveals the afterlife of the diary and “Anne Frank”, in different contexts and on different platforms.

She concludes that the “Anne” most people know, or imagine, differs quite significantly from the girl who lived in the secret annex and penned the diary.

The story

Annelies Marie Frank was born in 1929 in Frankfurt am Main to an affluent assimilated German-Jewish family. After the rise of Hitler and the introduction of the first racial laws, her parents Otto and Edith decided to take Anne and her older sister Margot to the Netherlands. They continued to live in Amsterdam despite the growing threat, even after the German invasion in 1940. Attempts to emigrate to the United States failed.

The mounting persecution kept restricting their lives. In early 1942, the Nazis began to plan deportations of the Jews to the east. In July, when Margot received a call to the transport to occupied Poland, the family decided to go into hiding.

They spent over two years in the secret annex, eventually accepting four more fugitives: the van Pels family, including their teenage son Peter, and dentist Fritz Pfeffer. They were supported by a group of people, including, most famously, Miep and Jan Gies.

The group, experiencing the constant tensions of living in the claustrophobic space, ran out of luck in early August 1944. They were betrayed, and the Nazis sent them to the transit camp of Westerbork, from where they continued on the very last train to Auschwitz. After a month, Margot and Anne were separated from their mother and sent to Bergen-Belsen in central Germany.

Their physical and mental state soon deteriorated. A survivor of Belsen later remembered the “two thin, shaven-headed figures” who “looked like freezing little birds”.

Shortly before the end of the war, typhus erupted in the overcrowded camp and Anne and Margot became its victims. Otto, liberated from Auschwitz, was the only survivor from the eight who hid in the secret annex.

The diary

Anne got the red-checkered diary on her 13th birthday, shortly before moving to the secret annex. She wrote only occasionally, but soon the diary turned into her constant companion. It was a place where she could express her feelings.

Written in the form of letters to an imaginary friend Kitty (identified by Franklin as a character in Cissy van Marxveldt’s popular books for children), the diary offers a vivid reconstruction of life in hiding, describing in detail the daily routine. It also allowed Anne to vent frustration from constant conflicts with her mother, Mrs. van Pels and Pfeffer.

Another prominent feature, dominating later representations, was her evolving relationship with Peter, which eventually turned romantic.

In March 1944, Anne heard a radio broadcast by the exiled Dutch education minister Gerrit Bolkestein, who asked listeners to keep documentary evidence about their life under the Nazis. Anne began to rewrite her diary, now with the intention of making it public. Franklin suggests that this turned the book into a memoir in the form of diary entries.

Anne had not finished when the raid stopped her efforts. Not all parts of the diary survived. At least one of the original volumes, covering over a year, is missing; it does, however, exist in the version Anne wrote after March 1944.

Several versions

Otto returned to Amsterdam in June 1945. After they received a confirmation that Anne did not survive, Miep Gies handed over Anne’s papers, which she had found in the annex. Otto decided to publish the diary but, in what Franklin calls “the most confusing and contested” aspect of Anne’s story, “betrayed” her legacy.

Otto combined both versions of the diary. He returned to the manuscript sections that Anne removed, including details of her romance with Peter. He softened the criticism of Anne’s mother and of Mr. and Mrs. van Pels.

Franklin believes Otto did so out of respect for victims. The last surviving pages from Anne’s diary, offering critical comments about her parents’ marriage, were made public only after Otto’s death decades later.

It took almost 40 years before a critical edition, comparing all the versions of the diary, was published by Dutch researchers. This necessarily raises the question of how far the Anne Frank people know from Otto’s version is different from Anne who lived in hiding and perished in Belsen.

Afterlife and projection

Despite initial scepticism, the diary immediately became a hit, especially in the United States. Soon there were efforts to turn it into a theatre play and film. Otto agreed, because he needed money to preserve the house with the annex.

The Broadway play premiered in 1955 and the Hollywood feature film in 1959. In the following decades, Anne’s story inspired scores of authors, but also activists who referred to the public icon in support of their agenda.

The immense publicity did not come without controversies. It has led, according to Franklin, to Anne becoming “whoever and whatever we need her to be”. Such efforts keep surfacing. Franklin is right to criticise those who deliberately aim to provoke, for example, by using Anne’s image in anti-Zionist campaigns.

The original theatre and film representations, according to some, intentionally universalised Anne’s story, suppressing her Jewish identity. This, according to Franklin, made the story more palatable to the American audience and reflected the American Jewish ideal at that time of full assimilation into American society.

Yet although Anne’s diary can speak to a multitude of audiences, it is a deeply Jewish story. Anne’s relation with her Jewish identity and Zionism was ambiguous, though she was aware of her background and wrote that they “will always remain Jews”. Margot, her sister, wanted to go to Mandatory Palestine as a maternity nurse; Otto in his later life was supportive of the Zionist project.

Another affair, more recently, focused on the parts of the diary where Anne expressed her desire to touch her female friend’s breast and kiss her. She also wrote about her attraction to female nudity in art.

There were accusations that Otto censored these parts of the diary, in an effort to deny the coming out of his daughter. This is unfair criticism. As Franklin shows, Otto included the entries, slightly modified, in the first US edition, even though Anne had removed them from the rewritten version of her diary.

Ironically, conservative circles in the United States have called for a ban of a graphic novel based on the book, calling it “Anne Frank pornography”. Franklin cautions us against such projections and reading too much into these comments. We simply don’t know enough about Anne and about how her sexuality would develop. In the diary, she repeatedly expressed attraction to several boys, including Peter van Pels.

The raid

These efforts only show how the popularised image of Anne keeps attracting attention. We still want to know more about her and solve all mysteries. In 2022, a Canadian author Rosemary Sullivan, in cooperation with a former FBI special agent, published a book that claimed to solve the mystery of Anne’s betrayal.

Until today, the culprit has not been identified. According to Sullivan, the Annex eight were betrayed by a member of the Dutch Jewish Council. This compulsory community body has often been accused of collaboration.

The publication triggered a quick response from Dutch Holocaust historians who, in a long rebuttal, rejected Sullivan’s claim, calling it a baseless fabrication. Dutch and German publishers withdrew the book.

Who was the real Anne Frank?

The question ultimately remains unresolved.

Is it the girl who penned the first version of her diary to cope with the persecution and isolation in the annex? Is it the young woman, author of the second version, who matured too quickly because of a lack of contact with her peers? Is it the Anne that Otto, grieving after the loss of his whole family, reconstructed from the pages saved by Miep Gies?

Or is she one of the versions of her story produced at Broadway, Hollywood, by countless writers, and now even political activists?

We all suffer from cognitive dissonance. The only photos we have of Anne are those of a young girl from the time before the family went into hiding. But the Anne who wrote the diary was older, almost womanlike, physically and mentally. Miep Gies recalled that “she had arrived a girl, but she would leave a woman”.

Reading the diary, even though we know the end, we hope she will survive. We don’t want to know what happened after their capture. We don’t want to see her bald and emaciated in Auschwitz or Belsen.

At the same time, we know the story will end there. Franklin bitterly remarks that “readers already perceive Anne as if she were a figure in a book rather than a real person. To just about everyone, her life is of secondary importance to what we make of it.”

Perhaps we should just conclude, together with Franklin that Anne was a talented girl and “an accomplished and sophisticated writer – a deliberate, literary witness to Nazi persecution”. She had many virtues and vices.

She can inspire us, we need to learn about her, but we should respect her. We should not project onto her our current agenda, concerns or political views. We should “restore her as a human being”, and that’s exactly what Franklin does.

Jan Lanicek receives funding from the Australian Research Council and is co-president of the Australian Association for Jewish Studies.

– ref. Friday essay: who was Anne Frank? – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-who-was-anne-frank-261748

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Peter Rutland, Professor of Government, Wesleyan University

Like many such confabs before it, the Aug. 15, 2025, Alaska red carpet rollout for Russian President Vladimir Putin is classic Donald Trump: A show of diplomacy as pageantry that seemingly came out of nowhere, replete with vague goals and hardened expectations about the outcome from Trump supporters and opponents alike before the event has even taken place.

Trump is seemingly trying to dial down expectations, billing the summit as a “feel-out meeting” with the Russian leader to try to reach a diplomatic solution to the more than 3-year-old Russian war in Ukraine.

The event follows a recent period where Trump had become more critical of Putin’s role in continuing the war, giving the Russian leader a 50-day deadline to end the war or else face new U.S. sanctions. Trump subsequently reversed course on military support for Ukraine and stepped up weapons shipments. However, he has always made it clear that his priority is to restore a good relationship with Russia, rather than save Ukraine from defeat.

Trump’s track record of admiration for Putin, and the summit format that excludes both Ukraine and its European allies, has provided ample fodder for critics of U.S. policy under Trump.

Military scholar Lawrence Freedman expressed a common critical refrain in expressing fears that Trump will concede Putin’s core demands in Ukraine in return for a ceasefire. Likewise, CNN’s international security editor, correspondent Nick Paton Walsh, said “it is hard to see how a deal emerges from the bilateral that does not eviscerate Ukraine.” Indeed, few mainstream establishment commentators in the U.S. or European capitals are supporting Trump’s initiative, though Anatole Lieven, at the anti-interventionist Quincy Institute, was one of the few giving at least a lukewarm endorsement.

---

Read more:
This isn’t how wars are ended − a veteran diplomat explains how Trump-Putin summit is amateurish and politically driven

---

Meanwhile, in Moscow, despite Trump’s vague talk of a “land swap” that implies Ukraine could regain some lost territory, the uniformly pro-government Russian press is already hailing the upcoming summit as a victory for Putin and a “a catastrophe for Kyiv”,“ as the MK newspaper declared.

Still, as a long-time observer of Russian politics, I believe it would be premature to write off the summit as an exercise doomed to fail. Respected Russian émigré journalist Tatyana Stanovaya, for one, has argued that the meeting offers the “first more or less real attempt to stop the war.” And there are several important developments that mainstream commentary has overlooked in arguing against prospects for the Alaska summit.

What has changed?

Despite Trump’s repeated pledge to end the war in Ukraine, there has been no progress to that end thus far. Trump’s earlier efforts to broker a ceasefire, in February and April, were both rebuffed by Putin.

But since then, a number of factors have shifted that could allow Trump some leverage in talks this time around.

Seven months into his second term, Trump appears flush with confidence and has shown more willingness to project power to advance American interests.

In June, he joined Israel’s airstrikes against Iran, Russia’s biggest ally in the Middle East. On Aug. 8, he hosted the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan at the White House to sign a historic peace deal – a huge diplomatic defeat for Russia, which historically has dominated the politics of the south Caucasus region.

Trump’s ongoing global trade war is also alarming for Russia. On Aug. 7, Trump slapped punitive new tariffs on 90 countries that failed to make deals before his deadline. Trump has shown himself willing to use American power to bully trade partners who cannot effectively retaliate — such as Brazil, Canada, Switzerland and now India.

Indeed, Trump noticed that India bought US$80 billion of Russian oil last year — more than China. On Aug. 6, the same day that Trump announced the Alaska meeting, he imposed 50% tariffs on India, which will not come into effect for 21 days unless India cuts back on imports of Russian crude.

That creates real leverage for Trump against Putin should he want to use it in Alaska. With the Russian economy under strain and with global oil prices falling, Russia risks losing critical revenue from selling oil to India. That could conceivably be the tipping point for Putin, persuading him to halt the war.

Why it still may not be enough

As significant as those shifts could be, there are still several grounds for skepticism.

First, India may ignore Trump’s oil sanction. Key Indian exports to the U.S., such as iPhones and pharmaceuticals, are exempt from the 50% tariff, and they account for about $20 billion of India’s $80 billion annual exports to the U.S.

Second, the global oil market is highly adaptable. Russian oil not bought by India could easily be picked up by China, Turkey, Italy, Malaysia and others. Even if Russia lost $10 billion to 20 billion as a result of the India sanctions, with overall government revenue of $415 billion a year, that would not derail Moscow’s ability to wage war on Ukraine.

The devil in the details

It remains unclear what Trump actually wants to achieve in Alaska. The details of the deal he is trying to persuade Putin to accept are unclear. For the Trump administration, the basic idea for ending the conflict appears to be land for peace: an end to military action by both sides and de facto recognition of the Ukrainian territory currently occupied by Russian forces.

One glaring problem with this formulation is that Russia does not control all the territory of the four Ukrainian provinces that it claims. They occupy nearly all of Luhansk, but not all of Donetsk, and only 60% of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. If Russia insists on taking all of Donetsk province, for example, Ukraine would have to hand over about 2,500 square miles (6,500 square kilometers), with 200,000 people, mainly in the cities of Kramatorsk and Slovyansk.

It is hard to imagine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy agreeing to such a concession.

Yet it is equally hard to see Putin giving up his claim to all four provinces, which were formally incorporated into the Russian Federation in October 2022. In a June 2024 speech to the Russian foreign ministry, Putin laid out his most thorough analysis of the “root causes” and course of the conflict. He stated that the legal status of the four provinces as part of Russia “is closed forever and is no longer a matter for discussion.”

Clearly, the territorial question is the biggest hurdle facing any would-be peacemaker, including Trump.

Other issues, such as Ukraine’s request for security guarantees, or Russia’s demands for the “denazification” and “demilitarization” of Ukraine, could be dealt with later through negotiation and third-party mediation.

There are other factors that play into the chances of peace now.

Both Ukrainian and Russian societies are tired of a conflict that neither of them wanted. But at the same time, in neither country does most of the public want peace at any price.

If Trump can persuade Putin to agree to give up his claims to the entire territory of the four provinces in Ukraine’s east, that would be a substantial concession – and one that Zelenskyy may be well-advised to pocket. Putin would also expect something in return — such as the lifting of international sanctions and restoration of full diplomatic relations with the U.S. Then Putin could fly back to Moscow and tell the Russian people that Russia has won the war.

If such a deal transpires in Alaska, Trump would then face the challenge of persuading Ukraine and Europeans to accept it.

However, given Putin’s apparent confidence that Russia is winning the war, it remains unlikely that he will be persuaded by anything that Trump has to offer in Anchorage.

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

– ref. Don’t write off the Putin-Trump summit just yet – its outcome might confound critics – https://theconversation.com/dont-write-off-the-putin-trump-summit-just-yet-its-outcome-might-confound-critics-262933

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Marina Mastrorillo, Senior Economist, CGIAR

The pathway from climate change to violent conflict is not simple. There are the obvious immediate effects of global warming like water scarcity and crop failure. But beyond these, climate stress can pave the road to violence through indirect channels – a gradual rise in food insecurity and growing social tensions that set the stage for more armed violence.

We are a team of researchers who investigate the links between climate change, food systems and conflict. We set out to explore the relationship between climate variability, child malnutrition and violent conflict.

---

Read more:
Climate and mortality rates in Kenya, Mali, and Malawi: what we found

---

Our study focused on Nigeria. The country has faced rising temperatures, recurrent droughts, and one of the highest burdens of food insecurity and conflict in Africa. Its northern and north-eastern regions in particular have fragile agrifood systems, limited public services, and ongoing insecurity. This makes them especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate shocks.

In north-eastern Nigeria, 8.8 million people are threatened by a nutrition crisis. About 12,000 children in the Lake Chad area suffer from acute malnutrition as a result of resource depletion, climate change and insecurity.

For our research, we used household data from the Nigeria demographic and health surveys and combined this with information on climate and conflict. We applied a system of equations to separate the role child malnutrition plays in climate-related conflict from other factors that aren’t easily observed but which contribute to shape the climate-conflict link.

From this, we found that rising temperatures don’t immediately trigger violence. Instead, they set off a chain reaction: heat stress on the planet over time stresses food systems. As crops fail and household incomes fall, the youngest and most vulnerable are often the first to show signs of distress and become malnourished.

---

Read more:
The Lake Chad Basin is a security nightmare. 5 guidelines for finding solutions

---

Climate change contributes to higher rates of acute child malnutrition, or wasting. This is where children have very low weight for their height, usually because of sudden food shortages or illness. Wasting is one of the clearest signs that a child is not getting enough to eat.

In Nigeria, formal safety nets are limited. This means that the social strain of malnourished communities can become a powerful driver – or justification – for engaging in violence, mostly as a desperate alternative source of income or safety. People who aren’t getting the food they need may be increasingly inclined to support or be recruited by armed groups to ensure food security, shelter and physical protection.

One of the study’s key contributions is its use of child malnutrition indicators to trace the indirect effects of climate stress on conflict. Our research shows that acute malnutrition – especially wasting – is an early warning signal of social breakdown in fragile settings.

---

Read more:
Malnutrition among children is rife in Nigeria. What must be done

---

We recommend that systems that give early warnings of conflict should analyse nutrition in climate change-affected areas and use the levels of malnutrition as a way to predict potential conflict. Taking nutrition into account is a practical way to anticipate and prevent violence before it erupts.

Malnutrition as a hunger signal

Think of climate-driven conflict like a tangled web. We’ve managed to trace one clear thread – malnutrition – and show how it is linked to violence. But even after accounting for that thread, the web still holds tight. That’s because other forces, like economic shocks, migration, or institutional breakdown, are still tugging at the system.

We carefully mapped the indirect role of malnutrition through a method that helps identify how one factor (climate stress) affects another (conflict) through an intermediate pathway (malnutrition), while also taking other factors into account. This enabled us to calculate the contribution of malnutrition to climate related conflict.

We examined how shifts in climate affect child malnutrition in Nigeria – specifically wasting, stunting and underweight – and how these, in turn, relate to violent outbreaks. Among the various indicators, wasting stood out.

---

Read more:
11 million Nigerian children are going hungry: how this hurts their health and what needs to be done

---

Severe wasting is responsible for one in five deaths among children under the age of five globally, making it one of the leading threats to child survival. Because wasting reflects short-term nutritional stress, it can act as an early warning sign that communities are struggling to cope with climate shocks.

This finding is particularly relevant in farming communities where people depend on predictable weather to grow food and earn a living.

This offers a new way to think about climate, peace, and security. It’s about how weather changes unfold through daily meals, children’s diets and household decisions, sometimes quietly but no less dangerously.

Turning data into defence

Our study will improve the accuracy of current estimates of indirect impacts of climate change on conflict, because it looks at how these impacts are mediated by food and nutrition security outcomes.

Integrating malnutrition data into early warning systems, investing in nutrition-sensitive climate adaptation, and targeting support to the most vulnerable regions can reduce both human suffering and the risk of conflict.

---

Read more:
Extreme weather is disrupting lives in southern Africa: new policies are needed to keep the peace

---

Today, headlines focus on armed groups and battlefield dynamics, which is understandable. But we risk overlooking the quieter patterns beneath the surface.

The next crisis may not start with a bullet but with starvation.

We gratefully acknowledge the collaboration and support of Anna Belli, a junior professional officer at the Office of the Chief Economist at the Food and Agriculture Organisation and lead author of this research, Antonio Scognamillo, economist in the Agrifood Economics and Policy Division, and Ada Ignaciuk, chief editor of the State of Food Security and Nutrition at the Food and Agriculture Organisation.

Marina Mastrorillo works for The Alliance of Bioversity and CIAT of CGIAR. She receives funding from the CGIAR Trust Fund (https://www.cgiar.org/funders/) through the CGIAR Climate Action and Food Frontiers and Security Science Programmes.

This research was supported by the CGIAR Climate Action and Food Frontiers and Security Programmes, with funding from the CGIAR Trust Fund.

Chun Song works for The Alliance of Bioversity and CIAT of CGIAR. She receives funding from the CGIAR Trust Fund (https://www.cgiar.org/funders/) through the CGIAR Policy Innovation Program.

Grazia Pacillo works for The Alliance of Bioversity and CIAT of CGIAR. She receives funding from the CGIAR Trust Fund (https://www.cgiar.org/funders/) through the CGIAR Climate Action and Food Frontiers and Security Science Programmes. This research was supported by the CGIAR Climate Action and Food Frontiers and Security Science Programmes, with funding from the CGIAR Trust Fund.

Victor Villa works for the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, which is part of CGIAR. He receives funding from the CGIAR Trust Fund (https://www.cgiar.org/funders/) through the CGIAR Science Programmes on Climate Action and Food Frontiers and Security.

– ref. Child malnutrition is a sign of conflict to come: Nigerian study links climate change, food and violence – https://theconversation.com/child-malnutrition-is-a-sign-of-conflict-to-come-nigerian-study-links-climate-change-food-and-violence-262359

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Niamatullah Ibrahimi, Senior Research Fellow, Initiative for Peacebuilding, The University of Melbourne

On August 15 2021, Afghanistan’s democratic republic collapsed.

As the last US and NATO troops departed the country, the Taliban swept back into power and the Afghan people braced for an uncertain future.

Despite promises of moderation and inclusion, four years later, the Taliban has established a repressive, exclusionary regime – one that has dismantled institutions of law, justice and civil rights with ruthless efficiency.

As the Taliban regime has tightened its grip, international attention has waned. Crises in Ukraine, Gaza and elsewhere have dominated the global agenda, pushing Afghanistan out of the spotlight.

With the Taliban seeking to end its isolation and gain legitimacy, can the international community find the will now to exert real pressure?

The Taliban’s emirate of repression

After coming back into power, the Taliban discarded the country’s 2004 constitution, allowing the regime to operate without a transparent rule of law. Instead, Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada, the reclusive Taliban leader, rules by decree from his base in Kandahar.

The Taliban’s repression of women and girls has been so severe, human rights groups now call it “gender apartheid” and argue it should be a new international crime.

Edicts have erased women from public life, banning them from education beyond primary school (with the exception of religious education), employment and public spaces. Women also cannot move freely in public without a mahram, or male guardian.

The Taliban also dismantled the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, replacing it with the Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. As a central instrument of repression, the ministry reinforces institutionalised gender discrimination through regular raids and arrests, surveillance and monitoring of public spaces.

Taliban rule has also led to the exclusion and persecution of minority ethnic and religious groups such as Hazaras, Shias, Sikhs and Christians.

In the province of Panjshir, the focal point of resistance to the Taliban, human rights groups have documented the Taliban’s severe crackdowns on the local population, including mass arrests and detentions, torture and extrajudicial killings.

More broadly, the Taliban has decimated the civic space in the country. Journalists and activists have been silenced through fear, violence and arbitrary arrests. This has led to widespread self-censorship and an information blackout that allows abuses to continue with impunity.

Despite the immense risks, activists, journalists and ordinary citizens continue to resist the Taliban. Women have staged peaceful protests in the face of harsh crackdowns, while others run secret schools for girls and document abuses in the hope of future accountability.

Humanitarian aid dwindling

Although most countries do not recognise the Taliban as the formal and legitimate government of the country, some regional states have called for an easing of its international isolation.

Last month, Russia became the first country to recognise the Taliban. China is also deepening its economic and diplomatic ties with the group. India’s foreign minister recently met with his Taliban counterpart, after which the Taliban called New Delhi a “significant regional partner”.

International aid continues to flow into Afghanistan, but a report from a US watchdog this week documented how the Taliban uses force and other means to divert it.

The United States had still accounted for more than 40% of all humanitarian support to Afghanistan after the Taliban’s return. But US President Donald Trump’s decision to decimate the US Agency for International Development means this funding has all but disappeared.

This has crippled essential services and threatens to plunge the country into one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. Health facilities have closed and malnutrition is rising. The mass deportation of hundreds of thousands of Afghans from Iran and Pakistan has only further added to the humanitarian catastrophe.

For years, the United Nations has tried to facilitate talks between the Taliban and international community in Qatar with the aim of improving conditions in the country. However, it has faced repeated setbacks.

The Taliban only decided to attend the talks in mid-2024 after the UN conceded to excluding women and civil society groups and restricting the agenda. The meeting resulted in no breakthroughs or concessions.

Another round of talks is anticipated, but the central dilemma remains: how to engage the Taliban without legitimising its repressive rule.

Courts making some progress

The Taliban’s systematic human rights abuses have global repercussions. Experts warn of a rising trend of similarly styled repression, dubbed “Talibanisation”, taking root in other countries.

In Yemen, for example, Houthi leaders have imposed restrictions eerily similar to Taliban edicts, banning women from walking in public without a male guardian and restricting their work.

While individual states have failed to agree on a coordinated response to the Taliban, international institutions have taken steps in the right direction.

In July, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Akhundzada and the Taliban chief justice, accusing them of crimes against humanity for gender-based persecution.

Separately, four countries – Australia, Germany, the Netherlands and Canada – have begun the process of bringing a case against the Taliban to the International Court of Justice for gender discrimination. This would be a first for the court.

To complement these efforts, the UN member states must establish an independent international investigative mechanism to systematically document and investigate crimes committed by the Taliban. Such a mechanism would help preserve evidence and lay the groundwork for future prosecutions.

Without concerted international pressure, the suffering of the Afghan people will only worsen and the Taliban’s brand of repression will continue impact women’s rights far beyond Afghanistan’s borders.

---

The authors are holding a day-long conference with other academics on Afghanistan, four years after the Taliban takeover, at the Monash University Law Chambers in Melbourne on August 15. More information can be found here.

Nothing to disclose.

Arif Saba and Niamatullah Ibrahimi 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. After 4 years of repressive Taliban rule, Afghans are suffering in silence. Is the world still watching? – https://theconversation.com/after-4-years-of-repressive-taliban-rule-afghans-are-suffering-in-silence-is-the-world-still-watching-262801

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Adam Guastella, Professor and Clinical Psychologist, Michael Crouch Chair in Child and Youth Mental Health, University of Sydney

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental condition that affects around 7% of children and 2.5% of adults.

ADHD causes difficulties holding and sustaining attention over periods of time. People with ADHD also experience hyperactivity and high levels of impulsiveness and arousal. This can make it difficult to plan, coordinate and remain engaged in tasks.

ADHD is linked to problems at work, school and home, and to higher rates of mental illnesses such as anxiety. It’s also associated with higher rates of long-term harms.

Stimulant medication, such as methylphenidate and dexamphetamine, is the most common treatment for managing ADHD symptoms. Most people with ADHD will respond to at least one ADHD medication.

But, rising rates of prescriptions in recent years has prompted concern for their effectiveness and safety.

New research published today in the journal BMJ points to additional longer-term benefits. It found people with ADHD who took medication were less likely to have suicidal behaviours, transport accidents, issues with substance misuse, or be convicted of a crime.

What did the study do?

The study tracked 148,581 people who received a new diagnosis of ADHD between 2007 and 2018.

The authors used population-based data from Swedish national registers, including everyone aged six to 64 who was newly diagnosed with ADHD. The average age was 17.4 years and 41% were female.

Participants either started or did not start medication within three months of their ADHD diagnosis.

The authors examined the effects of drug treatment for ADHD on five critical outcomes: suicidal behaviours, substance misuse, accidental injuries, transport accidents and committing crime. They looked at both first-time and recurrent events.

This study used a method that uses data from health records or registries to mimic the design of a randomised controlled trial, in an attempt to reduce bias.

The researchers accounted for age, education, other mental and physical illnesses, prior history and use of other drugs, to account for factors that may influence results.

What did they find?

Within three months of receiving an ADHD diagnosis, 84,282 (56.7%) of people had started drug treatment for ADHD. Methylphenidate was the most commonly prescribed drug, accounting for 88.4% of prescriptions.

Drug treatment for ADHD was associated with reduced rates of a first occurrence for four out of the five outcomes: a 17% reduction for suicidal behaviours, 15% for substance misuse, 12% for transport accidents and 13% for committing crime.

When the researchers looked at people with recurrent events, the rate reductions associated with ADHD medication were seen for all five outcomes (including accidental injury).

The effect of medication was particularly strong when someone had a history of these events happening frequently. This means those with the most severe symptoms may benefit most.

Stimulant drugs were associated with lower rates of all five outcomes compared with non-stimulant drugs.

It’s likely these benefits are associated with improvements in attention, impulsivity and hyperactivity. People may be less likely to be distracted while driving, to self-medicate and show impacts from other mental health challenges.

What didn’t the study do?

The large sample size, use of national linked registers and sophisticated design give greater confidence that these findings are due to medication use and not due to other factors.

But the study was not able to examine medication dosages or track whether people reliably took their medication as prescribed. It also had no way to track the severity of ADHD symptoms. This means it can’t tell us if this helped most people or just some people with severe symptoms.

We know that ADHD medication helps most people, but it is not effective for everyone. So, we still need to understand why some people don’t benefit from ADHD medication, and what other treatments might also be helpful.

Finally, even though the study was rigorous in its design and adjusted for many factors, we can’t rule out that other unaccounted factors could be associated with these effects.

As prescribing increases, the size of the benefit decreases

A second study, published in June, used the same Swedish national registers and self-controlled case series design.

This study also concluded ADHD medication was associated with reduced risks for self-harm, accidental injuries, transport accidents and committing crime.

However, this study also showed that as prescribing rates increased nearly five-fold between years 2006 to 2020, the size of the observed benefits of ADHD medications reduced.

While remaining significant, the size of the associations between ADHD medication use and lower risks of unintentional injury, traffic crashes, and crime weakened over this time.

This could mean people who are less likely to need ADHD medications are now receiving them.

What are the impacts for patients and policymakers?

People need to know that if ADHD medications are helpful for them or their children, it might also improve many other areas of life.

These findings can also give governments confidence that their recent initiatives and efforts to increase access to ADHD support and treatment may have positive downstream impacts on broader social outcomes.

But medications aren’t the only ADHD treatment. Medication should only represent one part of a solution, with other psychological supports for managing emotional regulation, executive and organisational skills and problem-solving also beneficial.

Psychological therapies are effective and can be used in combination with, or separately to, medication.

Yet research shows drug treatments are relied on more frequently in more disadvantaged communities where it’s harder to access psychological supports.

Policymakers need to ensure medication does not become the only treatment people have access to. People with suspected ADHD need a high-quality diagnostic assessment to ensure they get the right diagnosis and the treatment most suitable for them.

Adam Guastella receives independent research funding from research organisations (e.g., MRFF, NHMRC, ARC) to investigate the effecicy of supports for children and adults with neurodevelopmental conditions. He is employed as the Michael Crouch Chair in Child and Youth Mental Health at the University of Sydney.

Kelsie Boulton receives funding from research organisations (MRFF) to evaluate the efficacy of interventions for neurodevelopmental conditions.

– ref. For people with ADHD, medication can reduce the risk of accidents, crime and suicide – https://theconversation.com/for-people-with-adhd-medication-can-reduce-the-risk-of-accidents-crime-and-suicide-263044

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Craig Martin, Lecturer in Screen Studies, Swinburne University of Technology

For half a century, The Rocky Horror Picture Show has lured costumed fans to cinemas for late-night screenings. Its raunchy mix of Broadway musical, science fiction and schlock horror was originally a box-office flop. However, after its first midnight screening on April Fool’s Day 1976 at the Waverly theatre in New York, it never left the late-night circuit and became the ultimate cult film.

Tim Curry’s powerhouse performance as Frank-N-Furter is central to the film’s success. Yet, his truly astounding work often overshadows the film’s many other dynamic performances.

Rocky Horror’s supporting characters and chorus feature alluring oddballs who irreverently challenge norms of physical desirability. Their “imperfect” bodies are not only a tribute to diversity: they radically upturn genre expectations of stage and screen musicals, and discredit broader cultural ideals of beauty.

It’s so dreamy, oh fantasy free me!

Brad Majors (Barry Bostwick) and Janet Weiss (Susan Sarandon) are an attractive young couple seeking help at an isolated castle when their car blows a tyre. During their night, they find the castle’s inhabitants are of a variety of sizes, physiques and galaxies.

Adapted from Richard O’Brien’s 1973 stage musical, Rocky Horror’s anti-Broadway aesthetic is apparent as soon as the “butler” Riff Raff (O’Brien) opens the castle door. This wiry framed hunchback with tangled hair is a far cry from the athletic ideal of the Broadway body.

Inside the creepy mansion, we are dazzled by a festive troupe of alien “Transylvanians” wearing off-beat tuxedos and textured waistcoats. It’s a broad assortment of unconventional body types squeezed into colourful costumes.

Lanky actor Stephen Calcutt stands at 198 centimetres tall, and Sadie Corré at just over 120cm. Hugh Cecil, then 62, has alopecia, which exaggerates his stark monocled whiteness. Fran Fullenwider, with her wild, teased-out coiffure and curvy frame, is clad in skin-tight pants.

Cecil and Fullenwider were among a handful of Transylvanians director Jim Sharman recruited from London-based Ugly Models. While this agency’s name and viability is, to say the least, unfortunate, Rocky Horror’s rejection of cookie-cutter casting was celebratory, not diminishing.

The Transylvanians’ subversion of “sameness” is especially powerful because of the history of its film genre. Busby Berkeley, one of film musicals’ founding innovators in the 1930s and 1940s, is famously quoted as approving the “girls” in his ensembles as being “matched, just like pearls”.

Inverting such sexist tropes, the crass collective of Transylvanians is widely adored as the chorus of the film’s legendary song, Time Warp. They are also welcomingly representative of the throngs of fans who the film has continued to assemble these past five decades.

I can make you a man

Once Frank-N-Furter has invited everyone “up to the lab”, we encounter two more vital characters: the dichotomous Eddie and Rocky.

Gregarious rocker Meat Loaf’s Eddie refuses the lean hypersexual image typical of frontmen in 1970s rock acts. Eddie motorbikes around Frank’s lab and delights his sweetheart Columbia (Nell Campbell). He is loud, sexy and very nearly loved.

Overtly parodying Frankenstein’s creation of a grotesque monster, Frank-N-Furter scientifically “births” the perfectly chiselled Rocky (Peter Hinwood).

With Rocky, Frank-N-Furter has made a “perfect specimen of manhood”: muscular, a sharp jawline, blonde hair and a tan. But Rocky does not have Eddie’s charismatic body positivity, which Frank-N-Furter resents.

Rocky’s blonde hair and sculpted physique bears more than a passing resemblance to Jack Wrangler or Casey Donovan, superstars in the “Golden Age of Porn” of 1969 to 1984.

Wrangler was a pioneering porn star who adopted a rugged Marlborough Man aesthetic. Not unlike Frank-N-Furter, Wrangler was sexually fluid, working in gay porn for ten years from 1970 before crossing over to straight porn.

Donovan found fame in Wakefield Poole’s successful X-rated film Boys in the Sand (1971). Both Donovan and Poole were newcomers to filmmaking and porn. Poole (himself a Broadway dancer) applied a dreamlike narrative and an artistically verité shooting style to his hardcore yet poetic pornography.

On its release, Boys in the Sand was reviewed in Variety, and ads for the film appeared in the New York Times. Poole’s film achieved an enviable level of critical legitimacy and public appeal, which evaded Rocky Horror until it gained legitimacy via its enduring cult status.

Rocky Horror’s presentation of the creature as a queer ideal of masculine physical perfection spicily mirrors the coveted masculine form on display in much gay pornography.

Yet, among Rocky Horror’s eclectic cast, Rocky’s musclebound physique is positioned as very much the exception.

Don’t dream it, be it

Unlike gay icon Wrangler, the blonde Adonis Rocky figure is not a rugged hero, but the monster: an aberration whose existence is the result of “mad science”.

In this reading, the alluring but destructive Frank-N-Furter represents western society’s beauty machine, intent on artificially creating bodies designed to be looked at as objects of sexual desire, queer or straight.

This insight is far from outdated. Indeed, since 1975, Rocky’s queer-inflected bodily “perfection” has today become a problematic norm in the mainstreaming of men’s body sculpting and the proliferation of homoerotic imagery marketed to men.

However, Rocky Horror remains a place where people of all shapes, sizes, ages, abilities, and colours can dance and sing and celebrate without such constraints. In fact, Riff Raff, the “imperfect” figure who first welcomes us to the castle, ultimately kills Frank-N-Furter and halts his exploitation.

Rocky Horror offers many and varied midnight-movie audiences freedom from society’s troubling and relentless obsession with body image, even 50 years on.

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. At 50, The Rocky Horror Picture Show is ‘imperfectly’ good (and queer) as ever – https://theconversation.com/at-50-the-rocky-horror-picture-show-is-imperfectly-good-and-queer-as-ever-261852

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Therese O’Sullivan, Associate Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, Edith Cowan University

Many people are familiar with the saying that a woman is “eating for two” during pregnancy. Although this is an exaggeration, nutritional needs do certainly increase during pregnancy to support the growing baby.

But what’s perhaps less known is that energy needs are actually even slightly higher during breastfeeding than during pregnancy.

Human breastmilk is a dynamic liquid and its composition (including carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals) varies over the entire breastfeeding period, and even between feeds.

It can change depending on what mum is eating, environmental factors, and what the baby needs, through a biofeedback system (sometimes called “baby backwash”). For example, if a baby is starting to get sick, breastmilk will adjust to include more leukocytes, immune cells that fight infection.

So what should breastfeeding women be eating? And how does a mother’s diet influence the nutritional makeup of her milk?

Nutritional needs increase during breastfeeding

Fully breastfeeding mums can produce around 800 millilitres of milk a day in the first six months after birth, which has an energy content of roughly 3 kilojoules per gram.

Even factoring in using up excess fat stored during pregnancy, mums still need on average an extra 2,000 kilojoules to support milk production. This is roughly equivalent to adding a cheese sandwich, a handful of nuts and a banana on top of normal dietary intake.

Interestingly, requirements don’t drop off after the baby starts solids. In the second six months, milk production is thought to drop to an average of 600ml per day, as babies start to eat solid foods. But because maternal fat stores deplete by this stage, additional energy requirements remain similar.

Some nutrients are particularly important during breastfeeding, including protein, calcium, iron, iodine and vitamins.

For example, compared with a non-pregnant, non-breastfeeding woman, protein requirements increase by almost half when breastfeeding (from 0.75 grams to 1.1 grams per kg of body weight per day).

Meanwhile, iodine requirements almost double (from 150 micrograms per day to 270 micrograms per day). Iodine is important for thyroid function, and can impact baby’s growth and brain development.

It’s important women who are breastfeeding eat a variety of foods, including:

• high-protein foods (meat, fish, eggs, nuts, seeds, soy-based protein such as tofu and tempeh, legumes such as chickpeas, baked beans and lentils)
• dairy foods or alternatives (for dairy alternatives, check calcium is included)
• whole grains
• fruits and vegetables.

While making all that milk, drinking more water also becomes extremely important. Thirst is a good guide, but around 2.5 litres per day is generally recommended, or more if it’s hot or with exercise.

Is there anything I shouldn’t be eating?

What a mum consumes can pass into her breastmilk. For example, in one study, babies whose mothers drank small amounts of carrot juice while breastfeeding were more accepting of cereal flavoured with carrot juice compared with a control group of babies whose mothers drank water.

It’s therefore important to limit alcohol and caffeine, which can also pass though to the baby. No alcohol is the safest choice, but if you’re planning to have a drink, tools such as the Feed Safe app can be used to estimate when your breastmilk should be free of alcohol.

Up to 200mg of caffeine per day (equivalent to roughly a cup of brewed coffee, an energy or cola drink, or four cups of tea) is considered safe for breastfeeding.

Breastfeeding mums don’t need to take any particular foods out of their diet to prevent allergies in their baby. In fact, experts believe babies exposed to common allergens via breast milk could be less likely to develop allergies to these foods, however we need more research into this question.

Although relatively uncommon, babies can be allergic or intolerant to certain aspects of their mothers’ diet when breastfeeding. They may react in the form of colic or wind, reflux, mucus or blood in their poo, eczema or rash, or appear to be in pain.

In these cases, mum’s diet may need adjustment. The most common culprits include cows’ milk (the protein, not the lactose component), soy and egg.

It’s recommended to remove suspected foods from the diet for a minimum of three weeks. This should ideally be done with supervision from an Accredited Practising Dietitian who specialises in allergy, to ensure the mother’s nutritional needs continue to be met.

4 tips for breastfeeding mums

1. it’s a good idea to get a blood test to check your vitamin D and iron levels – these can be depleted over pregnancy and are important for breastfeeding. If your levels are low, you can discuss options with your doctor

2. iodine requirements are so much higher in breastfeeding that an iodine supplement of 150 micrograms a day is recommended to support infant growth and neurodevelopment

3. have a variety of nutritious snacks that can be eaten with one hand for those late-night feeds, such as peeled boiled eggs, a peanut butter sandwich on wholegrain bread, or avocado and cheese on a rice cake. My personal favourite is homemade rocky road with dark chocolate, nuts, seeds and dried fruit

4. keep a drink bottle with water nearby when breastfeeding.

If you’re considering a gift for a family with a new baby, remember new parents’ personal needs often take a back seat when bub arrives, including eating well. Consider a hearty frozen meal, muffins with oats and nuts, a nice stainless steel water bottle, gourmet trail mix or even some homemade rocky road.

Therese O’Sullivan has previously received funding from the Stan Perron Charitable Foundation and the Department of Health Western Australia for a project on antenatal colostrum expressing.

– ref. What should I eat (and avoid) while breastfeeding? How does my diet affect baby’s milk? – https://theconversation.com/what-should-i-eat-and-avoid-while-breastfeeding-how-does-my-diet-affect-babys-milk-260423

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Flora Hui, Research Fellow, Centre for Eye Research Australia and Honorary Fellow, Department of Surgery (Ophthalmology), The University of Melbourne

Drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro (known as semaglutide and tirzepatide) have changed the way clinicians manage diabetes and obesity around the world.

Collectively known as GLP-1 agonists, these drugs mimic the hormone GLP-1. This limits both hunger and interest in food, helping users lose weight, and helps control blood sugar levels.

But two new studies published today show that people taking these drugs may have a small increased risk of serious eye conditions and vision loss.

Here’s what you need to know if you’re taking or considering these medications.

What damage can occur?

Non-arteritic anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy, or NAION, is a rare but devastating eye condition that occurs when blood flow to the optic nerve is suddenly reduced or blocked. It’s also called an “eye stroke”.

The exact cause of NAION remains unclear and there are no current treatments available. People with diabetes are at increased risk of developing NAION.

Unlike other eye conditions that develop gradually, NAION causes a sudden, painless loss of vision. Patients typically notice the condition when they wake up and discover they’ve lost vision in one eye.

Vision tends to worsen over a couple of weeks and slowly stabilises. Recovery of vision is variable, but around 70% of people do not experience improvement in their vision.

What has previous research shown?

A previous study from 2024 found participants prescribed semaglutide for diabetes were four times more likely to develop NAION. For those taking it for weight loss, the risk was almost eight times higher.

In June, the European Medicines Agency concluded NAION represented a “very rare” side effect of semaglutide medications: a one in 10,000 chance. In a first for medicines regulators, the agency now requires product labels to include NAION as a documented risk.

However the recent studies suggest the risks may be lower than we first thought.

In addition to NAION, there is also evidence to suggest GLP-1 drugs can worsen diabetic eye disease, also known as diabetic retinopathy. This occurs when high blood sugar levels damage the small blood vessels in the retina, which can lead to vision loss.

It may sound counter-intuitive, but rapid blood sugar reductions can also destabilise the fragile blood vessels in the retina and lead to bleeding.

What do the new studies say?

Two newly published studies investigated people with type 2 diabetes living in the United States over two years. The studies looked at the medical records of 159,000 to 185,000 people.

One study found semaglutide or tirzepatide was associated with a more modest risk of developing NAION than previously thought. Of 159,000 people with type 2 diabetes who were taking these drugs, 35 people (0.04%) developed NAION, compared with 19 patients (0.02%) in the comparison group.

The researchers also found an increased risk of developing “other optic nerve disorders”. However, it’s unclear what kind of optic nerve disorders this includes, as the medical record codes used didn’t specify.

Counter to this, the second study did not find an increased risk of NAION among those taking GLP-1 drugs.

However, the researchers found a small increase in the number of people developing diabetic retinopathy in those prescribed GLP-1 drugs.

But overall, participants on GLP-1 drugs experienced fewer sight-threatening complications related to their diabetic retinopathy and required less invasive eye treatments compared to the group taking other diabetes medications.

Further studies are still needed to understand how GLP-1 drugs can lead to eye complications. A current, five-year clinical trial is studying the long-term effects of semaglutides and diabetic eye disease in 1,500 people, which should tell us more about the ocular risks in the future.

What does this mean for people taking GLP-1 drugs?

NAION is a serious condition. But we need to strike a balance between these (and other) risks and the benefits of GLP-1 medications in diabetes care, obesity treatment, reducing heart attack risks and extending lives.

The key lies in informed decision-making and identifying different levels of risk.

People with multiple NAION risk factors – such as sleep apnoea, high blood pressure and diabetes – should undergo careful consideration with their treating doctor before starting these medications.

“Crowded” optic nerve heads are also a risk factor for NAION. This is an anatomical feature where blood vessels at the optic nerve head are tightly packed together. People with crowded optic nerve heads should also undergo careful consideration before starting GLP-1 medications.

Although NAION can strike without warning, regular comprehensive eye examinations with your optometrist or ophthalmologist still serve important purposes. They can detect other drug-related eye problems, including worsening diabetic retinopathy, and can identify patients with crowded optic nerve heads. It’s also important to tell them if you are taking GLP-1 medications so they can keep a close watch on your eye health.

Emerging research also suggests that improving your heart health might help reduce risks of developing NAION. This includes proper management of high blood pressure, diabetes and cholesterol – all conditions that compromise the small blood vessels feeding the optic nerve.

Studies also show patients with heart conditions who better adhere to their medication prescriptions have lower risks of NAION than those who don’t.

Doctors should discuss NAION risks during prescribing decisions and work with eye care providers to monitor regularly for diabetic eye disease. Patients need clear instructions to seek immediate medical attention for sudden vision loss and the need for regular eye examinations.

Aggressive treatment of sleep apnoea and other heart conditions may also help reduce NAION risks. But for now, there remains an ongoing need for more research to understand how GLP-1 medications can affect the eye.

Pete A Williams has received past funding from Novo Nordisk Fonden (Foundation) for glaucoma neuroprotection research and is involved in, but does not directly receive funds from, a Novo Nordisk Fonden-funded clinical trial for glaucoma neuroprotection. Novo Nordisk Fonden has no role in the planning, execution, or data analysis of these studies. Novo Nordisk Fonden owns Novo Holdings A/S, which owns and controls Novo Nordisk A/S, the pharmaceutical company that makes Ozempic and Wegovy.

Flora Hui 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. Ozempic and other weight-loss drugs linked to rare but serious eye conditions – https://theconversation.com/ozempic-and-other-weight-loss-drugs-linked-to-rare-but-serious-eye-conditions-262874

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Aayushi Badhwar, Lecturer in Enterprise and Technology, RMIT University

Today’s consumers are swimming in a sea of information. Products are marketed with big, bold words such as “sustainable”, “ethical” and “organic”. They sound good, they catch our attention, and they make us feel better about what we buy.

The reality is, in today’s market, figuring out which claims are true is no easy task.

One big reason is greenwashing, when brands use these buzzwords to sell products without living up to what the words actually mean. In fashion especially, these terms are thrown around so often that their meaning has been watered down. Instead of being about genuine change, they are often just a sales tool.

So, how can you know what to look out for?

Who should take responsibility for green claims?

Greenwashing takes many forms. Sometimes brands know they are misleading; this is direct greenwashing. Other times, it’s indirect, when brands simply do not know the full story of their own supply chains. A T-shirt, for example, might start as raw cotton in one country, get processed into fabric in another, sewn into a garment, and then shipped overseas for sale.

At each stage, there are different suppliers, factories and workers. The brand has limited visibility over what happens in these tiers. When a brand claims it produces ethically, but does not, that is greenwashing. If it involves exploitation or forced labour, it then becomes modern slavery, turning greenwashing into something more dangerous.

This raises a big question: who is responsible? The obvious answer is the brands. They design, order, and sell the products, and they profit from them. Consumers are paying for these goods, so they should have access to credible information, not just vague claims or nice-sounding labels.

The fashion industry is constantly in the spotlight for problems in its supply chains. Stories about poor working conditions, environmental damage, and lack of transparency pop up all the time. But just like a viral trend on social media, the attention often fades quickly, and people move on to the next story.

Certifications aren’t perfect

There are many certifications in the fashion industry trying to help, but they are not foolproof. A label might promise ethical sourcing, but that does not guarantee transparency or prove that every step was ethical.

A large portion of China’s cotton comes from the Xinjiang region, which has long been linked to forced labour; concerns were highlighted in a United Nations report in 2022. Another example is deforestation in Brazil, where cotton from affected areas was certified under the “Better Cotton” scheme. Many major brands – like ASICS producing the Australian Olympic uniforms – have faced scrutiny for sourcing cotton from controversial regions.

Tracing global supply chains is hard. But the responsibility does not disappear just because it’s complicated.

In Australia, the Modern Slavery Act took effect in January 2019 to tackle issues such as forced labour and exploitation. Penalties include heavy fines or jail time.

However, there is a major loophole, as only companies with an annual revenue over A$100 million are required to report under the act. For big corporations, even if they are caught, the penalty can be tiny compared to the profits they have made.

This is not just an Australian problem, it’s global. For example, luxury brand Dior was placed under judicial administration after being found negligent for failing to act against worker exploitation in its subcontracted supply chain in Italy. The pattern is often the same; a company gets accused, sometimes even fined, but the cost is minimal compared to their annual revenue, so it’s barely a setback.

Is there a role for government?

So, should the responsibility rest only with brands? Not entirely. Governments also benefit from these companies through taxes and trade. They profit indirectly when the companies profit, and they benefit from the jobs these companies provide.

A stronger approach would involve government bodies and brands working with supply chain mapping companies, such as Textile Genesis, TrusTrace or FibreTrace. These platforms, often powered by blockchain and artificial intelligence, track a product through every stage of production.

Blockchain – which uses a decentralised database – can be a game changer.

Unlike websites or paper trails, blockchain data cannot be altered without leaving trace. Once recorded, the information is permanent, and it can be shared across manufacturers, brands and government bodies to maintain real-time disclosure.

When products enter a country, the ethical claims behind them could be verified in real time, instead of relying on brands to respond after an allegation is made.

The upfront cost is high and adoption might be slow. But in the long run it could save money on compliance, audits and damage control, while also building consumer trust.

Brands would still make profits, but consumers would have the confidence the products they are buying live up to the claims. Instead of government agencies being passive players, they would actively enforce that products meet the standards consumers expect.

In short, brands need to be held accountable, but so do governments. Greenwashing, modern slavery, and unethical sourcing will keep slipping through the cracks, unless they both work together.

The tools to make the fashion industry more transparent and honest already exist; it’s just a matter of using them.

Aayushi Badhwar 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 can you be sure your clothing has been produced ethically? – https://theconversation.com/how-can-you-be-sure-your-clothing-has-been-produced-ethically-262800