Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Seamus Higgins, Associate Professor Food Process Engineering, Chemical & Environmental Engineering, University of Nottingham

Baby food pouches came under scrutiny earlier this year, following a report from the University of Leeds and consumer group Which?.

The findings were troubling. Many pouches are high in sugar, nutritionally inadequate, and potentially harmful if consumed regularly. The report also warns that parents are being misled by so-called “halo” marketing claims – labels like “nutritionally balanced,” “no added sugar” and “organic” – which often obscure poor nutritional profiles.

This isn’t the first time these products have raised concerns. A 2023 study published in BMJ analysed 276 baby food pouches from 15 major manufacturers. It concluded that many were “nutritionally poor, high in sugars, and not fortified with iron”. In 2025, a BBC Panorama investigation found that pouches from six leading UK brands failed to meet essential nutritional standards for infant feeding.

In my forthcoming book, Food and us: the incredible story of how food shapes humanity, I explore how food technology has evolved alongside human history.

The preservation of food by way of heat treatment dates back to the early 19th century, when Frenchman Nicolas Appert developed heat-based methods to extend shelf life for Napoleon’s army rations. Fast-forward to the 1970s, and the US Army developed the first retort pouch: a flexible, heat-resistant food package made from layers of plastic and metal foil, designed to be sterilised under high heat and pressure.

The retort process kills harmful bacteria and allows food to be stored safely at room temperature for up to 18 months, without the need for refrigeration or preservatives. Originally intended for military rations, this packaging method would later revolutionise the baby food industry.

It was around 2006, when Ella’s kitchen and Plum Organics introduced this pouch technology to the baby food market, sparking a global trend. Today, baby food pouches make up over a third (38%) of baby food market.

It’s easy to understand their appeal. These pouches offer ultimate convenience for busy parents: no prep, no refrigeration, no cleanup. Many are designed with built-in spouts, allowing infants to self-feed by sucking directly from the pouch: no spoon or bowl required.

Pouch problems

The trouble lies in how these foods are made. To achieve long shelf life manufacturers subject the pouches to high heat and pressure. To mask any off-tastes caused by this intense processing, they often use fruit concentrates: ingredients high in sugar that appeal to babies and make the product more palatable.

Consider milk as an example. Fresh milk pasteurised at 71°C for 15 seconds tastes natural and requires refrigeration, with a shelf life of about a week. But process that same milk at 130°C–150°C, and it becomes UHT (ultra high temperature) milk – shelf-stable for up to six months, but with a markedly different taste. Process it further in a retort system, and it can last up to 18 months – but at the cost of flavour and nutritional integrity. Now apply the same logic to baby food.

But these pouches don’t just fall short nutritionally – they may also interfere with vital developmental stages.

When infants feed directly from spouts, they miss out on practising essential oral motor skills like chewing, swallowing and tongue lateralisation: the ability to move the tongue from side to side. This movement is crucial for shifting food around the mouth and preparing it for safe swallowing.

Without opportunities to develop these skills, children may struggle to transition to solid foods, increasing the risk of fussy eating and feeding disorders later in childhood.

International child feeding recommendations – from the UK, EU and World Health Organization – all advocate breastfeeding for the first six months where possible, followed by the gradual introduction of safe, nutrient-dense, age-appropriate foods.

These guidelines consistently recommend limiting added sugars and encouraging a variety of tastes, textures and colours to promote long-term acceptance of healthy foods.

But the food industry doesn’t always follow this advice.

Mum’s milk v the market

The global baby food market was worth over US$88 billion (£65 billion) in 2022 and is projected to grow more than 6% annually until 2032. With profits and market share on the line, it’s no surprise that manufacturers prioritise shelf stability and scalability over optimal nutrition.

So how do these pouches compare to breast milk?

Breast milk is a living, dynamic fluid. Its composition changes throughout the day and based on the mother’s diet, helping expose babies to a range of flavours early in life. It contains fat, protein, carbohydrates (mainly lactose), vitamins, minerals and over 200 complex sugars that support gut and immune system development. These sugars are believed to play a crucial role in shaping a baby’s microbiome.

By contrast, baby food pouches processed under high heat and pressure lose many of the original nutrients and flavours found in whole, fresh ingredients, particularly in sterilised, long-life versions.

But we don’t have to choose between convenience and health. Emerging non-thermal technologies – such as high-pressure processing (HPP), pulsed electric fields (PEF), and cold plasma – offer promising alternatives that preserve taste and nutrition without resorting to extreme heat.

HPP works by applying intense pressure to destroy harmful bacteria while retaining flavour, texture and nutrients. PEF uses short bursts of electricity to break down microbial cells, gently preserving food without cooking it.

Cold plasma, meanwhile, relies on ionised gas to inactivate pathogens on food surfaces, making it particularly effective for packaging and delicate ingredients. These innovative methods extend shelf life and ensure food safety, all without compromising the quality of the food itself.

This is a pivotal moment for reflection and action. As the science evolves, so too should our policies. By aligning regulation more closely with expert recommendations, we can help ensure that baby food products support the health and development of the children who rely on them.

After all, what we feed our youngest citizens shouldn’t just fill their bellies – it should nurture their growth, development and long-term wellbeing.

Seamus Higgins 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. Baby food in pouches is stripped of nutrients – but convenient, healthy alternatives are on the horizon – https://theconversation.com/baby-food-in-pouches-is-stripped-of-nutrients-but-convenient-healthy-alternatives-are-on-the-horizon-262570

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kerry Brown, Professor of Chinese Politics; Director, Lau China Institute, King’s College London

Taiwan has often compared itself to being a “shrimp between two whales”. That expression has never been more apt than today with the US and China – which considers Taiwan to be part of its territory – locked in a standoff over the future of the island.

At an event I attended some years ago, a Chinese scholar remarked when the issue of the US-China rivalry came up that they believed there was an African saying: “When two elephants are either having a fight, or making love, the grass around them gets trampled.”

It was best for everyone, they advised the other attendees, for the two superpowers to have a workmanlike, unexciting relationship rather than take the risk of things getting too friendly or hostile.

But whether or not the current period of conflict continues or the US and China magically become more aligned, the challenges facing Taiwan are severe.

First off, Taiwan is itself in a period of domestic turbulence. The government of Taiwanese president William Lai Ching-te, leader of the Democratic Progressive party, was elected in January 2024 with a little over 40% of the vote. This was considerably less than his predecessor from the same party, Tsai Ing-wen.

One of the main opposition leaders, Ke Wen-je of the Taiwan People’s party, has since then been arrested on corruption charges. He is accused of accepting half a million US dollars in bribes during his term as mayor of Taipei as well as misreporting campaign finances during his presidential run.

Most recently, in late July, recall votes were held where citizens in 24 districts of Taiwan chose whether or not to remove their legislator from office. This is the result of a law in Taiwan stipulating a new vote if 10% of the electorate in a specific constituency express dissatisfaction at the previous outcome. Activists supporting the government mobilised to achieve this.

The votes seem to be associated with frustration that, while the Democratic Progressive party controls the presidency, it cannot get legislation through a parliament dominated by its opponents. All of the votes were directed at seats held by the Kuomintang, the main opposition party in recent years that is accused by its critics of being pro-China. Not a single seat was overturned.

When the steady nationalism of Xi Jinping’s leadership in Beijing is factored in, with its conviction that the global influence of the west is slowly declining and the east – dominated by China – is in the nascent, one can see why the issue of Taiwan might look more precarious and worrying. This is regardless of the various predictions that 2027 is the date that China has set to go for reunification.

Ambiguous US position

For the US, President Donald Trump’s fixation has remained on correcting what he sees as China’s unfair trade advantages with its largest single economic partner – something he has long talked about.

The White House proclaimed in March, when the first set of trade negotiations with China concluded after tariffs were imposed by both sides, that: “for too long, unfair trade practices and America’s massive trade deficit with China have fuelled the offshoring of American jobs and the decline of our manufacturing sector.”

The aim at the most recent set of talks in Stockholm, Sweden, in late July was to drive towards a new deal. Trump has also reportedly talked of taking a huge delegation of business people to China at some point later in 2025. This is despite the fact that so far since his inauguration in January, and despite many reasons to talk, Xi and Trump have yet to physically meet.

Taiwanese people are therefore right to feel increasingly uneasy. Under Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, they received verbal commitments that the US would come to Taiwan’s aid if it was attacked. This was not formal US policy, which has long maintained an ambiguous stance on Taiwan.

Ambiguity has returned with a vengeance under Trump. His secretary of defence, Pete Hegseth, has said that the US stands by Taiwan. But these days in Washington all roads lead to the Oval Office, and Trump’s stance is far harder to predict.

If China were to dangle a trade deal in front of the US president – committing to buy more US goods, put in more investment that is non-problematic on security grounds in the US and generally abide by American demands – would Trump be able to resist?

It could be presented as a historic achievement, a new concordant between the world’s two greatest powers who had seemed until then set on conflict and clash. There might even be the much desired Nobel Peace Prize in it for the US leader.

Trump, for his part, appears increasingly reluctant to back Taiwan in ways that risk provoking Beijing. Lai delayed a trip to Latin America in July after the Trump administration reportedly told him to cancel a proposed stopover in New York. And the US cancelled a meeting with Taiwan’s defence minister one month earlier.

The likelihood remains that, if a real crisis occurs, then the US will climb down from the middle wall and do something to defend Taiwan. Any trade deal between Beijing and Washington will also probably be a highly circumscribed one. China is not an easy partner to negotiate with, and it is unlikely to offer Trump the kind of capitulation he is seeking.

Even so, these are very unpredictable times. The key calculation going forward will be the simple one of what the US gains and loses from all its relationships – and that includes Taiwan.

Kerry Brown 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. Taiwan faces a precarious future – whether or not US and China continue on path to conflict – https://theconversation.com/taiwan-faces-a-precarious-future-whether-or-not-us-and-china-continue-on-path-to-conflict-262294

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Edward White, PhD Candidate in Psychology, Kingston University

Director Zach Cregger’s new horror film Weapons explores the unsettling notion that the real monsters might not be lurking under your bed, but can instead be found within your own mind.

More than merely a scare tactic, the film illustrates how someone’s own brain can transform them from a decent person into the villain in someone else’s story.

Following his breakout hit with the horror flick Barbarian (2022), in Weapons Cregger presents a psychological nightmare that serves as a twisted exploration of human behaviour. It shows how quickly normal people can turn into agents of cruelty, all while still believing they’re the heroes of the story.

The film opens with the chilling premise of 17 children from the same classroom vanishing without a trace, leaving behind only grainy security footage of them running like helpless little planes. However, the true horror unfolds as the community of Maybrook – a small town in Pennsylvania – spirals into chaos instead of unity.

Parents accuse teachers, neighbours distrust one another and innocent lives are upended in the search for a culprit. This breakdown is grounded in psychological research, showcasing how human behaviour can deteriorate under pressure.

The psychology behind Weapons

Social identity theory is a scientific concept that theorises that your brain is wired to compartmentalise the world into “us” (those we consider good) and “them” (those perceived as threats). This process intensifies when people face fear or stress.

In Weapons, we see this theory in action as the community dismantles itself. Teacher Justine Gandy (Julia Garner) becomes an easy target, not due to concrete evidence, but because she fits neatly into the role of the other – “them”. The parents of the missing children seek someone to vilify, and she becomes the scapegoat of their fears.

This idea is based on decades of research showing that even the flimsiest group divisions can trigger vicious “us versus them” thinking. In laboratory experiments, people assigned to completely meaningless groups (like “overestimators” versus “underestimators”) will immediately start favouring their own group and discriminating against the other.

Here’s where things get truly frightening. The film shows characters doing horrible things while convinced they’re being righteous – this is a phenomenon psychologists call “moral disengagement”.

Think of it as your brain’s built-in excuse generator. When you want to do something that violates your normal moral standards, your mind helpfully provides justifications, such as:

• “it’s for the greater good”

• “they deserve it”

• “everyone else is doing it”

• “I’m just following orders.”

Recent studies show that this isn’t just about film villains – it’s how ordinary people convince themselves that cruelty is justified.

One 2025 study found that when people are under stress (like, say, dealing with missing children), they become much more likely to make cold, calculating decisions that prioritise results over moral principles. Your stressed-out brain rewrites your ethics in real time.

Weapons taps into these, and other, unsettling psychological findings. Take, for instance, the controversial 1971 Stanford prison experiment, where participants tasked with being “guards” quickly adopted sadistic behaviours towards the “prisoners”. Or the equally contentious obedience experiments by American psychologist Stanley Milgram, which demonstrated how ordinary people administered what they thought were lethal electric shocks under authority’s command.

Both the Milgram obedience experiment and Stanford prison experiment are now universally condemned by psychologists as deeply unethical, with experts agreeing that ethics gatekeepers would swiftly bar such studies from proceeding if they were proposed today. These controversial experiments were so harmful to participants that they directly led to major reforms in research ethics, including the National Research Act of 1974 and modern institutional review boards that protect human subjects.

But many still believe that these experiments revealed a chilling truth – almost anyone can become a “bad guy” under the right circumstances. Alarmingly, in Milgram’s tests, around 65% of participants proceeded to maximum voltage shocks, indicating that normal people are vulnerable to psychological manipulation within group settings.

Weapons presents this same dynamic, but within the context of a seemingly idyllic suburban neighbourhood.

The empathy trap

Weapons also shows that the people who care the most about a situation can become the biggest targets. The film doesn’t punish characters for being cruel – it punishes them for being kind.

Take teacher Justine Gandy (Julia Garner). Her downfall isn’t that she’s evil or incompetent. It’s that she cared too much about a neglected student and crossed the invisible boundaries of the “proper” teacher-parent relationship. Her empathy makes her an outsider, and outsiders make perfect scapegoats. The community turns her compassion into evidence of her guilt.

Even more chilling is what happens to Marcus (Benedict Wong), the school principal. In a moment where he shows concern for a child, his care gets twisted into something sinister. His empathy is punished with extreme prejudice, transforming his human decency into malice and destruction.

Recent studies have explored “virtue signaling”: when people perform moral outrage not because they genuinely care, but because it makes them look good socially. The research shows that online moral crusades often have little to do with actually helping anyone and everything to do with personal image management.

Even worse, psychologists have identified “weaponised empathy” – using people’s natural desire to help others to manipulate them into supporting harmful causes. Your compassion becomes the weapon someone else uses against you.

Weapons succeeds as horror because it doesn’t rely on supernatural monsters or gore. Instead, it shows us the real monsters – the ones we become when our psychology works exactly the way evolution has led it to.

The film suggests that the greatest threat to any community isn’t some external evil. It’s the collective decision to abandon empathy, critical thinking and basic human decency in favour of tribal warfare and moral theatre.

As the credits roll over the film’s blood-soaked finale, you’re left with an uncomfortable question: In a crisis, which side of that warfare would you be on? And more importantly, would you even know?

---

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

---

Edward White is affiliated with Kingston University.

– ref. Weapons: the film’s horror stems from moral disengagement – a psychologist explains – https://theconversation.com/weapons-the-films-horror-stems-from-moral-disengagement-a-psychologist-explains-262828

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Edward Forman, PhD Candidate, Climate Tipping Points, University of Southampton

Beneath the subtropical paradise, Bermuda hosts a vast network of caves which contains records of Earth’s climate history. Inside are mineral deposits called speleothems – including stalagmites on the cave floors more than six-foot tall. These grow slowly as water drips down from the cave ceiling, gaining a millimetre every few years.

The stalagmites record the chemical signals of the dripwater that formed them. Cold weather tends to be windier, for example, leading to more sea spray and more seawater in the dripwater. Analysing the chemistry of one of these stalagmites has thus enabled us to indirectly reconstruct past sea surface temperatures.

Our latest research, published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment, harnesses this information to show a long-term picture of Atlantic Ocean temperatures, with a datapoint every ten days back to the year 1449. This record shows the Gulf Stream moved northward 300 years ago – a sign that a major system of ocean currents called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Amoc) started weakening then.

The Gulf Stream is a major ocean current that moves warm surface water from the Gulf of Mexico northward across the Atlantic, helping keep western Europe mild. As the water travels north it cools and sinks, flowing back south at depth. Together, these processes form part of the ocean conveyor belt known as Amoc.

If Amoc slows down too much, it could lead to dramatic regional climate change. Northern Europe would experience extreme cooling of up to 15°C, and rainfall and weather patterns across the tropics and subtropics would move and intensify.

Scientists agree that this system is crucial for regulating climate, but there is great uncertainty surrounding its stability. Although some studies suggest there has been no recent weakening, most agree the system has weakened in response to rising global temperatures. However, we don’t know for how long, and by how much, the Amoc has been slowing.

One fingerprint of Amoc change is the position of the Gulf Stream. When the Amoc weakens, the Gulf Stream moves northward, crossing the Atlantic at higher latitudes. This is what our Bermudan stalagmite has revealed: before the year 1720, ocean temperatures were unusually high. This period coincides with the little ice age, a cold interval in the northern hemisphere between approximately 1300 and 1850.

After 1720, Bermudan sea surface temperatures cooled substantially for more than a century. At the same time, records to the north (along the east coast of North America) show the opposite: warming where there had previously been cold temperatures.

This shift suggests the Amoc may have begun weakening a long time ago, starting around 1720 – before widescale industrialisation. This indicates that the system may be more sensitive than previously thought, because it responded to natural melting of ice sheets earlier than expected.

It could also mean the current Amoc is closer to a tipping point than expected. If a tipping point is crossed, the weakening would become self-perpetuating and lead to a near-complete shutdown of these vital ocean currents.

A warning signal

As global temperatures pass 1.5°C over the next few years, many climate models predict further weakening of the Amoc – and potentially even a collapse this century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the global committee assessing climate science, estimates there is up to a 10% chance of collapse before 2100 – but new research suggests this probability could be even higher.

Our study adds further historical context, showing that even small changes in ocean circulation can have large regional consequences. A sustained movement of the Gulf Stream would lead to changing regional temperatures, rainfall patterns and more extreme weather. This could have serious implications for wildlife and food security, as ecosystems struggle to adapt to the changing climate.

Even if the Amoc does not cross a tipping point soon, our research shows the weakening could still have a significant impact on regional climate patterns. The record does not just tell us about the past – it’s a warning that any amount of slowing down could have serious effects.

---

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

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

---

James Baldini received funding from the European Research Council (grant number 240167).

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

– ref. A Bermuda stalagmite reveals how the Gulf Stream shifted – and what it might do as the climate changes further – https://theconversation.com/a-bermuda-stalagmite-reveals-how-the-gulf-stream-shifted-and-what-it-might-do-as-the-climate-changes-further-261614

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adrian Palmer, Professor of Marketing, University of Reading

Tourism is not always welcomed by the people who actually live in the places so many of us want to visit. Big crowds can bring economic benefits, but they can also price out the locals and cause environmental damage.

Some blame Airbnb. Others blame the cruise ship operators, the retired “boomers” or the growing middle classes across the world, with their disposable incomes and insatiable appetite for selfies.

But one element which often gets overlooked is the role of technology.

Historically, new transport technology has been a huge driver of the tourism industry. In the UK, for example, 19th-century railway expansion introduced mass tourism to coastal towns including Bournemouth and Blackpool.

In the 1960s, cheaper air travel did the same for destinations abroad, with places such as Majorca and the Spanish Costa del Sol becoming accessible to hoards of new visitors.

But new modes of transport are no longer the main driver of mass tourism. There are no imminent new ways of travelling by land, air or sea which will fuel change in the industry in the way that trains and planes once did.

Now the effects of technology are more subtle, as the online world transforms the way we travel across the real world.

The internet has blurred the distinction between residents and tourists. The surge in working from home, itself made possible by the internet, means that some people can live where they like to play, instead of prioritising proximity to the office or commuter trains.

Then there are the “digital nomads” who embrace the idea of remote working to the extent that they are able to live anywhere in the world with a decent internet connection.

The rise of social media has also had a big impact on tourism, spreading stories and images about previously little-known attractions. A few viral videos can quickly turn quiet backwaters into travel hotspots.

Just ask residents of the once-quiet Italian ski resort of Roccaraso, which was overwhelmed by a surge of visitors in January 2025 thanks to some Tiktok videos by the Italian social media influencer, Rita De Crescenzo.

The online world has also closed a gap which previously existed between tourism destinations and their distant customers. Pre-internet, the global tourism industry relied on travel agencies and printed media. Now, every hotel or resort is a click away, with platforms like Airbnb (which hosted 5 million rental properties in 2024) transforming the sector.

The effects of artificial intelligence on tourism are less certain. But perhaps it could be part of a solution.

Virtual vacations?

AI could be used to help create bespoke, personal tourism experiences in locations that really need tourists, thus reducing the harm caused to overcrowded locations or fragile eco-systems. The travel industry could also use it to make more accurate predictions about travel patterns, helping places like Barcelona and Venice to manage their number of visitors.

AI-enhanced virtual reality also has the potential to let people have experiences of tourism destinations from afar, with research suggesting “virtual holidays” could dramatically change the tourism sector.

After all, many of us have swapped other real-life experiences like shopping and work meetings to something we do via a screen. There is even evidence of an emerging preference for playing online sports over the real-life versions.

But could virtual tourism become so attractive that it significantly reduces the real thing? Will tourists really be content with seeing a virtual version of an artistic or natural wonder, instead of queuing for hours to experience it as part of a crowd?

Similar questions were asked when colour television developed in the 1960s. Would, for example, the vivid portrayal of wildlife in African game reserves reduce the need for tourists to travel there? Who would bother with the expense and effort of going to Kenya or Botswana, when they could be seen up close from the comfort of a sofa?

The outcome, though, was the exact opposite. There is evidence that wildlife programmes have actually stimulated demand to see the real thing. Similarly, popular films and TV shows set in beautiful locations make people want to visit them, with anticipation and expectation adding value to the final tourist experience.

So, while we can be pretty sure AI will affect tourism – as it will every industry – we don’t yet know whether its overall impact will be to reduce pressure on the world’s most popular places, or further stimulate demand.

And it may not be technology that has the final say – concerns about climate change and economic pressures may influence global travel patterns first. But one thing is for sure: overtourism is not over yet.

Adrian Palmer has received funding from British Academy for a study of the role of social media in tourism visits

He is an unpaid member of the UK Government”s Department for Culture, Media and Sports College of Experts. This a non-political advisory research body.

– ref. Technology has fuelled overtourism – now it could also help to stem the tide – https://theconversation.com/technology-has-fuelled-overtourism-now-it-could-also-help-to-stem-the-tide-258435

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

The worry that breast cancer may someday return is a troubling source of anxiety for many survivors of the disease. It’s understandable why, since most relapses and metastatic cancers (cancers that have spread) aren’t started by new tumours.

Rather, they’re caused by sleeper cancer cells that suddenly awaken. These “dormant” cancer cells usually colonise places such as the lungs or bones, waiting for the optimal conditions to spring back to life.

For a long time, scientists have tried to work out exactly what shakes these cancer cells out of their slumber. There were hints that chronic inflammation – from factors such as smoking or ageing – could play a role, acting as a kind of unintentional alarm clock.

But new research now provides evidence that common respiratory infections, such as the flu or COVID, are capable of stirring dormant cancer cells into action.

The new study used mice which were engineered to have breast cancer cells. These cells were designed to mimic the behaviour of dormant human cancer cells hiding in the lungs. Researchers then infected the mice with either the influenza virus, which causes the flu, or the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID.

What they discovered was both revealing and alarming. Within days of infection, the once-quiet cancer cells started to wake up, multiply rapidly and form new metastatic lesions in the lung.

But what was driving this process? Surprisingly, it wasn’t the viruses themselves. Rather, the researchers discovered that the process was being driven by the immune response that the body mounted to fight the infection.

The body’s immune response is largely driven by a secreted molecule called interleukin-6 (IL-6). Normally, IL-6 helps coordinate the body’s defences against invaders, such as viruses. But when viral infections strike, IL-6 levels can surge.

This temporary spike appears to create the perfect storm for dormant cancer cells to shift from a sleepy, inactive mode to a state that’s highly active where the cells begin to divide.

When the scientists disabled IL-6 in the mice, the dormant cancer cells did not multiply nearly as much when the viral infection was introduced. This suggests that IL-6 acts as a crucial switch for cancer cells between a harmless state and metastasis.

The researchers also found that the reawakening of cancer cells doesn’t last forever. Within about two weeks of infection, the burst of activity settled down and the cancer cells often returned to a dormant state. However, the danger hadn’t passed.

After each infection, there were now dramatically more awakened cancer cells in the lungs, primed to begin multiplying again once triggered. This creates a greater risk for future relapses, as each episode magnifies the threat.

But why doesn’t our immune system just wipe out these cancer cells if they’re no longer dormant? The study hints that another type of immune cell – called “helper T cells” – step in. But instead of destroying the cancer cells, the T cells shield them from other immune attacks. This shows how cancer can cleverly hijack the body’s defences, turning them from destroyers into guardians.

---

Read more:
Unlocking the body’s defences: understanding immunotherapy

---

Dormant cancer cells

While these experiments were performed on mice, the researchers also looked at data from thousands of cancer survivors in the UK and US during the COVID-19 pandemic. They found that cancer patients – especially those who’d recently had respiratory infections – faced nearly double the risk of dying from cancer compared to those who did not get infected. This pattern was clearest in the months after infection – matching exactly what was seen in the mouse studies.

The link between viral infection, inflammation, and cancer relapse could help explain why cancer death rates spiked early in the pandemic, especially among those with a history of breast or other cancers. This new understanding is sobering – but also something that we can take action against.

For breast cancer survivors, and potentially survivors of other cancers, the findings highlight the importance of protecting themselves from respiratory infections – not just to avoid the illness itself, but to lower the risk of setting off dormant cancer cells that could lead to life-threatening metastasis. Measures such as vaccination and rapid treatment of infections could become part of the standard toolkit for supporting long-term health after cancer.

There are also drugs that target IL-6 which are already being used for other conditions such as Castleman’s disease and COVID. This raises questions about whether these drugs might also shield vulnerable cancer survivors from relapse during or after severe viral infections.

This recent study reminds us just how interconnected our health truly is. While viral infections are often thought to only affect us temporarily, a growing body of research shows they may exert hidden, long-term effects.

Ultimately, these are early days for translating findings from this work into human therapies. But they offer new hope that by understanding and intercepting the “wake-up calls” for dormant cancer cells, it may one day be possible to prevent cancer relapses before they ever get started – dramatically improving outcomes for survivors everywhere.

Justin Stebbing 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. COVID, the flu and other viral infections can re-awaken dormant breast cancer cells, new study in mice shows – https://theconversation.com/covid-the-flu-and-other-viral-infections-can-re-awaken-dormant-breast-cancer-cells-new-study-in-mice-shows-262464

Source: The Conversation – UK – By John Drury, Professor of Social Psychology, University of Sussex

Just over a year ago, riots swept across parts of the UK following the murder of three schoolgirls in Southport. In 2011, the police killing of Mark Duggan led to five nights of rioting that left five people dead. And in 1981, there were weeks of rioting in cities across the country in response to perceived police discrimination against black people.

In recent weeks, occasionally violent protests at asylum hotels around the country have seen a number of people arrested. Politicians have warned that further unrest is possible.

As a social psychologist specialising in the study of collective behaviour, I know the cliche that “any spark” can cause a riot is untrue. The significant incidents that lead to riots are not arbitrary. They are dramatic emblems of longstanding grievances for particular groups.

And rioting often only takes place days after such incidents, rather than being an immediate “trigger” for mass violence. Communities first discuss the incident and often try other means to achieve their goals.

There are a number of pre-conditions for riots to occur. Collective grievances, often linked with deprivation, are one of them. But not all deprived locations join in when there is a wave of riots.

In addition to grievance, another condition is the collective ability of people in the location to act upon the grievance. This relates to things like how organised people are in the location, what resources they have locally, and the number of people physically available to get involved.

As riots involve a large group of people acting as one, a shared social identity is another necessity. That is, participants must see themselves as an “us”. This sense of being part of an in-group (“us”) is defined in opposition to an out-group (“them”). The presence locally of out-groups seen by participants as linked to the grievance is an important factor in why riots happen where they do.

For example, in 1981 and 2011, poor community relations with police distinguished those locations that rioted from those that did not. In 2024, the out-group that defined the in-group was “asylum seekers and immigrants” in temporary accommodation.

---

Read more:
The hypocrisy at the heart of racist riots

---

Sometimes – albeit rarely – peaceful crowds turn into riots. My previous research with Stephen Reicher and Clifford Stott shows that how the police and the crowd interact with each other on the day is crucial in explaining this process.

This research – on student protests and anti-poll tax demonstrations as well as anti-roads direct activists and football supporters – identified a common pattern. In all cases, participants in the crowd saw themselves as acting legitimately, but felt that police were acting in illegitimate and even in dangerous ways towards them – for example threatening their right to protest. This therefore changed their views, legitimising action against police as self-defence or retribution.

At the same time, these participants also experienced the policing as indiscriminate, which enhanced a sense of shared identity in the crowd. This new sense of “we-ness” created the collective ability (support, empowerment) to act upon their new grievance against the police.

In a recent study of the 2024 anti-immigrant riots in three locations – Stoke-on-Trent, Bristol and Tamworth – my colleagues and I found a different pattern of crowd violence.

These were not, in the main, protests largely comprising people there simply to voice their concerns, who only became violent after policing interventions. Rather, there was clear evidence that many came to the events intending to physically attack asylum seekers and damage property associated with this out-group. Empowerment probably came from the rioters’ belief that enough other people felt the same way.

Social influence

One of the features of the wave of 2024, just like the waves of 1981 and 2011, is that riots influenced the likelihood of further riots in other towns. This process of social influence and spread can’t be explained by simple mechanisms like contagion.

Most people “exposed” do not join in. And for those who do, the actions they “join in” with in their local areas can be different from the actions of the rioting crowd in the source location.

Our research on multiple waves of riots suggests that rioting in one place prompts expectations and discussions among potential participants in other locations. These are about how their community, networks and peer groups might respond to the rioting in the source location.

Rather than simply mimicking those actions, potential participants are influenced by what they believe local groups relevant to them will do.

Why should people believe that others in their own area intend to riot locally in response to rioting elsewhere? One reason is they believe that enough other people, locally or in their networks and reference groups, have the same grievance as that in the source riot location.

They believe these views are widely shared locally, based on their area’s history, reputation, identity or local campaigns. For example, the presence of an active ongoing local campaign against the housing of asylum seekers in Tamworth contributed to local expectations that Tamworth would be part of the wave of riots in summer 2024.

Believing that “everyone” in one’s local network or neighbourhood will join in empowers people to take part even if there might be some personal risk – because they think they will not be alone.

The solution to events like those of summer 2024 is not only to correct misinformation about potential out-groups. It’s also necessary to challenge what they believe about other people’s beliefs. In an important way, the very large counter-demonstrations at the end of the 2024 wave may have achieved this.

If the anti-immigrant riots had continued unchallenged, observers (and supporters of the rioters) are likely to have drawn the conclusion that public opinion supports or is indifferent to violent attacks on minorities. The chilling effect on those who would otherwise be ready to speak out against racism should be obvious.

But by mobilising in large numbers, a counter-protest can demonstrate that it is anti-racism that is the mainstream, and that public opinion is closer to this view than those of the anti-immigrant rioters.

---

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

---

John Drury received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (reference ES/N01068X/1). Some of the work described here was funded by the Behavioural Research UK Leadership Hub, which is supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (reference ES/Y001044/1).

– ref. Why do people riot? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-people-riot-261903

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sasha Garwood, Assistant Professor, University of Nottingham

In 1915, Edward Frederic (E.F.) Benson – the future bestselling author of comic novel series Mapp and Lucia – was in his late 40s, popular and famously charming. Since adolescence he’d been drawn to men, and his diaries recount passionate romances at Marlborough College and King’s College Cambridge. But, perhaps unsurprisingly for the son of an Archbishop of Canterbury, he was discreet.

George Wolfe Plank was 15 years younger – a scrappy, self-taught American artist whose fantastical Vogue covers defined the look of the era. George had a studio around the corner from Fred in Chelsea and an eye for his handsome neighbour.

For five years they shared houses and holidays – a couple to those who saw clearly, simply “bosom friends” to those who chose not to. The pair inhabited the tensions of queer masculinity in a world where sex between men was illegal and policed.

I found their story while exploring Fred’s schoolboy romance, David Blaize. Until I came across their letters, I didn’t know how important George had been for Fred, or vice versa. Most biographers mention a friendship or, occasionally, unrequited feelings.

They met in 1915 after George wrote to Fred, calling him “unmarried, worldly and witty” – all coded queer signifiers at the time – and quoting the poet Walt Whitman, whose rhetoric about comrades and love was a touchstone for many men who desired men. It’s the most blatant approach I’ve found in the archives.

Fred invited him to tea and played him Tchaikovsky. Before long they were seeing each other every day, and George told his sister Amy that “I am … so happy I can scarcely realise it is I”.

Their contrasting backgrounds brought conflict and fascination, perhaps bridged by physical attraction. In one letter George declares:

Two people never came from such opposite poles and were better friends; He was born an aristocrat, lived at Lambeth Palace, educated … he goes in for all sorts of sport, which of course makes him a fine physical specimen – and yet, we seem to fit perfectly, which is a miracle!

Fred would drop into George’s studio after evening engagements. Were they sleeping together? Surviving scraps are suggestive, but the archive’s silence here is ambiguous. Letters tell us about love but, for safety, much less about sex.

Regardless, they were very close. When Fred bought 25 Brompton Square in London later that year, he insisted George move in too, and they decorated it together. “I grow fonder of him every day,” wrote George. For Fred, these were “a delight”, “halcyon days”.

They also rented Lamb House in Rye, East Sussex, together, with George saying that he wanted to “stay on here … for always”.

In 1916, they published The Freaks of Mayfair together, with George’s elegant Aubrey Beardsley-esque drawings illustrating Fred’s sharp social satires. This book put queerness at the heart of high society, particularly through the character of maiden-auntish character Aunt Georgie and his preference for “slightly effeminate young men”.

These years saw some notably queer works from Fred – David Blaize, Up and Down – and his first volume of autobiography. George produced Vogue covers, fashion illustrations and theatre scenery with dedication and flair.

Their surviving letters are loving and haunting. Fred burnt piles of correspondence before he died, fearing “mischief” – but his surviving writing to George is poignant.

“This scrawl must go: it carries with it a great many wishes that you were not away, and when the telephone bell rings, I miss your voice,” one letter from Fred reads. “The point is, I wish you were here … I want you.” George is caring, reassuring: “bestest love” and “I thought of you with every step”. Longing drifts from the pages.

Nevertheless, there was sometimes trouble. Fred could be depressive and George wrote, wryly, during a bad patch: “Poor Fred is a mass of nerves … I must look after him as much as he will let me … But he is a queer fish at times and it is hard work.”

When Fred’s mother died in 1918, George rushed to be with him. But having been swept off his feet by this glamorous, successful older man, he now spent months supporting a grieving companion who seemed suddenly old, both needy and unable to say what he needed.

Fred was “huffy” when George’s friends Mildred and Jimmy took him to Paris, upset when George travelled alone, and wanted more of his time than George felt was compatible with his work. Throughout 1920 they were together regularly, indulging in the “perpetual privacy” of Rye.

And then, in 1921, Fred disappears from George’s letters almost entirely.

So often it’s the unknowns that haunt us. What happened? The archives can’t tell us for certain. They were both generous, gregarious, caring – but it seems that Fred’s demands came to strain George’s kindness, unlike the blissful early days when Fred was happy and George dazzled.

One 1922 letter from Fred survives, its yearning subsumed and sad. Something had changed – Fred’s health maybe (rheumatism brought constant pain) but something else too.

In 1923, George’s friend HD (also queer, like many of their friends) told him: “I know you have been through something, have had some sort of psychic wound.” Fred is silent until Final Edition, a reflective autobiography finished ten days before his death, in which “a very intimate friend of mine … an artist of whimsical and imaginative work” makes Lamb House home.

These men might have lived in a different age, but their story is so familiar: love and grief and money and class, the tension between masculinity and vulnerability. And there are many such stories: queer love and loss buried in the archives, hiding in plain sight. Finding them feels both heartbreaking and heartening. Perhaps, whatever happens, what survives of us is love.

---

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

---

Sasha Garwood 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 great unknown romance of writer E.F. Benson’s life – Fred and George, a love story hidden in letters – https://theconversation.com/the-great-unknown-romance-of-writer-e-f-bensons-life-fred-and-george-a-love-story-hidden-in-letters-262745

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor, The Conversation

This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

---

The latest news out of the Kremlin is that while Vladimir Putin is keen to tee up a face-to-face meeting with Donald Trump, he thinks it’s unlikely he’ll meet Volodymyr Zelensky. The Russian president was commenting on his three-hour meeting with Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, on August 6, after which the US president reportedly told senior aides he would be meeting Putin next week, followed by a session with both Putin and Zelensky.

But Putin has reportedly poured cold water on this prospect, telling the Russian media: “I have nothing against it in general, it is possible, but certain conditions must be created for this. Unfortunately, we are still far from creating such conditions.”

Perhaps the Russian president feels he can achieve a more favourable result from a one-on-one with Trump than if the Ukrainian president is also in the room. This would be understandable. After all, when the pair met in Helsinki for a summit in 2018, the US president appeared to take Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies when it came to Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.

What was actually discussed when Putin met Witkoff has not been divulged. Putin’s foreign policy advisor, Yuri Ushakov, said the Russian president had sent “signals” to Trump via Witkoff but declined to comment further – other than saying the meeting had been “highly productive” and “successful” and “great progress had been made”. We’ll find out more next week, if and when the two, perhaps three, leaders meet.

By then, the latest deadline set by a disgruntled US president for Putin to agree to a ceasefire in the conflict in Ukraine will have passed. So the question remains whether the Russian leader is simply buying time. Certainly, the tariffs levelled against India because it has continued to buy Russian oil suggest Trump means business if Putin won’t concede ground. After Witkoff’s meeting, the US president issued an executive order declaring: “The actions and policies of the Government of the Russian Federation continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

Trump’s frustration with Putin has built up steadily since March, as Stefan Wolff observes. Wolff, a professor of international security at the University of Birmingham, believes the US president is finally coming to the conclusion that if he wants Putin to give ground on Ukraine, he must apply significant economic and even military pressure on the Russian leader. The tariffs are one sign that Trump is prepared, at least for now, to hit out at the Russian economy. And the US has also secured agreements from Nato’s European member states to buy US weapons for Ukraine’s war effort.

How this might play out in negotiations between the two leaders, if and when they meet next week, remains to be seen. But as Wolff points out: “If the US president wants a good deal, he needs more leverage over Putin. Weakening Russia’s war economy with further sanctions and blunting the effectiveness of its military campaign by arming Ukraine are steps that might get him there.”

---

Read more:
Trump has finally realised he needs economic and military muscle to force Putin to agree a peace deal

---

Trump may have told Zelensky in the infamous White House meeting in February that he “does not have the cards” to play against Putin. But that’s not altogether true. And if they do meet, Zelensky may be able to use Ukraine’s innovative and successful use of drone warfare as a bargaining chip.

Marcel Plichta, a PhD candidate at the University of St Andrews, has focused his research on the use of drones by minor powers and non-state actors, and believes that Kyiv’s use of one-way attack drones (OWA) have had a far greater impact on Russian air defences than expected.

Attacks on Moscow itself, as well as oil installations, have affected the Russian public’s morale and driven up fuel prices, providing Ukraine with a potential bargaining chip to use in any ceasefire negotiation, Plichta writes. And Zelensky’s offer to Trump of a drones “mega-deal” – combining advanced, battle-tested technology with tactical knowhow – could be a card Zelensky can play in his dealings with the US.

---

Read more:
Ukraine’s drone air war has given Zelensky additional bargaining power with Putin – new research

---

There’s been more nuclear sabre rattling this week, but this time from Trump. Stung by an insulting social media post from former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, which seemed to compare the US president to “Sleepy Joe Biden”, Trump announced he had ordered two nuclear-armed submarines to deploy to “the appropriate regions” – in the same week the world marked 80 years since the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, on August 6 1945.

Nicholas Wheeler, whose work at the University of Birmingham focuses on the role of trust in foreign relations, believes that nuclear weapons were developed first in the US because of an abiding fear that its enemies might get there ahead of it.

In the years since, various combinations of Soviet and American leaders – through the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 to the treaties signed by Leonid Brezhnev and Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev – developed enough trust to reach agreements which made nuclear weapons’ use far more unlikely.

Now, says Wheeler, it’s down to the current inhabitants of the Kremlin and White House to develop the same sense of cooperation and trust to ensure these weapons are never used again.

---

Read more:
Fear built the nuclear bomb – only trust can ensure it is never used again

---

The signs are not good, however. This week, Russia announced it would no longer abide by the the intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty signed by Gorbachev and Reagan in 1987. Another agreement, the New Start treaty which limits the size of stockpiles of strategic missiles, warheads and launchers, is due to expire next February.

Matthew Powell, an expert in strategic and air power studies at the University of Portsmouth, is worried that the recent downgrading of these vital agreements has made the world more dangerous.

---

Read more:
Russia’s decision to pull out of nuclear treaty makes the world more dangerous

---

Israel’s settlers eye Gaza

From Gaza, the daily headlines charting the scores of people killed and wounded, many as they try to get food and water for their families, continue to shock and distress. And the growing numbers of people, often small children, reported to be succumbing to starvation and malnutrition is ever more scandalous.

This week, it has been reported that the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is bidding to get cabinet support for a plan to occupy the Gaza Strip in its entirety.

There’s strong opposition to this – both from the military, which believes occupying Gaza would plunge Israel into a “black hole” with no defined exit plan, and among many ordinary Israelis, who argue such an operation would inevitably mean the death of any hostages who might still be alive.

But Netanyahu will no doubt be able to count on support from the more extreme elements in his coalition including Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, for whom clearing Gaza of its Palestinian population to make way for resettlement by Israelis is a long-held dream.

As Leonie Fleischmann of City St George’s, University of London, points out, many in Israel’s settler movement see Gaza as a Jewish homeland – part of the biblical land of Judea, to which they believe they have a “God-given right” to return. Fleischmann tells the story of Gaza from 1967, when it was captured from Egypt by the Israel Defense Forces at the start of the six-day war, to 2005, when the then-prime minister, Ariel Sharon, ordered the settlers to leave.

Ever since then, she writes, reoccupation of Gaza has been a dream of the settler movement. Now the more extreme elements are making plans to realise that dream, calling for the settlement of areas of the northern Gaza Strip currently occupied by the IDF. Plans to establish new communities have been drawn up and 1,000 families have applied to move in.

---

Read more:
Israel’s plans for a full occupation of Gaza would pave the way for Israeli resettlement

---

Yaron Peleg from the University of Cambridge believes the rage with which Israel is pursuing its campaign against Gaza can be explained by a deep dive into the history of Zionism through the 20th century – both before and after the establishment of the state of Israel.

Peleg, a historian of Jewish and Israeli culture who was born on a kibbutz in western Galilee, recently published a book on the issue: New Hebrews: Making National Culture in Zion. He believes the “same vision that built a strong nation also hardwired the divisions and antagonisms now threatening its democracy, security and place in the world”.

Peleg traces the way a secular culture of strength and self-reliance in the first half of the 20th century, with a focus on agriculture and community, gradually became more militaristic – often through necessity as Arab resistance grew. After the second world war, the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust and Arab opposition to Israeli statehood became indelibly linked in the minds of many in Israel. He writes:

This may be one explanation for the country’s overreaction in Gaza. This is not an excuse, but an explanation that calls for the next evolutionary step in the history of Zionism – one in which Israel understands that it has achieved the goal for which it was established. Israel must realise it has power – that it is a power – and that with power comes responsibility.

---

Read more:
How Israel’s self-image changed from self-reliance to aggressive militarism

---

---

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

---

– ref. Trump poised to meet Putin to discuss Ukraine – but Zelensky set to be left on the sidelines – https://theconversation.com/trump-poised-to-meet-putin-to-discuss-ukraine-but-zelensky-set-to-be-left-on-the-sidelines-262836

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nadine Wehida, Senior Lecturer in Genetics and Molecular Biology, Kingston University

So many people in western countries are turning to weight loss drugs such as Wegovy/Ozempic and Mounjaro that concerns have started to emerge about maintaining ready supplies. But with popularity comes scrutiny, and rising demand isn’t the only potential problem with weight loss jabs.

Gastrointestinal side-effects such as nausea, vomiting and constipation are common across these drugs, which are known as GLP-1 receptor agonists. Then there’s the now infamous “Ozempic face” – a gaunt, aged appearance that can result from rapid weight loss.

More serious concerns have also begun to surface, including possible links to eye disease, reduced libido and a potential increased risk of certain cancers. However, we’re still in the early days of understanding what the risks might be and the evidence for them is limited.

The most significant cancer-related worry is thyroid cancer. Studies in rodents found that high doses of GLP-1 drugs caused thyroid tumours, although this hasn’t been definitively proven in humans.

Still, a large-scale French study did find a potential link between GLP-1 use and thyroid cancer, especially in patients who used the drug for more than a year. As a precaution, these medications are not recommended for people with a personal or family history of thyroid cancer or specific genetic conditions that increase the risk of thyroid tumours.

There have also been concerns about pancreatic cancer, mostly because of early reports of pancreatitis: inflammation of the pancreas, which can, in some cases, be fatal. However, current studies have not confirmed a direct link between GLP-1 drugs and pancreatic cancer.

Concerns here are particularly relevant because of how the drugs work. Wegovy and Ozempic are brand names for a type of GLP-1 receptor agonist known as semaglutide. Originally developed to treat type 2 diabetes, it works by activating receptors in the pancreas to increase insulin release and reduce glucagon – a hormone that raises blood sugar.

Together, these effects help lower blood-sugar levels. The weight loss effects come from the drug’s ability to act on receptors in the brain as well as in gut and fat cells, to help to reduce appetite.

Mounjaro (the brand name for the compound tirzepatide) takes things a step further. It works not only on the GLP-1 receptor but also on a second one – the GIP (glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide) receptor.

By stimulating both, tirzepatide boosts the pancreas’s ability to produce insulin and improves insulin sensitivity – meaning the body’s cells respond more effectively to insulin, helping regulate blood sugar more efficiently. This dual action results in even greater weight loss than semaglutide alone, making Mounjaro the latest star in the fight against obesity.

Tirzepatide has not been associated with increased cancer risk in clinical trials so far. However, like other GLP-1 drugs, it still carries the thyroid cancer warning based on earlier animal research. Interestingly, preliminary studies in animals suggest tirzepatide might even shrink certain tumours, including breast cancer, but these findings are still very early and not yet applicable to humans.

Obesity is also a cancer risk

It’s important to remember that obesity itself is a well established risk factor for several cancers, including breast, colon, liver and uterine cancers. By helping people lose significant amounts of weight and improve their metabolic health, GLP-1 drugs could indirectly reduce the risk of developing these conditions.

In fact, some population studies have found lower rates of obesity-related cancers in people using GLP-1 medications compared to those taking other treatments. However, it’s still unclear whether the reduced cancer risk comes from the drug’s action or from the weight loss itself. More research is needed to fully understand this connection.

So, the current picture is reassuring, yet tinged with uncertainty. The overall cancer risk associated with GLP-1 drugs and tirzepatide appears to be low.

But it’s important to emphasise that these medications are not recommended for people with a personal or family history of certain types of thyroid cancer, or also endocrine conditions such as multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome, because these conditions may increase sensitivity to hormone-related tumour growth.

Weight-loss injections are not risk free, but they also hold enormous potential. It remains to be unravelled whether they’re miracle cures or just the latest chapter in the long saga of weight loss. One thing is certain: the conversation is far from over.

These drugs are rewriting the rules on how we think about weight, health, and risk. In the battle to outsmart the scales, they offer hope, science and a fair bit of gamble amidst the hype.

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. Weight loss jabs and cancer risk: here’s what you need to know about the research so far – https://theconversation.com/weight-loss-jabs-and-cancer-risk-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-research-so-far-262146