Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Eric Shaw, Honorary Research Fellow in Politics, University of Stirling

At its recent conference in Brighton, the union Unite voted overwhelmingly to expel deputy prime minister Angela Rayner from membership.

The successful motion denounced the way Birmingham’s Labour council has handled a pay dispute with the city’s bin workers, which, it claimed, involved large pay cuts. The motion also condemned the Labour government for supporting the council.

Rayner was suspended because, in the words of Unite general secretary Sharon Graham, she had “backed a rogue council that has peddled lies and smeared its workers fighting huge pay cuts”.

The resolution called upon the union leadership to “re-examine” its relationship with the Labour party. Graham added: “People up and down the country are asking whose side is the Labour government on and coming up with the answer, not workers”.

Rayner’s suspension seems an extraordinary move. The soft-left deputy PM is the most senior pro-union voice in the government and has a long history in the union movement. Crucially, when in opposition, Rayner was primarily responsible for hammering out a package of measures with the unions that was designed to bolster employee rights. These measures are now in the process of being codified in the employment rights bill that is making its way through parliament.

Why Rayner (along with some Birmingham Labour councillors) was selected for expulsion is unclear. Perhaps the union was simply lashing out. The impact of its decision was lessened by the fact that Rayner says she had already resigned from Unite and remains a member of Unison, a union in which she once served as an official.

Unite and Labour

The more significant move was (or appeared to be) the pledge to “re-examine” Unite’s relationship with the party. This should be placed in the context both of recent controversies over attempts to means-test winter fuel payments and cut disability benefits, and of reports of moves to form a new leftwing party under the putative leadership of Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana..

Might Unite disaffiliate from Labour and rally behind the new party? Given that Unite, with its 1.2 million members, is Britain’s second largest union (after Unison), and, over the years, has been a generous donor to Labour, such a move would be significant. Support from Unite could give the new leftwing party real heft and allow it to pose a worrying threat to Labour’s electoral prospects.

Unite’s recent history might suggest this as a possibility. With a long tradition stretching back over three quarters of a century, Unite (and its precursor, the TGWU) has been a stalwart of the Labour left. Under its leftwing general secretary, Len McCluskey, Unite made a major contribution to Ed Miliband’s election as party leader in 2010. McCluskey subsequently attacked Miliband for drifting too far to the right.

The union then played a crucial role in sustaining Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership: indeed, without its support, Corbyn might not have survived so long. And as it became evident that Keir Starmer was determined to wrench the party to the right, Unite once more became the centre of leftwing dissent.

McCluskey retired in 2021, but neither of the two candidates affiliated to his “Unite left” faction won the election to succeed him. Unexpectedly, they were both defeated by Graham, another leftwinger who believed that Unite had become too embroiled in internal Labour party matters and was determined to divert resources away from funding the Labour party to industrial activities.

The dog that hasn’t barked

However, Graham’s desire to divest from Labour should not be taken as a sign that she wants to reinvest in another party. The whole thrust of Graham’s leadership is to give much higher priority to industrial than to political concerns.

Even had she not been so explicit about this, union leaders are, above all, realists. They are concerned with the practicalities of protecting the interests of their members and hence averse to risky political experimentation.

And, however contentious a role Unite has played in the Labour party, multiple ties, in terms of history, tradition, ethos and interest, still bind the two together.

The row between Unite and Labour shouldn’t lead us to overlook the fact that, despite all the controversies and disappointments, the other major union affiliates, including Unison, GMB and USDAW, have largely refrained from public criticism of the government.

This is a sign of loyalty. The unions do not wish to add to the massive problems the Starmer government already faces. But it’s also evidence that, however undersold, the Labour government is delivering on the issues that matter to unions. Its employment rights bill promises the most significant enhancement of individual and collective worker rights in a generation. The unions will allow nothing to jeopardise this.

But for Starmer, there is no room at all for complacency. With a stuttering economy, greatly overstretched public services, a cost of living crisis and very difficult public sector pay negotiations, even the most sympathetic union leaders will come under great pressure from a disgruntled rank and file to take a tougher line with the government. The road ahead will be rocky.

Eric Shaw is a member of the Labour party

– ref. How to understand the row between Angela Rayner and Unite – and what it means for Labour’s relationship with the unions – https://theconversation.com/how-to-understand-the-row-between-angela-rayner-and-unite-and-what-it-means-for-labours-relationship-with-the-unions-261340

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cate Williams, Knowledge Exchange Fellow at Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences, Aberystwyth University

A tiny midge, no bigger than a pinhead, is bringing UK farming to its knees. The culprit? A strain of the bluetongue virus that’s never been seen before.

As of July 1, the whole of England has been classed as an “infected area” due to bluetongue virus serotype 3 (BTV-3).

There are movement restrictions and testing in place in Scotland, Wales and the island of Ireland. No animals from England – or that have passed through England – are allowed to attend this year’s Royal Welsh Show on July 21-24, for example.

---

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

---

The virus, which causes illness and death in sheep, cattle, goats and other ruminants, is spread by biting midges. Although it poses no risk to humans and can’t be transmitted from one animal to another, the latest outbreak is more severe than previous ones. And it could cause lasting damage to UK farming.

Bluetongue isn’t new to the UK, however. A different strain, BTV-8 was detected in 2007 and contained. But BTV-3 is a different story. First detected in the Netherlands in late 2023, it was quickly spotted in the UK, where an early containment effort initially appeared successful.

But the virus made a comeback in autumn 2024 – and this time it spread. On its second attempt, the virus was able to circulate and caused an outbreak. With little existing immunity, BTV-3 has now established itself, prompting concerns about animal welfare, food production and farming livelihoods.

What does the disease do?

Sheep tend to be the most severely affected, though all ruminants are at risk. Clinical signs are species-specific but can include swelling of the face, congestion, nasal discharge, ulcers in the mouth and nose, difficulty breathing and abortion or birth deformities.

Bluetongue can cause the animal’s tongue to swell. It can also turn blue from lack of blood flow – although this is somewhat rare.

Bluetongue disease causes suffering in animals, and while there is a vaccine, there is no treatment for the disease once it’s contracted.

BTV-3 appears to be more lethal than earlier strains. In the Netherlands, vets report that BTV-3 is causing more severe symptoms than BTV-8 did.

Vets in England reported that in some herds 25-40% of cows failed to get pregnant, and there was a high rate of birth defects and stillborn calves. One farm in Suffolk started the calving season with 25% of their cows not pregnant and ended with just 48 calves from 97 cows.

Belgium has seen a fall in calf births, reduced milk deliveries and higher mortality in small ruminants compared to the previous three years.

How is it spread?

Bluetongue virus is transmitted by midges from the Culicoides genus. These are tiny, biting insects that thrive in mild, wet conditions.

Multiple midges can bite the same animal, and it only takes one of them to carry BTV before that animal becomes a host for further transmission. When animals are transported long distances, infected individuals can be bitten again and introduce the virus to previously uninfected midge populations.

Climate change is making outbreaks like this more likely. Milder winters and cooler, wetter summers are ideal for midges, increasing both their numbers and their biting activity.

While there’s no danger to human health, the consequences of BTV-3 are far-reaching. Limitations on movement, exports and imports are being imposed to help prevent the spread of the disease, but this could also hamper farming practices and trade.

The disease and its associated restrictions pose another source of stress for farmers, 95% of whom have ranked mental health as the biggest hidden problem in farming.

Genetic pick and mix

One of the reasons bluetongue is so tricky to manage is its ability to evolve. It has a segmented genome, meaning its genetic material, in this case RNA, is split into ten segments. This characteristic is exclusive to “reassortment viruses” and means that they can easily exchange segments of RNA. It’s like a genetic pick and mix with ten different types of sweets that come in an unlimited number of flavours.

This allows BTV to create new, genetically distinct “serotypes”, which may have a selective advantage or a disadvantage. Those with an advantage will emerge and spread successfully, while those with a disadvantage will not emerge at all. This process, known as “reassortment”, is partly responsible for the numerous influenza pandemics throughout history and has even allowed diseases to jump the species barrier.

Although bluetongue doesn’t affect humans directly, its spread poses a growing threat to the UK’s livestock sector and food supply. It’s important to learn from other countries that are further along in the BTV-3 outbreak so that the likely effects can be anticipated in the UK.

Cate Williams 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. Bluetongue outbreak endangers UK livestock – what you need to know about the virus – https://theconversation.com/bluetongue-outbreak-endangers-uk-livestock-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-virus-260229

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sayed Elhoushy, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Queen Mary University of London

With the rise of sustainable tourism (travelling in a way that minimises harm to the environment, and benefits local communities), words such as “sustainable”, “”eco” and “green” appear on countless holiday brochures. From five-star hotels promoting “eco luxury” to airlines pledging to reduce carbon emissions and destinations making various green claims, sustainability is increasingly being used as a marketing tool.

But with so many green claims floating around, it’s hard to know who is really providing sustainable travel and who is just greenwashing. A recent report shows that 53% of green claims are vague, misleading, or unfounded – and half of all green labels offer weak or non-existent verification.

So, how can travellers distinguish genuine sustainability from greenwash that exaggerates environmental claims to attract eco-conscious travellers?

---

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

---

Sustainability certification is a voluntary, third-party assessment that verifies a product, service, or organisation meets certain environmental, social, or ethical standards. These certifications provide a structure to manage, improve and communicate sustainability performance.

More than 100 sustainable certifications promise that they have vetted tourism businesses so you can have a satisfying and guilt-free holiday.

Yet, not all certifications are made equal, as our recent research shows. Most certification schemes audit actions taken, rather than assessing how effective these are.

They assure you that the hotel you are staying in has an environmental policy or that it is progressively reducing some of its negative effects on the environment, but not that their energy or water consumption is well below that of its competitors, for example.

One major challenge is that consumers are not using these labels to inform their buying decisions. Next time you travel, select businesses certified by an organisation with a proven track record of verification and transparency. There are several things a strong certification should do:

First, it should be third-party verified. This ensures that the green claims are independently checked.

Second, it needs specific and clear criteria. Beware of vague sustainability claims, such as “eco-friendly”. Look for certifications that require transparent reporting on performance for specific environmental actions, such as waste management, or responsible sourcing.

Third, it should go beyond eco-savings. Reducing energy and water consumption saves the hotel money. They should not get a prize for that. Seek evidence of the certification promoting best practice in complex issues like biodiversity conservation and dignity in the workplace.

Examples of sustainable tourism certifications to keep an eye on include Green Key (the largest label in Europe); B Corp (which measures a company’s entire social and environmental impact); The Long Run (a promoter of nature conservation); and Fair Trade Tourism (a promoter of fair working conditions). These certifications require businesses to undergo regular audits to maintain them.

In case you are thinking it’s not your responsibility to find out who is any good – you are right. The EU Green Claims Directive (due to be implemented by 2026) is a new legislation that requires companies to prove their environmental claims and labels, and ensure they are credible and trustworthy. This directive recognises the greenwash problem and will require certification to be based on assessment of actual performance – in tourism, and every other sector of the economy. The directive applies to any business anywhere in the world that sells to consumers from the EU. Expect fewer, but more respected and recognisable labels, that reduce consumer confusion.

Beyond eco-labels

Certification is only part of the picture. Your next holiday can make a greater contribution to local communities while minimising its harm to the environment. Take the time to consider how your trip can be part of a larger, positive contribution. Here are more ways to ensure that your holiday supports local communities and the environment:

Make sure you travel shorter and stay longer. Research shows that transport is a major part of the carbon footprint of your trip. Fly less (if at all). Choose flights with lower carbon footprints – various booking sites now tell customers the carbon footprint for each flight at the time of purchase. And stay longer so you spend more locally, for that same flight.

---

Read more:
Five ways to make aviation more sustainable right now

---

Choose tour operators that prioritise locally owned and small suppliers. Buy souvenirs that are made locally, and you can only find in that country. Travel slow – soak in where you are. Hike, cycle, use local transport. You will see more of the real place you are in.

Choose buses and trains over private cars. Rent electric vehicles and select accommodation that provides charging facilities. And enjoy local and seasonal rather than imported food. Eat everything in your plate, rather than create food waste.

---

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.

---

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. Going on holiday? Here’s how to make sure your trip is sustainable – https://theconversation.com/going-on-holiday-heres-how-to-make-sure-your-trip-is-sustainable-255037

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Zoe Wimshurst, Senior Lecturer of Sport Psychology, Health Sciences University

Much of the pre-series attention on the 2025 British and Irish Lions tour of Australia has been on injuries, player omissions and personal rivalries.

One of those rivalries involves the Australian sensation Joseph-Akuso Suaalii facing Lions centre player, Sione Tuipulotu, with whom he had a fiery encounter in a match last year.

Suaalii only switched codes from rugby league to rugby union in 2023 and has just five international caps to his name. But despite his lack of union experience, he has been catching attention lately for more than just his powerful runs and physicality. In recent weeks, Suaalii’s unusual pre-match warm-up has also sparked curiosity, most notably, his use of juggling and peripheral awareness drills to prepare his visual system.

For many spectators, seeing a player showing off their juggling skills is more suited to a circus performance than international rugby. But there is science behind his bizarre approach. This preparation could be giving him an edge the Lions should fear.

Growing evidence

Visual performance in elite sport remains an under-applied area of sport science, yet the evidence for its effectiveness is growing.

My own research has found that a county cricket team which underwent six weeks of visual training improved their basic cricket skills more than a control group which did extra cricket skills exercises. This demonstrates that we need to be looking beyond the confines of the sport itself to bring about maximal performance.

Visual skill in sport is about more than just 20/20 vision. Each sport has its own specific demands, and rugby requires skills such as peripheral awareness, depth perception, rapid eye movement, reaction speed, dynamic visual acuity and eye-body coordination.

Combining these visual skills will allow the most accurate information to be sent to the brain for processing – helping players to make the best decisions, even under intense pressure and high levels of fatigue.

By using exercises such as juggling, Suaalii is training several of these visual skills at once. Juggling requires excellent eye-body coordination, the use of the peripheral system and reaction speed. These are all skills which are also used in rugby for catching high balls kicked by opponents, reading attacking threats and spotting the movement of teammates and opposition players.

Juggling has also been shown to bring about positive structural changes in the human brain – particularly in areas linked to processing visual information – and integrating this with motor control.

This demonstrates that this relatively simple exercise can lead to improvements not only in the eyes, but also the brain. In rugby, the visual array will be constantly changing. A shift in the defensive line, a looping support run, a player slightly slow to recover from a ruck, or a spiralling high kick – the ability to spot, process and respond to these visual cues can be the difference between success and failure.

Suaalii is by no means the first rugby player to train his visual system. Former coach Clive Woodward famously brought in a visual performance coach to work with the England team – and they went on to win the 2003 Rugby World Cup.

I also worked with the Harlequins rugby team in the English Premiership as a visual performance coach. We won three trophies in my first three seasons with the team, which is known for free flowing, creative play. This style of play places extremely high demands on the players’ visual systems.

Lions test series

So what particular visual skills can you look out for over this Lions test series and how might they impact the outcome?

When defending close to their own try line, players should be scanning across the width of the pitch to ensure that they do not become outnumbered on either side of the field. Conversely, the attackers should be making rapid scans to quickly identify any mismatch (for example, a slow front row forward versus a swift and agile winger) they can take advantage of.

In these situations, players can often focus too much on the ball, allowing opposition players to craftily reposition themselves unseen. The best players will, wherever possible, be looking at everything, everywhere, all at once, improving their spatial awareness and enabling them to maintain an overview of the game in their minds.

To catch a kicked spiralling highball, a fullback or winger needs exceptional tracking ability and depth perception. Players in this situation are sometimes let down by “convergence issues”, where as the eyes track an object moving towards them, they can drift outwards or become misaligned. This can cause players to mistime their jump, or for the ball to hit their chest before being caught, wasting vital milliseconds. Training these convergence issues has been shown to bring about improvements in sports performance.

As a scrum-half is collecting the ball from a breakdown, they need quickly to scan the positions of teammates on either side of them, and be aware of the depth of the defensive line. Having this visual information will lead to better decisions and creating faster attacking opportunities.

A crunching tackle may seem like a purely strength-based skill. But to ensure it is both perfectly timed and legal, a defender must perfectly anticipate the speed and direction of the oncoming player. They can then use this information to precisely position their own body to impart their full momentum, while using their reaction speed to make last-second adjustments to ensure they do not put their opponent in danger.

Subtle visual advantages, honed through practice, can influence these moments. During this test series, they may well be the difference between winning and losing. Suaalii’s juggling may seem better suited to the circus, but it could be the secret weapon Australia need to secure the series.

Zoe Wimshurst is the owner and director of Performance Vision Ltd, a company which provides visual training and consultancy services.

– ref. Lions rugby tour: why visual training, including juggling, can be a secret weapon in elite sports – https://theconversation.com/lions-rugby-tour-why-visual-training-including-juggling-can-be-a-secret-weapon-in-elite-sports-261424

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Deborah Pain, Visiting Academic, University of Cambridge; Honorary Professor, University of East Anglia, University of Cambridge

The UK’s environment minister Emma Hardy has announced a ban on toxic lead ammunition to protect Britain’s countryside. This ban includes the sale and use for hunting of both lead shotgun ammunition (each cartridge of which contains hundreds of small lead pellets called “shot”), used mainly for hunting small game animals like gamebirds, and large calibre lead bullets, used for hunting large game animals like deer.

This is great news for Britain’s birds because the ban will eventually prevent the deaths and suffering of the vast numbers affected by lead poisoning each year after ingesting lead from ammunition.

Most shot fired do not hit their targets and thousands of tonnes of lead shot are scattered in the environment every year.

Waterbirds and land-based gamebirds mistakenly eat these because they look like food or the grit they ingest to help grind up their food. Shot are retained in their gizzards (a muscular part of the stomach), ground up, and the lead dissolved and absorbed into the bloodstream.

Lead poisoning kills an estimated 50,000-100,000 waterbirds annually in the UK. These birds suffer considerably before they die. Many more birds are poisoned, but not killed.

While this additional “sublethal” poisoning does not kill birds directly, they may be more likely to die of other causes. This is because lead poisoning affects the immune system and behaviour.

The use of lead shot for hunting waterfowl and over certain wetlands is already banned in England and Wales. It is also banned for shooting over all wetlands in Scotland.

However, compliance with the regulations in England is only about 30%, and is also low in Scotland, although has not been measured in Wales. This new comprehensive ban should dramatically improve the situation across all habitats throughout Britain.

Birds of prey, including eagles, common buzzards and red kites ingest lead fragments when they scavenge flesh from animals killed by lead ammunition, or prey on animals wounded by lead ammunition. The acidic conditions in their stomachs help dissolve the lead.

Our research shows that while fewer birds of prey than waterbirds are estimated to die of lead poisoning, it can have a far greater effect on their populations, especially for species that first breed at a later age, produce fewer young, and would otherwise have higher annual adult survival rates.

The lead ban will benefit birds that live in Britain permanently or for just part of the year. But it will not entirely solve the problem for migratory species. If lead shot continues to be used elsewhere, these species may still ingest it on migration or on their breeding or wintering grounds.

Beyond borders

To protect all species, lead ammunition needs to be replaced by non-lead alternatives everywhere. The use of lead shot is already banned in many wetlands globally. Across the EU, a ban on the use of lead shot in or close to wetlands came into force in February 2023.

Denmark was the first country to ban lead ammunition across all habitats. In 1996, it banned the use of lead shot and in April 2024, it banned lead bullets. Our research shows that the lead shot ban in Denmark has been very effective, with good levels of compliance.

Now, Britain is set to become the second country to ban most uses of lead ammunition. This has been made possible by the increasing availability of safe, efficient and affordable non-lead ammunition alternatives, primarily steel shot and copper bullets.

In February 2025, the European Commission published a draft regulation banning most uses of lead ammunition and fishing weights. This awaits approval under EU processes – if successful, it will represent a major step forward.

Beyond birds

Birds are particularly susceptible to the effects of ingested lead from ammunition due to their muscular gizzards and stomach acidity. But it also puts the health of many other animals at risk, including pets and people.

In the UK, we found average lead concentrations in raw pheasant dog food from three suppliers to be tens of times the legal maximum residue limit for lead in animal feed.

The UK government based its decision to ban lead ammunition on a report by the Health and Safety Executive which highlighted risks to the health of young children and women of pregnancy age if they frequently eat meat from game hunted with lead ammunition. Children’s developing nervous systems are particularly sensitive to the effects of lead.

We recently urged the EU’s committee of member states for Reach (the chemicals regulation), the European parliament and council to fully support the European Commission’s proposal to restrict lead ammunition.

We also encouraged the European Food Safety Authority to recommend that the European Commission set a legal maximum level for lead in game meat marketed for human consumption. This maximum level should be similar to the one already set for meat from most farmed animals.

Until this happens, and more countries follow suit by banning all use of lead ammunition for hunting, the health of wildlife, domestic animals and vulnerable groups of people will continue to be threatened by the toxic effects of lead from ammunition.

---

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.

---

Deborah Pain is an Honorary Professor at the University of East Anglia (Biological Sciences) and a Visiting Academic in the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge. She has been an independent scientist since April 2018. She has received no remuneration for research on lead poisoning since that time, but, along with colleagues, has received funding for the costs of research and chemical analysis from a number of sources, as acknowledged in published papers. She was a member of the UK REACH Independent Scientific Expert Pool (RISEP) and within this the Challenge Panel on Lead in Ammunition and received payment for that work. However, her published research on lead poisoning was independent of that process.

Rhys Green has received funding for research from several organisations including the RSPB, where he was principal conservation scientist until 2017. He is now retired. He is an unpaid volunteer research scientist at RSPB and Emeritus Honorary Professor of Conservation Science in the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge. He is a member of the UK REACH Independent Scientific Expert Pool (RISEP), which is an expert group set up by a UK government agency, the Health & Safety Executive. He receives occasional payments for work done on behalf of RISEP. He is on the Board of Trustees of Chester Zoo.

Niels Kanstrup 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. Britain’s ban on lead ammunition could save tens of thousands of birds from poisoning – https://theconversation.com/britains-ban-on-lead-ammunition-could-save-tens-of-thousands-of-birds-from-poisoning-260958

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

As summer holidays begin, many travellers are packing more than just swimsuits and sunscreen – for millions, medicines are essential. But taking them abroad isn’t always simple. From legal pitfalls to temperature-sensitive drugs, here’s how to travel safely and legally with your medication.

Know the law

Medicines that are legal in the UK can be restricted or even banned in other countries. Having a valid prescription doesn’t guarantee you can take a medicine into another country.

For example, Nurofen Plus, which contains codeine (an opioid painkiller), is prohibited in countries like Egypt, Indonesia and the UAE.

Even common cold remedies containing decongestants like pseudoephedrine can land you in trouble in places like Japan and South Korea. This is because pseudoephedrine can be used to make methamphetamine (“speed”). Likewise, many stimulant ADHD drugs are also banned from these countries.

---

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

---

Some countries have restrictions on the amount of medication that you are allowed to bring into the country – usually a maximum of three months supply.

Travellers often overlook how strict customs regulations can be regarding medications. Even if prescribed for a valid medical reason, carrying a prohibited drug can lead to confiscation (leaving you without essential treatment), fines (especially in countries with tough drug laws) and detention or arrest in rare but serious cases.

If you’re travelling with certain controlled drugs – such as opioids, stimulants or psychotropic substances – you may need to apply for an export licence from the UK Home Office. This is typically required when carrying a supply of three months or more. Examples of controlled drugs include diazepam (for anxiety and muscle spasms), codeine and morphine (for pain), amphetamines (for ADHD) and temazepam (for insomnia).

Before you travel, check whether your medicine is affected by any of these restrictions. Use the country’s embassy website or the UK government’s travel advice to check the rules of your destination country.

This should provide guidance on whether you simply need a copy of your prescription, a doctor’s letter or a special import certificate (some countries require official documentation even for personal use).

The UK government advises carrying controlled drugs or any drugs that might be restricted in your hand luggage. You should take along a prescription or a signed letter from your doctor detailing your medication, dosage and travel dates.

Ensure you take sufficient supplies for the duration of your trip and include extras for unexpected delays, damage or loss.

Store your medication properly

It might be tempting to save space by transferring pills or liquids into smaller containers or pill organisers. While this can be convenient, it’s not always advisable. Customs officials may not recognise unlabelled containers, increasing the chance of delays or confiscation.

Some medications are sensitive to light, air or temperature, and must remain in their original packaging to stay effective. For example, HRT (hormone replacement therapy) sprays like Lenzetto must not be decanted.

These products rely on precise metered dosing and specialised packaging to deliver the correct amount of hormone. Transferring them to another container could result in incorrect dosing or loss of potency.

Similarly, GTN (glyceryl trinitrate) tablets, used to treat angina, should always be stored in their original glass bottle. The active ingredient can evaporate if exposed to air, reducing the tablets’ effectiveness.

You might be worried about the 100ml liquid in hand luggage restriction – with a doctor’s letter certifying the need for this medicine, you should be able to take larger amounts of liquid medicine through security.

Medicines should always be kept in their original packaging with labels intact. When in doubt, ask your pharmacist whether your medication can be safely repackaged for travel.

It’s also important to split your supply of medicines between bags (if more than one is used) in case one is lost. Tablets and capsules can sometimes be placed in a pill organiser for daily use, but always carry the original box or prescription label as backup.

Some medicines require refrigeration – like Wegovy and Ozempic (semaglutide) injections for weight loss or insulin.

Usually, unopened Wegovy pens and insulin preparations should be stored between 2°C and 8°C in a fridge. Once out of the fridge, they can be kept at room temperature (up to 25°C) for up to 28 days, but must be protected from heat and sunlight. High temperatures, such as in direct sunlight or a hot car, can damage insulin.

When travelling, use an insulated travel case or cool pack, but avoid placing pens or other medicines directly next to ice packs to prevent freezing.

Airlines generally do not provide refrigeration or freezer storage for passenger items, including medicines, due to space and liability concerns, but it’s worth contacting them to see if they can help with arrangements for storage. Inspect insulin for crystals after flying – if any are present, it should be discarded.

You can bring needles and injectable medicines like EpiPens (for allergies), insulin or Wegovy in your hand luggage. But it’s important to carry a doctor’s note stating your medical condition and the necessity of the medication, and a copy of your prescription.

You should also declare them at airport security. Security officers may inspect these items separately, so allow for extra time going through security.

Contact your airline for any specific rules on needles and injectable medicines. Always carry such medicines and medical devices in your hand luggage – checked bags can be lost or exposed to extreme temperatures.

Don’t skip doses

Tempting as it may be to leave your medication behind for a short trip, doing so can be risky. Stopping treatment – even temporarily – can lead to relapse or worsening of symptoms (especially for chronic conditions like diabetes, hypertension or depression).

For medicines like antidepressants or opioids, people may start feeling withdrawal effects. You’re also at risk of reduced effectiveness if you miss doses of medicines that require consistent levels in your bloodstream.

If you’re considering a break from your medication, consult your doctor first. They can advise whether a short pause is safe or help you plan a travel-friendly regimen.

Take the right documents

While showing your NHS app to border officials may help demonstrate that a medicine is prescribed to you, it’s not always sufficient – especially when travelling with restricted or controlled drugs and injectable medicines.

Most countries require a copy of your prescription, and a doctor’s letter confirming the medication is for personal use. Your doctor is not legally obliged to issue this letter, but most will do so upon request.

It’s best to ask at least one to two weeks in advance, as some practices may charge a fee or require time to prepare the documentation.

Travelling with medication doesn’t have to be stressful, but it does require planning. With the right preparation, you can enjoy your holiday without compromising your health or running afoul of foreign laws.

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

– ref. Going on holiday? What you need to know about taking your meds with you – https://theconversation.com/going-on-holiday-what-you-need-to-know-about-taking-your-meds-with-you-261018

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Victoria Canning, Professor of Criminology, Lancaster University

In 2022, somebody in the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) mistakenly shared a spreadsheet containing the personal information associated with 18,714 Afghans and their family members. This data breach, and the efforts to cover it up, raises serious questions about state secrecy, blame-shifting and accountability.

After discovering the mistake in August 2023, the government covered up their spectacular error with an unprecedented injunction “contra mundum” (against the world). This “superinjunction” prohibited journalists and others in the know – like one author of this article (Professor Sara de Jong) – from reporting the breach and even the very existence of the injunction.

When the superinjunction was finally lifted on July 15, John Healey, the defence secretary, revealed that the MoD had operated a secret resettlement scheme for Afghans whose data had been leaked at risk from the Taliban. To date, 900 Afghans and 3,600 family members have been flown to Britain or are currently in transit via this scheme. A further 600 people and their immediate family members are still in Afghanistan, being promised evacuation. Many thousands of others on the list were already resettled in the UK via two other official routes.

The spectacular nature and impact of this data leak should not distract from the fact that it is not entirely unique. The personal data of Afghan applicants had already been exposed by the MoD in an earlier series of data breaches in September 2021.

The superinjunction is only the latest in a string of silences that have prevented accountability on Afghanistan and other issues to do with national security.

---

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.

---

In the wake of the dramatic Nato withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, the foreign affairs select committee was dependent on whistleblowers to get to the truth about then prime minister Boris Johnson’s prioritisation of an animal charity for evacuation, over others at acute risk. Political accountability over the chaos of the evacuation was compromised by the foreign office who, according to then committee chair Tom Tugendhat, “repeatedly has given us answers that, in our judgement, are at best intentionally evasive, and often deliberately misleading”.

The Ministry of Defence – including Healey in his statement on the data breach – routinely cites the deaths of 457 British soldiers as the “costs of war” in Afghanistan. But the department only released the data on how many Afghan interpreters died alongside them after a freedom of information request by Sara de Jong. The MoD, even after several freedom of information Requests and appeals, refuses to provide further details about the circumstances of their deaths.

Even the latest shocking revelations didn’t end with the lifting of the superinjunction. A secondary injunction was lifted on July 17, revealing that the leaked list also contained the identities of dozens of British officials, including spies and special forces.

Selective secrecy

In the wider context of government leaks and secrecy, critical questions need to be asked about which secrets are kept, by whom and why.

In his judgement lifting the superinjunction, Mr Justice Chamberlain credited media organisations and individual journalists involved with the fact that they had kept the leak confidential. Like Sara, some had become aware of the breach several months before Healey (the then-shadow defence secretary was informed in December 2023). But all kept quiet to keep Afghans at risk safe, not to cover up their own errors.

The government invests in secrecy when it also has its own embarrassment to hide, whether it is an extraordinary superinjunction or secrecy about the prioritisation of a pet charity during the Afghanistan evacuation.

Appeals to national security routinely obstruct media, legal and public access to information to hold the government to account. Meanwhile, many Afghans are left wondering why their and their loved ones’ data was on a spreadsheet that could be emailed around with a click of the wrong button.

Effects on Afghans

The consequences of the cover-up will be felt most acutely by Afghans – those on the leaked list still waiting for evacuation, including family members of Afghans already in the UK, whose own presence may be complicated further by anti-immigration sentiment.

Following the revelations, Healey announced that the secret relocation scheme was now closed, following the sudden decision to close the two official Afghan resettlement schemes.

The decision to shut down the two publicly known resettlement schemes, he claimed, was based on “policy concerns about proportionality, public accountability, cost and fairness”, as well as a commissioned report on the impact of the leak.

He defended his decisions saying that “the taxpayer should be paying £1.2 billion less over the next few years, and that around 9,500 fewer Afghans will come to this country”. In the context of ongoing anti-immigration rhetoric, the mention of costs combined with refugees is as unsurprising as it is inflammatory.

On the day of announcement, affected Afghans were sent a notice by the MoD and a link where they could find out if their data had been compromised. The email said very little about what the MoD could offer, and said a lot about what measures Afghans were now supposed to take: use a virtual private network, limit who can see your social media profiles.

Afghans unlucky enough to be Afghanistan were simply advised that, “If you are outside the UK, please do not try to travel to a third country without a valid passport and visa. If you do so, you will be putting yourself at risk on the journey, and you may face the risk of being deported back to Afghanistan”.

It is almost impossible for Afghans to travel legally without international assistance. And, since the Taliban are not recognised as a legitimate government, embassies are closed for citizens to even obtain legal travel documentation.

Given that the British government recognises the real risk of rights violations in Afghanistan, as well as the ongoing assault on women’s rights by the Taliban, it seems contradictory – and a remarkable abdication of responsibility – to close routes to safety.

Victoria Canning has received funding from UKRI and British Academy.

Sara de Jong has received funding from the British Academy (Mid-Career Fellowship 2022) for research on Afghan interpreters and their claims to protection and rights. She is the chair of the board of trustees of the Sulha Alliance CIO, which advocates for and supports Afghan interpreters employed by the British Army.

– ref. Afghan data leak: how selective state secrecy and cover-ups can harm civilians – https://theconversation.com/afghan-data-leak-how-selective-state-secrecy-and-cover-ups-can-harm-civilians-261394

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rachael Kent, Senior Lecturer in Digital Economy & Society Education, Department of Digital Humanities, King’s College London

On a sunny afternoon, I was scrolling through social media when I came across a video of a young woman tossing her sunscreen into a bin. “I don’t trust this stuff anymore,” she said to the camera, holding the bottle up like a piece of damning evidence.

The clip had been viewed over half a million times, with commenters applauding her for “ditching chemicals” and recommending homemade alternatives like coconut oil and zinc powder.

In my research on the effect of digital technology on health, I’ve seen how posts like this can shape real-world behaviour. And anecdotally, dermatologists have reported seeing more patients with severe sunburns or suspicious moles who say they stopped using sunscreen after watching similar videos.

Sunscreen misinformation created by social media influencers is spreading and this isn’t just a random trend. It’s being fuelled by the platforms designed to host influencer content.

---

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

---

In my book, The Digital Health Self, I explain how social media platforms are not neutral arenas for sharing information. They are commercial ecosystems engineered to maximise engagement and time spent online – metrics that directly drive advertising revenue.

Content that sparks emotion – outrage, fear, inspiration – is boosted to the top of your feed. That’s why posts questioning or rejecting science often spread further than measured, evidence-based advice.

Health misinformation thrives in this environment. A personal story about throwing out sunscreen performs well because it’s dramatic and emotionally charged. Algorithms reward such content with higher visibility: likes, shares and comments all signal popularity.

Each second a user spends watching or reacting gives the platform more data – and more opportunities to serve targeted ads. This is how health misinformation becomes profitable.

In my work, I describe social media platforms as “unregulated public health platforms”. They influence what users see and believe about health, but unlike public health institutions, they’re not bound by standards for accuracy or harm reduction.

If an influencer claims sunscreen is toxic, that message won’t be factchecked or flagged – it will often be amplified. Why? Because controversy fuels engagement.

---

Read more:
Misinformation lends itself to social contagion – here’s how to recognize and combat it

---

I call this environment “the credibility arena”: a space where trust is built not through expertise, but through performance and aesthetic appeal. As I write in my book: “Trust is earned not by what is known, but by how well one narrates suffering, recovery, and resilience.”

A creator crying on camera about “toxins” can feel more authentic to viewers than a calm, clinical explanation of ultraviolet radiation from a medical expert.

This shift has real consequences. Ultraviolet rays are invisible, constant and damaging. They penetrate cloud cover and harm skin even on cool days.

Decades of research, especially in countries like Australia with high skin cancer rates, show that regular use of broad-spectrum sunscreen dramatically reduces risk. And yet, myths spreading online are urging people to do the opposite: to abandon sunscreen as dangerous or unnecessary.

This trend isn’t driven solely by individual creators. It’s embedded in how content is designed, framed and presented. Algorithms prioritise short, emotionally-charged videos. Interfaces highlight trending sounds and hashtags. Recommendation systems push users toward extreme or dramatic content.

These features all shape what we see and how we interpret it. The “For You” page isn’t neutral. It’s engineered to keep you scrolling, and shock value outperforms nuance every time.

That’s why videos about “ditching chemicals” thrive, even as posts on other aspects of women’s health are shadowbanned or suppressed. Shadowbanning refers to when a platform limits the visibility of content – making it harder to find, without informing the user – often due to vague or inconsistently applied moderation rules.

The system rewards spectacle, not science. Once creators discover that a particular format, like tossing products into a bin, boosts engagement, it’s replicated over and over again. Visibility isn’t organic. It’s manufactured.

Those who throw away their sunscreen often believe they’re doing the right thing. They’re drawn to creators who feel relatable, sincere and independent — especially when official health campaigns seem cold, patronising or out of touch. But the consequences can be serious. Sun damage accumulates silently, raising skin cancer risk with every hour spent unprotected.

Sunscreen isn’t perfect. It needs to be reapplied properly and paired with shade and protective clothing. But the evidence for its effectiveness is clear and robust.

The real danger lies in a system that not only allows misinformation to spread, but also incentivises it. A system in which false claims can boost an influencer’s reach and a platform’s revenue.

---

Read more:
Four ways you can design social media posts to combat health misinformation

---

To resist harmful health trends, we need to understand the systems that promote them. In the case of sunscreen, rejecting protection isn’t just a personal decision – it’s a symptom of a digital culture that turns health into content, and often profits from the harm it causes.

Rachael Kent 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. Scroll, watch, burn: sunscreen misinformation and its real‑world damage – https://theconversation.com/scroll-watch-burn-sunscreen-misinformation-and-its-real-world-damage-261137

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alexandros Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Media Law, University of Essex

When thousands of Afghans were quietly flown to the UK under a secret relocation scheme, few knew it was triggered by an error. A defence official had accidentally leaked the personal data of nearly 19,000 Afghan nationals who had worked with British forces and were at risk of Taliban reprisals.

It has now also been revealed that the leaked list contained the identities of UK special forces and spies.

Even fewer knew that this misstep was being kept from the public by a rare and powerful legal device: a superinjunction. Now, after nearly two years of legal wrangling, the High Court has lifted that order, reopening the conversation about when secrecy in the justice system goes too far.

What is a superinjunction?

An injunction is a court order that stops someone from doing something (like publishing a story) or requires them to do something (like taking down an online post or handing back confidential documents).

A superinjunction goes one step further and does two things: it bans the publication of certain information (usually to protect privacy, safety or national security) and also bans anyone from revealing that the court order even exists.

In essence, it is a tool that provides legal invisibility: the story is hidden and so is the fact that it is being hidden. While an injunction works like a padlock on a filing cabinet, a superinjunction means you cannot even tell anyone the cabinet is even there.

Superinjunctions are exceptionally rare and controversial, precisely because they run counter to the principle of open justice. This is the idea that courts must operate in public, and that their decisions can be seen, scrutinised and questioned. Any derogation from open justice must be continuously justified and treated with considerable caution, especially where media freedom is curtailed.

---

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.

---

Historically, superinjunctions have been used sparingly in cases involving blackmail, risks of violence against witnesses, the protection of children or to prevent tipping-off a subject before an order can be served (such as in fraud investigations), always with the aim of preventing harm or ensuring that justice is done.

The superinjunction committee (which was established in 2010 by Lord Neuberger to review growing concerns about such orders) made clear that the use of these legal tools must meet strict tests of necessity and proportionality. And, that they are only granted where serious harm (for example to life, safety or the administration of justice) is credibly at stake.

Why was a superinjunction granted in the Afghan data breach case?

In this case, the government argued that revealing the data leak could put lives in danger. The leaked spreadsheet contained names, contact details and, in some cases, family information of Afghan nationals who had applied to resettle in the UK. Many feared Taliban retaliation.

So, in September 2023, the Ministry of Defence asked the High Court for an injunction to stop media outlets from reporting on the leak. The judge did not just grant that request, he escalated it to a superinjunction, banning any mention of the case or the fact of the order.

It was described at the time as “unprecedented” in its scope. Journalists, even those who had already discovered the breach, were effectively gagged. The public had no idea any of it was happening.

Why did the court later decide to lift the secrecy?

After multiple hearings and appeals, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled on July 15 2025 that the superinjunction should be discharged once and for all. A government-commissioned review found that the leak may not have spread as widely as initially feared, and that Taliban reprisals were unlikely to be triggered solely by someone appearing on the leaked list.

The judge concluded that while the leak was deeply serious, continued secrecy was no longer necessary, and that the harm of suppressing public debate and scrutiny now outweighed the risks of disclosure. To put it plainly, the balance tipped.

Protection v cover-up

Superinjunctions are not inherently wrong. There are situations where short-term secrecy is essential, for instance for the purposes of shielding vulnerable parties like children or genuinely guarding national security.

But the Afghan case exemplifies the dangers of allowing secrecy to persist too long or too broadly. For nearly two years, the public was kept in the dark about a data breach involving tens of thousands of lives – including British citizens – and a government response that may ultimately cost the taxpayer “several billion pounds”.

In this context, secrecy risked becoming a form of institutional self-protection, shielding the Ministry of Defence and the government from political fallout, legal scrutiny and accountability, rather than safeguarding people from actual harm.

The principle of open justice is at the heart of democratic life. Superinjunctions, by their nature, run directly against that principle. There are times when secrecy might be seen as necessary, but it must always be tightly scoped and justified with evidence while serving the public interest; not convenience or image. By lifting this superinjunction, the courts affirmed that the British public has a right to know not only what went wrong, but that something went wrong at all.

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

– ref. Why did the government hide a data leak about Afghans working with British forces and why did the courts finally reveal it? – https://theconversation.com/why-did-the-government-hide-a-data-leak-about-afghans-working-with-british-forces-and-why-did-the-courts-finally-reveal-it-261437

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Willow Neal, Postgraduate Researcher in Conservation Ecology, The Open University

Biodiversity is in rapid decline, across the UK and globally. Butterflies are excellent for helping us understand these changes. Where butterfly communities are rich and diverse, so too is the ecosystem. But the opposite is also true: if butterfly numbers are low and there are few species, it is a bad sign for the overall variety and abundance of life in the area.

Butterfly sightings were among the lowest on record in the UK in 2024 – a low point in a downward trend that has been documented in North America and elsewhere.

The UK’s low numbers last year were probably due to the weather – in particular the notably cloudy and wet summer. These are not ideal conditions for butterflies, which use the Sun’s warmth to regulate their temperature and (mostly) do not fly in the rain.

---

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

---

While weather patterns vary, climate change is making unpredictable weather more common. Wildlife is under the immense combined pressure of habitat loss and climate change, and it is driving many species to extinction. Consecutive summers with poor weather can push butterflies, and other species, over the edge.

Luckily for butterflies, 2025 has been a stark contrast – so far. After the driest spring since 1893 and multiple early summer heatwaves in the UK, butterflies are really bouncing back under lots of sunshine, which keeps them active.

Legendary lepidopterist Chris van Swaay of Butterfly Conservation Europe posts results of Dutch butterfly counts from early spring to late autumn. Many of these “transect surveys”, which involve recording butterflies while following a straight line through a habitat, have been repeated in the same locations over several decades. As such, they give reliable trends of butterfly diversity and abundance.

Van Swaay notes that many common species are having an excellent year. Many of the white species, including the large white, small white and green-veined white, are faring particularly well. Peacock butterflies are also being recorded on these Dutch transects in some of their best numbers for the past 20 years. These trends are likely to be the same in the UK.

On the Knepp estate in West Sussex, a farm that underwent rewilding in 2001, biologists are reporting record numbers of not just butterflies in general, but the elusive and stunning purple emperor (Apatura iris). This species can only survive in old and large woodlands with willow trees that they lay their eggs on. Because they live almost exclusively in the canopy, they are often difficult to see.

It is a treat to see even one purple emperor, and Knepp has been recording their numbers since 2014. The previous record was 66 over the entire summer in 2018 (another hot and sunny one). But 2025’s numbers have smashed that, with a running total of 80 as of July 11.

I have the pleasure of often working in a meadow next to a river, and butterfly numbers are staggering here compared with 2024. Even the buddleia bush outside my office has had at least 30 butterflies at a time, of a wide variety of common species, during the past few weeks – an absolute joy to see.

Hot weather helps butterflies – until it doesn’t

This sounds like good news, right? Butterflies have been saved, and we didn’t have to do anything. I’d be happy even if that put me out of a job, and despite it ignoring the incredible work of charities like Butterfly Conservation. But it is, of course, not the whole story.

Our standard for what constitutes a great year for butterflies has been considerably lowered due to the extent of loss over decades and centuries. The great butterfly summer we are having might be comparable to an awful year 30 years ago. Similarly, this hot and dry weather is good for a while – but if it doesn’t start raining soon, plants are going to wilt.

We saw this during the intense heatwave of summer 2022. Both the plants that butterfly larvae use for food and the nectar sources of adult butterflies were under so much stress from a lack of rainfall that they failed to help adults and caterpillars alike.

The exceptionally warm spring of 2025 led to butterflies emerging from hibernation (referred to as “overwintering” when it concerns insects) unusually early.

Butterflies overwinter as eggs, caterpillars or adults. Their emergence is typically triggered by rising temperatures, and this year’s warmth appears to have accelerated that process: 21 out of 33 butterfly species in Dorset were spotted earlier than usual. The dingy skipper (Erynnis tages), a small, unassuming and increasingly rare species, emerged a whole month earlier than usual.

While early sightings may seem encouraging, they raise concerns. If plants do not also respond to the warmer temperatures by blooming earlier, there may not be enough food to sustain these early butterflies and other pollinating insects. This is a growing concern as the global climate changes.

Overall, there are reasons to be delighted about the summer of 2025. The sunny weather has allowed for a vital boom in butterfly numbers, despite the constant strain that nature is under. It is refreshing to see a bush full of vivid, beautiful insects.

However, the rain is still necessary, and the see-saw between a very wet year in 2024 and the potential for a very dry one in 2025 indicates climate change’s violent disruption of weather patterns which nature has depended on for a long time.

You can support butterfly conservation by mowing your lawn less, planting more native flowers, and joining the UK’s annual Big Butterfly Count – which starts on Friday, July 18 – to report your sightings and help experts like me keep track.

---

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.

---

Willow Neal received funding from NERC (National Environmental Research Council).

– ref. Why the UK’s butterflies are booming in 2025 – https://theconversation.com/why-the-uks-butterflies-are-booming-in-2025-256039