Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Trish Lalor, Professor in Experimental Hepatology, University of Birmingham

Every January, the same wave of “detox” promises rolls in. Juice cleanses, detox teas, charcoal capsules and liver “resets” all sell a familiar story: you overdid it over Christmas, your body is full of toxins, and you need a product to flush them out.

Here is the inconvenient truth. Your body already has a detox system. It is called your liver, supported by your kidneys and gut, and it has been doing this job your entire life.

I am a liver researcher. I study how this organ works, how it gets damaged and how it repairs itself. So if you are wondering whether you need to detox, my honest answer is that most healthy people do not. In fact, some popular detox trends are not just unnecessary, they can cause harm.

When people talk about detoxing, they usually mean getting rid of harmful substances. That is a real biological process, but it is not something you can switch on with a tea, a supplement or a three day cleanse. Detoxification happens continuously. The liver neutralises chemicals and breaks them down into forms the body can use or safely remove, with waste leaving mainly through urine and faeces. This process is well described in human physiology and toxicology research, including detailed accounts of liver metabolism.

If you are generally healthy and not repeatedly overwhelming your system, you do not need a reset. What the liver needs most is time and consistency, meaning fewer repeated insults and enough recovery time to repair itself between them.

Alcohol: the liver can cope, until it can’t

Alcohol is a useful example of how detoxification works, because everything you drink is processed directly by the liver. After drinking, alcohol is absorbed through the gut and carried in the bloodstream straight to this organ. Liver cells, called hepatocytes, break alcohol down in stages. One intermediate product, acetaldehyde, is toxic and contributes to hangover symptoms before being broken down further into acetate, which the body can use or eliminate.

---

Read more:
Hangovers happen as your body tries to protect itself from alcohol’s toxic effects

---

Problems arise with binge drinking or sustained heavy drinking. Under these conditions, the liver relies more heavily on alternative processing pathways that generate larger amounts of acetaldehyde and increase oxidative stress. This means toxic by-products are produced faster than they can be cleared. Over time, this damages liver cells, triggers inflammation and contributes to fibrosis, which is the build-up of scar tissue. If scarring becomes extensive, it can progress to cirrhosis, a stage where normal liver structure and function are severely disrupted, increasing the risk of liver failure and liver cancer.

---

Read more:
How alcohol contributes to the epidemic of liver disease

---

This is why how you drink matters, not just how much. Spacing drinks out keeps blood alcohol levels lower and gives the liver a better chance to keep up with detoxification.

Liver ‘cleanses’

When people replace alcohol and ultra-processed foods with liquids made from fruit, vegetables and herbs for a few days, they often feel better. That does not mean toxins have been pulled out of the liver. More often, it reflects lower calorie intake, fewer additives, increased fluid consumption and sometimes more fibre.

A short, sensible “cleanse” is unlikely to harm most healthy adults, but risks increase with very low calorie regimens, poorly regulated herbal ingredients or repeated long-term use.

Many detox products are sold as supplements rather than medicines, which means quality, dose and purity can vary widely. Higher doses and prolonged use increase the chance of adverse effects.

Some supplements have evidence in specific clinical settings. Vitamins D and E have been studied in certain liver diseases, and antioxidants such as N-acetylcysteine are used medically in cases of acute liver injury. These are targeted interventions used under medical guidance, not general detox tools, and they do not offset ongoing harmful behaviour.

Some high-dose detox “natural” supplements, such as green tea extract, can lead to liver inflammation, reflected in elevated liver enzymes on blood tests. This indicates liver cells are under stress or being damaged and, in severe cases, supplement-induced liver injury can progress to liver failure requiring a transplant.

Milk thistle and turmeric

Milk thistle and turmeric contain biologically active compounds with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, and there is some evidence suggesting potential benefits in specific liver conditions. Milk thistle, for example, has been studied in alcohol-related liver disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, but results are mixed and not strong enough to support routine use.

---

Read more:
Turmeric: here’s how it actually measures up to health claims

---

The main issues with both substances are dosing, formulation and study quality. Turmeric in food is poorly absorbed, which is why supplements often use concentrated extracts or additives to boost absorption. At that point, a culinary spice becomes a pharmacological dose. Higher doses increase the risk of side effects and interactions, and turmeric supplements, which are often concentrated sources of the active compound curcumin, have been linked to cases of acute liver injury. The UK Committee on Toxicity has warned about a potential risk to human health from turmeric and curcumin supplements. “Natural” does not automatically mean safe.

Activated charcoal

Activated charcoal binds substances, which is why it is used in medical settings for certain poisonings. It is non-specific, however, binding whatever is present rather than targeting toxins alone. That makes it useful in emergencies and risky in everyday use. Taking charcoal alongside medication may reduce how much of that medication your body absorbs. Charcoal supplements are not a safe response to suspected poisoning and do not replace medical advice.

Coffee enemas

Coffee, when consumed normally, is associated with better outcomes in several liver diseases and may be protective in some contexts. That evidence does not support putting coffee into the colon.

Enemas can cause burns, infections, dangerous imbalances in the salts your body needs to control nerves, muscles and heart rhythm, and bowel perforation. If you want coffee for potential liver benefits, drink it.

For most healthy people, the best liver support is unglamorous. It means keeping alcohol within recommended limits, avoiding binge patterns, eating a diet rich fibre and fresh fruit and vegetables, staying hydrated and allowing regular rest days from alcohol.

The liver is an extraordinary organ. It detoxifies the body every day without needing a cleanse, a tea or a reset. If you want to support it, focus less on dramatic short-term detox routines and more on reducing repeated strain over time. Consistency beats gimmicks.

And whatever you do this January, do not put coffee where it does not belong.

---

In the first episode of Strange Health, a new visualised podcast from The Conversation, hosts Katie Edwards and Dan Baumgardt put detox culture under the microscope and ask a simple question: do we actually need to detox at all?

Strange Health explores the weird, surprising and sometimes alarming things our bodies do. Each episode takes a popular health or wellness trend, viral claim or bodily mystery and examines what the evidence really says, with help from researchers who study this stuff for a living.

Katie Edwards, a health and medicine editor at The Conversation and Dan Baumgardt, a GP and lecturer in health and life sciences at the University of Bristol share a longstanding fascination with the body’s improbabilities and limits, plus a healthy scepticism for claims that sound too good to be true.

Strange Health is hosted by Katie Edwards and Dan Baumgardt. The executive producer is Gemma Ware, with video and sound editing by Sikander Khan. Artwork by Alice Mason.

Dan and Katie talk about two social media clips in this episode, one from 30.forever on TikTok and one from velvelle_store on Instagram.

Listen to Strange Health via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript is available via the Apple Podcasts or Spotify apps.

Trish Lalor 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 truth about detoxes – by a liver specialist – https://theconversation.com/the-truth-about-detoxes-by-a-liver-specialist-272761

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matthew Mokhefi-Ashton, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, Nottingham Trent University

The key difference between Donald Trump’s first and second presidencies can be summed up by his two official portraits. The first after his victory in 2016 shows a smiling Trump, probably delighted to have won against the odds and, at least in theory, willing to work with his opponents.

The second shows a more brooding figure glaring into the camera – a man who recognises that a sizeable chunk of the country is never going to like him and does not care. This second image encapsulates what I see as the twin themes of Trump’s second term: revenge and legacy.

In 1973, American political scientist Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr introduced the concept of the “imperial presidency”. He argued that the separation of powers that lies at the heart of US democracy had become overbalanced under the presidency of Richard Nixon in favour of the executive branch.

In response to the Vietnam war and the Watergate scandal, where operatives working for Nixon bugged the Democrat National Committee’s headquarters and he tried to cover it up, Congress reasserted itself. The war powers resolution of 1973, for example, required the president to consult with Congress before committing US armed forces to conflict.

The Obama administration also shows how effectively a president’s agenda can be derailed when one party puts its mind to it. Republicans blocked Obama’s appointments to the judiciary and significantly watered down his main achievement, the Affordable Care Act.

However, Trump’s second administration has seen the imperial presidency reach its peak. He has wielded this power against his political enemies, whether other politicians, media organisations or foreign governments, more forcefully than at any point during his first presidency.

This has been shown by various legal cases, as well as his threat to sue Paramount over a pre-election interview with rival presidential nominee Kamala Harris on CBS News that Trump felt unduly favoured her. Paramount settled by agreeing to pay US$16 million (£11.9 million) to Trump’s future library.

It is also striking how much more organised Trump’s second administration has been. There will forever be a debate about whether Trump really expected to win back in 2016, but it’s obvious there had been a lack of planning. This was shown by the disjointed policy agenda and appointments to key positions of people who were either not as loyal as he would have wished or not up to the roll.

Trump’s first national security advisor, Michael Flynn, lasted only 24 days in his post, while communications director Anthony Scaramucci lasted ten. Trump’s government is staffed by ultra-loyalists this time round, including Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, FBI Director Kash Patel and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

There have still been embarrassing mistakes, including the leak of information about imminent military strikes in Yemen. But Trump’s government has been notably more focused and organised than in his initial presidency.

Miller’s America First Legal Foundation, for example, spent the Biden years creating policy agendas and drafting executive orders. Because of this pre-planning, Trump could appoint his second cabinet much faster than his first and hit the ground running. What followed was a flurry of executive orders and legislation on immigration, federal regulations and the economy.

---

On January 20 2025, Donald Trump was sworn in as the 47th president of the United States. His first year in office has seen profound changes both in his own country and across the globe. In this series, The Conversation’s international affairs team aims to capture the mood after the first year of Trump’s second coming.

---

Cementing his legacy

Trump cannot run for the presidency again according to the US constitution, despite his trolling on the subject. While his first presidency was focused on his ultimately failed efforts at reelection, the next three years are all about legacy.

Every US president has actions that can be undone by their successors. In Trump’s case, future Democratic presidents can change the renamed Gulf of America back to the Gulf of Mexico. But Trump’s second term has also seen him aim for seismic changes that cannot be easily reversed.

Chief among these is Greenland. What was initially perhaps a passing fancy to bring the Danish-administered territory under US control has turned into a key pillar of his post-presidency ambitions. If Trump succeeds in making Greenland part of the US, then he will have increased the size of the US’s land possessions by roughly 22%.

It would be difficult for any future president to hand it back without being accused of weakness and ceding territorial gains. Similarly, cementing Venezuela as a client state would reshape regional dynamics in ways that will be difficult to reverse. Appointing himself as chair of the Gaza “peace board” for life again speaks to a man trying to create a permanent legacy.

Another aim is reconfiguring the federal government. This process was started during his first term by reshaping the Supreme Court to give it a conservative majority that, barring accidents or illness, will last over 20 years. Trump has now turned his attention to the rest of the system.

His aim is to appoint judges and administrators that cannot be removed easily by future administrations, cementing his policy agenda on a generation. Trump has repeatedly stated his wish to fire Jerome Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, and replace him with someone more in tune with his thinking.

The main obstacle is Congress. Trump’s first term taught him that the much-lauded checks and balances of the US constitution are stronger on paper than in practice. With strength of will, billionaire supporters and a disposition to take legal action, these mechanisms can be circumvented or ignored. But they can slow him down.

This is why the midterm elections in November are so important. If a president’s party holds the House and Senate when they enter office, as was the case for Trump after the 2024 election, they often lose it two years later. And if the Democrats gain control of the House then they can hobble his legislative agenda.

In some ways, Trump’s biggest legacy will be the resurgence of the imperial presidency. He has shown future administrations what can be done if they’re willing to ignore political norms. On many occasions during his first term Trump voiced variations of “nobody has done what I’ve been able to do”. In his second term, he seems set on turning political rhetoric into indisputable fact.

Matthew Mokhefi-Ashton 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. Trump’s second term is proving different from his first. This time it’s imperial – https://theconversation.com/trumps-second-term-is-proving-different-from-his-first-this-time-its-imperial-273712

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Maria Lucia Passador, Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Bocconi University

For the UK after Brexit, it is tempting to imagine that regulation no longer comes from Brussels. Yet one of the most significant pieces of digital legislation anywhere in the world – the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act – is now coming into force, and its effects will reach UK companies, regulators and citizens.

AI is already threaded through daily life: in how loans are priced, how job applications are sifted, how fraud is detected, how medical services are triaged, and how online content is pushed.

The EU’s AI Act, which is entering into force in stages, is an attempt to make those invisible processes safer, more accountable and closer to European values. It reflects a deliberate choice to govern the social and economic consequences of automated decision-making.

The act aims to harness the innovative power of AI while protecting EU citizens from its harms. The UK has chosen a lighter regulatory path, but it will not be immune from the act’s consequences. Through the AI Office and national enforcement authorities, the EU will be able to sanction UK companies that have operations in the bloc, regardless of where they have their headquarters.

The act enables authorities to impose fines or demand that systems be changed. This is a signal that the EU is now treating AI governance as a compliance issue rather than a matter of voluntary ethics. My research outlines the power of the enforcement provisions, particularly their influence on how AI systems will be designed, deployed or even withdrawn from the market.

Many of the systems most relevant to everyday life, such as those used in employment, healthcare or credit scoring, are now deemed “high-risk” under the act. AI applications in these scenarios must satisfy demanding standards around data, transparency, documentation, human oversight and incident reporting. Some practices, such as systems that use biometric data to exploit or distort people’s behaviour by targeting vulnerabilities such as age, disability or emotional state, are simply banned.

The regime also extends to general-purpose AI – the models that underpin everything from chatbots to content generators. These are not automatically classified as high-risk but are subject to transparency and governance obligations alongside stricter safeguards in situations where the AI could have large-scale or systemic effects.

This approach effectively exports Europe’s expectations to the world. The so-called “Brussels effect” operates on a simple logic. Large companies prefer to comply with a single global standard rather than maintain separate regional versions of their systems. Firms that want access to Europe’s 450 million consumers will therefore simply adapt. Over time, that becomes the global norm.

---

Read more:
UK government’s AI plan gives a glimpse of how it plans to regulate the technology

---

The UK has opted for a far less prescriptive model. While its own comprehensive AI legislation appears to be in doubt, regulators – including the Information Commissioner’s Office, Financial Conduct Authority and Competition and Markets Authority – examine broad principles of safety, transparency and accountability within their own remits.

This has the virtue of agility: regulators can adjust their guidance as required without waiting for legislation. But this also shifts a greater burden on to firms, which must anticipate regulatory expectations across multiple authorities. This is a deliberate choice to rely on regulatory experimentation and sector-specific expertise rather than a single, centralised rulebook.

Agility has trade-offs. For small and medium-sized firms trying to understand their obligations, the EU’s clarity might seem more manageable.

There is also a risk of regulatory misalignment. If Europe’s model becomes the global reference point, UK firms may find themselves working to both the domestic standard and the European one demanded by their clients. Maintaining this will be costly and is rarely sustainable.

Why UK companies will be affected

Perhaps the most consequential – but least widely understood – aspect of the EU’s AI Act is that extraterritorial scope that I mentioned earlier. The act applies not only to companies based inside the EU but also to any provider whose systems are either placed on the EU market or whose outputs are used within the bloc.

This captures a vast range of UK activity. A London fintech offering AI-driven fraud detection to a Dutch bank, a UK insurer using AI tools that inform decisions about policyholders in Spain, or a British manufacturer exporting devices to France – all of these fall squarely within European regulation.

My research also covers the obligations for banks and insurers – they may need robust documentation, human-oversight procedures, incident-reporting mechanisms and quality-management systems as a matter of course.

Even developers of general-purpose AI models could find themselves under fire, particularly where regulators identify systemic risks or gaps in transparency that warrant closer scrutiny or corrective action.

For many UK firms, the more pragmatic choice will be to design their systems to EU standards from the outset rather than produce separate versions for different markets.

Although this debate often sounds abstract, its effects are anything but. Tools that determine your access to credit, employment, healthcare or essential public services increasingly rely on AI. The standards imposed by the EU – particularly requirements to minimise discrimination, ensure transparency and maintain human oversight – are likely to spill over into UK practice simply because large providers will adapt globally to meet European expectations.

Europe has made its choice: a sweeping, legally binding regime designed to shape AI according to principles of safety, fairness and accountability. The UK has chosen a more permissive, innovation-first path. Geography, economics and shared digital infrastructure all ensure that Europe’s regulatory pull will reach the UK, whether through markets, supply chains or public expectations.

The AI Act is a blueprint for the kind of digital society Europe wants – and, by extension, a framework that UK firms will increasingly need to navigate. In an age when algorithms determine opportunity, risk and access, the rules that govern them matter to all of us.

Maria Lucia Passador 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 EU’s new AI rulebook will affect businesses and consumers in the UK too – https://theconversation.com/the-eus-new-ai-rulebook-will-affect-businesses-and-consumers-in-the-uk-too-272467

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Juliane Kaminski, Associate Professor of Comparative Psychology, University of Portsmouth

Imagine Max, a well-trained border collie, manages to ignore a squirrel in the park
when his owner tells him to sit. His owner says, “Max, stop chasing that squirrel and sit down,” and Max obeys. Can dogs learn and understand words the way humans do?

A new study found dogs like Max may have learnt the names of objects (like a squirrel) from overhearing their owners talking. The study is the latest to try and understand whether intelligent dogs and humans can have real conversations.

A widely reported case in 2004 brought this question into the spotlight. Rico, an eight-year-old border collie was the first dog who demonstrated under experimental conditions that he knew the names of over 200 different toys.

Dogs like Rico seem different to other ones. Scientists have a name for them: label-learner dogs. They seem so exceptional, it’s easy to wonder if they’re learning words in a similar way to humans. Research is starting to give us some answers. But first, it’s important to understand how these dogs have been studied.

In 2004, researchers, including myself, wanted to make sure Rico wasn’t simply reacting to subtle, unconscious signals from people. So Rico was tested in a room where he couldn’t see anyone. He still fetched the correct toys upon hearing the command “Fetch, xy”. That meant he was not using visual cues from his owner.

The next big question was whether Rico could learn new name-object combinations the way young children do. Children often learn new words through a process called fast mapping. They hear a new word, look at the options and figure out what it must refer to. For example, if a child knows what “blue” means but not “olive,” and you show them a blue object and an olive-green one, they’ll probably choose the olive-green one when you ask for “olive”.

Rico showed something similar in his behaviour. When researchers placed a brand-new toy among familiar ones and asked for a name he had never heard before, he picked the new toy. He even remembered some of these new name-object pairs weeks later. That means Rico could pick up new names for things without seeing people point at them or look at them or give any other obvious hints.

He just heard a new name and figured out what it referred to.

It seems that there is a group of gifted dogs that have realised that objects have names. These dogs appear to have an exceptional ability to learn the names of many objects. Like Rico’s ability to learn names through a process of elimination, these dogs can also learn independently, without needing additional cues to identify the object being named.

But what is it, that makes these dogs gifted in this way? To explore this question, my colleagues and I recently studied a group of these unusually talented dogs, of various breeds (border collies, mixed breeds, a Spanish water dog and a pug). Many label-learner dogs are border collies but lots of other breeds seem to have this ability too.

My colleagues and I gave them a set of cognitive puzzles to solve. Each dog completed eight tasks designed to measure curiosity, problem solving, memory, learning ability and their ability to follow human communicative cues like pointing or gazing. A second group of dogs – matched by age, sex and breed – (and without any special name-learning skills) took the same tests so we could compare the two groups.

The label-learner dogs consistently showed three key traits. They were obsessed with new objects. They showed strong, selective interest in particular items. And they were better at controlling their impulses when interacting with objects. However, more research will need to investigate whether these traits appear naturally in some puppies or whether they can be shaped through training as a dog grows.

The findings may eventually lead to something like a puppy “IQ test” that identifies young dogs with the potential to learn many object names. This could help trainers select dogs well suited for important roles such as assisting people with sight or hearing impairments or supporting police work.

But does this all now mean dogs learn words like children do? After all the new paper about overhearing used a approach designed to study understanding in human toddlers.

The answer is: not quite. Children learn thousands of words, and they do it rapidly and flexibly. Even at 18 months, children don’t just match a word to whatever they see at the moment.

They can understand what an adult intends to talk about by realising when a person is referring to something that isn’t there. For example, if a parent says, “Where’s the teddy we played with this morning?” even though the teddy is not in the room, the child may still understand what the parent means and go look for it. Children use shared context to understand others.

Even the highly skilled label-learner dogs seem to struggle to understand object-name links this way.

Although there is ample evidence that dogs seem specifically adapted to human use human given gestural communicative cues, like pointing and gazing, when it comes to “word-learning” the evidence we have is just that dogs can form object-name associations. We also know that some dogs can acquire hundreds of these associations or might have understood a rule that objects have names.

This is not comparable to word learning in children. By around age two, typical English-speaking children learn approximately ten new words each day, reaching an average vocabulary of about 60,000 words by the age of 17.

When they learn words, children apply rules and principles. Their language acquisition is based on the understanding of others as “intentional beings”, that other people have goals and intentions. They recognise that when someone talks, points or gestures, they are trying to share an idea, ask for something, or draw attention to something. For example, when a parent says “Look at the dog!” the child typically understands that the parent wants them to notice the dog, not that the words are just random sounds.

However, there is currently no conclusive evidence to suggest that this core principle, underpins dogs’ interactions with humans.

Dogs are amazing learners, but their abilities are not the same as human language learning. They learn names for objects, not language.

Juliane Kaminski 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. Some dogs can pick up hundreds of words – do they learn like children? – https://theconversation.com/some-dogs-can-pick-up-hundreds-of-words-do-they-learn-like-children-273620

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jing Wu, Postdoctoral Researcher, Integrative Epidemiology, Karolinska Institutet

The scientist Stephen Hawking lived with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), the most common type of motor neurone disease, for 55 years. He was one of the longest-surviving people with the condition.

However, most people with motor neurone disease are not as lucky. It often progresses quickly, and many pass away within two to five years of diagnosis. There is still no cure. Genetics account for only about 10% of cases, and the rest of the causes are still largely a mystery.

A new study in the journal Jama Neurology showed one possible contributor: air pollution, both for the risk of developing motor neurone disease and for how it progresses.

In the study, my colleagues and I examined air pollution levels at each of the 10,000 participant’s home address for up to ten years before diagnosis. We focused on two common types of outdoor pollutants that are widely linked to health harms: nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter.

Particulate matter is made up of tiny airborne particles (far thinner than a human hair). It is usually grouped by size: PM2.5 (less than or equal to 2.5 micrometres), PM10 (less than or equal to 10 micrometres), and the in-between fraction PM2.5-10 (between 2.5 and 10 micrometres).

We found that being exposed to air pollution over the long term, even at the fairly low levels typically seen in Sweden, was linked to a 20–30% higher chance of developing motor neurone disease. What’s more, the pattern still held up when we compared siblings, which helps rule out a lot of shared factors like genetics and growing up in the same environment.

We also observed that people with motor neurone disease who had been exposed for years to higher levels of PM10 and nitrogen dioxide faced a greater risk of death or of needing a machine to help them breathe.

These pollutants are typically produced by nearby road traffic. Taken together, the results suggest that pollution generated close to home, especially from local vehicle emissions, may have a stronger effect than particulate matter carried in from farther away, which tends to account for much of the broader day-to-day variation in particulate matter levels.

Doctors regularly keep tabs on how well patients are managing everyday functions across a few key areas. These include bulbar function (speech, saliva control and swallowing), fine motor function (handwriting, cutting food, dressing and personal hygiene), gross motor function (turning in bed and adjusting bedding, walking and climbing stairs) and breathing (shortness of breath, difficulty breathing when lying flat, and signs of respiratory failure).

The participants in our study were assessed about every six months after diagnosis. We then looked at how quickly the disease was getting worse overall and within each of these domains. Patients whose decline was faster than that of 75% of other patients were labelled as having faster progression.

We found that long-term exposure to air pollution was associated with higher odds of having faster progression overall, particularly affecting motor and respiratory function, but not bulbar function.

Broader implications

The reasons for these differences are not yet clear. One possibility is that different parts of the nervous system vary in their vulnerability to pollution-related injury. It could also be because air pollution has consistently been linked to chronic lung diseases, reduced lung function and infections, all of which have been associated with poorer outcomes in ALS.

We accounted for many factors that could influence both air pollution exposure and motor neurone disease risk, including personal and neighbourhood income, education, occupation and whether participants lived in urban or rural areas. Our study did not have data on smoking habits or indoor air pollution exposure. However, there is no evidence suggesting that people with and without motor neurone disease differ significantly in these factors in ways that would explain our findings.

These results bring us closer to understanding motor neurone disease and may eventually help with earlier diagnosis and better treatment. But there’s a wider message here. We’re all exposed to air pollution, and the evidence keeps mounting that it harms our health in serious ways. Cleaning up our air could do far more good than we realise.

Jing Wu receives funding from Karolinska Institutet’s Research Foundation.

– ref. Air pollution may be linked to increased risk of motor neurone disease, our new study indicates – https://theconversation.com/air-pollution-may-be-linked-to-increased-risk-of-motor-neurone-disease-our-new-study-indicates-272457

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Athanasia Daskalopoulou, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, University of Liverpool

In certain corners of the internet recently, people have been debating why “women can’t stop reading fairy porn”.

These discussions centre around the fantasy romance genre, also known as romantasy, which has exploded in both popularity and sales. Onyx Storm, Rebecca Yarros’s third book in The Empyrean series, was the fastest-selling adult novel in 20 years when published in early 2025, according to the New York Times. It sold more than 2.7m copies in its first week.

Bloomberg reported that romantasy was estimated to bring in US$ 610m (£455m) in sales in 2024, revitalising the publishing industry. These growing sales have made us, as feminist marketing scholars, interested in understanding this genre and its readers who swoon over muscular, handsome faerie princes and dream of dragon taming.

Traditionally, male readers have dominated fantasy fiction fandoms. As such, narratives centring female characters have often been sidelined in many of the most popular fantasy fiction books. Think of J.R.R. Tolkein’s Bilbo and Frodo Baggins from The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, or Fitz from Robin Hobb’s The Farseer Trilogy series.

Romantasy stories counter this, offering fantasy worlds where romance is a key plot point. The protagonists are often women and they centre women’s stories and women’s romantic relationships.

Female characters in these books set off on “hero journeys”, meet handsome and caring men along the way, experience romance and sexual pleasure, and defeat evil. In some ways, romantasy follows many familiar fantasy tropes, including good vs evil, medieval settings or magical schools, fantastical creatures and magical powers. However, they also incorporate tropes from romance – a genre that has historically sustained the publishing industry – such as enemies to lovers, forbidden love and forced proximity (oh no, there’s only one bed).

---

No one’s 20s and 30s look the same. You might be saving for a mortgage or just struggling to pay rent. You could be swiping dating apps, or trying to understand childcare. No matter your current challenges, our Quarter Life series has articles to share in the group chat, or just to remind you that you’re not alone.

Read more from Quarter Life:

• Heated Rivalry shows how queer joy can disrupt hockey’s culture of masculinity

• Love is Blind returns – but is there truth to the show’s ‘social experiment’? Here’s what the research says

• Twenty experts on the book that got them through their 20s – part one

---

Romantasy books, however, are often mistaken for erotica or “smut” for women. Readers sometimes rank books in terms of “spicy” levels indicating how salacious their storylines are. However, sexual content is not new to fantasy. Some of the most popular fantasy books, like George Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire series (Game of Thrones), include frequent and graphic sex scenes.

Romantasy, however, has a distinct draw. These stories feature experiences of consensual sex and female-centred sexual pleasure while also tapping into complex themes. For instance, Rebecca Yarros’s Fourth Wing deals with chronic illness and Sarah J Mass’s A Court of Thornes and Roses deals with several traumas, including grooming, sexual abuse, war and poverty.

Romantasy authors, who are often women, aim to eschew the “male gaze” typical of much media, including literature. This is where, as feminist film scholar Laura Mulvey describes, women are often presented as passive objects for male sexual pleasure and viewing, rather than as active subjects with agency. For instance, in A Song of Ice and Fire and similar fantasy books, the sex often includes a form of violence against women.

Romantasy books instead centre the “female-gaze” in which female desire, power and identity are explored from a female point of view.

In the study we are working on, women have expressed that romantasy enables them to experience romantic and sexual fantasies that they might not experience in the real world, and helps them discover and experiment with their sexuality.

Younger readers we spoke to found liberation in reading about realistic and non-taboo representations of women’s romantic and sexual fantasies. Women from conservative cultures said they were inspired by female characters who are not afraid or ashamed to seek out sexual pleasure.

Romantasy books are not without their issues, however. Despite the female-centred narratives, some of the most popular books in the genre perpetuate heterosexual norms, either ignore racial and sexual diversity, or feature problematic and limiting representations of them. For example, Rebecca Yarros proudly states that Xaden, the male love interest character in Fourth Wing, is not white, without specifying which race he is – as though all non-white racial groups are the same.

However, in our study, we continue to find that even if all women (especially older women and women of colour) cannot connect to romantasy protagonists, they resonate with how these stories prioritise female pleasure and safety, with partners that are devoted to them. It is not only “smut” or “spice” that appeals to female readers, but more importantly, the acknowledgement of women as sexual subjects, rather than objects for male pleasure or targets of sexual violence.

While sex is an important part of romantasy, it is not erotica. Where erotica is all about the sex, often, the “spicy” content in romantasy only lasts a few pages and is a part of a broader romantic arc between the protagonist and the supporting male love interests.

As the genre continues to grow, we hope that romantasy is taken seriously by the publishing industry (it’s certainly benefiting from it) as well as by the wider public. Currently, the industry popularises TikTok viral books, resulting in repetitive, white-centric and heterosexual stories. There are, however, diverse representations to be found. For instance, The Emily Wilde series by Heather Fawcett or Paladin’s Grace by T. Kingfisher both feature women in their thirties and forties.

For queer representation and cosy romance, there’s Legends and Lattes by Travis Baldree. Additionally, books by women of colour, like The Inheritance Trilogy by N.K. Jemisin, and The Adventures of Amina al-Sirafi by Shannon Chakraborty, feature racial and ethnically diverse characters in a fantasy setting with a romantic subplot.

Perhaps in time, like with other genre writing, publishers and readers will seek out, support and promote more diverse stories in romantasy that will appeal to all kinds of women.

---

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.

---

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. Romantasy: sexy tales of women-centred fantasy fiction are boosting the publishing industry – https://theconversation.com/romantasy-sexy-tales-of-women-centred-fantasy-fiction-are-boosting-the-publishing-industry-272737

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Bale, Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of London

What we used to think of as Britain’s two main parties, Labour and the Conservatives, seem more than happy to postpone as many of this year’s upcoming local elections as possible.

Labour insists the delays are needed because of ongoing local authority reorganisation. Opponents allege the decision has more to do with opinion polls that show both parties losing out badly to Reform, the Lib Dems and the Greens.

Who knows which is true? But it’s all yet another reminder that the UK’s formerly cosy, two-party system seems to be falling apart in front of our eyes.

In a year that holds the potential for electoral gains in councils and in races for the Welsh Senedd and Scottish parliament, what we used to refer to as country’s “minor” parties will have to run many campaigns.

In order to take full advantage of that fragmentation, they ideally need boots on the ground – people prepared to knock on doors and push leaflets through letter boxes in order to encourage supporters to actually get out and vote. These days, it’s also useful to have people willing to create (or at least share) content online.

That raises the question: who do they have? Given that the people who do the most campaigning for parties are its members, we can start by looking at how these numbers are distributed around the country. Reform makes big splashes in the national media, but does it have people who know the ground in the Vale of Clwyd?

My colleagues and I – the party members project run out of Queen Mary University of London and the University of Sussex – have looked into this in a newly published report.

It’s one thing to have plenty of party members – and there have been huge surges in people joining both the Greens and Reform since we conducted our surveys around the time of the 2024 election – but it matters where they’re located and how much they’re prepared to do.

Obviously, it helps to have members in those areas of the country that, opinion polls suggest, are particularly fertile territory. This may well be the case for the Lib Dems and for Reform, although Reform leader Nigel Farage will surely be hoping that that he’s managed to recruit a few more members in Wales and in London since we did our field work.

At that time, just 8% of Reform members were located in Wales, compared to 30% in the south of England. Only 12% of members were in London, where every borough has a council election in 2026.

As for the Greens, they look rather thinly spread. Like Reform, there’s more of a presence in the south, where 32% of members are to be found. But in London it’s 12%, although it looks like that might be changing fast and for the better in some parts of the capital.

Certainly, irrespective of which region they’re located in, if Green party members live in those multicultural urban areas where Labour looks vulnerable, then they could still prove very useful in May.

How useful members are, of course, also depends on whether they’re willing to actually help out. At the 2024 election, from which our data is derived, around a third of all Lib Dem and Reform UK members, devoted no time at all to their party’s campaign efforts. The Tories, Greens and Labour had it even worse. Around half of their members put no time in.

Digging a bit deeper into the kind of activities members do reveals some interesting differences. In the increasingly important online world, it looks as if the Greens and Reform UK may well have something of an advantage. Their members were more likely to share social media content about their party than members of the Lib Dems and Conservatives.

On the doorstep, however, it’s the Lib Dems who are right up there. Some 37% of Lib Dems delivered leaflets to people’s homes in 2024 – a figure that rises to 59% if we ignore those members who told us they’d done nothing for the party during the election.

This is one of the reasons, along with continued Conservative weakness, why, in spite of them being paid far less attention than current media darlings, the Greens and Reform UK, Lib Dem leader Ed Davey’s often underrated party stands to do well in the spring.

Reform’s membership performed less impressively in 2024 – only 20% delivered leaflets, albeit a figure that rises to 34% if we take those members who did nothing at all out of the equation. The figures for canvassing (a rather more demanding activity which parties often struggle to persuade members to help with) – 12% and 21% – are much lower.

A key question for Farage, then, will be how he can motivate the people who’ve flooded into his party (boosting its membership to over 270,000) to get out on the doorstep or at least hit the phones in order to contact voters. Zack Polanski faces a similar challenge when it comes to the 150,000 people who now belong to the Greens, most of whom have joined since he took over as leader.

Campaigning by members isn’t everything, of course. Activists who aren’t members play a part, as does top-down, national campaigning – even in local elections. Still, these figures do give some insight into the strengths and weaknesses of party organisation around the country at the start of what looks set to be a crucial set of elections this spring.

---

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.

---

Tim Bale has received funding from Research England for this survey work.

– ref. Ahead of seismic local elections, what we know about Reform’s ability to put boots on the ground for the campaign – https://theconversation.com/ahead-of-seismic-local-elections-what-we-know-about-reforms-ability-to-put-boots-on-the-ground-for-the-campaign-273626

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Katie Edwards, Commissioning Editor, Health + Medicine and Host of Strange Health podcast, The Conversation

January arrives with a familiar hangover. Too much food. Too much drink. Too much screen time. And suddenly social media is full of green juices, charcoal supplements, foot patches and seven-day “liver resets”, all promising to purge the body of mysterious toxins and return it to a purer state.

In the first episode of Strange Health, a new visualised podcast from The Conversation, hosts Katie Edwards and Dan Baumgardt put detox culture under the microscope and ask a simple question: do we actually need to detox at all?

Strange Health explores the weird, surprising and sometimes alarming things our bodies do. Each episode takes a popular health or wellness trend, viral claim or bodily mystery and examines what the evidence really says, with help from researchers who study this stuff for a living.

Katie Edwards, a health and medicine editor at The Conversation and Dan Baumgardt, a GP and lecturer in health and life sciences at the University of Bristol share a longstanding fascination with the body’s improbabilities and limits, plus a healthy scepticism for claims that sound too good to be true.

This opening episode dives straight into detoxing. From juice cleanses and detox teas to charcoal pills, foot pads and coffee enemas, Katie and Dan watch, wince and occasionally laugh their way through some of the internet’s most popular detox trends. Along the way, they ask what these products claim to remove, how they supposedly work, and why feeling worse is often reframed online as a sign that a detox is “working”.

The episode also features an interview with Trish Lalor, a liver expert from the University of Birmingham, whose message is refreshingly blunt. “Your body is really set up to do it by itself,” she explains. The liver, working alongside the kidneys and gut, already detoxifies the body around the clock. For most healthy people, Lalor says, there is no need for extreme interventions or pricey supplements.

That does not mean everything labelled “detox” is harmless. Lalor explains where certain ingredients can help, where they make little difference and where they can cause real damage if misused.

Real detoxing looks less like a sachet or a foot patch and more like hydration, fibre, rest, moderation and giving your liver time to do the job it already does remarkably well. If you’re buying detox patches and supplements then it’s probably your wallet that is about to be cleansed, not your liver.

---

Strange Health is hosted by Katie Edwards and Dan Baumgardt. The executive producer is Gemma Ware, with video and sound editing by Sikander Khan. Artwork by Alice Mason.

Dan and Katie talk about two social media clips in this episode, one from 30.forever on TikTok and one from velvelle_store on Instagram.

Listen to Strange Health via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript is available via the Apple Podcasts or Spotify apps.

Katie Edwards works for The Conversation and co-hosts the Strange Health podcast.

Dan Baumgardt and Trish Lalor 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. Juice cleanses, charcoal supplements and foot patches – is detoxing worth the hype? – https://theconversation.com/juice-cleanses-charcoal-supplements-and-foot-patches-is-detoxing-worth-the-hype-273394

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jason Ralph, Professor of International Relations, University of Leeds

The Labour government came into office promising to “use realist means to pursue progressive ends”. US president Donald Trump’s recent actions over Venezuela and Greenland have tested Keir Starmer’s ability to deliver on that promise.

When the prime minister said he had been “a lifelong advocate of international law” there was a reasonable expectation that he would condemn the US action in Venezuela. Some feared that his ambiguity on that issue was a betrayal of progressive values.

However, US action in Venezuela came at a sensitive moment in the UK’s efforts to achieve a progressive end to the war in Ukraine. US cooperation is vital if Russia is to be forced to negotiate a peace that respects the Ukrainian right to self-determination. That means persuading the US to put pressure on Russia – something that would be impossible if Starmer had alienated Trump by condemning his illegal action in Venezuela.

Starmer has shown that he is able to handle Trump’s unpredictable personality. His ambiguity on Venezuela immediately prior to the Paris meeting that agreed security guarantees for Ukraine can be interpreted in these terms. He knew that the progressive strategy on Ukraine was reliant on a delicate alignment of US power.

When it emerged that British forces had helped the US seize a Russian-flagged oil tanker linked to Venezuela the stakes were raised. Trump’s actions were certainly a grab for Venezuela’s oil but the consequences could work toward progressive ends if Russian investments in Venezuela’s oil industry are written off and Russia’s ability to avoid sanctions by operating a “shadow fleet” are weakened. For the progressive realist then, Starmer’s ambiguity on Trump’s illegal action in Venezuela could be a worthwhile, if regrettable, trade-off.

The word “regret” shouldn’t be lightly passed over. Progressive realists need not be “theological” in the application of international law, and Starmer knows that good legal prosecutors exercise political judgment. But there is a danger.

The risk of not properly condemning Trump on Venezuela was that it could set the world on a slippery slope. It could simply encourage Trump’s imperialist ambitions. That seems to have happened very quickly and Starmer’s speech on Greenland was designed to stop the slide.

Starmer reminded us that “Britain is a pragmatic country”. It will, in other words, compromise with the US to find solutions to problems like Russia. But as Starmer said, “being pragmatic does not mean being passive. And partnership does not mean abandoning principle”.

The principle at stake in Greenland is the same as Venezuela: national self-determination. So why is he drawing the line now?

As a realist, Starmer has shown his willingness to compromise on Venezuela. He has listened to Trump’s concerns on Ukraine and has made the case for greater defence spending across Europe. But as a progressive he has also shown there is a limit to how far he can compromise with the US, and he has drawn a line on Greenland.

This is because the argument that the US needs to annex Greenland to pressure Russia makes no sense. Greenland is already part of an anti-Russian alliance: Nato. No positive outcome can emerge from US pressure on Greenland.

European governments made that clear in Paris and Starmer’s speech reinforced the point. The pettiness of Trump’s statement linking the Greenland issue to Norway’s decision not to grant him the Nobel prize adds to the sense that US policy is now based on the personal ambitions of an imperial president. Against this backdrop, progressive realism means no longer compromising with the US.

A breach of trust

Another principle at stake in Greenland is multilateral cooperation based on respect. International relations academics have longed called the transatlantic region a “security community” because it goes beyond transactional deals. It is based on trust that comes from a sense of “we-ness”. Starmer is trying to maintain that community by speaking over Trump and appealing to the narrative of transatlantic solidarity that existed through the second world war, the cold war and the war on terror.

The question, though, is whether that narrative still has power in the US. Trump is intent on putting “America first” and is not concerned about niceties like respect, trust and gratitude. It might seem hard to imagine that the rest of his country will follow him, but recall that America’s founding father, Alexander Hamilton, famously dismissed Thomas Jefferson’s argument that the US owed France a debt of gratitude for its support during the revolutionary wars. When it came to matters of war and peace, Hamilton argued, former allies were on their own.

The UK has aligned itself with the US for decades because it shared values and could leverage US power in the service of its moral as well as material interests. If the Trump administration and the wider Maga movement in Congress continues to undermine the transatlantic security community, and international society more generally, then this relationship may no longer serve Britain’s interests. Progressive realism may have justified strategic ambiguity on Venezuela, but the opposite now appears to be true when it comes to US imperialism towards Greenland.

Jason Ralph has previously received funding from Research Councils UK and the European Union. He is a member of the UK Labour Party.

Jamie Gaskarth is affiliated with Associate Fellow, Chatham House.

– ref. Why Keir Starmer had to speak out against Trump over Greenland after staying quiet on Venezuela – https://theconversation.com/why-keir-starmer-had-to-speak-out-against-trump-over-greenland-after-staying-quiet-on-venezuela-273836

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ellie Buxton, Doctoral researcher in Social Policy , Loughborough University

Almost half (45%) of teachers across primary and secondary schools in the UK describe misogynistic attitudes and behaviour among boys as being a problem, according to a YouGov survey in 2025. Additionally, 54% of secondary school teachers indicate that boys very or fairly often openly express misogynistic attitudes or behaviour in school.

This gives a sense of why the government is calling for a “whole of society” approach in its strategy to tackle violence against women and girls. The strategy, published in late December 2025, focuses largely on young people, and calls for a “generational shift” in awareness of violence against women.

In addition to strengthening law enforcement responses and increasing support for victims, the strategy introduces measures to support young people who exhibit harmful behaviour. For example, a helpline to support those who display abusive behaviours in their romantic or family relationships.

Another aspect is implementing the recently overhauled sex and relationships curriculum in schools. This includes topics such as misogyny, masculinity and harmful content and communities online.

The government’s strategy largely uses gender-neutral language, which avoids positioning boys as potential perpetrators. Importantly, it also includes support for boys who are themselves victims of harmful behaviour.

But some have interpreted the strategy to mean that men and boys are the targets of the changes. This is problematic because research suggests that approaches which frame boys and young men only as potential perpetrators risk triggering defensive responses, backlash and disengagement.

This was apparent in my own ongoing PhD research into men’s perspectives on misogyny and responses in the UK. I ran focus groups with 35 men over the age of 18 from across the whole of the UK.

I asked them what they thought about misogyny and how, or if, we should address it. At times, this question sparked a feeling of being “blamed” for the problem among some of the men I spoke to. In several of the focus groups, the men felt a sense of unease and unfairness towards prevention measures which are focused on men and boys.

How do we get men involved?

Experts in the field of violence prevention have long discussed the importance of involving men and boys in the prevention of violence against women and girls.

As Australian sociologist Michael Flood explains, this is based on the rationale that, while most men do not use violence, it is primarily men who are responsible for this violence when it does occur.

Violence is also shaped by cultural ideas around masculinity and what it means to be a man. For example, research has found that young men who conform to rigid ideals of masculinity – acting tough, not asking for help – are much more likely to experience and perpetuate different forms of violence. Therefore, we cannot expect to achieve a reduction in violence against women without the involvement of men.

So, how do we have these conversations effectively?

An encouraging finding from my focus groups was widespread support for education which addresses issues such as gender inequality, misogyny and violence against women in a way that doesn’t place blame on men and boys. Experts I spoke to as part of my research suggested that using positive and collaborative approaches, such as participant-led workshops and active bystander training, are more likely to lead to sustained and meaningful engagement.

A number of UK organisations are already seeing success with this approach. For example, Beyond Equality, is a charity focused on the wellbeing of men and boys which aims to end gender-based violence. They facilitate discussion-based workshops in a variety of settings, including schools and workplaces. These workshops encourage boys to reflect on the meanings of masculinity, gender expectations, and sexist attitudes and behaviours.

In facilitating these sessions, Beyond Equality focuses on personal development. Their compassionate, participant-led approach encourages boys and young men to reflect on their role in contributing to positive social change. Their recent survey found that 84% of pupils stated that the workshops helped them to learn more about masculine stereotypes, healthy relationships and tackling gender-based violence.

Involving men and boys as part of the solution to misogyny and violence against women, rather than just treating them as the problem, is also important. A recent project, facilitated by researcher Sophie King-Hill, involved collaboratively working with young people to design a resource for relationship and sex education. Such approaches centre the voices of young people in the solutions to harmful types of behaviour which are relevant to their lives.

Bystander interventions are another strategy which may be effective. Through the bystander approach, boys and men are encouraged to intervene when they witness misogynistic behaviours.

Evaluations of bystander programmes focused on addressing gender-based harms have shown that people feel more confident about intervening following the training. This approach encourages joint responsibility for tackling the problem. And it provides a positive and constructive pathway through which men and boys can be involved.

In moving forward with their action plan, I am hopeful that the government will take onboard this growing research base. Only through positive and collaborative approaches – not blame and targeting – can we engage men as part of the solution to misogyny and violence against women.

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

– ref. How to involve men and boys in tackling misogyny? Start by treating them not just as perpetrators – https://theconversation.com/how-to-involve-men-and-boys-in-tackling-misogyny-start-by-treating-them-not-just-as-perpetrators-272927