The UK could make migrants wait up to 20 years before becoming settled – making it one of the longest waits in the world

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matilde Rosina, Assistant Professor in Global Challenges, Brunel University of London

Savvapanf Photo/Shutterstock

The UK government is planning to make it significantly harder for migrants to obtain permanent residence. If the proposals go ahead, the UK would become more restrictive than most other high-income democracies. In the case of refugees it would create a situation that is arguably without precedent among peer countries.

The UK’s home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, intends to double the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) (the UK’s form of permanent residence) from five to ten years for most migrants, and increase it up to 20 for some.

Eligibility requirements would also tighten. Migrants would need a clean criminal record (removing the previous 12-month sentence threshold), a higher English language standard and earnings above £12,570 per year for at least three years. This will disproportionately affect those least likely to be in full-time employment, including dependants of people on work visas, family visa holders and refugees.

The ten-year baseline for settlement would then be adjusted up or down based on individual circumstances. High-skilled workers, including NHS nurses and doctors, or those earning above £125,140, for instance, could qualify after five or three years respectively. Those on family visas (such as those married to a British citizen) or who are judged to be making efforts at “integration” such as by volunteering in the community could qualify after five to seven years. Those who have claimed benefits would have to wait up to 20 years, while for those who have entered the country illegally or overstayed their visa would have to wait up to 30 years to settle.




Read more:
Labour’s plan for migrants to ‘earn’ permanent residency turns belonging into an endless exam


For low-skilled workers, the qualifying period would start at 15 years. For refugees it would be 20, with no reductions available unless the person works or studies. In this case, their status would convert to a Protection Work and Study visa, subject to review every 30 months.

The government has cited the increasing number of people granted settlement as one of the drivers behind the reforms. This figure has been rising since 2017, reaching 163,000 in the year ending June 2025. The Home Office projects this figure will increase significantly over the next five years.

The reforms are also framed as a response to irregular migration. The government has cited the Danish model as inspiration, arguing that the longer timeframe will “strongly discourage” entry without documents and reduce the “pull factors” attracting people to the UK. However, research suggests that deterrence-based policies like this are a weak tool for reducing immigration: decisions to migrate are driven primarily by conditions in countries of origin, not by entitlements in destination countries.




Read more:
Is the Rwanda plan acting as a deterrent? Here’s what the evidence says about this approach


The Home Office has claimed these amendments do not require legislation, meaning they do not need to be put to a parliamentary vote. But opponents have signalled the intention to force a symbolic vote to make their views clear. Much of the concern has to do with the plans to apply the changes retrospectively.

An international outlier

These proposals would make the UK an outlier compared to other major economies. In the EU, the closest equivalent to ILR is the long-term resident status for third country nationals. This requires people to live in the EU on a valid visa for at least five years, and confers long-term residence with limited conditions. This exists alongside national schemes, such as Italy’s Permesso di Soggiorno UE per soggiornanti di lungo periodo and Germany’s Niederlassungserlaubnis that follow a similar approach.

Denmark and Ireland are the only two EU member states that opted out of the EU-level scheme. These countries have special arrangements for immigration and asylum policy (just like the UK did, before Brexit). They set their thresholds at eight and five years respectively, with Denmark’s reducible to four in some cases.

The UK government claims that making refugee status temporary and increasing the time for permanent residency contributed to asylum applications reaching a 40-year low in Denmark in 2025. However, this drop coincided with broader EU-wide trends in asylum flows, making it difficult to attribute the decline to domestic policy changes alone.

Among Anglophone countries, the picture is similar. The US green card confers permanent residence without a formal minimum years requirement. Though in practice, the vast majority of employment-based applicants previously held a temporary visa. Canada has no blanket time requirements, and refugees admitted through resettlement schemes can obtain permanent residency immediately.

Raising the standard qualifying period for permanent residence to ten years would make the UK more restrictive than most other comparable democracies in Europe and North America, and one of the strictest globally. Extending it to 20 years for refugees would make the UK’s approach unprecedented among peer countries.

These new requirements are closer to those of some of the hardest countries to achieve permanent residency such as Qatar and Japan, which require 20 and ten years respectively, for most cases.

An NHS sign outside of a a chemist's.
Evidence shows ‘pull factors’ such as healthcare benefits are not primary drivers of migration.
David G40/Shutterstock

Research suggests that migration policies which make migrants’ status temporary make them less likely to integrate. In particular, a study on Denmark found that making permanent residence harder to obtain for refugees reduced the chances of them being employed. People who believed they could not meet the new requirements became discouraged and disengaged from the labour market – the opposite of what the government wanted.

The UK’s proposed changes risk producing a similar dynamic, trapping people into what has been described as an “extended limbo”. Given these risks, the government should be careful in treating this approach as an end in itself when it comes to increased immigration.

The Conversation

Matilde Rosina 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 UK could make migrants wait up to 20 years before becoming settled – making it one of the longest waits in the world – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-could-make-migrants-wait-up-to-20-years-before-becoming-settled-making-it-one-of-the-longest-waits-in-the-world-279036

Steroid injections for joint pain: everything you need to know about using them

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sarah Golding, Postgraduate MSK Lecturer, School of Sport, Rehabilitation and Exercise Sciences, University of Essex

Steroid injections offer a rapid, effective way of reducing joint pain. crystal light/ Shutterstock

Osteoarthritis affects around 600 million people globally. It causes pain, stiffness and reduced joint function – most commonly in the knees, hands and hips.

There’s currently no cure for osteoarthritis. Many people manage the condition through exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, using walking aids and medications.

Commonly used medications include anti-inflammatories and opioids. While these help some, they also carry downsides – including significant side-effects, particularly in over-60s, and risk of addiction from long-term opioid use.

Joint replacement surgery can be very effective for relieving pain and improving mobility, but waiting lists in the last two years hit an all time high, due to increasing demands and reduced capacity since the COVID pandemic.

Surgery also carries risks such as infection, blood clots and nerve damage. Joint replacement surgery is typically suitable for those with advanced stage osteoarthritis.

So how else can osteoarthritis be treated?

Corticosteroid injections, commonly known as steroid injections or cortisone, have been used for joint pain for more than 70 years. They offer a rapid, effective way of reducing pain.

Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory drugs able to reduce inflammation and pain associated with osteoarthritis. Injecting corticosteroid directly into the joint means it has maximum effect where needed, while minimising effects on the rest of the body.

The effects of steroid injections can last for months, reducing the need for surgery and reliance on prescription drugs. Those most likely to benefit from steroid injections have persistent pain which disrupts sleep and function, and who find other medications unsuitable or ineffective.

But as effective as steroid injections can be, their effects will vary from person to person. They may not be as effective in severe cases of osteoarthritis, as they only reduce inflammation and cannot repair damaged or lost cartilage.

Steroid injections may also risk accelerating arthritis or causing bone problems in some people, particularly if used in high doses or too often. Routine use in early stages of osteoarthritis is therefore generally avoided. This is because steroid injections can damage cartilage and bone cells which may further weaken and damage the joint.

Steroid injections may also not be suitable for people already taking high doses of steroids for other health problems (such as rheumatoid arthritis or asthma), and those who have a weakened immune system or are otherwise unwell. Taking too much artificial steroid affects the body’s production of natural steroid, which is essential for our metabolism.

Steroid injections may increase risk of infection following surgery if an injection has been given beforehand. For this reason, the majority of surgeons a minimum of three months between your last injection before surgery.

Although side-effects from steroid injections are fortunately rare, people need to be aware of these to make an informed decision about treatment. These can include: infection, allergic reaction, bleeding, bruising, skin colour changes, temporary flare in pain, bone and joint changes and increased blood sugar levels in those with diabetes.

A female doctor or nurse wearing blue scrubs injects a needle into a patient's knee. The patient is seated on the examination table.
Steroid injections should only be performed every three to four months.
aslysun/ Shutterstock

It’s advised that injections aren’t performed more than every three to four months to reduce risk of side-effects and accelerating the arthritis. With hip injections there is need to be more cautious due to risks of cartilage and bone damage from even just one injection .

Managing joint health

Depending on the country, you may be able to have a steroid injection done by your GP, a nurse or a physiotherapist.

Within the UK, first contact physiotherapists working in primary care are accessible in the same way the GP is, many are trained and can offer early access to steroid injections. Injections may be provided within a GP surgery, however hip and spine injections are usually guided by ultrasound or X-ray imaging, which may only be available within a hospital.

Since injections can temporarily reduce osteoarthritis pain, this provides a window of opportunity within which to start exercising. Exercise is important for managing osteoarthritis, as it can strengthen joint-supporting muscles and reduce pain. Physical activity can even be beneficial for those planning to undergo joint replacement surgery as it can improve pain, function and length of hospital stay after surgery.

After injection, it’s recommended people initially rest for a few days, but then gradually increase the amount of exercise they undertake. A physiotherapist can advise on the best types of exercise you can do to help manage your osteoarthritis.

Addressing other contributing factors is essential for managing osteoarthritis, as well. There’s strong evidence linking various metabolic factors to osteoarthritis – such as obesity, diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure. These factors increase inflammation within the body, which affects cartilage in joints. Losing weight where needed is also hugely beneficial in reducing strain on joints.

For those who may not want to use steroid injections, there are other options.

Hyaluronic acid injections, for instance. These help our natural joint lubrication, called synovial fluid. In osteoarthritis, synovial fluid has less viscosity and levels are reduced. Hyaluronic acid is also believed to work as an anti-inflammatory.

Similar to steroid injections, they can reduce pain and increase movement and function. They may be more beneficial to people with earlier stage osteoarthritis and may theoretically have fewer negative effects to cartilage. There may also be value in combining the two types of injection.

Hyaluronic acid has a similar safety profile to corticosteroid, with few reported side-effects. It may, however, take up to 12 weeks for effects to show – though the benefits can last up to six months.

Accessibility is limited in the UK, hyaluronic acid is not currently recommended within NICE guidelines, primarily due to cost effectiveness, so may only be available to those privately funding their care.

Joint injections are not a cure for osteoarthritis. They can have variable effects, and work best combined with other management approaches (such as weight loss and exercise). But with long wait times for surgery, they may offer a valuable way to reduce pain and manage the condition.

The Conversation

Sarah Golding works for the University of Essex, who provide teaching for healthcare professionals on injection therapy.

ref. Steroid injections for joint pain: everything you need to know about using them – https://theconversation.com/steroid-injections-for-joint-pain-everything-you-need-to-know-about-using-them-279491

Cubans living abroad now hold the key to their country’s uncertain future

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Amalendu Misra, Professor of International Politics, Lancaster University

Since the early days of Cuba’s 1950s revolution – which overthrew the US-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista and replaced it with a socialist government led by Fidel Castro – the Cuban diaspora have played a large role in determining the island nation’s economic and political landscape.

The first wave of predominantly wealthy, white Cuban emigrants have for decades campaigned for a watertight embargo against their homeland. Many fled immediately after the revolution succeeded in 1959, primarily to the US, and have largely refused to visit their homeland on principle.

More recent Cuban emigrants who have left the island (again overwhelmingly to the US) since the economic crisis of the 1990s, are generally less affluent and have less political clout. They have forged cross-border links with friends and family members who remain on the island. Through the remittances they send back, these people are now a vital source of foreign currency for Cuba.

The regime in Havana has traditionally maintained a disdainful attitude towards the Cuban diaspora. In the early waves of migration, Cuba’s government officially referred to those who emigrated as gusanos (worms) – traitors aiming to overthrow the government. Expat investment in Cuba was subsequently banned.

But following recent negotiations with the US, this policy posture has changed significantly. After decades of restricting its relationship with the diaspora, the Cuban government announced in March 2026 that it would allow Cuban emigrants residing in places like the US to return to the country, invest in the private sector and own businesses.

In an interview with NBC News on March 16, Cuba’s minister of foreign trade and investment, Oscar Pérez-Oliva Fraga, said: “Cuba is open to having a fluid commercial relationship with US companies and also with Cubans residing in the United States and their descendants.”

Washington’s blessings

The policy change comes as Cuba desperately attempts to rescue its devastated economy. A slew of economic and fuel embargoes imposed by the US government since Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025 have led to a severe crisis in the country.

Many Cubans are struggling to find food, medicine and other essential goods, while severe energy shortages are causing periods of complete blackout across the nation. The situation has become so dire that, for the first time in six decades, sporadic protests have broken out against the Cuban government.

In one of these protests, people in the central city of Morón ransacked a Communist Party headquarters. Videos on social media showed a group of people approaching the building with flaming objects, shouting “freedom, freedom” as they threw them inside.

The current state of affairs in Cuba has presented the US with an opportunity to orchestrate regime change – something it has sought for years. And proclamations by Trump and his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, suggest this may well be the US government’s intention.

In comments made to reporters in March, Trump said he believes he will have “the honour of taking Cuba”. He added: “Whether I free [Cuba], take it – I could do anything I want with it. You want to know the truth? They’re a very weakened nation right now.”

Rubio, who is the son of Cuban emigrants and has traditionally been hawkish about delivering regime change in Cuba, then declared: “Who’s going to invest billions of dollars in a communist country run by incompetent communists? … Giving people economic and political freedom is important, but they come hand in hand. They come together.”

Despite this rhetoric, many in Washington remain cautious about triggering an outright collapse of the regime. State collapse would almost certainly lead to an increase in the flow of Cuban refugees to the US – something the Trump administration wants to avoid.

While weakened, the regime in Havana remains in place. The extended Castro family still wields considerable power and influence in the country. The men leading the talks with the US, Fraga and Raúl Rodríguez, are two of Fidel Castro’s great-nephews.

Cuba’s president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, has said he will not resign under US pressure. He told NBC News on April 9 that “the concept of revolutionaries giving up and stepping down [is] not part of our vocabulary”.

Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, later said that Moscow, a longstanding ally of the regime in Havana, had no intention of abandoning Cuba.

Despite publicly calling for fundamental reform to the power structure in Havana, Washington’s approach towards Cuba seems primarily aimed at using its leverage to encourage the regime to make concessions that diminish the island’s value to US adversaries.

The US government has encouraged Havana to open its doors to expat investment before. Under the presidency of Barack Obama, who is credited with reestablishing diplomatic relations with Havana in 2009 after half a century of diplomatic blockades, the flow of people and remittances between the US and Cuba expanded.

This warming of relations created some opportunities for increased investment in Cuba, both by US citizens and Cuban emigrants. But the Cuban government maintained significant restrictions on large investments by Cubans living abroad, which hindered the full potential of foreign investment.

Fast forward to today, and the far more desperate economic and political situation in Cuba has made the regime in Havana more open to the demands of the US to restructure its governance. At this juncture, Cuba’s diaspora can be a much-needed catalyst for change in their home country.

The Conversation

Amalendu Misra is a recipient of British Academy and Nuffield Foundation Fellowships.

ref. Cubans living abroad now hold the key to their country’s uncertain future – https://theconversation.com/cubans-living-abroad-now-hold-the-key-to-their-countrys-uncertain-future-279695

How reforms under Patrice Talon have reshaped the electoral competition in Benin

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Narcisse Martial Yèdji, Sociologue politiste et enseignant-chercheur, University d’Abomey-Calavi de Bénin

Benin voters will head to the polls on April 12, 2026 to elect their next president. This election comes at a time when Benin’s political landscape has been profoundly transformed by reforms to the party system and the electoral code. They have created new power balances and deliberately tightened the eligibility requirements for the presidency. Political sociologist Narcisse M. Yèdji spoke with The Conversation Africa on the issue. He explains how these changes have narrowed the range of choices, reshaped power dynamics, and made voter turnout a key factor for the election’s legitimisation.


How have party system reforms in recent years reshaped power dynamics for this presidential election?

Upon taking office, Patrice Talon launched a series of reforms, overhauling the country’s economic, administrative, and political structures.

Reforming the party system and the electoral code became a central priority. Presented as a way to streamline and professionalise politics, these reforms, in fact, redefined the rules of electoral competition.

Two key mechanisms stand out ahead of he April 12 presidential election – the overhaul of the political landscape and introduction of the endorsement system (parrainage).

The law on political parties revised in 2018 just before the 2019 legislative elections made it much harder for parties to gain legal recognition.

A new requirement demanded wider territorial presence. Previously a party needed 120 founding members spread across municipalities. It jumped to 1,155 covering 77 municipalities in 2018. This led to a sharp drop in the number of legally recognized parties.

On the eve of the 2021 presidential elections, the country had only 14 officially recognized political parties, compared to more than 200 before the reform.

This cleanup largely benefited the two major pro government parties: the Union progressiste (Progressive Union) and the Bloc républicain (Republican Bloc). They absorbed smaller parties through mergers and defections. The opposition was left weakened with only a few remaining parties, including the The Democrats, the main opposition party, lingering on the margins of the two major political blocs.

This reshaping of the party system has created a real power imbalance. It benefits the two-headed bloc supporting the president. Their members have privileged access to the state’s political, administrative, and institutional resources.

Presented as an modernisation of the party system, this reform has nevertheless led to the exclusion of major historic parties and groups— particularly those in the opposition — from political competition.

The 2019 constitutional amendment and the subsequent changes to the electoral code introduced a second structuring mechanism: the endorsement system for presidential candidates.

Today, to run for president (now as a president and vice-president ticket) candidates must secure a minimum number of endorsements from local elected officials and/or MPs. The threshold, initially, set at 10% (16 endorsements) was raised to 15% in 2024, (28 endorsements), making it harder to enter the race.

Since the parties close to the president dominate Parliament and local governments, they control these endorsements and hold the keys to entry. Officially justified as a way to filter out less credible candidates, this mechanism has been criticized for limiting political inclusiveness. The opposition struggles to secure the required endorsements.

Overall these reforms have significantly changed the competition for the presidency. The lopsided two-party system combined with pre-filtering via endorsements has tilted the playing field in favour of the presidential bloc. This has been further strengthened by the defections from influential opposition figures.

As a result of these massive defections, the election on April 12 comes down to just two presidential tickets: the majority’s ticket and the one put forward by the president of Force Cauris pour un Bénin émergent (Cowry forces for an Emerging Benin
)
, a moderate opposition party with limited resources.

To what extent could voter turnout influence the legitimacy and outcome of the election?

The upcoming presidential election comes at a unique socio-political moment given the dynamics observed in Benin since 1990. Traditionally, the end of a term brings redistribution of political power, without necessarily predicting the final outcome.

But today, the electoral game appears more tightly controlled and less open, making the outcome more predictable. With the political field narrowed to two pairs of candidates, and without the participation of the main opposition party, Les Démocrates, the presidential race seems to be perceived by a big chunk of voters as flawed. This perception is likely to influence voters’ attitudes.

Voter turnout becomes a key issue. Turnout dropped to 26.47% for the presdiential election in 2021 and 27.12% for the legislative elections in 2019 compared to 65.92% for the 2015 legislative elections.

A further drop in voter turnout could erode the elected president’s legitimacy, regardless of legal validation. It may spark symbolic forms of protest (expressed through discourse and position, but not collective action like marches or riots).

With such limited real competition, the election’s results are quite predictable. Turnout will serve as an indicator of how much trust citizens still place in their electoral process. This situation could strengthen the incumbent government institutionally. But it may also deepen civic disengagement.

Is voter choice primarily driven by the goverment’s track record?

Talon’s term of office has had mixed reviews. The regime has both critics and supporters. Some observers believe that a large portion of the population views its actions favourably, particularly in economic terms. This suggests that its track record will objectively play a role in the 12 April elections. In this context, it could help to consolidate a loyal electorate, particularly among social groups that have benefited from the reforms or view them favourably.

Those who see Talon’s term as a failure face a harder choice due to lack of real alternatives. Talon’s record exists. It influences some voters. But it does not define the election. The limited political offer, controlled by the outgoing government restricts voter options way before the election.

At the same time, civic disengagement is growing. [Recent data] show declining citizen’s participation. Low turnout becomes a form of political act. It reduces the weight of the government’s track record in the voting decision. This reflects competing logics: institutional constraints that limit choices, plus low turnout driven by distrust.

Ultimately, the outgoing administration’s track appears to be a secondary factor in this election. Interesting, Patrice Talon hinted at this in 2016 during the presidential runoff debate:

What ensures a president’s effective reelection — what guarantees re-election — is not their performance, nor their results. It’s how he controls the key players. How he keeps everyone in line. How he ensures no one is capable of standing up to him, of being a real competitor. When you have no competitor, however bad you may be, you will be re-elected.

What indicators should be watched on election night?

Despite its unique characteristics, turnout will be a key indicator. Turnout in the regional strongholds of candidates and key opposition figures, as well as in strategic urban centers (Cotonou, Porto-Novo, Parakou, Abomey-Calavi) will provide early signs of how the vote is going.

But beyond than the election’s outcome, turnout will mainly reflect the legitimacy of Patrice Talon’s power, his electoral reforms, the current election and the result that will follow.

This may be one of the key factors in understanding how citizens and the political class relate to the next president, and broadly, how they relate to politics itself in the years ahead.

The Conversation

Narcisse Martial Yèdji 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 reforms under Patrice Talon have reshaped the electoral competition in Benin – https://theconversation.com/how-reforms-under-patrice-talon-have-reshaped-the-electoral-competition-in-benin-280333

South Africa’s farmers aren’t yet replacing chemical fertilisers with sustainable alternatives – this is why

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mokgadi Miranda Hlongwane, Lecturer, Department of Chemistry, Tshwane University of Technology

Green bean plants in one of the small-scale farms in Phiring village, South Africa. Mokgadi Hlongwane, CC BY-NC-ND

The growing use of toxic agricultural chemicals including fertilisers is also driving a scaling up of sustainable agrochemical alternatives.

In South Africa, I’ve been exploring why small-scale farmers resist switching to these more cost-effective and environmentally friendly solutions, such as “biological fertilisers”. Rural small-scale farmers are hesitant about these non-toxic bacterial alternatives because they aren’t readily available or widely understood.

One such biological fertiliser is made from rhizobia. This bacteria converts atmospheric nitrogen into a nutritional form that can be absorbed easily by the roots of plants known as legumes. This process is called “nitrogen fixing”.

Biological fertilisers harness the power of these nitrogen-fixing bacteria to enhance the growth of legume crops such as bambara nuts, common bean and soybean, by making soil nutrients more available. Legumes are cost-effective and protein-rich crops.

My PhD research showed how rhizobia improves the growth of cancer bush, a multipurpose plant native to South Africa. Rhizobia also enhances the therapeutic effect of medicinal plants such as cancer bush, which is traditionally used as an anti-inflammatory treatment or to boost the immune system.

Some rhizobia tolerate extreme environmental conditions and can enhance plant growth even during drought. Rhizobia also improve soil health, increase microbial diversity and nutrients.

Unlike chemical fertilisers which easily wash away when it rains, rhizobia-based biological fertilisers persist in the soil for a long time. This means repeat applications aren’t often required.

Growing up in rural South Africa, I saw how small-scale farmers were hugely dependent on chemical fertilisers. Today, many of these farmers today are aware of the negative effects of synthetic chemical fertilisers. Yet they continue to use them.

Chemical fertilisers reduce soil fertility and pollute the environment. Synthetic agricultural chemicals like these can cause eutrophication – when nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen overload streams and rivers, causing excessive algal growth. This depletes oxygen in the water and poisons aquatic life.

In contrast, Rhizobia-based fertiliser technology is cost-effective, non-toxic and sustainable. But even with hundreds of these fertilisers now on the market, their adoption among small-scale farmers remains very low.

Reasons for reluctance

To understand why farmers resist adopting sustainable alternatives, I spent a day in Phiring, a village in Limpopo Province, South Africa. This farming community still relies heavily on financial support from the government to pay for agricultural supplies such as fertilisers.

I spoke to 15 farmers about their cultivation practices and perceptions of both rhizobia-based and chemical fertilisers. Restricted access to biological fertilisers and limited knowledge about their correct application discouraged them from switching. Most farmers wanted to know where to buy biological fertilisers and how best to use them.

One farmer noticed that his farm had a low crop yield compared to more recently established farms. The soil on his land had probably deteriorated due to extendsive use of chemical fertilisers over a decade.

Some farmers wrongly assumed that crops treated with biological fertilisers would grow slowly, rot quickly and have a low crop yield. As a result, they had not tried these alternatives to chemical fertilisers.

Convenience and access

This challenge is compounded by the abundant supply of chemical fertilisers. The Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme is an initiative from the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries that supports small-scale farmers across South Africa. It provides vast amounts of chemical fertilisers for free.

Research on the low uptake of climate‑smart agriculture technologies identifies limited funding, low awareness and poor access to agricultural inputs as key barriers. Providing biological fertilisers through the same government programme would significantly increase adoption.

The farmers told me that their choice of cultivation practices is influenced both by convenience and access. Most farmers learn from their peers and seldom follow the instructions from the fertiliser manufacturers, so are likely to over- or underdose.

They rarely conduct soil analysis. This makes it difficult to select fertilisers that are suitable for their land, soil conditions or crop. In these cases, soil health further deteriorates and crop productivity declines.

The farmers I spoke to acknowledged their lack of knowledge about fertiliser applications, cultivation systems and available alternatives.

When legume crops are treated with rhizobia fertilisers, the increased nutrients and microbial diversity in the soil can also benefit non-legumes such as maize and wheat. this can happen through intercropping (simultaneously planting non-legume with legumes) or rotational cropping (planting legumes in one season and another crop in the same field the next).

There is huge potential for farmers to gain by switching from conventional agrochemicals to rhizobia-based fertilisers – but first, the financial constraints and misconceptions must be addressed.

The Conversation

Mokgadi Miranda Hlongwane receives funding from the South African National Research Foundation and the Elsevier Foundation.

ref. South Africa’s farmers aren’t yet replacing chemical fertilisers with sustainable alternatives – this is why – https://theconversation.com/south-africas-farmers-arent-yet-replacing-chemical-fertilisers-with-sustainable-alternatives-this-is-why-278144

Five tips to make your memory work more effectively

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Elva Arulchelvan, Lecturer in Psychology and PhD Researcher in Psychology and Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin

ImageFlow/Shutterstock

As a researcher investigating how electric brain stimulation can improve people’s powers of recollection, I’m often asked how memory works – and what we can do to use it more effectively. Happily, decades of research have given us some clear answers to both questions.

Memory essentially operates in three stages, with different brain regions contributing to each one.

Sensory memory, which can last only milliseconds, registers raw information such as sights, sounds and smells. These are first processed by the brain’s five primary sensory cortices (visual cortex for sights, auditory cortex for sounds and so on).

Working (short-term) memory holds and manipulates a small amount of information over several seconds or more. Think of this as your brain’s mental workspace: the system that lets you do mental arithmetic, follow instructions and comprehend what you’re reading. So it mainly involves the prefrontal cortex – the front part of your brain that supports attention, decision-making and reasoning.

Finally, long-term memory stores information more permanently, from minutes to a lifetime. This includes both “explicit” memories (facts and life events) and “implicit” ones (skills, habits and emotional associations).

For long-term memories, the hippocampus and temporal lobes – located deep within the brain, around the sides of your head near your temples – contribute largely to memories involving facts or life events, while the amygdala (near the hippocampus), cerebellum (at the back of the brain) and basal ganglia (deep in the brain) process emotional or procedural memories.

Illustration of the parts of the brain involved in memory.

Anshuman Rath/Shutterstock

Working memory often acts as a conscious gateway to long-term memory – but it has its limits. In 1956, the American psychologist George Miller proposed that we can only hold about seven “chunks” of information in our working memory at any time.

While the exact number is debated to this day, the principle holds: working memory is limited. And that limitation can shape how effectively we learn and remember things.

But you can also get your memory working more effectively. Here are five easy steps for improving both your working and long-term memory.

1. Put your phone away

Smartphones reduce your working memory capacity. Even just having a phone nearby – no matter if it’s face down and on silent – can reduce performance on memory and reasoning tasks.

The reason is that part of your brain is still subtly monitoring it. Even resisting the urge to check notifications consumes mental resources – which is why researchers sometimes call smartphones a “brain drain”. The solution is simple: put your phone in another room when you need to focus. Out of sight really does free up mental capacity.

2. Stop your mind racing

Stress and anxiety can take up valuable mental space. When you’re worrying about something or are distracted by racing thoughts, part of your working memory is already in use.

Relaxation training and mindfulness practices can improve both working memory and academic performance, probably by reducing stress levels. And if meditation feels intimidating, try breathing techniques such as “cyclic sighing”. Inhale deeply through your nose, take a second shorter inhale, then slowly exhale through your mouth. Repeating this for five minutes can calm the nervous system and create better conditions for learning.

3. Get chunking

Everyone can expand their working memory using the technique of chunking – grouping information into meaningful units. In fact, you probably already do it to remember some phone numbers or lists of words – breaking long sequences into bite-size chunks that your brain can recall as a mini-group.

Video: National Geographic.

The same principles apply if you’re delivering a presentation, to help your audience remember your key points more effectively. Chunking would involve grouping ten case studies, say, into three or four themes, each with a short headline and single key takeaway.

Repeat this structure on each slide: one idea, a few supporting details, then move on. By organising information into meaningful patterns, you reduce cognitive load and make it more memorable.

4. Become a retriever

In the 19th century, German psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus demonstrated how quickly we forget information after learning it. Within about 30 minutes, we lose roughly half of what we have learned, with much more fading over the next day. Ebbinghaus called this the forgetting curve. The light blue line on the chart below illustrates this.

The forgetting curve – and how to disrupt it

Chart showing how rest and retrieval reduces the rate of memory loss.

Elva Arulchelvan, CC BY-SA

However, there is a way of ensuring that more sinks in when you are trying to learn a lot of information in a short period of time: retrieval practice.

When preparing to give a talk or studying for an exam, rather than simply rereading your notes, keep testing how much you remember. Use flash cards, answer practice questions, or try explaining the material out loud without notes.

Memory works through associations. Each time you successfully retrieve information, you link the material to new prompts, examples and contexts. This builds more cues to accessing the information, and strengthens each memory pathway. Often when we “forget”, the memory isn’t gone – we just lack the right retrieval cue.

5. Give yourself a break

Research shows that memory is more effective when study or practice sessions are spread out, rather than massed together. If you are studying for an exam, build solid blocks of downtime into your revision schedule. The dark blue line on the chart above illustrates how spacing out your practice sessions can help you remember more information over time, by adjusting Ebbinghaus’s forgetting curve.

One study suggests leaving gaps between each revision session that equate to 10-20% of the time left until your exam or presentation. So, if your deadline is five days away and you do hours of revision a day, you should still take between a half and full day off in between sessions. In other words, don’t overdo it – you probably won’t see the rewards!

If you only remember one thing from this article about improving memory, make it this. Memory isn’t just about intelligence, it’s about strategy. Small changes in how you study or work can make a real difference in how well, and how long, you remember crucial information.

The Conversation

Elva Arulchelvan 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. Five tips to make your memory work more effectively – https://theconversation.com/five-tips-to-make-your-memory-work-more-effectively-280327

Feeling distracted? How hobbies can help you find ‘flow state’ and save your brain

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Valerie van Mulukom, Visiting Lecturer in Psychology, Coventry University

Raev Denis/Shutterstock

We live in what has been called the “distraction economy”: an environment full of triggers that are engineered to demand our attention at every turn. The result is often fragmented attention, loss of focus and sometimes even increased rumination and anxiety.

Becoming fully absorbed in an activity is rare. Think of a time a film was so engrossing that you didn’t reach for your phone – the film-watching experience was no doubt the better for it. You can actively seek out this experience, which is known as “flow”. Hobbies are a great way to find a flow state and make outside distractions – work emails, unread messages, breaking news and chores – disappear.

The concept of flow was developed by Hungarian-American psychologist Mihaly Csíkszentmihályi. In his seminal 1990 book on the topic, he describes flow as: “A state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter; the experience is so enjoyable that people will continue to do it even at great cost, for the sheer sake of doing it.”


Hobbies can bring joy, wellbeing, and focus to our busy lives, but so many of us don’t have one. If you’re ready to replace scrolling with stitching, or hustle with horticulture, The Hobby Starter Kit (a new series from Quarter Life) will help you get going.


Reviews of neuroscientific evidence show that being in a flow state reduces mind wandering by suppressing brain activity in the so-called default mode network. This set of brain regions covers much of the self-referential processing we do, including our inner critic. Being able to “go with with flow” is thus directly related to not having such reflective or ruminative thoughts.

The reduction of the mind-wandering brain activation means there can be more efficient activation of attention networks. During a simulated car-racing task, researchers showed that objective mental effort and gaze focus were highest during flow conditions, even though participants reported the experience as more effortless. Flow doesn’t mean less attention – it means that attention is so efficiently allocated to the task that self-monitoring and distraction fall away.

However, flow is not the same as “hyperfocus”. In fact, they can be negatively correlated with each other. In a study with 85 college students with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), students with clinically significant ADHD symptoms reported higher hyperfocus, but lower flow on many measures. The key difference seems to lie in control: flow is directed and intentional, whereas hyperfocus tends to happen to you. But that raw capacity for absorption may be an asset – with the right conditions, like clear goals and a well-matched challenge, it could be channelled into genuine flow.

How to find your flow

Hobbies are a great mechanism for finding a flow state. Sports have been extensively researched as a flow-inducing activity. In a study of 188 junior tennis players, concentration on the task and sense of control were the two aspects of flow that most strongly predicted whether a player won or lost their match. However, it is not just about winning. A study with 413 young athletes aged 12-16, found that participants who were focused on effort and improvement, rather than winning, reported more flow.

Music is another rich domain for flow. In a survey of daily practice, 35 music students aged 12-18 indicated that concentration, emotion and clear goals were central to achieving flow. Eighty percent of the teenagers reported that being able to choose their own repertoire was a highly significant motivational factor.

Another study found that the balance between the challenge of a musical passage and the musician’s perceived skill consistently predicted the flow experience. Flow might also buffer against performance anxiety: when 27 student musicians were tracked over the course of a semester, it was found that when flow was at its highest, performance anxiety was at its lowest, and vice versa.

A young woman focuses on playing an electric piano
Playing music is a known source of flow.
Reshetnikov_art/Shutterstock

If neither sports nor music are your thing, you may want to consider games. In a project I recently ran with a student, we investigated flow during tabletop role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons, and compared it to video games. Being in a flow state was associated with greater satisfaction with social interactions with friends, in particular for those who played tabletop games.

For those who play video games, gaming was associated with high monotropic flow – being so absorbed it is difficult to quit playing. These findings align with other research showing that a flow state during gaming can be so absorbing it makes you go to bed later – something to consider before picking up a new hobby.

Another form of role-playing is theatre and drama. In my previous work, I found that acting students experience significantly more flow than psychology students when they imagine scenarios as fictional people (like Romeo and Juliet), but not when imagining scenarios as oneself or one’s best friend. This reflects the effects of developing a practised skill. And, staying in a flow state while acting might ultimately culminate in a high-level performance.

Committing to a hobby and finding your flow might not only help you reduce outside noise (work or social media distractions), but also your own internal noise, such as mind wandering or rumination. Becoming fully absorbed in an activity is rare in the world of distractions, but can pay off for your brain.

The Conversation

Valerie van Mulukom 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. Feeling distracted? How hobbies can help you find ‘flow state’ and save your brain – https://theconversation.com/feeling-distracted-how-hobbies-can-help-you-find-flow-state-and-save-your-brain-278738

What declining vaccination rates mean for your family – and what you can do

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Kar-Hai Chu, Associate Professor of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh

Unvaccinated individuals face 140 times higher risk of contracting measles. Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post via Getty Images

As the risk of measles remains an ongoing concern, herd immunity in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is already slipping. According to data obtained via The Washington Post in January 2026, 1 in 3 Allegheny County kindergartners were in a classroom too far below adequate vaccination coverage to stop a measles outbreak during the 2023-24 school year.

A professor from the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Public Health, Kar-Hai Chu, and a research program supervisor, Maggie Slavin, answered our questions about declining measles, mumps and rubella vaccination rates and what it means for the future of public health.

Private and parochial/religious schools in Allegheny County fall below the herd immunity threshold, while public schools tend not to. What explains that gap, and should it concern us?

Research shows the disparity between vaccination coverage in private and parochial/religious versus public schools is that private and parochial/religious schools tend to have higher rates of exemptions to vaccinations for moral and religious beliefs.

Local vaccination rates in Allegheny County schools are declining and are below the necessary level of vaccination coverage to stop the spread of measles: 95%. Between the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years, public schools displayed an overall decline in coverage, whereas private and parochial/religious increased coverage between the two years, yet have greater variation in coverage across schools. Regardless of school type, children should have complete and updated vaccinations to protect themselves and the community. Even small dips in vaccination rates can lead to the spread of disease.

What are combination vaccines and how long have they been used?

Combination vaccines are single injections that protect against multiple, preventable diseases and have been used since the 1940s. They represent one of public health’s most successful interventions. Common examples include DTaP – for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis – and MMR, for measles, mumps and rubella. The MMR vaccine has been licensed since 1971 and helped eliminate measles from the U.S. by 2000. It reduced cases by 80% within a decade of its introduction to society.

Why are some government officials calling to split these vaccines?

The U.S. officials calling to split combination vaccines cite unsubstantiated claims linking them to autism and concerns about too many vaccinations administered at once.

These claims contradict decades of scientific evidence that demonstrates the safety and efficacy of combination vaccines.

A panel of adults sit around a long table drenched in a blue tablecloth.
In June 2025, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dismissed all members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
Elijah Nouvelage/Stringer Collection via Getty News Images

Who determines vaccination recommendations in the US?

Since 1964, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has provided evidence-based vaccination recommendations. The committee consists of volunteer medical and public health experts appointed by the secretary of Health and Human Services for staggered, four-year terms. These experts review scientific evidence throughout the year and update recommendations accordingly. States maintain authority to implement these recommendations as they see fit. Vaccination recommendations have been politicized under the current administration and are currently in a sort of limbo.

In June 2025, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has a history of promoting anti-vaccination dissinformation, took the unprecedented step of firing all 17 committee members and appointing 12 new members with questionable qualifications and conflicts of interest. This could be considered a fundamental disruption to the evidence-based process that has protected public health for over 60 years.

The Pennsylvania Department of Health and Gov. Josh Shapiro have stated that they continue to endorse evidence-based vaccination guidelines from leading national medical associations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

What are the real-world consequences of vaccine misinformation and disinformation?

An example consequence is now visible: Measles is spreading again in the U.S. In 2025, there were 2,255 confirmed cases, which is nearly double the 2019 peak of 1,274 cases.

While there haven’t been any confirmed cases of measles in Allegheny County in 2026, there were confirmed measles cases in Lancaster County on Feb. 3, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Health, which determined the individuals were not vaccinated.

Another visible consequence of vaccination misinformation and disinformation is that unvaccinated people face 140 times higher risk of contracting measles. Over 90% of 2025 cases in the U.S. occurred in people who were unvaccinated or had unknown vaccine status.

Signs point toward measles testing near an emergency department.
The MMR vaccine was licensed in 1971 and helped eliminate measles from the U.S. by 2000.
Jan Sonnenmair/Stringer Collection via Getty News Images

When government officials become sources of misinformation, the threat multiplies exponentially. The World Health Organization identifies vaccine hesitancy as one of the biggest threats to global health.

What can be done to protect evidence-based vaccination policy?

The American Academy of Pediatrics emphasizes that state-level policies may offer greater responsiveness to local needs while maintaining evidence-based standards.

Stronger state policies play a key role in ensuring vaccine access. In Louisiana, for example, framing vaccination as a way to keep your neighbors safe has been used as an effective way to appeal to local communities. In South Dakota, advocates are reaching business owners by emphasizing the economic benefits of immunization. The state of Oregon created a financing model that allows providers and clinics to access vaccines with no upfront costs, then they reimburse the state once they have been paid by insurers.

People can support organizations that prioritize scientific evidence over anecdotes, demand transparency in policymaking and understand the difference between legitimate scientific debate and coordinated misinformation. These are crucial steps in protecting vaccine policies. The 2026 American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines have been deemed trustworthy by 12 health care organizations that represent over a million pediatric medical professionals.

The Conversation

Kar-Hai Chu receives funding from the NIH.

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

ref. What declining vaccination rates mean for your family – and what you can do – https://theconversation.com/what-declining-vaccination-rates-mean-for-your-family-and-what-you-can-do-277469

Doctors can refuse to treat LGBTQ+ patients in several states – these religious exemption laws lead to drops in HIV testing

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Nathaniel M. Tran, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Administration, University of Illinois Chicago

Inclusive health care settings are essential to the well-being of LGBTQ+ patients. AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack

An increasing number of U.S. states have passed laws that allow health care providers – including doctors, nurses and pharmacists – to refuse to treat patients based on their personal or religious beliefs. While these conscientious objection laws have long existed for issues such as abortion, their effects on LGBTQ+ people have not been well studied.

As of April 2026, 11 U.S. states have enacted conscientious objection laws specifically targeting LGBTQ+ people. As public health researchers who study the effects of public policies on the health of LGBTQ+ people, we wanted to examine how these laws have affected the roughly 1 in 5 LGBTQ+ Americans living in a state where a provider can legally refuse them care.

Specifically looking at sexual minorities, our research found that lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer adults living in states that passed conscientious objection laws were 28% less likely to report receiving a first-time HIV test, compared to peers in states without conscientious objection laws. These laws did not affect HIV testing rates for heterosexual adults.

Sign on wall listing New York's 'LGBTQ HEALTH CARE BILL OF RIGHTS'
Fear of discrimination can lead LGBTQ+ people to forgo essential health care.
Lindsey Nicholson/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Similarly, LGBQ+ adults in affected states were 71% more likely to report being in fair or poor health after the laws passed, compared to those in states without the laws.

Measuring the harm

We analyzed data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the health outcomes of more than 109,000 lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer and heterosexual adults from 2016 to 2018. We focused on eight states, comparing two that enacted conscientious objection laws during that period (Illinois and Mississippi) and six that did not (Louisiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin and Virginia).

To isolate the effect of the laws themselves, we compared changes in health outcomes among LGBQ+ and heterosexual adults living in states with or without religious exemptions to health care, both before and after the laws passed. Making all these comparisons at once allowed us to identify differences in health outcomes due to the laws rather than preexisting differences between states.

We found that conscientious objection laws were associated with significant harms to LGBQ+ adults, including a decline in HIV testing and a worsening of self-rated health.

Our findings highlight how laws permitting clinicians to refuse to provide health care to LGBQ+ patients deepen existing health disparities. Notably, conscientious objection laws are just one type of policy restricting LGBTQ+ people’s access to health care.

The Trump administration has slashed budgets for the federal Ryan White HIV/AIDS program and state-level AIDS drugs assistance programs, reducing the availability of HIV prevention and treatment services. States have also moved to restrict access to gender-affirming care for both minors and adults, despite its additional benefit of helping to reduce new HIV infections. Employers have successfully declined to provide insurance coverage of highly effective HIV prevention medications under religious freedom laws.

Marchers holding sign reading 'HEALTHCARE for EVERY BODY!' in rainbow coloring
Laws that pose LGBTQ+ rights as a matter of health equality may garner more support than economic or social equality.
Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images

Worsening disparities

LGBTQ+ people already face greater health challenges than their heterosexual peers, including higher rates of unmet health care needs and discrimination in medical settings.

HIV preexposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, can lower the risk of contracting HIV from sex by 99%. However, patients are required to receive an HIV test before PrEP can be prescribed. If providers are unwilling or unable to engage with LGBQ+ patients on their sexual health, people who could benefit most from HIV prevention tools, such as PrEP, may never receive them.

Moreover, since the risk of contracting HIV is closely linked to the social determinants of health, such as having safe and stable housing and employment, barriers to HIV testing could further widen health gaps.

Similarly, the worsening in self-rated health among LGBQ+ adults suggests that the cumulative effect of these laws on well-being is real and immediate. A person’s perception of their own health status is one of the strongest predictors of earlier death.

What can be done

Acknowledging the health consequences of conscientious objection laws could help policymakers and the public better understand their impact.

A 2026 national study found that Americans were more motivated to support policies that address LGBTQ+ inequality when these laws were framed as improving health inequality rather than economic inequality or sense of belonging. This finding suggests that people perceive health inequality as unjust and are less likely to blame LGBTQ+ individuals for those circumstances.

Health care systems can build more affirming environments that actively reassure LGBTQ+ patients will receive fair and equitable care. This can encourage more timely access to preventive services, such as vaccinations and cancer screenings.

For LGBTQ+ people, knowing your rights as a patient and seeking out LGBTQ+-affirming providers and community health centers can help mitigate some of the harms of restrictive laws.

The Conversation

Nathaniel M. Tran received funding from the National Institute on Aging. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health

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

ref. Doctors can refuse to treat LGBTQ+ patients in several states – these religious exemption laws lead to drops in HIV testing – https://theconversation.com/doctors-can-refuse-to-treat-lgbtq-patients-in-several-states-these-religious-exemption-laws-lead-to-drops-in-hiv-testing-277828

Tobacco is still one of the world’s top killers – here are the key obstacles to enacting generational smoking bans

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Marie Helweg-Larsen, Professor of Psychology, Dickinson College

Cigarette display at a 7-Eleven convenience store in Miami, Fla., in July 2025. Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Smoking is really bad for you. Most people know that. Even smokers think smoking is bad for one’s health. But most people don’t know just how bad it is.

More people in the United States die every year from smoking than from alcohol, illegal drug use, car accidents, suicides and murders combined. Cigarette smoking costs an estimated US$240 billion annually in health care costs, which harm not only smokers but also nonsmokers, communities and the economy. Smoking is the top preventable cause of death and disease in the U.S. and worldwide.

The number of smokers in the U.S. has declined from 41% in 1944 to 11% in 2024. However, over 25 million Americans still smoke.

This drop is partly the result of many smoking laws enacted in the past 50 years. They include national bans on cigarette advertising on television and radio (1971), smoking on commercial flights (2000), sale of fruit- or candy-flavored cigarettes (2009), and sale of cigarettes to people ages 18 to 20 (2019). New policies might seem as strange or unfamiliar as these measures did at the time.

One potentially transformative idea – creating a tobacco-free generation – would build on these past laws. It would phase out smoking by banning it permanently for anyone born after a specific date. For example, a law could make it illegal for anyone under 21 to ever buy cigarettes, whereas people age 21 or older at the time would not be affected. The focus would be on tobacco sales, which already require age verification in the U.S., not on criminalizing tobacco use.

As a psychological scientist, I have studied for decades how people think about smoking. In my view, the key obstacle to creating future generations of nonsmokers is that people do not fully understand how dangerous smoking is and do not realize the formidable influence of the tobacco industry.

Creating a tobacco-free generation

The idea of creating a tobacco-free generation was first proposed by health researchers in 2010. In 2021 the town of Brookline, Massachusetts, became the first U.S. community to adopt it. Brookline’s ordinance prohibits tobacco and vape sales to anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2000. It has survived a legal challenge and has been emulated in 22 more Massachusetts towns.

As of early 2026, Hawaii and Massachusetts are considering statewide tobacco-free generation bills. Abroad, the Maldives enacted the first countrywide ban in 2025.

Similar proposals have faced pushback elsewhere. In New Zealand, a ban was adopted in 2022 but repealed in 2024. The United Kingdom is considering a similar bill after an earlier version was scrapped due to a snap election.

Why people underestimate harm from cigarettes

It is hard to visualize what exactly it means that 480,000 people in the U.S. die from smoking every year or that each cigarette that you smoke shortens your life by 20 minutes. It is also easy to feel optimistically biased about one’s personal risk as a smoker and believe that others are more likely to become addicted or die prematurely.

Studies show that nonsmokers, former smokers and current smokers underestimate smoking risks. One likely reason is messaging by the tobacco industry, which claimed for decades that cigarettes were safe, even though tobacco industry scientists knew as early as 1953 that smoking caused lung cancer.

Another factor is glamorization of cigarettes in movies. Fully half of the top films released in 2024 showed tobacco imagery, typically of cigarettes. Research shows that adolescents and young adults who watch smoking in movies are more interested in taking up smoking.

Finally, smoking deaths may seem to be unremarkable because some of the illnesses that cigarette smoking causes, such as heart disease or cancer, are commonplace. And unlike deaths from drug overdoses, we do not always see the consequences of a lifetime of smoking.

Smoking imagery is widespread in popular culture and may be one driver of tobacco use, especially among young Americans.

What about freedom of choice?

A common argument against laws that regulate personal choices, such as whether to smoke or wear seat belts, is that people prize their autonomy and don’t like governments telling them how to live. This isn’t a new challenge for public health policies, which often restrict private citizens’ freedom to do as they wish.

People can be persuaded that community action should trump individual choice if a behavior, such as smoking cigarettes or driving while drunk, harms others who don’t engage in it. Many public health laws are designed to protect people who are innocent or vulnerable. For example, current smoking laws have been enacted in part to protect nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke, especially children. And smoking increases health care costs for everyone, not just smokers.

By preventing people in the U.S. who cannot legally buy cigarettes now from ever doing so, generational smoking bans balance the rights of current adult smokers against the major public health benefits of a phased smoking ban that will eventually end the smoking epidemic.

Arguments against generational smoking laws

The tobacco industry’s attempts to undermine tobacco health policies are well documented and follow a predictable pattern. For example, when the U.K. government considered a generational smoking policy in 2023, tobacco companies and their supporters argued that smoking was a minor problem, that individuals should be responsible for their own choices, and that a nationwide ban would lead to illegal behavior or hurt business profits.

In a 2025 study assessing how Belgian politicians viewed generational smoking bans, researchers heard similar arguments. Respondents across the political spectrum valued personal freedom and informed individual choice more highly than protecting children. The politicians also believed that young people could understand how smoking affected their health, and that raising awareness was more important than bans. These arguments aligned with tobacco industry positions.

However, research shows that young people hold many optimistic beliefs about smoking, especially with respect to the addictiveness of nicotine and the likelihood that they will avoid becoming lifelong smokers. Studies have also found that adolescents don’t know enough to make an informed choice to smoke. These findings matter because the tobacco industry routinely targets young people in an effort to create lifelong smokers.

The tobacco industry’s harm reduction approach frames e-cigarettes, also known as vapes, as a way to create a smoke-free future by transitioning smokers to other nicotine products. But research shows that the tobacco industry actively markets nicotine products such as vapes to young people to create a new generation of nicotine users.

Not a silver bullet

Curbing the use of an addictive product is challenging, and there are ways for young people to obtain cigarettes illegally, as they do now in places where cigarette buyers must be at least 21. Tactics include shopping at stores that don’t check IDs, having older friends buy cigarettes and purchasing cigarettes illegally online.

Tobacco-free generation policies aren’t a silver bullet. They work most effectively in conjunction with other measures, such as plain packaging; high prices; bans on displays, advertising and flavored products; smoking cessation support; and public health messages making clear that cigarettes are unsafe at any age.

Still, health experts and groups including the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology argue that creating a tobacco-free generation could dramatically reduce preventable deaths and secure a healthier future for today’s children and future generations. In my view, understanding the obstacles to change is a critical step toward achieving this goal.

The Conversation

Marie Helweg-Larsen has received funding from the National Institutes of Health.

ref. Tobacco is still one of the world’s top killers – here are the key obstacles to enacting generational smoking bans – https://theconversation.com/tobacco-is-still-one-of-the-worlds-top-killers-here-are-the-key-obstacles-to-enacting-generational-smoking-bans-278018