Johansen.se

The website for the United States Agency for International Development (USAid), the world’s biggest aid donor, has gone dark.

Donald Trump’s new administration plans to place the autonomous agency under the control of the state department. The secretary of state, Marco Rubio, has now declared himself as head of the agency to “align” it with Trump’s priorities.

Several days ago, on January 26, Rubio said: “Every dollar we spend, every programme we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”

But the decision to freeze USAid, which is part of Trump’s policy to put “America first”, places everyone at risk. Organisations that provide vital care for vulnerable people around the world are being forced to halt operations. The boss of one such organisation said: “People will die.”

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a close adviser to Trump, is playing an active role in the destruction of USAid. He has claimed – without providing any evidence – that the agency is “beyond repair”. “It needs to die,” Musk wrote on X.

Musk, who leads the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), is gearing to cut trillions of dollars from the US budget. However, by seeing cuts to USAid as a solution, Trump and Musk are catering to an audience that has a fundamental misunderstanding about US foreign aid more generally.

Surveys demonstrate that Americans believe 25% of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid. In reality, the US gives about 0.2% of its gross national product (GNP), the total value of goods and services produced by a country, to foreign aid – or less than 1% of its federal budget. This is far below the UN target of 0.7% of GNP.

But, despite this, USAid provided 42% of all humanitarian aid globally in 2024. This included about US$72 billion (£58 billion) in aid in a wide range of areas, from helping people access clean water, sanitation, healthcare and energy, to providing disaster relief, shelter and food.

USAid also delivered programmes aimed at supporting democracy, civil society, economic development and landmine clearance in war zones, as well as working to prevent organised crime, terrorism and conflict. The gutting of USAid will have a profound impact on human security.

A protester holds a placard outside the USAid headquarters on February 3.
Will Oliver / EPA

The Trump administration has granted a waiver for the continuation of “life-saving humanitarian assistance”. This includes a programme that helps 20 million people living with HIV/Aids access anti-retroviral drugs. But there are questions about the future of US Aids organisation, the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar).

To date, over 43 million people worldwide have died from Aids. But one of the biggest success stories of the George W. Bush administration was its launch of Pepfar in 2003. The World Health Organization says that Pepfar, working in partnership with USAid, has saved 26 million lives.

Pepfar employs more than 250,000 doctors, nurses and other staff across 55 countries. One of the functions that USAid performs is ordering and procuring the drugs used by Pepfar to keep the millions infected with HIV alive. It remains to be seen whether federal payments to USAid’s locally run partner organisations will be stopped.

We are, in any case, likely to see an uptick in other infectious diseases. USAid had been working to prevent current outbreaks of mpox and Marburg virus from spreading beyond Africa. It is not clear what the future is for these programmes.

And USAid’s work with malaria, a disease that kills about 450,000 children under the age of five each year, is facing uncertainty. From 2000 to 2021, USAid’s work helped to prevent 7.6 million deaths from malaria. Also in doubt is USAid’s work to develop and implement the malaria vaccine, which was considered a gamechanger for combating the disease.

At the same time, USAid responds to an average of 65 natural disasters each year. In 2024 alone, it responded to 84 separate crises across 66 different countries. The government is letting go all of the staff important for implementing these types of programmes.

Dozens of senior USAid officials have been placed on leave, while contractors working on the agency’s programmes have been furloughed. Up to 3,000 aid workers in Washington DC could reportedly be laid off this week.

What Trump’s team misunderstand is that the work of USAid is also vital for preserving American interests. China, which has poured more than US$1 trillion of assistance into infrastructure projects in Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America since 2013, will now be given an opportunity to exert more influence around the world. The void in US aid is a gift for China in the battle for soft power.

White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, lists some of what she calls the ‘insane priorities’ that USAid has been spending money on.

Global aid sector in disarray

Foreign aid relies on certainty and transparency about the future of aid programmes. But the Trump administration has offered little clarity while US foreign aid programmes are all being reviewed. One aid organisation referred to the situation as an “absolute dumpster fire” due to the uncertainty.

There have already been reports of total confusion in health clinics previously supported by USAid, which were shut down without warning. Africa will probably be the region most negatively affected. Local workers in healthcare-related projects on the continent will lose their jobs, while nurses, doctors and healthcare workers across clinics will be unable to continue their vital work.

The Democrats have claimed that Trump does not have the legal authority to eradicate a congressionally funded independent agency. They have said court challenges are already in motion and have pledged to try to block approval of Trump’s state department nominations until the shutdown is reversed.

Trump did try to cut US foreign aid during his first term, but Congress refused. He then tried – and ultimately failed – to freeze the flow of aid appropriated by Congress. This time, Trump is not bothering to play by the rules. Läs mer…

Toxic substances used in flea and tick treatments pet owners give to their dogs and cats have been detected in birds’ nests, according to new UK research.

Fipronil and imidacloprid, two common insecticides distributed by vets in pipettes to kill or stunt fleas, were previously found in nearly all English rivers. These chemicals are known to harm aquatic insects, which has repercussions for the species that eat them. Birds are also known to ingest these insecticides in their food and water.

Our study now raises the risk of direct skin contact, as veterinary drugs were the most common insecticides colleagues and I found in bird nests. How do they get there – and what are they doing?

Many birds, including garden visitors such as blue tits and great tits, nest in tree hollows and nest boxes. To keep their eggs and chicks warm, these birds line their nests with soft materials such as fur. In fact, around 74% of European bird species use fur as nest insulation.

Across the UK, pet owners and wildlife enthusiasts leave brushed pet fur outside for birds to collect. But with around 80% of the country’s 22 million cats and dogs receiving regular flea and tick treatments, this well-meaning act can inadvertently expose birds to harm.

A previous study in the Netherlands found that insecticides used in flea treatment were appearing in birds’ nests. The study I led with colleagues is the first to identify the problem in the UK.

Banned on farms, used in homes

We examined 103 nests of blue tits and great tits and found the residue of 17 out of 20 insecticides commonly used as flea treatments in the UK. The most prevalent were fipronil, which we found in every single nest, imidacloprid and permethrin, which were both detected in 89% of nests.

All three of these chemicals are banned for use as pest control on EU farms due to their harmful effects on wildlife. Studies have shown that these insecticides can damage the nervous and reproductive systems of birds, and threaten their overall health. Yet they remain widely used in veterinary medicine.

We collected nests months after the breeding season, and so the concentrations of chemicals we found are likely to be lower than what was present in the nests during spring, when birds gather material for nests. This suggests that eggs and chicks were exposed during the whole breeding season.

The nests we found with higher concentrations of insecticides contained more unhatched eggs and dead chicks. Other factors could explain these deaths, such as predation. But the known dangers of these chemicals should make us question their wider impact on the environment. While more research is needed to fully understand their risks, the evidence already suggests that exposure could be harming nestlings, which are at a critical stage of development.

Flea and tick treatments either kill insects or halt their development.
Nick Alias/Shutterstock

Scientists and conservation groups are urging the UK government to conduct a more thorough environmental risk assessment of veterinary treatments, particularly those used on dogs and cats.

Public awareness will also be key to addressing the problem. Many pet owners do not know that their routine flea treatments affect wildlife. Small changes could help reduce this impact. For example, year-round flea treatment is not necessary, particularly in winter when fleas and ticks are less active.

If treatment is required then tablets could be a better choice as they do not involve direct skin contact for birds and would not wash away every time a pet swims or is bathed either. They may be excreted in faeces and contaminate the soil, however – that’s why a thorough environmental risk assessment is necessary.

Pet owners who enjoy helping birds can still leave out fur as nesting material, perhaps by saving the brushed fur from untreated pets during winter and putting it out the following spring.

As awareness of this issue grows, pet owners, scientists and policymakers can ensure that veterinary treatments do not come at the cost of the UK’s wildlife.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far. Läs mer…

China’s new DeepSeek Large Language Model (LLM) has disrupted the US-dominated market, offering a relatively high-performance chatbot model at significantly lower cost.

The reduced cost of development and lower subscription prices compared with US AI tools contributed to American chip maker Nvidia losing US$600 billion (£480 billion) in market value over one day. Nvidia makes the computer chips used to train the majority of LLMs, the underlying technology used in ChatGPT and other AI chatbots. DeepSeek uses cheaper Nvidia H800 chips over the more expensive state-of-the-art versions.

ChatGPT developer OpenAI reportedly spent somewhere between US$100 million and US$1 billion on the development of a very recent version of its product called o1. In contrast, DeepSeek accomplished its training in just two months at a cost of US$5.6 million using a series of clever innovations.

But just how well does DeepSeek’s AI chatbot, R1, compare with other, similar AI tools on performance?

DeepSeek claims its models perform comparably to OpenAI’s offerings, even exceeding the o1 model in certain benchmark tests. However, benchmarks that use Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) tests evaluate knowledge across multiple subjects using multiple choice questions. Many LLMs are trained and optimised for such tests, making them unreliable as true indicators of real-world performance.

An alternative methodology for the objective evaluation of LLMs uses a set of tests developed by researchers at Cardiff Metropolitan, Bristol and Cardiff universities – known collectively as the Knowledge Observation Group (KOG). These tests probe LLMs’ ability to mimic human language and knowledge through questions that require implicit human understanding to answer. The core tests are kept secret, to avoid LLM companies training their models for these tests.

KOG deployed public tests inspired by work by Colin Fraser, a data scientist at Meta, to evaluate DeepSeek against other LLMs. The following results were observed:

LLM Performance test.

The tests used to produce this table are “adversarial” in nature. In other words, they are designed to be “hard” and to test LLMs in way that are not sympathetic to how they are designed. This means the performance of these models in this test is likely to be different to their performance in mainstream benchmarking tests.

DeepSeek scored 5.5 out of 6, outperforming OpenAI’s o1 – its advanced reasoning (known as “chain-of-thought”) model – as well as ChatGPT-4o, the free version of ChatGPT. But Deepseek was marginally outperformed by Anthropic’s ClaudeAI and OpenAI’s o1 mini, both of which scored a perfect 6/6. It’s interesting that o1 underperformed against its “smaller” counterpart, o1 mini.

DeepThink R1 – a chain-of-thought AI tool made by DeepSeek – underperformed in comparison to DeepSeek with a score of 3.5.

This result shows how competitive DeepSeek’s chatbot already is, beating OpenAI’s flagship models. It is likely to spur further development for DeepSeek, which now has a strong foundation to build upon. However, the Chinese tech company does have one serious problem the other LLMs do not: censorship.

Censorship challenges

Despite its strong performance and popularity, DeepSeek has faced criticism over its responses to politically sensitive topics in China. For instance, prompts related to Tiananmen Square, Taiwan, Uyghur Muslims and democratic movements are met with the response: “Sorry, that is beyond my current scope.”

But this issue is not necessarily unique to DeepSeek, and the potential for political influence and censorship in LLMs more generally is a growing concern. The announcement of Donald Trump’s US$500 billion Stargate LLM project, involving OpenAI, Nvidia, Oracle, Microsoft, and Arm, also raises fears of political influence.

Additionally, Meta’s recent decision to abandon fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram suggests an increasing trend toward populism over truthfulness.

DeepSeek’s arrival has caused serious disruption to the LLM market. US companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic will be forced to innovate their products to maintain relevance and match its performance and cost.

DeepSeek’s success is already challenging the status quo, demonstrating that high-performance LLM models can be developed without billion-dollar budgets. It also highlights the risks of LLM censorship, the spread of misinformation, and why independent evaluations matter.

As LLMs become more deeply embedded in global politics and business, transparency and accountability will be essential to ensure that the future of LLMs is safe, useful and trustworthy. Läs mer…

In 2018, a colleague and I, together with a team of Greenlandic research assistants, conducted one of the most comprehensive surveys to date on public opinion in Greenland. We travelled to 13 randomly selected towns and settlements across the island nation, conducting in-person interviews with a representative sample of adult residents.

The survey explored a wide range of topics. We asked for views on climate change, economic matters – and the prospect of independence from Denmark. Until recently, this was the latest poll on what the people of Greenland thought about this issue.

Greenland, a former Danish colony, is currently an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. This political arrangement grants Greenland extensive self-rule, including control over most domestic affairs, as well as its own prime minister and parliament. However, Denmark retains authority over foreign policy, defence and monetary policy.

While our survey results were covered in Greenlandic and Danish media upon their release, they received scant international attention. This changed abruptly on January 15, when newly re-elected US president Donald Trump reposted an old news article about our results. The headline stated that two-thirds of Greenlandic citizens support independence.

Trump posting the 2018 poll in 2025.
Truth Social

Trump did not add a comment in the post but the insinuation was clear given his recent statements about annexing Greenland from Denmark: Greenlandic residents want independence from Denmark, and therefore, they might be open to other political or economic arrangements with the US.

“I think we’re going to have it,” Trump recently said after a phone call with the Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, who told him the land was “not for sale”. Trump has in the past spoken of somehow “purchasing” Greenland but has since moved on towards speaking in more assertive terms about taking control of the territory.

Back in 2018, when we conducted the survey, Trump had not yet revealed any plans to annex the island nation. It was a scenario we could hardly even have imagined and therefore did not ask our participants about. As such, regardless of how Trump framed them, the survey results in no way indicated that the population harboured a desire to join the US.

In fact, a recent survey conducted by Sermitsiaq (a Greenlandic newspaper) and Berlingske (a Danish newspaper) directly addressed this question and found that only 6% of respondents wanted Greenland to leave Denmark and instead become part of the US.

In the study I published based on the 2018 data collection, I reported that a majority of the Greenlandic population aspired to independence. Two-thirds of the participants thought that “Greenland should become an independent country at some point in the future”.

Opinions were more divergent regarding the timing of independence. When asked how they would vote in an independence referendum if it were held today, respondents who stated a preference were evenly split between “yes” and “no” to independence.

‘I think we’re going to have it’.
EPA

The Act on Greenland Self-Government, passed in 2009, grants the Greenlandic government the legal authority to unilaterally call a referendum on separating from the political union with Denmark. According to the law, “the decision regarding Greenland’s independence shall be taken by the people of Greenland”.

During the 15 years since its passage, the option to call a referendum has not been exercised. This is likely due to the potential economic consequences of leaving the union with Denmark.

Each year, Denmark sends a block grant that covers approximately half of Greenland’s budget. This supports a welfare system that is more extensive than what is available to most Americans. In addition, Denmark administers many costly public services, including national defence.

This backdrop presents a dilemma for many Greenlanders who aspire to independence, as they weigh welfare concerns against political sovereignty. This was also evident from my study, which revealed that economic considerations influence independence preferences.

For many Greenlanders, the island nation’s rich natural resources present a potential bridge between economic self-sufficiency and full sovereignty. Foreign investments and the associated tax revenues from resource extraction are seen as key to reducing economic dependence on Denmark. Presumably, these natural resources, which include rare earths and other strategic minerals, also help explain Trump’s interest in Greenland.

As Greenland’s future is likely to remain at the centre of a geopolitical power struggle for some time, it is crucial to remember that only Greenlanders have the right to determine their own path. What scarce information is available on their views suggests that while many aspire to independence, it is not driven by a desire to join the US. Läs mer…

The new Channel 4 programme Go Back to Where You Came From is unsettling viewing, almost unbearable at times. It takes six British citizens – some staunchly anti-immigration, others more open – and drops them into lives shaped by conflict and displacement.

The premise is to cultivate understanding of the refugee experience, to make the unimaginable tangible. But in doing so, the show risks turning forced displacement into spectacle, reducing suffering to an immersive learning experience for those with the privilege of ignorance.

The show opens with participants offering their views – filmed in their homes or standing at the cliffs of Dover, where one man declares: “What I’d do is, I’d set landmines up, and then any boat that comes within 50m of this beach, they’d get blown up.”

Then, two teams, two journeys. One is sent to Somalia, the other to Syria.

In Mogadishu, Nathan, Jess and Matilda navigate a city carved up by checkpoints, escorted by an American security team. Nathan surveys the streets like a man assessing a lost cause: a “shithole”, he mutters. Jess, fiercely anti-immigration, feels exposed – her fear magnified by the weight of unfamiliar eyes, the choreography of a life not her own. She wants to leave.

At a camp for internally displaced people, women speak of gender-based violence, of female genital mutilation, of lives spent in spaces never built for them. Jess listens, nods and files their words neatly into the folder of convictions she brought with her. She does not question; she confirms. The mindsets of Somalian men, she concludes, are the problem.

In Raqqa, Bushra, Chloe and Dave pick their way through streets reduced to rubble. Chloe complains about the rubbish, as if it were neglect rather than obliteration. “They should stay and clean it up,” she says. The children sifting through debris do not register. In a bombed-out home, a father speaks of safety, the only thing he wants for his children. The children do not speak.

The violence of ‘refuge’

Watching the show, I thought of the conversations I’ve had with asylum seekers and refugees on the island of Ireland as part of my research. Many speak of the quiet violence of exclusion – how “welcome” is so often a hollow gesture, how refuge can feel like another form of exile.

Many recount racial hatred in the streets, the fear woven into daily movements, the gnawing sense that they are barely tolerated, not wanted. Some have told me, with devastating clarity, that had they known what awaited them here – homelessness, suspicion, a life in bureaucratic limbo – they might never have fled at all. Not because home was safe, but because this isn’t living either.

These experiences are not anomalies. They are built into the asylum systems in the UK and Ireland, where deterrence is policy. As of mid-2024, 122.6 million people have been forcibly displaced worldwide, yet the UK hosts just 1% of them.

And “hosting” often takes the form of offshore detention, indefinite waiting and policies designed to make seeking refuge as inhospitable as possible. In Ireland, the failure is just as insidious: asylum seekers sleeping rough, vulnerability assessments in name only, the quiet withdrawal of care until people simply disappear from view.

Read more:
’When you get status the struggle doesn’t end’: what it’s like to be a new refugee in the UK

After the first episode of the Channel 4 show, I am left wondering: what is the point of each participant’s journey? The documentary trades in empathy – tracking transformation by how much the participants feel, learn and change. But empathy, when it stops at the self, is just another performance. It asks: how have I been altered? Instead of: what must I do with what I now know?

This is the trap of a genre that packages suffering into something neatly consumable. As film researcher Pooja Rangan argues, humanitarian documentaries often render asylum seekers passive, their worth measured by how much sympathy they can elicit. Go Back to Where You Came From follows this script, focusing not on the agency of the displaced, but on the moral awakenings of those who continue to look away.

The real question is not whether the participants feel something, but whether feeling will ever translate into action – by them, or by us as viewers. To hold governments to account. To insist that refuge is a right, not a privilege. To refuse the quiet, grinding violence of neglect.

“Go back to where you came from” is a phrase hurled not just at refugees, but at anyone deemed out of place. The programme inverts it, sending its wielders on a reckoning. But in the end, they return. To safety, to comfort, to homes untouched by war or exile. Or, as one put it, back to the pub.

And yet, for those seeking refuge, the journey drags on – through border camps, detention centres, doorways, the freezing cold and the bureaucracy of the asylum system – while the world watches, then turns off their televisions. Läs mer…

Generative AI is often seen as the epitome of our times, and sometimes even as futuristic. We can use it to invent new art or technology, analyse emerging data, or simulate people, places and things. But interestingly, it is also having an impact on how we view the past.

AI imagery has already been used to illustrate popular articles, such as covering scientific discoveries about Neanderthals. It was employed to animate the Mesolithic period (from about 9,000 to 4,300 years ago) in a museum. TikTok users have adopted it to make realistic short videos about archaeology and history. It’s even been used in a TV documentary about Stonehenge.

AI-generated image.
Canva

Yet there are many issues with using AI imagery in archaeology – some of which are also found more broadly within generative AI use. These include its environmental impact and the violation of intellectual property (using training data created by humans).

But others are more specific to archaeology. As an academic who has worked extensively on “resurrecting” the past through digital technology, generative AI has both fascinating potential and enormous risk for archaeological misrepresentation.

Even before the use of AI, it was widely accepted within archaeology that visualisations of the past are highly fraught and should be treated with extreme caution. For example, archaeologist Stephanie Moser examined 550 reconstructions published in academic and popular texts on human evolution. Her review found highly biased depictions, such as only males hunting, making art and tools and performing rituals, while women were in more passive roles.

A similar study by Diane Gifford-Gonzalez revealed that “not one of 231 depictions of prehistoric males shows a man touching a child, woman, or an older person of either sex … no child is ever shown doing useful work.” These reconstructions do not reflect scientists’ nuanced understanding of the past. We know humans organised themselves in an incredible array of variety, with a multitude of gender roles and self-expression.

A recent DNA-based study, for example, showed that women were actually at the centre of societies in the iron age.

The stakes of representation in archaeology are high. For example, the hotly-debated, dark-skinned reconstruction of “Cheddar Man”, originally found in south-west England, was based on ancient DNA analysis. It made headlines for disrupting the perception that all human ancestors in the north were light-skinned.

Reconstructed head of the Cheddar Man based on the shape of his skull and DNA analysis, shown at the Natural History Museum in London.
wikipedia, CC BY-SA

This and similar controversies reveal the iconic power of reconstructions, their political implications, and their ability to shape our understanding of the past.

While the Cheddar Man reconstruction demonstrates that research is iterative, such reconstructions are sticky. They have profound visual legacies and are not easily supplanted when new data becomes available.

This is exacerbated as they are incorporated into generative AI data sets.
Beyond the use of outmoded data, generative AI visualisations of the past can be extremely poor.

Even when more plausible details are included, they can be seamlessly integrated with other highly inaccurate elements. For example, it is impossible for viewers to disentangle the data-led from the so-called hallucinations (mistakes) produced by AI.

Highlighting uncertainty is of central importance and concern among archaeologists. Archaeological illustrator Simon James noted that reconstruction artists have used strategically placed clouds of smoke to obscure unknown elements.

As a digital archaeologist, I have made virtual reconstructions of many different sites and subjects. I know there is often estimation and guesswork involved in making holistic representations.

Indeed, photo-realistic accuracy is not always the paramount consideration in visualisation – particularly when exploring different hypotheses or addressing young audiences. But knowing what is backed by archaeological data and what is more speculative is key for authentic visual communication.

Pseudoarchaeology

This is particularly important at a time when pseudoarchaeology is increasingly prevalent in popular media, such as the Ancient Apocalypse show on Netflix. The celebrity host and author Graham Hancock asserts there was a lost ice age civilisation of Atlantis, with advanced technology. But this claim has been thoroughly repudiated by archaeologists.

Arguably, hoaxes will be much easier to perpetuate using generative AI.
Beyond the high potential for misinformation about archaeology, the use of generative AI for archaeological visualisations can actually be harmful for archaeological knowledge production.

My research has shown that crafting reconstructions and illustrations in archaeology is incredibly important for understanding and interpreting the past. Creating visualisations based on science – and indeed soundscapes, smellscapes and other interpretations based on multiple senses – is very helpful for generating new questions.

Drawing allows archaeologists to create more detailed mental models and therefore a better understanding of archaeological remains. By delegating this creation to AI, archaeologists lose a powerful tool for knowledge generation. Moreover, my collaborative work with artists has demonstrated the intriguing possibilities that creative approaches open up to tell new stories about the past.

Even with all of these problems, I encourage an engaged, critical, applied approach to understanding the impact of digital technologies on our investigation of the past. And this includes exploring the uses of generative AI for archaeological visualisation.

Archaeologists and non-specialists are able to leverage generative AI to creatively produce interpretive media. Indeed, some archaeologists are already exploring AI to generate hypotheses about ancient life. And we are teaching critical uses of AI to our archaeology students.

But what remains imperative is that archaeologists engage with and critique all visualisations – both those created by generative AI and using other media. Läs mer…

The more plants you include in your diet, the more health benefits you’ll notice. This is why public health guidelines have long encouraged people to eat at least five servings of fruits and vegetables per day.

But the 30-plants-a-week challenge circulating online suggests that, instead of only aiming to eat five servings a day, we should instead aim to eat 30 different plant foods per week to improve our health. Fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, wholegrains, herbs and spices would all count as a plant serving.

Some advocates of the approach have even created some ground rules and have generated a points system that gives a point to each different type of plant you consume. However, not every plant counts as a full point. For instance, herbs and spices only count as one-quarter of a plant point. Refined plant products, such as fruit juices or processed wholegrains (such as white bread), don’t count at all.

Current NHS dietary recommendations around fruits and vegetables (such as the five-a-day message) place the emphasis on quantity – ensuring people eat enough fruit, vegetables and wholegrains to get all the essential nutrients and fibre their body needs. But, the 30 plants approach shifts the focus to diversity – arguing that eating a wide variety of plant foods provides greater health benefits than eating the recommended amount of only a few select fruits and vegetables.

So does eating 30 plants a week offer any additional health benefits over eating five servings a day?

Exploring the science

The 30 plants a week challenge is based on the American Gut Project – a citizen science study of 10,000 participants from across the US, UK and Australia. The findings suggest that people who eat a greater variety of plant-based foods each week have a more diverse gut microbiome compared to those who eat fewer plants. The gut microbiome refers to the trillions of bacteria, viruses, fungi and microorganisms that live in our digestive tract.

Research shows a more diverse microbiome is associated with a lower risk of chronic disease, better immune function and even improved mental health.

So in simple terms, it looks like the more plant diversity we eat, the more diverse the population of microbes living in our gut are. This leads to better overall health.

But does eating 30 plants really provide a greater number of benefits compared to current public health messages? These recommend we eat at least five portions of fruit and veg daily, choose wholegrain carbohydrates and limit refined sugar, processed meats and foods as much as possible.

Incidentally, research shows that following these recommendations also leads to a more diverse gut microbiome and better health outcomes compared to those who do not meet recommendations.

So, it looks like following either current public health recommendations or the 30 plants diet will improve microbial diversity and have benefits for health. While 30 is a meaningful and realistic target, it’s important to recognise that small, sustainable changes can also have a lasting health impact.

Diet changes

Like any trend, the 30 plants message isn’t without its drawbacks. One major concern is accessibility. Buying 30 different plant foods each week can be expensive – which could exacerbate existing health inequalities.

The 30-plants-a-week challenge has benefits and limitations.
Kulkova Daria/ Shutterstock

There are ways around these limitations, such as buying in bulk and freezing portions, using canned and frozen fruits, veggies, pulses and lentils and meal planning to reduce food waste.

However, these solutions often require extra resources such as storage, cooking space and time – which may not be possible for everyone.

There’s also a risk that the message could oversimplify the complexity of public health guidance – potentially overlooking the importance of individual nutrients and overall dietary balance.

On the other hand, there’s a strong argument that the 30 plants per week challenge is simply the same, old public health advice packaged in a slightly different, more engaging way. As a dietitian, I quite like that.

Current public health messages around food, nutrition and lifestyle are not landing. Despite the evidence for these guidelines, rates of lifestyle-related health problems are increasing. It’s not that these recommendations don’t work – it’s that as a population we struggle to follow them.

The 30-plants-a-week challenge is a positive message that encourages adding more variety – rather than restricting foods. If people are encouraged to eat more plant-based foods, they may naturally displace less nutritious choices – which is a win for health.

If you’re thinking of trying the 30-plants-a-week challenge, here are some easy ways to increase variety in your diet:

Swap your carbs: Swap white bread, rice or pasta for wholegrain bread, rice or pasta. You can also consider alternative wholegrain carbohydrates such as quinoa or wholegrain couscous.

Include nuts and seeds: Easily overlooked, but an effortless way to add diversity. A small handful is a portion.

Add pulses and lentils: Add lentils to a meat dish (such as spaghetti bolognese) for extra protein and more plant points.

Buy tinned and frozen foods: Stock up on frozen berries, mixed vegetables, canned beans and chickpeas to make plant variety easier to achieve and more affordable.

The challenge to eat 30 different plants is an exciting and positive way to potentially encourage nutritious choices. However, we don’t yet fully understand its acceptability or impact on food choices in real-world settings. While the scientific evidence strongly supports the benefits of plant diversity for health, it would be valuable to gather more research on its practical effectiveness before incorporating it into public health messaging. Läs mer…

The first weeks of the Donald Trump’s administration have been marked by a flurry of announcements and U-turns on US trade policy.

One of the first decrees centred on Trump’s favourite word: tariffs. He announced that US consumers and businesses would be taxed an extra 25% when they bought Canadian or Mexican products. (Canadian oil got off more lightly, with a 10% tariff.)

But because this is Donald Trump we’re talking about, it later emerged that none of this was actually happening, for now. It might be next month, or later, or maybe not at all.

However, US residents definitely face an additional 10% on the cost of products from China. There is also a plan for a 100% tax on semiconductors from Taiwan.

And President Trump announced new import taxes will “definitely happen” on products from the European Union. If these do ever come to pass, it’s possible there may be a better deal for the UK.

The reason for the possible Great British exemption from new US import taxes is that the stated goal of these taxes is to reduce the US trade deficit. This deficit refers to the fact that the US buys much more from the rest of the world than the rest of the world buys from it.

And, depending on how we measure the financial flows coming in and out of tax havens such as the British Virgin Islands, the UK is one of the few countries in a position to make the case that it actually has a trade deficit with the US (the UK buys more from the US than the US buys from it).

What about consumers?

Being able to avoid new US tariffs would be very good news for the UK. If the US imposed import taxes on UK products and services, it would be bad for their consumers, who end up paying more. But it would also be bad for UK industry. Moreover, the UK would likely retaliate and tax US products, ultimately hurting British consumers as well.

In theory, the UK miraculously escaping new US import taxes might even mean it indirectly benefits from a trade war between the US and the EU. If the UK can sell and buy more cheaply to both sides while they tax each other, it becomes more competitive. The UK would also get its imports more cheaply, and international businesses may want to establish subsidiaries in the UK.

It is interesting to imagine a world in which a medium-sized, free trade supporting country like the UK ends up the winner of a global commercial war between its two most important trading partners.

Things are not that simple however. Research shows that a major impact of tariffs is changes in global supply chains.

As the UK has learned the hard way with Brexit, modern supply chains are increasingly interconnected. British exports are typically made with components from the European continent, which are themselves made with Chinese inputs.

Additional costs anywhere in the chain result in more expensive products. Moreover, it is not clear that UK products made with EU and Chinese components would be exempt from US import tax.

Disruption to supply chains could force up the cost of UK exports.
Peter Titmuss/Shutterstock

This is a global problem. For every final product a UK consumer ends up buying, there are many firms trying to source the best possible components and materials to make it with. If the US levies a 100% tax on chips and semiconductors from Taiwan, this means that products from the US tech industry will become more expensive for UK firms to use. This is even more pertinent given that China has retaliated to the new 10% US tax on its products by limiting the export of metals the US uses to produce its own chips.

In this way it is easy to underestimate how sensitive supply chains are to small shocks, and what the butterfly effect of a trade war between two other countries might be on products bought and sold in the UK. So, while the UK would definitely be better off not being subject to US taxes, the main focus should be on helping to avoid global trade wars.

How to do this is not clear, because no one seems to understand what Trump really wants from his tariffs. One theory is that he wants to pass for a madman and bully other countries into committing to buy more US-manufactured products.

Or, in the case of Europe, to increase military spending by buying more US military equipment. In that case, tariffs would be short-lived and the impact limited. It will simply increase the incentives for international firms not to depend too much on the US.

Or perhaps Trump really has no idea what he is doing, seemingly pursuing the two opposing goals of keeping domestic prices low while attempting to reduce its trade imbalance with ever-increasing import taxes. In that case, the consequences for consumers all over the world would be very bad. This is in part because of the effect on supply chains, but also because when the US economy is in bad shape the entire world suffers. Läs mer…

Ofsted, England’s education inspectorate, has released proposals for a new approach to inspecting schools and other education providers. The proposals are now under consultation, with parents, teachers, education professionals and learners invited to share their views.

These proposals mark the latest changes to Ofsted after the public outcry following the suicide of headteacher Ruth Perry in January 2023. The coroner’s report in December 2023 ruled that the Ofsted inspection had contributed to Perry’s suicide. But the proposals neglect key areas that we, having researched people’s experiences of Ofsted, believe should change. These include the behaviour of inspectors and the process of inspecting schools.

Crucially, the proposal document emphasises the continuing importance and authority of Ofsted in raising achievement in the school system. And in a recent speech on the proposals, education secretary Bridget Phillipson said: “The improvements in inspection and accountability starting in the 90s have been instrumental for raising standards in our schools. With Ofsted’s role right at its heart. And to those who call for the abolition of a strong, independent, effective inspectorate, I have said before and I will say again: never.”

Our current research work, analysing written submissions of experiences of Ofsted to the education select committee, has found a stark picture of the inherently unfair and unhealthy nature of Ofsted inspections and the toll they take on teachers.

Ofsted’s chief inspector Martyn Oliver explains the proposed report cards.

Anticipating an Ofsted inspection informs almost everything teachers do, and under these proposals, this will not change. If Ofsted’s position of power and authority over schools remains and these problems stay unaddressed, it will continue to cause risk and harm to those working in the state education sector in England.

Report cards

Central to the proposed changes is the introduction of report cards, which will replace a system which gave schools a headline judgement of “inadequate”, “requires improvement”, “good” or “outstanding”. Instead, a range of aspects of a school’s remit – including leadership and governance, achievement, inclusion, attendance and personal development and wellbeing – will each be assessed on a five-point scale.

These range from “causing concern” (red on the report card) to “attention needed” (amber), “secure” (light green), “strong” (green) and “exemplary” (dark green).

These grading scales will also focus on how schools support disadvantaged and vulnerable pupils, and there will be more emphasis on the local circumstances which schools operate in. Whether a school meets its safeguarding responsibilities will be assessed not on a scale but as either “met” or “not met”.

Ofsted will also publish contextual data on the school. These data will include categories such as the number of children with special educational needs and disabilities, performance data, attendance and absence data along with socio-economic indicators for the area the school serves.

But concerns are already being raised. Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the school leaders’ union the NAHT, has argued that the new system will repeat the high stakes of the previous single-word judgements.

Inspector behaviour and accountability

There are two specific areas where we believe the new proposals have particularly failed. The first concerns inspectors’ conduct.

Ofsted’s chief inspector Martyn Oliver has maintained that Ofsted needs to become more empathic and respectful, emphasising the moral and professional duty of inspectors.

The consultation document states that “professional dialogue between inspectors and leaders will be a priority”. But the appalling behaviour that has been alleged of some inspectors is not acknowledged, and there is no indication as to how this culture of harm is being addressed.

The second concerns the inspection process. There is no mention of Ofsted becoming more accountable. In her independent learning review for Ofsted, former chief inspector Dame Christine Gilbert recommended the institution of an improved complaints system for when a school believes an inspection outcome is unfair. But this is not mentioned in the proposals.

Neither is there any consideration of sharing the evidence base – the information gathered by Ofsted inspectors during their visit to a school – on which an inspection judgement is made. Presumably this would be too time consuming, as suggested by Amanda Spielman, another previous chief inspector of Ofsted.

It is perhaps unsurprising that Ruth Perry’s sister, Julia Waters, has commented that the risk of harm from Ofsted remains.

We would therefore seek far more than a simple rebrand of the previous Ofsted model. Only a root and branch reform of the inspectorate would address the fundamental issues affecting teachers and schools. Läs mer…