Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Neal Coulson, Professor of Zoology and Joint Head of Department of Biology, University of Oxford

The woolly rhino, Coelodonta antiquitatis, would have been an impressive sight to the ancient people who painted images of them on cave walls and carved figurines of them out of bone, antler, ivory and wood.

The sadly now extinct rhino lived on the steppes and tundra of Europe and Asia, living alongside people for thousands of years. And a new study of woolly rhino DNA, extracted from the stomach of a wolf challenges a long held belief about species at risk of extinction.

The species, which evolved in the middle of the Pleistocene era, approximately half a million years ago, weighed up to three tonnes. It was similar in size to the two largest rhino species alive today, the white rhino of southern and eastern Africa and the one-horned rhino of India.

The woolly rhino was well adapted to live in ice age conditions. It had a thick layer of fat below the skin, a warm, woolly fleece and small ears and tail to minimise heat loss. It also had a shoulder hump to store fat, to help it survive through periods of food scarcity, and a horn that, in exceptional cases, could grow to 1.6 metres in length.

Abrasions on horns have led biologists to suspect that the rhino used its front horn (the species had two horns, like most species of rhino alive today) to sweep aside snow so it could access the grass and shrubs on which it fed.

At their peak, woolly rhinos could be found from the Iberian peninsula in the west to northeastern Siberia in the east. If it was cold, and there was grass to eat, they seemed to do well. But by around 14,000 years ago, they were gone.

Woolly rhinos were a victim of a changing climate, which made their habitat steadily vanish. The mammoth steppes they lived on were replaced by first a shrubbier habitat and eventually forest. They were also occasionally hunted by people, and that didn’t help them. A lack of good habitat, with a helping hand from the most efficient predator to have ever evolved, signed their death knell.

When a species experiences a long period of decline before eventually disappearing, scientists expect to detect signs its impending doom in its genome. As populations shrink, genetic diversity is lost from a population and inbreeding increases. This means that the last animals to be born are likely to have parents who were closely related.

As a species heads towards extinction, animals in the final few cohorts typically become ever more inbred. Because the woolly rhino’s extinction was thought to be a long, drawn-out affair, scientists assumed that individuals living 15,000 years ago would start to show genetic signatures of inbreeding. The findings of a recent paper from a team by led by Solveig Guðjónsdóttir are consequently quite a surprise.

The woolly rhino sample came from the frozen remains of an ice age wolf discovered in permafrost near the village of Tumat in north-eastern Siberia. When the ancient wolf was autopsied, the researchers identified a small fragment of preserved tissue in its stomach.

The team Guðjónsdóttir led skilfully sequenced the remains of a 14,400-year woolly rhino found in the stomach of the wolf pup. Both the wolf and rhino died just a few centuries before the woolly giant disappeared.

A healthy adult woolly rhino would have been too big for a pack of wolves to take down and kill, so it seems probable that the remains were either scavenged, or from a baby. Regardless of the source of the meal, analysis of the genome revealed that the woolly rhino was not inbred.

The genetic diversity of an individual can also be used to estimate the population size of breeding individuals using a statistical method called Pairwise Sequentially Markovian Coalescent modelling (PSMC). PSMC models compare differences between genome sequences on the two strands of DNA each individual has, one from each parent.

The model uses this information to estimate the distribution of times since each bit of the sequence shared a common ancestor. The greater the difference between the two strands of DNA, the greater the genetic difference between the parents, and the larger the population size would have been.

As part of the study, the researchers analysed two older woolly rhino genomes that had already been published and compared them to the new specimen. Their analysis showed that although the population of woolly rhinos had declined since its peak, it was still sufficiently large to maintain genetic diversity.

Guðjónsdóttir’s paper is important for two reasons. First, it is a wonderful demonstration of how DNA retrieved from the most unlikely of sources can tells us about population declines from millennia ago.

Second, it shows we might need a little bit more research into how population declines of long extinct animals might influence the statistics that geneticists frequently use, and we might need to revisit our current understanding. The woolly rhinos range certainly contracted as the world warmed, and its population size shrank, but it might not have died out as genetically impoverished relic.

Maybe the woolly rhino held onto its genomic diversity for much longer than we think it should have. So, we should keep checking the stomach contents of long-dead predators found in the permafrost, however unpleasant that task might sound.

Timothy Neal Coulson 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. DNA from wolf pup’s last meal reveals new facts about woolly rhino’s extinction – https://theconversation.com/dna-from-wolf-pups-last-meal-reveals-new-facts-about-woolly-rhinos-extinction-273278

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Konstantin Zhukov, Assistant Professor of Economics, Indiana University; Institute for Humane Studies

The FBI search of a Washington Post reporter’s home on Jan. 14, 2026, was a rare and intimidating move by an administration focused on repressing criticism and dissent.

In its story about the search at Hannah Natanson’s home, at which FBI agents said they were searching for materials related to a federal government contractor, Washington Post reporter Perry Stein wrote that “it is highly unusual and aggressive for law enforcement to conduct a search on a reporter’s home.”

And Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, told The New York Times the raid was “intensely concerning,” and could have a chilling effect “on legitimate journalistic activity.”

Free speech and independent media play a vital role in holding governments accountable by informing the public about government wrongdoing.

This is precisely why autocrats like Russia’s Vladimir Putin have worked to silence independent media, eliminating checks on their power and extending their rule. In Russia, for example, public ignorance about Putin’s responsibility for military failures in the war on Ukraine has allowed state propaganda to shift blame to senior military officials instead.

While the United States remains institutionally far removed from countries like Russia, the Trump administration has taken troubling early steps toward autocracy by threatening – and in some cases implementing – restrictions on free speech and independent media.

Public ignorance, free speech and independent media

Ignorance about what public officials do exists in every political system.

In democracies, citizens often remain uninformed because learning about politics takes time and effort, while one vote rarely changes an election. American economist Anthony Downs called this “rational ignorance,” and it is made worse by complex laws and bureaucracy that few people fully understand.

As a result, voters often lack the information needed to monitor politicians or hold them accountable, giving officials more room to act in their own interest.

Free speech and independent media are essential for breaking this cycle. They allow citizens, journalists and opposition leaders to expose corruption and criticize those in power.

Open debate helps people share grievances and organize collective action, from protests to campaigns.

Independent media also act as watchdogs, investigating wrongdoing and raising the political cost of abuse – making it harder for leaders to get away with corruption or incompetence.

Public ignorance in autocracies

Autocrats strengthen their grip on power by undermining the institutions meant to keep them in check.

When free speech and independent journalism disappear, citizens are less likely to learn about government corruption or failures. Ignorance becomes the regime’s ally – it keeps people isolated and uninformed. By censoring information, autocrats create an information vacuum that prevents citizens from making informed choices or organizing protests.

This lack of reliable information also allows autocrats to spread propaganda and shape public opinion on major political and social issues.

Most modern autocrats have worked to silence free speech and crush independent media. When Putin came to power, he gradually shut down independent TV networks and censored opposition outlets. Journalists who exposed government corruption or brutality were harassed, prosecuted or even killed. New laws restricted protests and public criticism, while “foreign agent” rules made it nearly impossible for the few remaining independent media to operate.

At the same time, the Kremlin built a vast propaganda machine to shape public opinion. This control over information helped protect the regime during crises. As I noted in a recent article, many Russians were unaware of Putin’s responsibility for military failures in 2022. State media used propaganda to shift blame to the military leadership – preserving Putin’s popularity even as the war faltered.

The threat to independent media in the US

While the United States remains far from an autocracy, the Trump administration has taken steps that echo the behavior of authoritarian regimes.

Consider the use of lawsuits to intimidate journalists. In Singapore, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Lee Hsien Loong, routinely used civil defamation suits to silence reporters who exposed government repression or corruption. These tactics discouraged criticism and encouraged self-censorship.

President Donald Trump has taken a similar approach, seeking US$15 billion from The New York Times for publication of several allegedly “malicious” articles, and $10 billion from The Wall Street Journal. The latter suit concerns a story about a letter Trump reportedly signed in Jeffrey Epstein’s birthday book.

A court dismissed the lawsuit against The New York Times; that’s likely to happen with the Journal suit as well. But such lawsuits could deter reporting on government misconduct, reporting on the actions and statements of Trump’s political opponents, and the kind of criticism of an administration inherent in opinion journalism such as columns and editorials.

This problem is compounded by the fact that after the Jimmy Kimmel show was suspended following a threat from the Trump-aligned chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the president suggested revoking the broadcast licenses of networks that air negative commentary about him.

Although the show was later reinstated, the episode revealed how the administration could use the autocratic technique of bureaucratic pressure to suppress speech it disagreed with. Combined with efforts to prosecute the president’s perceived enemies through the Justice Department, such actions inevitably encourage media self-censorship and deepen public ignorance.

The threat to free speech

Autocrats often invoke “national security” to pass laws restricting free speech. Russia’s “foreign agents” law, passed in 2012, forced nongovernmental organizations with foreign funding to label themselves as such, becoming a tool for silencing dissenting advocacy groups. Its 2022 revision broadened the definition, letting the Kremlin target anyone who criticized the government.

Similar laws have appeared in Hungary, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan. Russia also uses vague “terrorist” and “extremist” designations to punish those who protest and dissent, all under the guise of “national security.”

After Charlie Kirk’s murder, the Trump administration took steps threatening free speech. It used the pretext of the “violence-inciting radical left” to call for a crackdown on what it designated as “hate speech,” threaten liberal groups, and designate antifa as a domestic terrorist organization.

The latter move is especially troubling, pushing the United States closer to the behavior characteristic of autocratic governments. The vagueness of the designation threatens to suppress free expression and opposition to the Trump administration.

Antifa is not an organization but a “decentralized collection of individual activists,” as scholar Stanislav Vysotsky describes it. The scope of those falling under the antifa label is widened by its identification with broad ideas, described in a national security memorandum issued by the Trump administration in the fall of 2025, like anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity. This gives the government leeway to prosecute an unprecedented number of individuals for their speech.

As scholar Melinda Haas writes, the memorandum “pushes the limits of presidential authority by targeting individuals and groups as potential domestic terrorists based on their beliefs rather than their actions.”

Konstantin Zhukov 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. Searching reporters’ homes, suing journalists and repressing citizen dissent are well-known steps toward autocracy – https://theconversation.com/searching-reporters-homes-suing-journalists-and-repressing-citizen-dissent-are-well-known-steps-toward-autocracy-268747

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Schneier, Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School

Eighteen months ago, it was plausible that artificial intelligence might take a different path than social media. Back then, AI’s development hadn’t consolidated under a small number of big tech firms. Nor had it capitalized on consumer attention, surveilling users and delivering ads.

Unfortunately, the AI industry is now taking a page from the social media playbook and has set its sights on monetizing consumer attention. When OpenAI launched its ChatGPT Search feature in late 2024 and its browser, ChatGPT Atlas, in October 2025, it kicked off a race to capture online behavioral data to power advertising. It’s part of a yearslong turnabout by OpenAI, whose CEO Sam Altman once called the combination of ads and AI “unsettling” and now promises that ads can be deployed in AI apps while preserving trust. The rampant speculation among OpenAI users who believe they see paid placements in ChatGPT responses suggests they are not convinced.

In 2024, AI search company Perplexity started experimenting with ads in its offerings. A few months after that, Microsoft introduced ads to its Copilot AI. Google’s AI Mode for search now increasingly features ads, as does Amazon’s Rufus chatbot.

As a security expert and data scientist, we see these examples as harbingers of a future where AI companies profit from manipulating their users’ behavior for the benefit of their advertisers and investors. It’s also a reminder that time to steer the direction of AI development away from private exploitation and toward public benefit is quickly running out.

The functionality of ChatGPT Search and its Atlas browser is not really new. Meta, commercial AI competitor Perplexity and even ChatGPT itself have had similar AI search features for years, and both Google and Microsoft beat OpenAI to the punch by integrating AI with their browsers. But OpenAI’s business positioning signals a shift.

We believe the ChatGPT Search and Atlas announcements are worrisome because there is really only one way to make money on search: the advertising model pioneered ruthlessly by Google.

Advertising model

Ruled a monopolist in U.S. federal court, Google has earned more than US$1.6 trillion in advertising revenue since 2001. You may think of Google as a web search company, or a streaming video company (YouTube), or an email company (Gmail), or a mobile phone company (Android, Pixel), or maybe even an AI company (Gemini). But those products are ancillary to Google’s bottom line. The advertising segment typically accounts for 80% to 90% of its total revenue. Everything else is there to collect users’ data and direct users’ attention to its advertising revenue stream.

After two decades in this monopoly position, Google’s search product is much more tuned to the company’s needs than those of its users. When Google Search first arrived decades ago, it was revelatory in its ability to instantly find useful information across the still-nascent web. In 2025, its search result pages are dominated by low-quality and often AI-generated content, spam sites that exist solely to drive traffic to Amazon sales – a tactic known as affiliate marketing – and paid ad placements, which at times are indistinguishable from organic results.

Plenty of advertisers and observers seem to think AI-powered advertising is the future of the ad business.

Highly persuasive

Paid advertising in AI search, and AI models generally, could look very different from traditional web search. It has the potential to influence your thinking, spending patterns and even personal beliefs in much more subtle ways. Because AI can engage in active dialogue, addressing your specific questions, concerns and ideas rather than just filtering static content, its potential for influence is much greater. It’s like the difference between reading a textbook and having a conversation with its author.

Imagine you’re conversing with your AI agent about an upcoming vacation. Did it recommend a particular airline or hotel chain because they really are best for you, or does the company get a kickback for every mention? If you ask about a political issue, does the model bias its answer based on which political party has paid the company a fee, or based on the bias of the model’s corporate owners?

There is mounting evidence that AI models are at least as effective as people at persuading users to do things. A December 2023 meta-analysis of 121 randomized trials reported that AI models are as good as humans at shifting people’s perceptions, attitudes and behaviors. A more recent meta-analysis of eight studies similarly concluded there was “no significant overall difference in persuasive performance between (large language models) and humans.”

This influence may go well beyond shaping what products you buy or who you vote for. As with the field of search engine optimization, the incentive for humans to perform for AI models might shape the way people write and communicate with each other. How we express ourselves online is likely to be increasingly directed to win the attention of AIs and earn placement in the responses they return to users.

A different way forward

Much of this is discouraging, but there is much that can be done to change it.

First, it’s important to recognize that today’s AI is fundamentally untrustworthy, for the same reasons that search engines and social media platforms are.

The problem is not the technology itself; fast ways to find information and communicate with friends and family can be wonderful capabilities. The problem is the priorities of the corporations who own these platforms and for whose benefit they are operated. Recognize that you don’t have control over what data is fed to the AI, who it is shared with and how it is used. It’s important to keep that in mind when you connect devices and services to AI platforms, ask them questions, or consider buying or doing the things they suggest.

There is also a lot that people can demand of governments to restrain harmful corporate uses of AI. In the U.S., Congress could enshrine consumers’ rights to control their own personal data, as the EU already has. It could also create a data protection enforcement agency, as essentially every other developed nation has.

Governments worldwide could invest in Public AI – models built by public agencies offered universally for public benefit and transparently under public oversight. They could also restrict how corporations can collude to exploit people using AI, for example by barring advertisements for dangerous products such as cigarettes and requiring disclosure of paid endorsements.

Every technology company seeks to differentiate itself from competitors, particularly in an era when yesterday’s groundbreaking AI quickly becomes a commodity that will run on any kid’s phone. One differentiator is in building a trustworthy service. It remains to be seen whether companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic can sustain profitable businesses on the back of subscription AI services like the premium editions of ChatGPT, Plus and Pro, and Claude Pro. If they are going to continue convincing consumers and businesses to pay for these premium services, they will need to build trust.

That will require making real commitments to consumers on transparency, privacy, reliability and security that are followed through consistently and verifiably.

And while no one knows what the future business models for AI will be, we can be certain that consumers do not want to be exploited by AI, secretly or otherwise.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Could ChatGPT convince you to buy something? Threat of manipulation looms as AI companies gear up to sell ads – https://theconversation.com/could-chatgpt-convince-you-to-buy-something-threat-of-manipulation-looms-as-ai-companies-gear-up-to-sell-ads-272859

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caroline Kennedy-Pipe, Professor of War Studies, Loughborough University

Donald Trump is clearly in a hurry to dominate the political narrative in his second term of office. He began 2026 with strikes in Syria against Islamic State groups, the kidnapping of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, threats to intervene in Iran and the declaration that the US would take control of Greenland – by hook or by crook.

Of all these the plan to add Greenland to the US either by negotiation or by force is easily the most controversial as it could lead to the break-up of the Nato alliance.

Greenland, the world’s largest island and a part of the kingdom of Denmark, has an abundance of critical minerals offering wealth and business opportunities. But the US president is also making a big deal out of the need to secure Greenland for US national security. He has repeatedly stated the danger from Russia and China, whose ships, he says, stalk the island’s waters.

Publicly, at least, Russia has no problems with Trump’s ambitions in Greenland. Vladimir Putin has declined to criticise the Trump administration’s acquisitive comments, saying that the US has long had plans to incorporate Greenland and that the island’s future has “nothing to do with us”.

Russia’s vision doesn’t rule out the possibility of economic cooperation with America in the Arctic. After Putin and Trump met in August 2025 in Alaska, Russia mooted the idea of a “Putin-Trump tunnel” across the Bering Sea, a vision to which Trump responded favourably.

The Chinese, meanwhile, are not happy about Trump’s designs on Greenland. They tend to see the Arctic as a global commons in which non-Arctic states have an equal stake. So they are unhappy at the notion of any sort of arrangement that involves US or Russian spheres of influence in the Arctic.

The US has been trying to acquire Greenland since 1867 when, fresh from buying Alaska from Russia, the secretary of state William Seward unsuccessfully raised the idea of purchasing Greenland and Iceland from Denmark. Harry Truman offered US$100 million (£74 million) for Greenland in 1946, but Denmark refused. Instead the two countries agreed a treaty in 1951 giving the US considerable latitude to deploy thousands of US troops and install the weather stations and early warning systems that characterised cold war politics.

But when the Soviet Union collapsed, heralding an end to the cold war, Greenland was relegated in importance. The US presence in Greenland went from more than 10,000 personnel on 50 bases to a single settlement at Pituffik space base (formerly Thule air base) with about 150-200 people.

But the Ukraine war, increased assertiveness from Russia and China in the region and the steady melt caused by climate change have reinvigorated US interest in the Arctic region. And in the US president’s view, Greenland is a strategic vulnerability.

Russia’s threat

Greenland sits at the western perimeter of what is called the GIUK (Greenland–Iceland–United Kingdom) gap, which is vital to Nato defence of Europe. From here, submarines from Russia’s Northern Fleet in Murmansk can traverse into the North Atlantic, threatening targets on America’s east coast. In a crisis, Russian naval forces would move into both the GIUK gap and Norwegian waters, deterring American vessels from pushing north and effectively isolating Nato allies in the region.

Many of Russia’s missile sites and nuclear air bases in the region are sited on the Kola peninsula, on the eastern edge of Scandinavia, which is also home to its Northern Fleet navy and submarines. From the Kola peninsula, the shortest direct flights route from Russia to targets on the American East Coast lies across Greenland.

Russia’s Arctic facilities have been significantly upgraded over the past decade, even as the bulk of its defence budget has been directed towards its war in Ukraine. Seasonal air bases have been coverted for all-year-round operations and extended to allow the use of even the heaviest of its nuclear bomber fleet at locations in the Far North such as Nagurskoye in Alexandra Land which is part of the Franz Josef Land and Temp on Kotelny Island in the New Siberian Islands.

At present, Russian combat aircraft and strategic bombers, such as the Mikoyan Mig-31, Sukhoi Su-35, and the Tupolev Tu-95, can operate from these bases and potentially neutralise Pituffik. The space base is at present the key US defence establishment in the region, able to detect enemy ballistic missiles as soon as they take off.

Joint Russian and Chinese air patrols now regularly operate in the region, raising concerns about the defence readiness of Alaska. Many of their weapons are what is called “stand-off”, which means they can operate out of the range of the defensive weapons arrayed against them.

If Russia (or for that matter, China) did occupy parts of Greenland, it could mean foreign stand-off weapons sitting just 1,300 miles from the US. Whoever is in the White House, this would be considered as unthinkable for US security.

US response

In June 2025, US Northern Command took over responsibility for Greenland, integrating it into homeland defence. This, said Sean Parnell, chief spokesperson for the Pentagon, would be contributing to a “more robust defense of the western hemisphere and deepening relationships with Arctic allies and partners”.

Trump has derided the exiting European defence effort in Greenland, insisting that only the US can defend the US. His perspective can only have been emboldened by the success of the recent Operation Absolute Resolve, the raid which snatched Maduro from Caracas. US combined forces demonstrated effective suppression of enemy air defences, knocking out both the Chinese JY-27A radar system and the Russian S-300 and Buk-M2 air defence systems.

Whether or not Trump gets his wish to actually acquire Greenland for the US, there seems little doubt that Greenland will once again play host to a strong American presence on the island and that the Arctic in general will become a showcase for the latest military technology the US has in its armouries.

Caroline Kennedy-Pipe 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. Whether or not US acquires Greenland, the island will be at the centre of a massive military build-up in the Arctic – https://theconversation.com/whether-or-not-us-acquires-greenland-the-island-will-be-at-the-centre-of-a-massive-military-build-up-in-the-arctic-273301

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland

Last week, United States health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr released the government’s revamped dietary guidelines for 2025 to 2030.

These recommendations on healthy eating are updated every five years and help shape food policy and education for millions of Americans.

Under the slogan “eat real food”, the new guidelines recommend people “prioritise protein at every meal”, eat full-fat dairy and plenty of whole grains, and limit ultra-processed foods. A new food pyramid has also been redesigned and flipped on its head.

But are the guidelines based in good science? And how much has actually changed?

Much of the core guidance is unchanged

As in previous versions, the new guidelines promote nutrient-rich foods – such as fruits, vegetables and whole grains – and appropriate portions.

They continue to recommend people get protein from a variety of sources and limit added sugars and salt. Saturated fat remains capped at less than 10% of total calories.

This is consistent with the long-standing body of nutrition evidence.

Diets rich in whole foods are the most strongly linked to good health overall. There is also evidence they help prevent and manage heart disease, diabetes and – increasingly – mental health.

So, what’s different?

1. More protein

One of the major changes is an increase in recommended protein intake. The previous recommendation was 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight each day – it’s now 1.2–1.6 grams.

The change was based on a rapid review, which mainly focused on weight loss and exercise studies.

However, this evidence base is too narrow to make dietary recommendations for the whole population, which has varying needs.

The revised guidelines also encourage eating protein at every meal, without explicitly prioritising lean options.

2. Full-fat dairy

The guidelines also recommend full-fat rather than low-fat dairy products.

Yet many people – particularly those at higher risk of heart disease – may continue to benefit from choosing reduced-fat dairy. This is the Heart Foundation’s position in both Australia and the US.

3. Limit ultra-processed foods

The new advice explicitly says people should limit and avoid ultra-processed foods.

This is in line with a growing body of research linking them to chronic disease and inflammation.

Previous guidelines recommended eating “nutrient-dense foods” without specifically mentioning ultra-processed foods.

4. A new – inverted – food pyramid

The new “Real Food” website contrasts its food pyramid with the 1992 food pyramid. But that model had already been replaced by MyPlate in 2011.

In this diagram, half the plate is made up of fruits and vegetables. Whole grains and protein each make up a quarter, and dairy is shown separately.

The new pyramid marks a clear shift. Meats, dairy and oils are at the widest edge – which is now at the top – along with vegetables. Fruits, nuts and grains appear in smaller proportions at the pointy tip.

Confusingly, this contradicts the written recommendations, which continue to promote 2–4 daily servings of whole grains and a variety of protein sources from both animal and plant foods.

This visual focus on animal-based foods may encourage people to exceed the (written) recommendations to limit saturated fats at 10% of what you eat overall, and to balance plant and animal-based foods.

5. Vague alcohol guidance

Alcohol limits have appeared in the guidelines since 1980 – these have now been removed. The new advice is to “limit alcoholic beverages” without quantifying what “limit” means.

Warnings about alcohol’s links to cancers, present in guidelines for 25 years, have also been removed. Scientific consensus links alcohol consumption to at least seven types of cancer.

In 2024, the US Surgeon General called for cancer warning labels on alcoholic beverages.

Read more:
Should Australia mandate cancer warnings for alcoholic drinks?

6. Low carbs recommendation

The advice says people with “certain chronic diseases” may benefit from following a lower carbohydrate diet.

While this is supported by evidence – for example, it can help some people manage type 2 diabetes – reducing carbohydrates won’t be safe for everyone (such as children, pregnant women and older adults).

So this advice shouldn’t be seen as a blanket suggestion.

Conflicts of interest

The scientific report accompanying the new guidelines disclosed that several committee members had financial relationships with food industry groups.

Three of nine members received grants or consulting fees from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. One also received support from the National Pork Board.

At least three members were linked to dairy industry organisations, and another was involved in developing a high-protein meal replacement product.

Industry connections are not new. For example, an analysis of the 2020–25 dietary guidelines found 95% of committee members had conflicts of interest with food or pharmaceutical companies.

However, under the Trump administration, the 2025 development process diverged from standard procedures.

The faster review lacked the usual systematic evidence protocols, public comment period and standard safeguards designed to limit individual influence and conflicts.

The missing conversation

“Eat real food” is simple messaging. But for many, it’s not simple in practice.

Perhaps the most striking omission is the guidelines’ lack of attention to socio-economic realities. The report announces a deliberate shift away from “health equity”, which considers how factors like race and income affect access to healthy food.

Access to affordable, healthy food remains limited across the US, especially for people in low-income communities, rural areas, or those working long and unpredictable hours.

People choose food based on whether it’s affordable, accessible and culturally relevant – but the guidelines overlooked these structural drivers.

Instead, they place the responsibility for healthy eating solely on individuals, rather than within the broader food system.

What does this all mean?

No dietary guidelines, however well-designed, can overcome a food system that prioritises profit over public health.

While these recommendations contain some sensible advice about promoting whole foods and avoiding processed foods, they also introduce contradictions and confusion.

People seeking individualised, evidence-based support for their eating should consult a dietitian.

Lauren Ball receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Health and Wellbeing Queensland, Heart Foundation, Gallipoli Medical Research and Mater Health, Springfield City Group. She is a director of Dietitians Australia, a director of the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network and an associate member of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.

Emily Burch 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. Prioritising protein? What the new US dietary guidelines get right – and wrong – according to 2 nutrition experts – https://theconversation.com/prioritising-protein-what-the-new-us-dietary-guidelines-get-right-and-wrong-according-to-2-nutrition-experts-273112

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiannuala Morgan, Lecturer in communications, The University of Melbourne

Australia has entered an era of climate instability, where communications during bushfires and extreme weather must perform under increasingly severe conditions.

Digital services such as the VicEmergency app and mobile fire alerts have become central to how people receive bushfire warnings. They work well in everyday conditions, but rely on mobile phone coverage and household electricity.

However, the communications networks that support these essential services have not been adequately strengthened. And older technologies, such as the copper landline network, have been removed or altered without their essential emergency function being fully replaced.

As a result, regional bushfire prone communities are more exposed when communications are critical. During last week’s Ravenswood fire, which devastated Harcourt and threatened neighbouring Castlemaine, this is exactly what happened.

Regional communications have been weakened

Two key changes in communications technology have altered how landline and mobile services can function during emergencies.

The National Broadband Network is replacing the old copper landline network. During a power outage, copper landlines still worked because electricity was supplied through the phone line itself. Of course, if a copper line was damaged by fire, the service would fail. But if lines remained intact, regional households could make calls during power blackouts.

In contrast, the NBN network relies entirely on mains electricity. Successive governments have chosen not to require universal battery backup for NBN connections. As a result, fixed line communication fails when electricity is lost, unless households have installed backup power at their own expense.

The shutdown of the 3G network in October 2024 has also reduced mobile coverage in some regional areas.

Retiring 3G services freed radio spectrum up for faster 4G and 5G networks. However, in practice, reports have identified growing mobile blackspots in locations that previously had coverage.

Significantly, warnings about these risks were raised before the shutdown. This included concerns that regional communities could be left without reliable communication during emergencies.

When the warnings went silent

The Ravenswood fire, which devastated Harcourt and threatened neighbouring Castlemaine, exemplifies this communications vulnerability in practice.

In Castlemaine on the afternoon of Friday January 9 2026, a power outage meant wifi routers and NBN connection devices stopped operating. This shifted residents onto mobile networks for calls, messages and internet access. For some, this overloaded the local mobile network, causing calls to fail and messages to delay.

As the fire progressed east, it destroyed the major telecommunications tower at Mount Alexander, temporarily interrupting emergency FM broadcasting across the wider region.

For a brief but critical period, some residents were left without access to official warnings, emergency apps or broadcast guidance. Those who had battery-powered radios as a backup, lost radio signal.

Modern networks a mystery

The 2020 Royal Commission made clear no single communication medium is immune from failure during a natural disaster. Emergency services also advise us to never rely on one form of communication for emergencies.

However, the recent changes to telecommunications systems mean many people no longer understand how contemporary communication networks operate, or how they can fail.

Both fixed line services and mobile phone services depend on complex infrastructure, including wifi, underground fibre optic cables and transmission towers. When a power outage occurs, they stop operating unless they have battery backup.

The sudden concentration of demand places heavy load on mobile infrastructure. The effect is similar to a digital traffic jam, with too many phones attempting to use limited network capacity at once.

The result is often a partial, rather than total, network failure. Phones may display signal bars, yet calls fail to connect. Text messages are delayed. Mobile data becomes slower and apps cannot update. For people relying on their phones for warnings and guidance, this degraded performance can be more confusing than a complete outage.

During the Ravenswood fire, this complexity became evident. Local community social media pages reflected widespread confusion. Some residents said they could not make calls or had very slow internet access. Others asked about the status of ABC broadcasting and when it would return.

Why ‘leave early’ is harder to enact

Bushfire preparation advice is designed to help people make decisions. Encouraging the public to plan ahead reduces uncertainty as conditions deteriorate and communication channels become unstable. On catastrophic fire days, the safest decision is made before a fire starts.

However, with entire regions all under the same catastrophic warning level, “leave early” advice can be difficult to interpret. It is not always clear where people should relocate, particularly when regional centres such as Castlemaine fall within warning zones. While many residents in central Victoria left in advance, others remained.

Research consistently shows disadvantage compounds disaster risk and reduces evacuation capacity. Lower income households, people with disabilities, and older adults often have fewer resources and support networks. This constrains their ability to evacuate safely.

Yet bushfire preparedness should not be left to individuals. Survival is a responsibility shared between individuals, government agencies, and industry. It should be supported by reliable infrastructure that enables the public to make informed decisions, both before disaster strikes and during an emergency.

New telecommunications technologies, such as the NBN and 5G mobile phones, deliver higher data capacity and greater everyday convenience. Yet they can be less fit for purpose when it comes to maintaining communications during emergencies.

A shared responsibility

These infrastructure changes have occurred alongside a shift in regional demographics and greater dependence on digital connectivity. Regional centres such as Castlemaine have experienced population growth in recent years. People are moving regionally for affordable housing and flexible work.

The burden then increasingly falls on individuals to bridge the gaps in degraded communications networks. Households are expected to pay for costly stop-gap measures, such as satellite services or battery backup for NBN connections. Responsibility for maintaining communications during emergencies is shifting from public systems to private households.

If we place greater emphasis on individual communications responsibility, the most vulnerable people face heightened risk. This compounds social and economic disadvantage. It also undermines the best contemporary approach to disaster preparation, which depends upon shared responsibility.

Fiannuala Morgan is affiliated with the Castlemaine Fire Brigade and is digitising their historic records.

– ref. No power, no phone, no radio: why comms dropped out during the central Victorian fires – https://theconversation.com/no-power-no-phone-no-radio-why-comms-dropped-out-during-the-central-victorian-fires-273234

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ama Samarasinghe, Lecturer, Financial Planning and Tax, RMIT University

US President Donald Trump has called for a one year cap on credit card interest rate charges at 10% – around half of the average current US rate – starting from January 20.

Vanderbilt University analysis from September last year found there were “astronomical profit margins in the [US] credit card market”. It concluded a 10% cap could save Americans as much as US$100 billion (A$149 billion) a year. But it also found likely unintended consequences with a cap that low, including reduced lending for people with lower credit scores.

It’s unclear how the White House plans to make the president’s announcement happen. Bank stocks fell on the news, despite Wall St analysts reportedly expressing scepticism, saying:

it would take an Act of Congress for such rate caps to be in place, given the overwhelming legal challenges an executive order would likely face.

What about here in Australia? Could such a cap be worth considering? And are there any current rules in place capping how high our rates go?

What do we pay for credit card interest?

As of the end of last year, Australians had more than $18 billion in credit card debt accruing interest.

Most Australians typically pay somewhere between 17–21% interest on unpaid monthly bills, compared to the US average of around 21%.

There are low rate cards available as well, with interest as low as 11–15%. But these usually come with a higher fee than a standard card.

Who has to pay more?

A lot depends on your credit history. If you’ve paid on time and have a good payment history, you’ll likely to get a lower interest rate.

If you have a history of late payments or a “thin” credit history – meaning the banks don’t have enough information about you – you’ll be seen as higher risk and pay higher rates.

Income matters too. When a lender is assessing your credit card application, they usually look at what’s called the “debt-to-income ratio”. A higher income means you have more income to cover your debt, reducing risk to the bank – so you might get a lower rate.

But someone on a relatively high salary with poor credit habits could still end up paying more than someone on a lower income with a strong credit history. It’s all about the risk you pose to the bank.

Why are credit card rates much higher than mortgages?

Unlike a house or car loan, where you have a home or a car as physical collateral, credit cards are unsecured loans.

The lender doesn’t have the same security if you end up spending too much and not being able to repay it.

Is there any cap on Australians’ credit card interest rates?

No, there is no cap on credit card interest rates in Australia today. That means what we pay is set by the market and competition between lenders.

The Australian Securities and Investment Commission, which regulates consumer credit, does have some caps on the interest and fees charged on some personal loans.

For example, if you take a two-year personal loan between $2,001 and $5,000, the lender can only charge a maximum annual rate of 48%. That’s still very high, but there is an upper limit – unlike for credit card interest rates.

Pros and cons of a rate cap

As even some of Trump’s own supporters have warned, a temporary 10% cap could see the banks respond by lowering credit limits, making fewer approvals – or even cutting off access entirely for some Americans. It’s possible this US proposal could hit the very people the policy is meant to help.

There’s also the risk of pushing those borrowers towards more costly alternatives of credit, including less regulated lenders with even higher interest rates.

One of the risks with a cap like this, for any country, is that introducing it suddenly or as a temporary measure without a clear implementation plan creates uncertainty for investors and consumers.

The upside of an ongoing (rather than temporary) cap is that it could significantly cut the total interest paid by households carrying credit card debt, helping people pay down balances faster. That could ease debt stress, improve financial inclusion, and deliver broader economic benefits by making household finances more resilient over time.

In theory, some kind of cap on credit card interest rates could be a good idea. But it would have to be at a reasonable level. What kind of rate might that be?

The Vanderbilt University analysis weighed up the pros and cons of a 10%, 15% and 18% cap on US credit card interest rates. It found that the higher 15-18% caps could deliver meaningful savings to borrowers without significantly reducing access to credit, while a 10% cap was more likely to lead to tighter lending.

That’s the sort of analysis we would need to do in Australia too, before any kind of credit card interest rate cap could be properly debated.

After all, cheaper credit only helps if people can still access it.

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

– ref. Trump wants to cap credit card interest to 10% for a year. Should Australia consider it? – https://theconversation.com/trump-wants-to-cap-credit-card-interest-to-10-for-a-year-should-australia-consider-it-273209

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tamika Worrell, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Critical Indigenous Studies, Macquarie University

The self-described “Bush Legend” on TikTok, Facebook and Instagram is growing in popularity.

These short and sharp videos feature an Aboriginal man – sometimes painted up in ochre, other times in an all khaki outfit – as he introduces different native animals and facts about them. These videos are paired with miscellaneous yidaki (didgeridoo) tunes, including techno mixes.

Comments on the videos often mention his bubbly persona, with some comments saying he needs his own TV show.

But the Bush Legend isn’t real. He is generated by artificial intelligence (AI).

This is a part of a growing influx of AI being utilised to represent Indigenous peoples, knowledges and cultures with no community accountability or relationships with Indigenous peoples. It forms a new type of cultural appropriation, one that Indigenous peoples are increasingly concerned about.

Do they know it’s AI?

In the user description, the Bush Legend pages say the visuals are AI. But does the average user scrolling through videos on their social media click onto a profile to read these details?

Some of the videos do feature AI watermarks, or mention they are AI in the caption. But many in the audience will be completely unaware this person is not real, and the entire video is artificially generated.

These videos “bait” the audience in through a spectrum of cute and cuddly to extremely dangerous creatures. Comments left on the videos query how close the man is to the animals, alongside their words of encouragement.

One commenter on Facebook writes “You have the same wonderful energy Steve Irwin had and your voice is great to listen to.”

The voice and energy they are referring to is fabricated.

A lack of respect

With any Indigenous content on the internet (authentic or AI), there remains racist commentary. As Indigenous people, we often say don’t read the comments, when it comes to social media and Indigenous content.

While the Bush Legend is not real nor culturally grounded, it too is not immune to online racism. I have read comments on his videos which uplift this AI persona while denigrating all other Indigenous people.

While this does not impact the creator, it does impact Indigenous peoples who are reading the comments.

The only information available on Bush Legend, other than the fact it is AI, is the creator is based in Aotearoa New Zealand. This suggests there is likely no connection to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities that this likeness is being taken from.

Recently, Bush Legend addressed some of this critique in a video.

He said:

I’m not here to represent any culture or group […] If this isn’t your thing, mate, no worries at all, just scroll and move on.

This does not sufficiently address the very real concerns. If the videos are “simply about animal stories”, why does the creator insist on using the likeness of an Aboriginal man?

Accountability to the communities this involves is not considered in this scenario.

The ethics of AI

Generative AI represents a new platform in which Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) rights are breached.

Concerns for AI and Indigenous peoples lie across many areas, including education, and the lack of Indigenous involvement in AI creation and governance. Of course, there is also the cost to Country with considerable environmental impacts.

The recently released national AI plan offers little in terms of regulation.

Indigenous peoples have long fought to tell our own stories. AI poses another way in which our self determination is diminished or removed completely. It also serves as a way for non-Indigenous people to distance themselves from actual Indigenous peoples by allowing them to engage with content which is fabricated and, often, more palatable.

Bush Legend reflects a slippery slope when it comes to AI generated content of Indigenous peoples, as people can remove themselves further and further from engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people directly.

A new era of AI Blakface

We are seeing the rise of an AI Blakface that is utilised with ease thanks to the availability and prevalence of AI.

Non-Indigenous people and entities are able to create Indigenous personas through AI, often grounded in stereotypical representations that both amalgamate and appropriate cultures.

Bush Legend is often seen wearing cultural jewellery and with ochre painted on his skin. As these are generated, they are shallow misappropriations and lack the necessary cultural underpinnings of these practices.

This forms a new type of appropriation, that extends on the violence that Indigenous peoples already experience in the digital realm, particularly on social media. The theft of Indigenous knowledge for generative AI forms a new type of algorithmic settler colonialism, impacting Indigenous self-determination.

Most concerningly, these AI Blakfaces can be monetised and lead to financial gain for the creator. This financial benefit should go to the communities the content is taking from.

What is needed?

It is concerning to be living in a time where we do not know if the things we are consuming online are real. Increasing our AI and media literacy levels is integral.

Seeing AI content shared online as truth? Let the person sharing this content know – conversations with our communities serve as an opportunity to learn together.

Support actual Indigenous people sharing knowledge online, such as @Indigigrow, @littleredwrites or @meissa. Or check out all the Indigenous Ranger videos on TikTok.

When engaging online, take a moment to consider the source. Is this AI generated? Is this where my support should be?

Tamika Worrell 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. This TikTok star sharing Australian animal stories doesn’t exist – it’s AI Blakface – https://theconversation.com/this-tiktok-star-sharing-australian-animal-stories-doesnt-exist-its-ai-blakface-273004

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gisèle Yasmeen, JW McConnell Professor of Practice, Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University

The Milan Urban Food Policy Pact recently renewed global commitments to sustainable and equitable urban food systems. The pact has been signed by 330 cities around the world that have pledged to improve food production and distribution and to reduce waste.

Cities are now home to 45 per cent of the world’s 8.2 billion people, and that figure is expected to rise to 68 per cent by 2050. As they grow, cities are becoming key to shaping a sustainable future. Across the world, urbanization affects how food is grown, distributed and consumed, and cities are primary drivers of change in food systems.

As the Committee on World Food Security reaffirmed in October 2025, without intentional policy, this growth will not fuel the needed transformation to keep food systems sustainable.

Street foods and vendors are an essential component of the urban foodscape, providing affordable nutrition and critical income for many city residents. However, vendors are frequently met with hostility from municipal authorities who cite traffic and public health concerns.

In addition, at least one-third of food produced globally spoils, ending up in landfills, and wasting valuable resources, energy and labour. Urban waste pickers can play a vital role in reducing waste.

Addressing these issues requires the political will and investment to change our food systems for the better and make them more sustainable into the future.

Street food vendors

Many cities around the world feature vibrant street food scenes that provide livelihoods for vendors and high-quality, varied and delicious food for their customers. Scholars and advocates have argued that street foods are an essential part of the urban food system and often a healthier alternative to highly processed fast foods.

However, tensions with municipal authorities can disrupt this foodscape. For example, in Bangkok, tens of thousands of vendors have been displaced due to a municipal drive to refurbish the city’s pavements.

Furthermore, there’s a recent controversial push to move toward Singapore-style hawker centres to ostensibly create order and improve hygiene.

In New York City, an organization called the Street Vendor Project aims to balance traffic and pedestrian safety with the need to maintain these vital urban services and livelihoods. The group was instrumental in advocating for the New York City Council’s repeal of misdemeanor criminal penalties for mobile food vendors in September 2025. Equitable policy and planning means supporting, rather than further marginalizing, food vendors.

Urban waste pickers

In many cities, waste pickers collect, sort and sell discarded materials like plastic, metal and paper for recycling or reuse. While waste pickers are more common in the cities of low and middle-income countries, they are also a feature of urban areas in wealthy countries.

Food loss and waste is responsible for eight to 10 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. Much of this due to poor storage, poor supply chains, last-kilometre logistics, overly restrictive regulations and wasteful practices by wealthy consumers. A 2020 study estimated that nearly 60 per cent of all plastic collected for recycling was undertaken by informal waste pickers.

Much of this plastic is related to food and beverage packaging discarded in urban areas. The United Nations Environment Program recommends that the estimated 20 million waste pickers around the world become an integral part of municipal waste management.

Improved waste management, particularly in the cities of the Global South, requires significant investments in infrastructure. But waste management systems should not simply mimic the models of the Global North.

A review of approaches and outcomes around the world for integrating waste pickers into municipal waste management systems provided several recommendations. However, a barrier remains due to stigmatization of these livelihoods.

Nonetheless, a growing number of waste picker organizations — as well as a worldwide coalition — provides a glimmer of hope to have these unsung heroes of urban recycling recognized. Some initiatives include partnerships between waste pickers and Brazilian local governments, the Binners Project in Vancouver building on the United We Can depot, Les Valoristes in Montréal, the National Street Vendor Association of India and the Linis-Ganda initiative in Manila, which partners with educational institutions and industry. These examples demonstrate how integrating informal recyclers can manage waste and help create a more circular food economy.

As the world continues to urbanize, more of us will rely on the vital roles played by street vendors and waste pickers. Inclusive policy and planning to recognize the contributions of these two livelihoods is essential to achieving a sustainable urban food future for all.

Gisèle Yasmeen has consulted for the World Bank to produce background papers that have, in part, fed into this work with permission.

Julian Tayarah and Umme Salma do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How street vendors and waste pickers can help cities manage growth – https://theconversation.com/how-street-vendors-and-waste-pickers-can-help-cities-manage-growth-271164