Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tayla Broadbridge, PhD Candidate in Mathematics, University of Adelaide

Eating plenty of fruit and vegetables is key to staying healthy and avoiding diseases such as heart disease and stroke. But it’s often easier said than done.

Places where many people eat poorly are often called “food deserts”, and their existence has typically been blamed on a lack of nearby supermarkets or grocery stores.

However, my colleagues and I have discovered food deserts exist in the heart of one of Europe’s biggest and most cosmopolitan cities, surrounded by local shopping options.

In new research published today in PLOS Complex Systems, we analysed hundreds of millions of Tesco supermarket transactions across London and discovered surprising patterns in who buys what kind of food and where they do it.

Our results show the factors that influence how people eat are complex – with implications for nutrition in cities around the world.

The rise of ‘food deserts’

The term “food deserts” emerged in the late 1990s to describe areas where residents were denied access to affordable, healthy food due to a lack of supermarkets or poor transport links. As a result, food deserts have usually been defined by distance to supermarkets.

More recent research has revealed the picture is more complex. It’s not just how close the person is to a supermarket and how affordable the food is. There are other factors, such as how many shops are available, and whether the shops stock culturally appropriate foods and accept different forms of payment.

Our new paper builds on this. It takes a different approach to identifying food deserts – based on what people actually put in their shopping baskets.

420 million shopping lists

We used a dataset of Tesco grocery purchases containing 420 million anonymised transactions from 1.6 million London Clubcard holders to analyse residents’ food buying, based on the areas linked to shoppers’ loyalty cards.

Two clear purchasing patterns emerged from the data – one involving sugary, processed and high-carbohydrate foods usually considered unhealthy, the other involving purchases of fresh fruits, vegetables and meat, usually considered to be healthier.

We then mapped the areas of London where each of these purchasing patterns was most common. This revealed distinct geographic patterns.

Inner northwest London had the most nutritious purchasing behaviour – with high fruit, vegetable and fish purchases. The east and outer west of London followed a less nutritious pattern, high in sweets and soft drinks.

Because our analysis is based on supermarket purchases, it doesn’t capture all food consumption – such as meals eaten out, takeaway orders, or shopping from smaller local stores.

Still, using real transaction data offers a major advantage over traditional surveys, which often rely on what people say they eat rather than what they actually buy.

Lower income linked to less nutritious food

Here’s what emerges when we define food deserts by what people actually buy. Even in cities with stores nearby, some neighbourhoods are still “deserted” of nutritious options. Often, it’s not about distance at all – it’s about economic and social factors.

We then analysed how demographic and socioeconomic factors such as age, income, Black, Asian and minority ethnic populations, car ownership, and walk time to stores relate to diet quality across London.

We found that income and the proportion of Black, Asian and minority ethnic residents were among the strongest factors linked to diet quality. But their influence varied across the city. Lower income was linked to less nutritious food purchasing throughout London, and this effect was strongest in parts of the east and west.

This suggests that affordability and social disadvantage shape what’s within reach – even when supermarkets are nearby.

Some factors that might be expected to influence diet had surprisingly little effect. For example, car ownership was linked to less nutritious purchases in certain areas, while walk time to stores had very low association with diet quality.

Together, these patterns suggest two things: the reasons people eat unhealthily are local and vary from place to place, and they’re shaped more by social and economic conditions than by how close shops are.

Global relevance

While our study focuses on London, the findings have relevance beyond the United Kingdom.

The same inequalities that shape London’s dietary health also exist in Australian cities. Australia is highly urbanised, with around 73% of the population living in major cities.

Here too, poor diet is one of the nation’s leading causes of preventable disease. In 2022, 66% of Australian adults and 26% of children were living with overweight or obesity, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). On top of that, the average servings of fruit and vegetables have declined across all age groups since 2017–18, according to AIHW data.

A similar data-driven approach using anonymised grocery transaction data from sources such as Woolworths Everyday Rewards card or Coles’ Flybuys programs could help reveal which communities face the greatest nutritional constraints, and why.

Another important takeaway from our work is that food access is not a one-size-fits-all problem. Understanding what people buy – not just where they live – is key to creating healthier and more equitable food environments.

Focusing on actual purchasing behaviour allows policymakers to design more effective, community-informed interventions that promote fairer, healthier food choices.

Tayla Broadbridge 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. ‘Food deserts’ found even in areas with supermarkets nearby – new study – https://theconversation.com/food-deserts-found-even-in-areas-with-supermarkets-nearby-new-study-269083

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paula Lorgelly, Professor of Health Economics, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

New Zealand’s drug-buying agency Pharmac is currently consulting on a change to how it manages its waiting list for medicines.

This represents one of the stages of Pharmac’s “reset” through which the agency seeks to become more outward-focused and transparent.

The consultation focuses on how Pharmac manages its Options for Investment list – essentially a wish list of what Pharmac would like to fund if it had the budget.

For medicines that have been at the bottom of the list for more than two years, Pharmac wants to decline 20% if there are more than 100 applications on the overall list, or 10% if there are fewer than 100.

A useful analogy is to think of Pharmac’s list like a Christmas wish list. Children put items on it and parents will buy them if they can afford them. Not everything is affordable, and Christmas morning can result in disappointment.

Similarly, Pharmac disappoints patients (and clinicians and industry) by not funding all medicines that are submitted for review.

A never-ending list

Pharmac currently has 123 medicines on the Options for Investment list. The disappointment continues because Pharmac doesn’t tell anyone where these medicines are on the list, for fear of losing their hand at negotiating a better deal with the supplier.

Pharmac keeps unfunded medicines on this list for many years. A 2023 report found applications stay on the list for an average of 5.9 years.

However, after several years, the most effective must-have drugs can change. Relying on assessments from many years ago carries risk, and reducing some of the old listings may have some merit.

But for patients who have been asked to wait for many years, the removal of medicines from the list may come as a bitter blow. Telling your children you can’t afford a toy for Christmas is a harsh truth, but telling them to wait each year and then breaking the news that they were never going to get it seems rather cruel.

Can more money solve the problem?

New Zealand spends less on health than most similar countries.

Recent estimates also suggest New Zealand spends substantially less (4.9%) of its total health expenditure on pharmaceuticals, compared to the average OECD spending of 13.3%.

If Pharmac’s current budget of NZ$1.7 billion were doubled, the agency might be able to clear the current list completely. But this would come at a cost to other parts of the health system.

Pharmac’s budget has increased quickly in recent years, but New Zealand also has a growing waiting list for specialist appointments and elective surgery, capacity issues at hospitals and difficulty attracting and retaining health professionals.

Historically, Pharmac’s ability to keep costs down has allowed New Zealand to do more in these other parts of the health system.

The experience elsewhere is that spending a lot of money on expensive new drugs (as the UK does) has led to a large net reduction in population health. This happened because new cancer and biological drugs are expensive and do not offer the same value in terms of quality-adjusted life years as spending elsewhere in the health system.

It might be better for New Zealand to keep its pharmaceutical spending down and put more effort into improving other parts of the health system.

Clearer expectations on value for money

Another alternative is for Pharmac not to have a list at all, as the list breeds disappointment and frustration. If Pharmac were to set clearer expectations and be willing to say no, that could be avoided.

A better alternative would be for Pharmac to base some of its purchasing decisions on the opportunity cost of spending money elsewhere in the health system.

That is, instead of basing decisions on ministerial demands or becoming more responsive to industry and patient lobbying, Pharmac (or the Ministry of Health) could ask how much health would be gained from spending money on other parts of New Zealand’s system.

Once that is known, Pharmac could commit to providing a similar value for money to that delivered elsewhere by our hospitals, primary care and in public health. Doing this would require research, but this has already been conducted elsewhere and could be replicated here, albeit with some political will.

Otherwise, the danger is that Pharmac resets from running a wish list poorly to a process that’s even worse.

Paula Lorgelly consults to Pharmac and has in the past consulted to the pharmaceutical industry. She has received funding from the Health Research Council, the Ministry of Health and the EuroQol Foundation. Paula is a member of the EuroQol Group which owns the EQ-5D instrument which is widely used in health technology assessments.

Braden Te Ao has consulted Pharmac previously and receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the Ministry of Health for various research projects requiring an economic analysis. He currently serves as a director for ProCare Health Ltd and is a member of the Ngā Pou Hauora o Tāmaki Makaurau Iwi Māori Partnership Board.

Richard Edlin consults to Pharmac and has in the past consulted to the pharmaceutical industry.

– ref. Pharmac wants to trim its controversial medicines waiting list – no list at all might be better – https://theconversation.com/pharmac-wants-to-trim-its-controversial-medicines-waiting-list-no-list-at-all-might-be-better-268276

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacqueline Peel, Professor of Law, The University of Melbourne

Along with delegates from all over the world, I’ll be heading to the United Nations COP30 climate summit in the Brazilian Amazon city of Belém. Like many others, I’m unsure what to expect.

This year, the summit faces perhaps the greatest headwinds of any in recent history. In the United States, the Trump administration has slashed climate science, cancelled renewable projects, expanded fossil fuel extraction and left the Paris Agreement (again). Trump’s efforts to hamstring climate action have made for extreme geopolitical turbulence, overshadowing the world’s main forum for coordinating climate action – even as the problem worsens.

Last year, average global warming climbed above 1.5°C for the first time. Costly climate-fuelled disasters are multiplying, with severe heatwaves, fires and flooding affecting most continents this year.

Climate talks are never easy. Every nation wants input and many interests clash. Petrostates and big fossil fuel exporters want to keep extraction going, while Pacific states despairingly watch the seas rise. But in the absence of a global government to direct climate policy, these imperfect talks remain the best option for coordinating commitment to meaningful action.

Here’s what to keep an eye on this year.

A smaller-than-usual COP?

A persistent criticism of the annual climate summits is that they have become too big and unwieldy – more a trade show and playground for fossil fuel lobbyists than an effective forum for multilateral diplomacy and action on climate change. One solution is to deliberately make these talks smaller.

The Belém conference may end up having a smaller number of delegates, though not by design so much as logistical headaches.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva backed the decision to invite the world to the Amazon to display how vital the massive rainforest is as a carbon sink. But Belém’s remote location on the northeast coast, limited infrastructure and shortage of hotels have seen prices soar, putting the conference out of reach for smaller nations, including some of the most vulnerable. These constraints could undermine the inclusive “Mutirão” (collective effort on climate change) sought by organisers.

Show me the money

Climate finance is a perennial issue at COP meetings. These funding pledges by rich countries are intended to help poorer countries reduce emissions, adapt to climate change or recover from climate disasters. Poorer countries have long called for more funding, given rich countries have done vastly more damage to the climate.

At COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan last year, a new climate finance goal was set for US$300 billion (~A$460 billion) to be raised annually by developed countries by 2035, with the goal of reaching $US1.3 trillion (~A$2 trillion) in funding from both government and private sources over the same period.

To deliver the second goal, negotiators laid out a “Baku to Belém” roadmap. The details are due to be finalised at COP30. But with the US walking away from climate action and the European Union wavering, many eyes will be on China and whether it will step into the climate leadership vacuum left by developed countries. The EU has only just reached agreement on a 2040 emissions reduction target and an “indicative” cut for 2035.

Climate finance will be the priority for many countries, as worsening disasters such as Hurricane Melissa in Jamaica and Typhoon Kalmaegi in the Philippines once again demonstrate the enormous human and financial cost of climate change.

The latest UN assessment indicates the need for this funding is outpacing flows by 12–14 times. In Belém, poorer countries will be hoping to land agreement on greater finance and support for adaptation. Work on a global set of indicators to track progress on adaptation – including finance – will be key.

Brazilian organisers hope to rally countries around another flagship funding initiative set to launch at COP30. The Tropical Forests Forever Facility would compensate countries for preserving tropical forests, with 20% of funds directed to Indigenous peoples and local communities who protect tropical forest on their lands. If it gets up, this fund could offer a breakthrough in tackling deforestation by flipping the economics in favour of conservation and protecting a huge store of carbon.

2035 climate pledges

Belém was supposed to be a celebration of ambitious new emissions pledges which would keep alive the Paris Agreement goal of holding warming to 1.5°C. Nations were originally due to submit their 2035 pledges (formally known as Nationally Determined Contributions) by February, with an extension given to September after 95 per cent of countries missed the deadline.

When pledges finally arrived in September, they were broadly underwhelming. Only half the world’s emissions were covered by a 2035 pledge, meaning the remaining emissions gap could be very significant. Australia is pledging cuts of 62–70% from 2005 emissions levels.

That’s not to say there’s no progress. A new UN report suggests countries are bending the curve downward on emissions but at a far slower pace than is needed.

How negotiators handle this emissions gap will be a litmus test for whether countries are taking their Paris Agreement obligations seriously.

Rise of the courts

Even as some countries back away from climate action, courts are increasingly stepping into the breach. This year, the International Court of Justice issued a rousing Advisory Opinion on states’ climate obligations under international law, including that national targets have to make an adequate contribution to meeting the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal. The court warned failing to take “appropriate action” to safeguard the climate system from fossil fuel emissions – including from projects carried out by private corporations – may be “an internationally wrongful act”. That is, they could attract international liability.

It will be interesting to see how this ruling affects negotiating positions at COP30 over the fossil fuel phase-out. At COP28 in 2023, nations promised to begin “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”. If countries fail to progress the phase-out, accountability could instead be delivered via the courts. A new judgement in France found the net zero targets of oil and gas majors amount to greenwashing, while lawsuits aimed at making big carbon polluters liable for climate damage caused by their emissions are in the pipeline.

An Australia/Pacific COP?

A big question to be resolved is whether Australia’s long-running bid to host next year’s COP in Adelaide will get up. The bid to jointly host COP31 with Pacific nations has strong international support, but the rival bidder, Turkey, has not withdrawn.

If consensus is not reached at COP30, the host city would default back to Bonn in Germany, where the UN climate secretariat is based.

Outcome unknown

As climate change worsens, these sprawling, intense meetings may not seem like a solution. But despite headwinds and backsliding, they are essential. The world has made progress on climate change since 2015, due in large part to the Paris Agreement. What’s needed now on its tenth anniversary is a reinfusion of vigour to get the job done.

Jacqueline Peel receives funding from the Australian Research Council under a 2024 Kathleen Fitzpatrick Australian Laureate Fellowship.

– ref. Geopolitics, backsliding and progress: here’s what to expect at this year’s COP30 global climate talks – https://theconversation.com/geopolitics-backsliding-and-progress-heres-what-to-expect-at-this-years-cop30-global-climate-talks-268662

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

Ten years on from the landmark Paris Agreement, countries have taken big strides in limiting emissions and the clean energy transition is accelerating rapidly. But geopolitical headwinds are growing and the damage bill for climate pollution is rising. Climate action hangs in the balance.

Next week, these issues will come to a head as negotiators gather in Brazil for COP30, the 30th annual global climate talks. This year’s talks could be pivotal, as all countries were due to set more ambitious targets to cut emissions. Will the world double down on the clean energy transition – or will momentum stall and fossil fuel interests win out?

Australia has a larger role than its size and clout might suggest. After two decades as one of the world’s worst climate laggards, the new national emissions target compares favourably with much of the developed world. Australia is also bidding to host the next COP talks with Pacific nations.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has attracted some criticism over his decision not to attend the summit. But Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen will be there, alongside dozens of negotiators and experts from Australia and the Pacific.

The outcome is uncertain. But for the first time in years, Australia will be a leader in working towards a consensus on a managed transition away from fossil fuels.

What’s at stake at COP30?

The world’s climate talks are returning to their birthplace. The UN Climate Convention was signed in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 before talks began three years later. This year, the 30th Conference of Parties will be held in the Amazonian city of Belém.

For COP30 to succeed, it must firm up global commitment to the Paris Agreement. That may seem hard, given the United States is once again walking away from climate action.

But there is good news. The Paris Agreement is working, slowly but surely. Countries agreed to set emissions targets and increase their ambition every five years. These targets are bending the curve of emissions and limiting warming.

Before Paris, the world was on track for a catastrophic outcome: 4°C degrees of warming this century. The first wave of global emissions targets brought this closer to 3°C. In 2021, upgraded targets brought projections down to 2.1–2.8°C. Tallying up the new round of national targets suggests it may be possible to limit warming to 1.9°C. That assumes, of course, all targets are met in full. The new United Nations emissions gap report suggests 2.3–2.5°C is more likely.

The bad news is the Paris Agreement is not working fast enough. The longer we take to bring global emissions to net zero, the more heating we bake in. Every fraction of a degree intensifies damage to ecosystems and human communities. We are seeing these worsening impacts now at 1.2°C of warming. Almost every corner of the world is already reeling from intensifying heat, storms, floods, droughts and fires.

What can Australia do?

Australia’s delegation will arrive in Belém with a much stronger target: cutting emissions 62–70% by 2035 (from 2005 levels).

This isn’t aligned with the science – a cut of at least 75% is needed to align with the Paris goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. But it’s an improvement.

Australia’s 2030 target was one of the weakest among wealthy nations. But only a handful of nations now have a more ambitious 2035 target.

That’s not all. Australia’s rapid shift to renewable energy is one of the fastest in the world. One in three Australian homes now has rooftop solar. Grid operators are at the forefront of soaking up more and more clean power. The federal government plans to have the main grid running on over 80% renewable power within five years. These successes offer an encouraging story.

Our turn next?

If the COP31 bid succeeds, it would mean Adelaide would host Australia’s largest ever diplomatic meeting. Success would help cement Australia’s place in the Pacific at a time of increasing geostrategic competition.

In 2022, the Australian government announced its bid to host the COP talks with the Pacific. Since then, Bowen has effectively been auditioning to head the talks, taking on key roles at the annual climate talks. At last year’s talks in Azerbaijan, he co-chaired negotiations for a new global finance goal.

The bid has broad support. But Turkey has refused to withdraw a rival bid. The standoff is expected to be resolved in the second week of talks in Belém.

If Australia secures hosting rights, leaders will have a positive story to tell about the renewables shift. But hosting would also draw attention to Australia’s huge gas and coal exports. Long one of the largest coal exporters, Australia’s gas production has doubled since the 2015 Paris Agreement. The emissions of these exports are three times larger than the entire domestic economy.

Until recently, these exported emissions were considered a customer responsibility. But in July, the world’s highest court found countries are legally responsible for climate damages caused by fossil fuel production and consumption, noting countries approving new fossil fuel projects may be committing “internationally wrongful acts”.

This finding is likely to ripple through these talks. Two years ago, nations at COP28 in Dubai agreed to “transition away from fossil fuels” in their energy systems. Bowen hailed the announcement:

if we are to keep 1.5°C alive, fossil fuels have no ongoing role to play in our energy systems – and I speak as the climate and energy minister of one of the world’s largest fossil fuel exporters.

Bowen and the Australian delegation will have to bring this level of clarity to Brazil amid backsliding by other major fossil fuel exporters such as the United States.

If COP31 comes to Adelaide, Bowen will need to go further. No one has yet given a sunset date for Australia’s fossil fuel industry. Working alongside Pacific nations, Australia can build a global legacy: beginning the managed phase out of fossil fuel production.

Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council of Australia

Ben Newell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. As global climate action threatens to stall, can Australia step up at COP30 in Brazil? – https://theconversation.com/as-global-climate-action-threatens-to-stall-can-australia-step-up-at-cop30-in-brazil-267430

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gary Mortimer, Professor of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Queensland University of Technology

More than 1.4 million people are employed in Australian retail and fast food businesses. Sadly, it’s not always a happy or safe place to work.

A union survey of more than 4,600 frontline workers found 87% had experienced customer verbal abuse in 2023 – consistent since 2016.

But incidents have become more frequent: in 2023, 76% of those who’d been abused experienced it daily, weekly or monthly, compared with 54% just two years earlier.

Retailers have spent millions on beefed up staff security measures, including body-worn cameras.

The lead up to Christmas is a notoriously bad time for customer violence and abuse against workers. On Thursday, a large collective of retail groups launched a national “Be Kind in Retail” campaign, urging shoppers to be compassionate and patient over Christmas.

But there is one ultra-cheap solution, trialled since 2020, which our three-part study has now confirmed seems to significantly reduce customers’ intention to verbally abuse workers.

A name and a story

In late 2017, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (SDA) union launched its “No One Deserves a Serve” campaign to reduce abuse of frontline staff.

Later, as part of this initiative, the union bought 500,000 adhesive plastic “under badges”, which were handed out for free from early 2020 to retail staff to stick to existing name badges.

An under badge is a small personal identifier attached below a name tag that can convey a short humanising message in a few words. Examples include “I’m a mother” or “I’m a son”.

The badges were trialled with retailers such as Woolworths, Target, Big W and KFC.

Around 2020, lead author Gary Mortimer’s daughter came home from her job at a supermarket wearing one of these under badges.

Surprisingly however, there’s been little research done into the evidence behind low-cost solutions to customer abuse, and whether such badges really could help curb customer abuse. So, we decided to investigate.

What our research found

In our recently published study, we began by speaking with 17 supermarket workers in late 2024, who had participated in the “No One Deserves a Serve” campaign.

Some said they’d felt awkward about wearing phrases like “I’m a son”.

But overall, participants said under badges seemed to reduce verbal abuse, created opportunities to chat and increased customers’ empathy.

A 39-year-old supermarket worker said:

[Customers] treat us like dirt. I recall this old fellow coming in and carrying on […] and then he just calms down when he sees that I’m a mother. He starts talking about his kids when they were younger. It was like I suddenly became a real person, not just a worker.

Another 22-year-old worker said:

I think badges made customers see us as equals.

Interestingly, none of the workers interviewed were still wearing their under badge. It was not always unclear why; one participant told us it had fallen apart, while others may have been lost.

How did almost 1,000 customers respond?

We also ran two experiments with a total of 940 customers.

First, we created a scenario where we described a poor service experience, which elicited anger.

We then presented artificial intelligence (AI) generated images of fictional retail workers. Some had just their name badge, while others disclosed personal information such as “I’m a daughter” on an under badge.

We then asked 600 respondents how likely a “reasonable” customer would be to shout, complain aggressively, become verbally abusive, or argue with the worker.

While the under badge didn’t completely deter verbal abuse, there was a statistically significant reduction in customers’ intention to engage in verbal abuse when the additional badge saying “I’m a mum/dad/daughter/son” was also worn.

Finally, we replicated the experiment with 340 different customers. We changed the under badges to read, “I’m a local”.

The same procedures were used, and we again confirmed that any form of self-disclosure – that is, revealing something about our “personal story” – reduced customer abuse.

How humanisation can reduce customer abuse

Two theories can help explain why revealing something about ourselves fosters greater levels of respect and empathy in others.

The first, social penetration theory describes the way we move from shallow, to deeper relationships with others.

It suggests we assess the “rewards” and “costs” attained from interacting with other people. Social rewards may include being liked. Social costs emerge from feelings of vulnerability.

The second, social exchange theory, suggests when the social rewards are greater than the costs of the interaction, exchanges will continue.

However, for self disclosure to work, these theories suggest the information shared must be perceived as “more than what is expected”, possibly of a personal nature.

This “extra” personal disclosure tips the balance in favour of the customer, simply: “I’ve learned something about this worker, without having to divulge anything in return.”

Our research demonstrates when workers disclose personal information, a social exchange takes place. Customers see the worker as a human – not just an extension of the retail brand.

Trying to keep retail workers safer

Over the five years since the badges launched, we’ve observed far fewer worn in shops. However, the SDA told The Conversation it is still sharing them and they are still available.

But it’s something businesses of all sizes could experiment with. Looking online to gauge current costs, we found it could cost as little as 17 cents per badge (plus GST) for a large business with 10,000-plus employees, to 43 cents for a smaller order of fewer than 1,000 badges.

It seems a small price to help remind customers that retail workers deserve to be treated as equals.

Gary Mortimer has received past funding from the Building Employer Confidence and Inclusion in Disability Grant, the AusIndustry Entrepreneurs’ Program, the National Clothing Textiles Stewardship Scheme, the National Retail Association and the Australian Retailers Association. He is an independent director and board chair of Services and Creative Skills Australia, a federally-funded jobs and skills council.

Maria Lucila Osorio Andrade and Shasha Wang 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. As retail workers brace for the silly season, this 20c solution could dial down customer verbal abuse – https://theconversation.com/as-retail-workers-brace-for-the-silly-season-this-20c-solution-could-dial-down-customer-verbal-abuse-269074

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Oliver Bown, Associate Professor, UNSW Sydney

Last week, artificial intelligence (AI) music company Udio announced an out-of-court settlement with Universal Music Group (UMG) over a lawsuit that accused Udio (as well as another AI music company called Suno) of copyright infringement.

The lawsuit was brought forward last year by the Recording Industry Association of America, on behalf of UMG and the other two “big three” labels: Sony Music and Warner Records.

The lawsuit alleged Udio – which offers text-to-audio music generating software – trained its AI on UMG’s catalogue of music.

But beyond agreeing to settle, the pair have announced a “strategic agreement” to create a new product, to be trained exclusively on UMG’s catalogue, that respects copyright. We don’t have any details about the product at this stage.

In any case, the agreement puts both Udio and UMG in powerful positions.

Uncertainty remains

Some notable copyright campaigners have trumpeted the outcome as a success for creators in the fight against “AI theft”. But since it’s a private settlement, we don’t actually know how compensation for artists will be calculated.

To seasoned observers, the agreement between UMG and Udio mainly reflects the realpolitik of music big business.

In a panel discussion at last year’s SXSW festival in Sydney, Kate Haddock, partner at the law firm Banki Haddock Fiora, anticipated many lawsuits between copyright holders and AI companies would end in private settlements that may include equity in the AI companies.

Such settlements and strategic partnerships will help major labels set the ground rules for developing AI-music ecosystems. And it seems they are becoming common. Last month, Spotify announced a deal with UMG, Sony and Warner to produce “responsible AI products” across a range of applications. Again, we have little detail as to what this will look like in practice.

Such arrangements could allow music giants to benefit financially from non-infringing uses of AI, as well as getting a cut from uses that attract a copyright payment (such as fan remixes).

How does this affect creators?

According to Drew Silverstein, co-founder and chief executive of AI-powered platform Amper Music:

the real headline is that with one of the biggest rights-holders now actively engaging with generative AI music products, smaller players can’t afford to sit on the sidelines.

However, any vision of how such a settlement might serve smaller individual creators remains murky.

Even with AI companies agreeing to do deals to get training data (rather than helping themselves to it), these’s no straightforward model for how attribution and revenue can be equitably distributed to creators whose work was used to train an AI model, or who opt in for future use of their works in generative AI contexts.

Several emerging companies such as ProRata are claiming to develop “attribution tracing” technologies that can mathematically trace the influence on an AI-generated output back to its sources in the training data. In theory, this could be used as a way to divide royalties, just as streaming services count the number of plays on a track.

However, such approaches would assign extraordinary economic power to algorithms that regular stakeholders don’t understand. These algorithms would also be contentious by their nature. For instance, if an output sounded like 1950s bebop, there is no “right way” to decide which of the thousands of bebop recordings should be credited, and how much.

A more blunt but practical approach has been used by Adobe’s Firefly image-AI suite. Adobe pays artists an “AI contributor bonus”, calculated in proportion to the revenue their work has already generated. This is a proxy measure because it doesn’t directly capture any value a work brings to the AI system.

When it comes to generative AI, it’s hard to find attribution and revenue solutions that aren’t highly arbitrary, difficult to understand, or both.

The results of this are systems that risk being easily exploited and inequitable. For example, if there’s a payment structure, attribution tracing could encourage artists to create music that maximises the likelihood of attracting attributions.

Artists are already struggling to understand complex rules of success defined by powerful digital platforms. AI seems poised to exacerbate these problems by “industrialising” the sector even further.

Music as a public good

As it stands, individual artists don’t have clear, globally agreed protection from having their work used to train AI models. Even if they’re able to opt out in the future, generative AI is likely to present major power imbalances.

A model legitimately trained on a catalogue as vast as UMG’s – a giant tranche of the world’s most significant recorded music – will have the ability to create music in many different styles, and with a wealth of conceivable applications. This could transform the musical experience.

To understand what risks being lost, academic research is now reinvigorating a view of music when considered at the scale of AI, as a collectively produced shared cultural good, sustained by human labour. Copyright isn’t suited to protecting this kind of shared value.

The idea that copyright provides an incentive for creators to produce original work is faltering with AI–recording industry licensing deals. Looking for other ways to support original music might be the solution we need.

Oliver Bown receives research funding from the European Research Council and the Australian Research Council.

Kathy Bowrey receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Universal Music went from suing an AI company to partnering with it. What will it mean for artists? – https://theconversation.com/universal-music-went-from-suing-an-ai-company-to-partnering-with-it-what-will-it-mean-for-artists-268773

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kristin Brig, Lecturer in Public Health & Society, Washington University in St. Louis

The water infrastructure politics of eThekwini, the municipality that includes the city of Durban, have been splashed across the digital pages of South Africa’s news outlets in recent years.

They’ve covered the 2022 floods that damaged kilometres of pipes, water tanker purchases as a response to increasing water scarcity, and the disconnection of residential water storage tanks from municipal pipes to cope with leaky infrastructure. Like other South African municipalities, eThekwini has fallen behind on maintaining its piped water infrastructure and has looked to stopgap solutions.

The city’s water politics has a long history. Some of the infrastructure issues can be traced back to the mid-1800s, when it was a British imperial port.

I’m a historian with an interest in coastal communities and urban life. As part of my work on water as a public health concern in colonial cities, I spent months in the Durban Archives Repository, going through correspondence, reports, business contracts, newspaper clippings and town council minutes.

The records revealed how the system of colonial-era water infrastructure worked – and for whom.

The first water technologies in Durban were British-styled wells. Anyone could use them, for free. They brought people of different origins and class together for practical purposes but also created anxiety about social difference. For colonial officials, the public had to follow British standards or lose access to the infrastructure altogether. They created Durban’s first water-policing system, purportedly for better public health and conservation. While wealthier and white people eventually came to rely on piped water, poorer and black (Zulu and Indian) people were excluded.

This system formed the basis for the uneven access to water that today’s residents experience. People still depend on private water infrastructure as the municipal system struggles.

Nineteenth-century infrastructure

Founded by British traders as Port Natal in 1824, the colonial borough of Durban depended on stand-alone water infrastructures from the beginning. Brick and cement wells were the first technologies from which residents drew water, since they were easy to build and maintain. Most wells had either a bucket or a pump attached to them. Pumps attached to wells became common after the borough made most wells publicly available in the mid-1850s.

Water tanks, on the other hand, were private technologies which mainly lay underground. Only wealthier households and businesses could afford to build them. They became prominent in the 1870s.

It’s hard to know exactly how many of these infrastructures existed in total. By the 1870s, though, official reports indicate that about 18 public wells and pumps across the town served the bulk of the town’s approximately 20,000 inhabitants.

Piped water came to Durban in the 1880s, supplied initially by the spring at Curries Fountain. In 1889, the city’s laws were extended to cover private tanks that were filled from the municipal pipes. Even so, much of the population still relied on standalone infrastructures for water supplies.

As time went by, conflicts began to brew. The rising population placed a strain on these stand-alone infrastructures, which offered varying amounts of water depending on rainfall patterns. Arguments sparked when a community drew too much water or polluted a well, creating a local water scarcity.

Clashes and restrictions

White colonists blamed much of the water scarcity and contamination on African labourers who worked as household or business servants, sanitary workers and launderers. These positions demanded a close relationship with fresh water collection and use, which meant African labourers became the main users of wells, pumps and tanks.

Labourers did not always use water technologies according to colonial expectations, however. Local people were accustomed to using open water sources like rivers and streams, not restrictive iron and brick infrastructures. So, they modified their traditional work at open sources, like washing objects and produce, to the new technologies they had to use.

That sometimes created problems, according to the archive records. They accidentally broke handles and chains when pumping too quickly. They drew water from tanks without using a filter, which was officially perceived as a disease risk. They publicly washed clothing, bodies and food at wells, where the dirty wash water flowed back into the enclosed water supply.

Colonists exploited this situation to place restrictions on how labourers could use stand-alone water infrastructures. Borough officials crafted new laws that forced colonised residents to conform with British standards. They punished those who did not comply with fines, verbal lashings and even jail time.

Durban was part of a colonial system predicated on white supremacy. The government sought to maintain segregation between white colonists and African and South Asian residents. So, it imbued its water technology regulations with the notion that some water management actions – British – were “healthier” than others, namely African and South Asian. If someone used a technology contrary to British standards, then they faced restricted access to public technologies and the water they provided.

Water system legacy

Stand-alone water infrastructures still exist across eThekwini. Many residents of informal settlements and formerly racially segregated areas remain officially unconnected with municipal pipes. They instead depend on local wells, pumps and illegal individualised connections. An increasing number of households are investing in water tanks as the municipal water system becomes more unreliable.

Read more:
The lack of water in South Africa is the result of a long history of injustice – and legislation should start there

Things have, of course, changed since the 19th century. However, the municipality continues to require residents to use these technologies within regulatory boundaries if residents want to maintain access to them. Cutting off municipal water supply to private storage tanks is an example.

Infrastructural stopgaps further expose a water system that was never meant to supply every resident equitably and without restriction. These actions tell us that today’s officials have inherited and inadvertently continue a water system that was meant to exclude more than include, to punish more than teach, to restrict more than provide.

Kristin Brig receives funding from the US Fulbright Program, the US National Science Foundation (NSF), and Johns Hopkins University.

– ref. Access to water has a long racial history in Durban: I followed the story in the city’s archives – https://theconversation.com/access-to-water-has-a-long-racial-history-in-durban-i-followed-the-story-in-the-citys-archives-267302

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexa Scarlata, Lecturer, Digital Communication, RMIT University

This week the Labor government announced it is poised to introduce a bill to parliament that will impose regulatory obligations on major subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) services operating in Australia.

The legislation will require services such as Netflix, Disney+ and Prime Video (any with at least one million Australian subscribers) to support the production of new local drama, as well as children’s, documentary, arts and educational programming.

They can choose to do so in one of two ways. They can either invest at least 10% of their total expenditure for Australia, or 7.5% of their total revenue generated in Australia in the year prior.

In 2024 the market leader, Netflix, reported a local revenue of A$1.3 billion and expenses of $1.25 billion. This would equate to spending A$125 million via the expenditure model, or AU$97.5 million via the revenue model. It’s unclear how the method of determining a model will be decided.

The quota will also apply to Stan and Paramount+ if they meet the subscriber threshold. This is the case even though these services have ownership ties to the commercial broadcasters Nine and Ten, which already have their own content obligations.

A long road to regulation

Major streaming services have been left to operate unregulated in Australia for more than a decade.

The European Union imposed a 30% European-content catalogue quota on streaming services operating in the EU back in 2018. It also provided the option for member states to impose additional investment obligations, levies and promotion requirements on these services.

Similarly, Canadian broadcast regulations were updated in 2023 to require online streaming services to contribute to and promote Canadian content.

In Australia, there have been eight official inquiries into whether, and how, to regulate streaming services. We’ve also seen a 2022 Labor election promise to act on this, a formal commitment in the government’s 2023 Revive National Cultural Policy, and a promised (and subsequently missed) July 2024 deadline.

During these long periods of uncertainly, streamers banded together to lobby hard against multiple proposed models.

Hope for a flailing sector

Rather than regulating streaming services, since 2016 consecutive federal governments instead opted for scaling back licence fees and local content obligations for commercial broadcasters. This has resulted in a significant decline in Australia’s screen production sector.

This week’s announcement provides assurance about how much money streaming giants will have to consistently inject back into the local industry. Early estimates suggest the legislation could guarantee contributions of more than A$300 million per year.

It’s also good news the legislation explicitly identifies and supports key genres of locally-produced content (drama and children’s, documentary, arts and educational programming), rather than letting the streamers decide.

Research has found Australian drama is facing an uncertain future – as is children’s content, which is no longer supported by broadcast TV regulation and has subsequently deteriorated.

The framework’s emphasis on specifically “local” programs is also promising. It will hopefully delineate the creation of Australian stories, rather than allowing streamers to meet their obligations by pumping out offshore productions made in Australian studios.

But some questions remain

What we won’t know until the bill is introduced is what this means for exactly how much content SVOD services will be required to make. Will they have to make a minimum number of local productions, or certain hours’ worth?

As part of their licensing requirements, commercial television broadcasters have long had to produce and screen a certain number of hours of new Australian content to reach a certain number of points per genre.

While these conditions have been relaxed in recent years, this model provided our production sector with a scale and consistency that could sustain jobs, nurture talent and provide industry training.

Currently, it’s unclear whether Netflix and its competitors could meet their obligations with a handful of titles per year. We might see a few big-budget productions popping up sporadically, rather than a larger quantity overall. What good is that for our flailing production sector?

We also don’t know whether there’s anything in the legislative package to ensure that what gets made by these streamers as part of their obligations will actually reach viewers via their algorithmically-personalised interfaces. A spokesperson for Save Our Arts said the collective would like to see “algorithmic prominence addressed so Australian content is not made then buried. It must be discoverable.”

Finally, as much as this overdue regulation is good news, it will no doubt leave broadcasters reeling. Last year, Free TV, the peak body for commercial free-to-air stations, argued the introduction of such legislation “risks creating unintended costs for local broadcasters”.

Broadcasters will struggle to compete with the high per-hour production spends streamers can afford. They will also face increased competition for production labour and facilities.

As is usually the case with such things, the devil is in the details.

Alexa Scarlata 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. New laws will force streaming giants to invest in local content – but it’s too soon to celebrate – https://theconversation.com/new-laws-will-force-streaming-giants-to-invest-in-local-content-but-its-too-soon-to-celebrate-269093

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow in Urban Risk and Resilience, The University of Melbourne

In the span of just a few days, two children were killed in separate e-bike crashes in Queensland — one on the Sunshine Coast and another on the Gold Coast.

Not more than a week later, seven people were hospitalised in Queensland in a series of separate e-bike and e-scooter crashes across the state.

There have been four e-bike deaths involving children and teenagers in Australia since July. Three have been in Queensland.

What can be done to prevent injuries and deaths on e-bikes?

E-bikes in Australia

E-bikes are generally defined as pedal-assisted bicycles powered by small electric motors, limited to 250 watts and 25 kilometres per hour under Australian law. These bikes are either bought by consumers or rented and used on roads.

However, many of the bikes involved in recent crashes appear to exceed those limits. Some are modified and capable of far higher speeds.

Across Australia, there is no age limit for riding e-bikes.

However, shared mobility operators such as Lime and Beam require riders to be at least 16–18 years old, depending on the city and service.

Australia also has no formal mechanism for recording e-bike fatalities — itself a significant data gap. But the trend is hard to ignore: e-bike crashes involving young riders appear to be an escalating risk.

Evidence from e-scooter studies shows children aged under 18 are disproportionately involved in serious crashes, which is why most states have imposed age limits for e-scooter use.

The risks of riding e-bikes

For the general population, evidence shows e-bike riders face a higher fatal crash risk than pedal cyclists.

In the Netherlands for example, the rate of fatal crashes involving e-bike owners has far exceeded that of regular bicycles in recent years.

A large study in the United States analysed injury records for children involved in e-bike crashes — almost 4,000 cases — and compared them with nearly two million traditional bicycle injuries of children.

The findings were striking.

From 2011 to 2020, e-bike injuries among children increased, while regular bicycle injuries declined. And children injured on e-bikes were twice as likely to end up in hospital than those using regular bikes.

The most affected age group for e-bike injuries was 10-13.

Another study, from Israel, compared injuries among more than 500 children admitted to hospital after bicycle crashes — around one-third on e-bikes and the rest on traditional bicycles.

The results were consistent with the US study, but even more alarming: children on e-bikes had more severe injuries overall and a greater likelihood of being involved in collisions with motor vehicles. They were also more likely to experience loss of consciousness and nearly half required orthopaedic surgery.

More recent evidence reinforces the same picture.

A 2025 study of more than 700 young riders aged 10-25 found e-bike riders were twice as likely to suffer traumatic brain injuries as those on regular bicycles.

For risks specific to children and within the Australian context, the closest comparison that can be drawn comes from the adjacent mode: e-scooters.

My recent research shows one in three fatal e-scooter crashes in Australia involved a rider under the age of 18, a significant over-representation relative to this group’s share of the population.

In near parallel to what we are now seeing with e-bikes, more than half of these child fatalities on e-scooters occurred in Queensland.

There are many reasons why more accidents are happening in Queensland. The state was an early adopter of e-micromobility, has Australia’s most permissive e-scooter rules for children (allowing riders as young as 12 with supervision) and enjoys a warm climate and long riding season — all of which increase exposure.

A Queensland parliamentary inquiry into e-mobility safety is expected to deliver a report in the first half of next year.

Why children are more at risk

E-bikes expose young riders to a mix of physical and behavioural risks.

The machines are heavier and faster than regular bikes, often capable of speeds around 40–60km/h.

Research on hazard perception helps explain part of this risk.

In experimental settings, e-bike riders aged 16-18 were found to identify significantly fewer developing hazards and to respond later than adults when viewing real-world traffic scenes.

Their hazard awareness mainly improved with age and riding experience.

In Australia, many of the e-bikes children ride are technically illegal or modified.

Conversion kits sold online can remove speed limiters, turning a standard bike into one capable of highway speeds.

Online tutorials make these modifications accessible to teenagers, and enforcement is minimal.

Behavioural patterns add another layer.

News reports describe teenagers performing wheelies, racing through intersections and riding on the wrong side of traffic. These behaviours are often amplified by social media and peer imitation.

What should be done?

There’s already enough international evidence to guide our policy. We don’t need to wait for local tragedies to confirm what’s been shown elsewhere — that e-bikes pose distinct risks to children.

Many countries have already acted. Minimum age limits for e-bike use are common in some countries — typically 16 years — recognising these vehicles require cognitive and physical maturity comparable to those of motorcycles.

In Australia, the definition of a legal e-bike is already clear: capped at 250 watts of power and 25 km/h under pedal-assist.

The issue is not classification but enforcement and scope.

Current laws do little to prevent riders from accessing and riding high-powered or modified e-bikes that fall outside these limits.

What’s missing are age-based restrictions, controls on the import and sale of illegal conversion kits and targeted awareness campaigns for parents as well as retailers (by encouraging responsible point-of-sale behaviour).

Public awareness campaigns are particularly important ahead of the Christmas season, when e-bikes and conversion kits are increasingly marketed as gifts.

Milad Haghani 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. Young people are increasingly being killed or injured on e-bikes. It’s time for governments to act – https://theconversation.com/young-people-are-increasingly-being-killed-or-injured-on-e-bikes-its-time-for-governments-to-act-269095

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wenzhong Huang, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

Tropical cyclones – also known as hurricanes, typhoons or storms, depending on their location and intensity – are among the world’s most destructive and costly climate disasters.

Their direct physical impacts, such as injuries and drowning, are well known.

But what about the wider health effects in the days and weeks after a cyclone? As health systems are disrupted and other issues arise, what happens next?

We analysed 14.8 million deaths in 1,356 communities around the world that had 217 tropical cyclones between them.

In our paper published today in the BMJ, we show what, and who, we should be focusing on if we are to prevent more people dying after these devastating events.

Why we’re interested in this

Each year, tropical cylones affect more than 20 million people and rack up around US$51.5 billion in damage globally.

In recent years, these cyclones have been getting stronger and lasting longer. They are expected to become more intense as our climate warms.

As well as wanting to know the wider health effects of tropical cyclones, we wanted to find out how these differ between countries and territories.

For instance, how do the wider health effects differ in countries such as Australia, which usually see fewer cyclones, compared to cyclone “hot zones”, such as those in East and Southeast Asia, or the eastern coast of the United States?

Understanding these differences is important given the shifting behaviour of tropical cyclones in a changing climate. This may include a greater risk in historically less-affected regions.

What we did

Our research team collected data from 1,356 communities across Australia, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Taiwan and Thailand between 2000 and 2019.

We combined death records with modelling of wind and rainfall patterns for each cyclone. This allowed us to assess relationships of cyclone windspeed and rainfall with the risk of dying from various causes afterwards. We also accounted for seasonal variations in mortality, and other factors.

What we found and what could explain it

The results were striking. Risks of dying from various causes consistently increased after a tropical cyclone. Generally, the risk peaked within the first two weeks of the cyclone, followed by a rapid decline.

Over the first two weeks, the largest increases were seen in deaths from kidney disease (up 92%) and injuries (up 21%) per cyclone-day in the first week. The more cyclone-days, the greater the cumulative risk.

We found more modest increases for deaths from diabetes (15%), neuropsychiatric disorders (such as epilepsy) (12%), infectious diseases (11%), gut diseases (6%), respiratory diseases (4%), cardiovascular diseases (2%) and cancer (2%).

So why is this happening? A combination of disrupted essential health care, limited access to medications, and increased physical and psychological stress likely explain our findings.

For example, power outages, flooding, or transportation disruptions caused by cyclones might stop the regular dialysis for people with kidney disease, creating life-threatening complications.

Rain may be even more deadly

We also found that rainfall from tropical cyclones is more strongly associated with deaths than wind, especially for cardiovascular, respiratory and infectious diseases.

This may be because the hazards associated with heavy rainfall, such as flooding and water contamination, can be more deadly than the direct impacts of strong winds, particularly for certain diseases.

So early warning systems for tropical cyclones may need to place greater emphasis on cyclone-related rainfall as well as windspeed.

Poorer countries were worse off

A similar study in 2022 focused on deaths after cyclones in the US. But when we studied more countries, we found higher risks of cyclone-related deaths.

We also found people living in poorer communities are substantially more likely to die from various causes after tropical cyclones.

These health gaps appeared to be most pronounced for kidney, infectious and gut diseases, as well as diabetes, reflecting existing health inequities.

Notably, countries and communities that rarely experienced cyclones but were now exposed to them were at greater risk of cyclone-related deaths. This may reflect a lack of effective response systems in areas with historically fewer cyclones.

The findings also highlight that many areas in the world that have had few cyclones historically, including Australia and higher-latitude regions, cannot afford to be complacent. With climate change, cyclone tracks and intensity are shifting, and these places may be especially vulnerable.

Where to next?

To reduce the health impacts of tropical cyclones, health departments’ disaster planning must look beyond immediate injuries and infrastructure damage. They need to prepare for a surge in medical needs across a range of diseases.

Emergency management agencies need to invest in poorer communities to reduce the persistent and significant health inequities they face during disasters such as cyclones.

Meteorological departments should also integrate more health data and epidemiological evidence into cyclone early warning and management systems to better protect vulnerable populations.

Wenzhong Huang receives funding from the China Scholarship Council.

Shandy (Shanshan) Li receives funding from the NHMRC.

Yuming Guo receives funding from the NHMRC and ARC.

– ref. We studied 217 tropical cyclones globally to see how people died. Our findings might surprise you – https://theconversation.com/we-studied-217-tropical-cyclones-globally-to-see-how-people-died-our-findings-might-surprise-you-268983

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marta Andhov, Associate Professor, Law School & Business School, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

The New Zealand government spends about NZ$51.5 billion each year – around 20% of GDP – on goods, services and infrastructure from third-party suppliers. It’s a lot, but how that money is spent matters as much as the amount.

Public procurement isn’t just about buying office supplies. Governments rely on it to build bridges and hospitals, source defence and medical supplies, deliver essential services, and purchase everything from cloud computing systems to renewable-energy infrastructure.

These spending decisions shape everyday life and influence social, economic and environmental outcomes. Choosing sustainable suppliers and materials can make a real difference, helping to strengthen New Zealand’s economy.

The latest Government Procurement Rules now require public agencies to consider how their spending supports New Zealand’s economy in a variety of ways.

This can include adding social value, such as creating local employment or opportunities for Māori and Pasifika businesses. Or it might involve environmental benefits, such as reducing carbon emissions or choosing products designed for reuse and recycling.

But many procurement teams still find it difficult to put these goals into action because they lack time, tools or specialist knowledge. Artificial intelligence (AI) could help change that.

By automating complex tasks and analysing large amounts of data, AI can handle work that once took weeks of human effort. With Public Service Minister Judith Collins encouraging public agencies to embrace AI for productivity gains, it seems likely this will extend to public procurement.

At the same time, AI is not a silver bullet. It carries unique risks and demands caution. Government institutions must protect citizens’ rights, safety, wellbeing, data privacy and security.

Big spending, big impact

Handled carefully, AI could help buyers use their purchasing power for more sustainable choices that benefit New Zealanders. But a lack of transparency and concentrated market power among a few large technology providers can lead to algorithmic bias and unfair outcomes.

In our recent research, we explored how AI could support sustainability throughout the procurement life cycle – and the challenges that must be managed along the way.

Public procurement is a major driver of local and global economies. Unfortunately, it can also drive climate emissions. But emissions are only part of the story.

Government purchasing also shapes social and economic outcomes: a single contract can create jobs, support local supply chains or promote fair labour standards. This makes procurement a powerful tool for economic as well as environmental sustainability.

With billions at stake, ensuring transparency, fairness and competition is essential – and complex. Adding sustainability makes it harder. Buyers must now consider not just price and quality, but also emissions, labour practices and supply-chain risks.

Yet sustainability data is often buried in countless reports, making it difficult and time consuming to assess. Many agencies simply lack the expertise or capacity to translate sustainability ambitions into day-to-day procurement decisions.

Where AI could make a difference

AI can help public buyers navigate this complexity and advance sustainability goals across the procurement cycle, from planning and tendering to contract management and performance monitoring.

At the planning stage, AI can analyse past contracts to forecast demand and identify opportunities for greener, more efficient spending – for example, replacing high-emission vehicles with low-emission fleets.

During tendering, it can verify sustainability certifications, flag suppliers with environmental or labour violations, and detect exaggerated green claims that need human review.

Once contracts are under way, AI can track supplier performance in real time, alerting agencies when sustainability targets – such as emission reductions or fair labour standards – are at risk.

A practical example is “Alice”, an AI system used in Brazil to monitor government procurement. Alice scans contracts for irregularities and is reported to have saved more than US$1 million, showing how AI can improve both integrity and efficiency.

Not a plug-and-play solution

Despite its promise, AI requires strong human oversight. Algorithmic bias is a serious risk: systems trained on incomplete or skewed data can amplify inequalities, such as favouring large suppliers over small local businesses.

The Dutch child-benefits scandal revealed in 2019 illustrates the danger. An algorithm wrongly flagged thousands of families, many from migrant backgrounds, for committing fraud. It had devastating personal consequences and led to the government’s resignation.

Transparency is another challenge. Many AI tools operate as “black boxes”, making their decisions hard to explain or contest. In public procurement, where accountability is fundamental, this lack of visibility is unacceptable.

Finally, AI has an environmental cost of its own. Training large models consumes enormous energy. Without greener computing, AI could undermine the very sustainability goals it aims to advance.

AI has the potential to make public procurement smarter, fairer and more sustainable – but only if adopted carefully. The goal isn’t to replace human judgement but to enhance it.

Used responsibly, AI can help public buyers make better-informed choices, monitor sustainability performance and ensure every public dollar delivers benefits for people, communities and the planet.

Marta Andhov 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. AI can help the government spend billions better. But humans have to be in charge – https://theconversation.com/ai-can-help-the-government-spend-billions-better-but-humans-have-to-be-in-charge-268071

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aili Langford, Pharmacist, Lecturer, NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow, Sydney Pharmacy School, The University of Sydney, University of Sydney

Opioids, such as oxycodone, morphine, codeine, tramadol and fentanyl, are commonly prescribed to manage pain. You might be given a prescription when experiencing pain, or after surgery or an injury.

But while opioids may relieve pain in the short term, they provide little to no lasting improvement in pain or function beyond a few weeks for people whose pain isn’t caused by cancer.

Opioids can also cause side effects such as nausea, constipation and drowsiness, as well as serious risks such as dependence and overdose.

Over the past decade, Australia has introduced initiatives to reduce opioid use and related harm. This includes new guidelines that recommend reducing the dose or stopping opioids when the risks of continuing outweigh the benefits.

Many people can reduce or stop opioids without their pain worsening. Some people even experience less pain. However, for some people, reducing or stopping opioids can result in worse pain, mental health crises and even suicide.

Our new research, published today in the New England Journal of Medicine, explains how to safely reduce and stop taking prescription opioids.

How do you know when it’s time to stop? Then what?

Determining whether it is appropriate to reduce or stop opioids depends on several factors unique to each person. These include:

• why opioids were prescribed
• how long they’ve been used
• what other treatments you’ve tried
• how the medication affects your pain, function and quality of life
• your life circumstances.

If it’s appropriate to trial reducing or stopping opioids, guidelines from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States emphasise the following principles:

1) Shared decision-making

Shared decision-making is where health-care professionals and patients work together to set goals, weigh risks and benefits, and make informed choices.

This means collaboratively designing an opioid reduction plan that reflects the person’s needs, preferences and circumstances, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all approach.

Research shows shared decision-making may lead to better outcomes, and patients value this process.

2) Reduce gradually

Stopping opioids suddenly can cause withdrawal symptoms such as anxiety, insomnia, and stomach upset. Rapid dose reductions can also increase the risk of overdose, mental distress and suicide.

To avoid these risks, opioids should be reduced gradually over weeks, months or even longer. The process should be flexible, allowing for pauses or adjustments to the reduction plan if needed.

When someone takes lower doses of opioids over time, their body’s tolerance decreases. If they return to a higher dose, there is a risk of overdose. For this reason, health-care professionals may recommend having naloxone available. This is a medication that can reverse an opioid overdose.

Read more:
Naloxone can reverse opioid overdose. Here’s why you might need some at home or in your bag

3) Set up other supports

Supportive strategies should be used before, during and after reducing opioids. These can include:

• physical therapies such as physiotherapy
• psychological approaches such as mindfulness
• non-opioid medications
• mental health support from health-care professionals, friends and family
• education about pain self-management.

The evidence supporting specific interventions is often limited or uncertain. Choosing a strategy will depend on your individual preferences and access. The best approach is likely a combination of several different supports.

4) See your health-care provider for ongoing monitoring

Regular monitoring from a health-care professional is recommended during and after opioid reduction to assess pain, function, withdrawal symptoms and wellbeing.

This can help to ensure that any issues are identified early and are addressed.

If someone experiences a clear decline in their quality of life, for example, it may be necessary to pause or stop the taper and revisit it later, provide extra supports or implement strategies to manage withdrawal symptoms.

We need a health system that supports this process

Making opioid reduction safer and more effective requires putting these principles into practice. But many patients and health-care professionals still face challenges when doing so.

It’s best practice to access a team-based pain management program with support from a doctor, physiotherapist and psychologist, among other providers, to manage pain and reduce the use of opioids. But access to these services remains limited in many parts of Australia.

Consumer organisations and professional bodies have called for greater access to team-based pain services so more people, especially those living in rural and under-served areas, can access support.

Australian health-care professionals have also requested more education and training in pain management, prescribing and opioid reduction, as well as stronger evidence about what works, for whom and why. This is so they’re better able to tailor their care to each person’s needs.

Other strategies such as reducing the amount of opioids prescribed – including after surgery – have also been proposed to help prevent long-term opioid use and the need for reduction plans later on.

Aili Langford receives funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council through an Investigator Grant Fellowship. She sits on the Executive Committee of the Australian Deprescribing Network (ADeN). This is an unpaid volunteer role.

Christine Lin receives funding from the National Health and Medical Council and the Medical Research Future Fund. She is a member of the Australian Physiotherapy Association and Fellow of the Australian College of Physiotherapy.

– ref. Taking prescription opioids for too long can be harmful. Here’s how to cut back and stop – https://theconversation.com/taking-prescription-opioids-for-too-long-can-be-harmful-heres-how-to-cut-back-and-stop-265874

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jenny Graves, Distinguished Professor of Genetics and Vice Chancellor’s Fellow, La Trobe University

Differences between men and women in intelligence and behaviour have been proposed and disputed for decades.

Now, a growing body of scientific evidence shows hundreds of genes act differently in the brains of biologically male or female humans. What this means isn’t yet clear, though some of the genes may be linked to sex-biased brain disorders such as Alheizmer’s and Parkinson’s diseases.

These sex differences between male and female brains are established early in development, so they may have a role in shaping brain development. And they are found not only in humans but also in other primates, implying they are ancient.

Gene activity in male and female brains

Decades of research have confirmed differences between men and women in brain structure, function and susceptibility to mental disorders.

What has been less clear is how much of this is due to genes and how much to environment.

We can measure the influence of genetics by looking directly at the activity of genes in the brains of men and women. Now that we have the full DNA sequence of the human genome, it is comparatively easy to detect activity of any or all of the roughly 20,000 genes it contains.

Genes are lengths of DNA, and to be expressed their sequence must be copied (“transcribed”) into messenger RNA molecules (mRNA), which are then translated into proteins – the molecules that actually do the work that underpins the structure and function of the body.

So by sequencing all of this RNA (called the “transcriptome”) and lining up the base sequences to the known genes, we can measure the activity of every gene in a particular tissue – even an individual cell.

When scientists compared the transcriptomes in postmortem tissue samples from hundreds of men and women in 2017, they found surprisingly different patterns of gene activity. A third of our 20,000 genes were expressed more in one sex than the other in one or several tissues.

The strongest sex differences were in the testes and other reproductive tissues, but, surprisingly, most other tissues also showed sex biases. For instance, a subsequent paper showed very different RNA profiles in muscle samples from men and women, which correspond to sex differences in muscle physiology.

A study of brain transcriptomes published earlier this year revealed 610 genes more active in male brains, and 316 more active in female brains.

What genes show sex bias in the brain?

Genes on the sex chromosomes would be expected to show different activity between men (with an X chromosome and a Y chromosome) and women (with two X chromosomes). However, most (90%) sex-biased genes lie on ordinary chromosomes, of which both males and females have two copies (one from mum, one from dad).

This means some sex-specific signal must control their activity. Sex hormones such as testosterone and oestrogen are likely candidates, and, indeed, many sex-biased genes in the brain respond to sex hormones.

How are sex differences established in the brain?

Sex differences in brain gene activity appear early in the development of the foetus, long before puberty or even the formation of testes and ovaries.

Another 2025 study examined 266 post mortem fetal brains and found more than 1,800 genes were more active in males and 1,300 in females. These sets of sex-biased genes overlapped with those seen in adult brains.

This points to direct genetic effects from genes on the sex chromosomes, rather than hormone-driven differences.

Do these differences mean male and female brains work differently?

It would be remarkable if sex differences in the activity of so many genes were not reflected in some major differences in brain function between men and women. But we don’t know to what extent, or which functions.

Some patterns are emerging. Many female-biased genes have been found to encode neuron-associated processes, whereas male-biased genes are more often related to traits such as membranes and nuclear structures.

Many genes are sex-biased only in particular sub-regions of the brain, which suggests they have a sex-specific function only in those regions.

However, differences in RNA levels don’t always produce differences in proteins. Cells can compensate to maintain protein balance, meaning that not all RNA differences have functional outcomes. Sometimes, developmental processes differ between sexes but lead to the same end result.

Brain health

Of particular interest is the finding of a relationship between sex biases and sex differences in the susceptibility to some brain disorders.

Many genes implicated in Alzheimer’s disease are female-biased, perhaps accounting for the doubled incidence of this disease in women. Studies on rodents imply that expression of the male-only SRY gene in the brain exacerbates Parkinson’s disease.

Evolution of sex differences in brain gene function

These sex-biased gene expression patterns are by no means unique to humans.
They have also been found in the brains of rats and mice as well as in monkeys.

The suites of male- and female-biased genes in monkeys overlap significantly with those of humans, implying that sex biases were established in a common ancestor 70 million years ago.

This suggests that natural selection favoured gene actions that promoted slightly different behaviours in our male and female primate ancestors – or perhaps even further back, in the ancestor of all mammals, or even all vertebrates.

In fact, sex differences in the expression of genes in the developing brain look to be ubiquitous in animals. They have been observed even in the humble nematode worm.

Jenny Graves receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Hundreds of genes act differently in the brains of men and women – https://theconversation.com/hundreds-of-genes-act-differently-in-the-brains-of-men-and-women-266352

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Flood, Professor of Sociology, Queensland University of Technology

Rigid norms of manhood, based in manly confidence and toughness, emotional stoicism, disdain for femininity, and dog-eat-dog banter, are influential among boys and young men in Australia.

Between one quarter and one half of boys and young men endorse these norms. Over half feel pressure from others to live up to them, believing most people expect them always to be confident, strong and tough.

These are some of the findings from a new Australian survey of adolescents aged 14-18 years, conducted by The Men’s Project at Jesuit Social Services.

In a climate of heightened concern about boys and young men and so-called “toxic masculinity”, this study provides invaluable data on boys’ and young men’s own views. This includes the pressures they feel to live up to stereotypical masculine norms and the profound impact of those beliefs.

There are six key findings from this research.

1. Pressure to be manly remains strong

The pressure on males to be “manly” remains strong in Australian society, even in adolescence. Societal pressures on teenage boys to be “a real man” were equally observed by both boys and girls: between 60% and 63% of boys and girls believe most people expect teenage boys to be manly, confident, and strong at all times.

2. Most boys are open-minded about what it means to be a man

Despite this, most boys and young men themselves do not subscribe to stereotypical masculine norms. Like young adult men aged 18-30, most boys endorse more open-ended, inclusive models of manhood. Of the 27 “adolescent man box” rules – the rigid ideas of manliness – there was majority endorsement among boys for only three of them.

These findings should steer us away from two extremes in views of boys and young men. In one, all boys are painted as the flag-bearers for a rigid, sexist masculinity. In the other, the harms some boys and young men perpetrate against others are described as the problem of only a very small number of mad, bad males.

Neither is true.

In contradiction to the first, boys’ support for rigid masculine norms is weaker and more uneven. In contradiction to the second, between one in five and one in ten boys personally endorse attitudes that condone or support violence and control in sex and relationships. In addition, one in five boys reported engaging in some form of bullying, physical violence or sexual harassment in the previous month.

3. Boys are more likely than girls to believe in masculine norms

There is a large gender gap in adolescents’ support for stereotypical norms of manhood. Although boys and girls agree on the extent of societal pressure, boys are far more likely than girls to endorse these norms.

For example, the seven adolescent man box statements reflecting a constant effort to be manly receive support from 25% to 44% of boys, while the seven statements reflecting emotional restriction receive support from 7% to 34% of boys.

Far smaller proportions of girls endorse these statements: 8% to 15% for constant efforts to act manly, and 2% to 14% for emotional restriction. What impact will this gender gap have on young people’s relationships and friendships, when twice as many boys as girls feel that boys have to act manly, confident, and strong, avoid activities usually done by girls, and hide their feelings and fears?

4. More boys think boys have it harder than girls

While adolescents in general support gender equality, there is also ambivalence and backlash, particularly among boys. Nearly all adolescents agree it is “important for teenage boys to treat girls and women as equals in all areas of life”. However, 42% of boys (and 13% of girls) also agree that “in Australia today, boys have it harder than girls”.

This simultaneous support for gender equality as a general ideal while agreeing that men or boys are now disadvantaged relative to women or girls is visible in other Australian data too. It can be found, for example, in surveys conducted in 2018, 2020, 2021, and 2025.

Young men’s views of boys as disadvantaged may reflect recognition of genuine forms of male disadvantage such as in schooling outcomes, defensive backlash to shifts in gender relations, or the influence of the “manosphere”, the online network of anti-feminist groups.

5. Parents’ and peers’ views have a large effect

Parents and peers play influential roles in shaping boys’ and young men’s attitudes towards masculinity. Although this comes from males’ own reports, other data corroborate this, finding for example that fathers’ adherence to traditional masculine ideology is correlated with their sons’ adherence.

6. The stronger the masculine norms, the more harmful

Boys’ and young men’s endorsement of rigid masculine norms feeds into harm to boys and young men, and to the people around them. The more strongly adolescent boys hold rigid views about masculinity, the less likely they are to seek help for a personal problem or to report that anyone knows them well. For example, under one quarter (23%) of boys with the highest levels of support for the “man box” agreed that no one really knows them well, compared to 46% of boys with the lowest levels of support.

The stronger their personal endorsement of masculine norms, the more likely they are to blame victims of domestic violence, consume violent pornography, and cause harm to others. For example, 39% of boys with the highest level of support for the man box had used bullying, physical violence or sexual harassment in the past month, more than five times as many as the 7% of boys with the lowest level of support.

Although a range of valuable initiatives engaging boys and young men have sprung up around Australia, we are not doing anywhere near enough to shift entrenched masculine cultures of sexism and stoicism.

We must build gender-equitable approaches to masculinity into school curriculums, parenting programs, and initiatives in sports, workplaces and online media. We must craft messages that encourage boys and men to resist harmful masculine norms. And we need to build on the positive, such as boys’ already substantial rejection of rigid norms of manhood. This will strengthen the protective factors that feed into healthier, more equitable ways of being.

We must balance attention to pain and privilege, addressing both how boys and young men suffer harm and how some do harm – to women and girls, gender-diverse people, and each other. Sexism is baked into the “man box”, particularly in the disdain and hostility for girls and femininity. It must be confronted head-on.

Above all, we must take the work to scale, moving from a handful of programs among boys in schools to systematic efforts across settings and communities.

Michael Flood has received funding from ANROWS, the Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute (APHCRI) Foundation, the Australian Research Council, the Department of Justice and Community Safety in the Victorian Government, and other organisations.

– ref. Boys are still in the grip of crippling masculine stereotypes: 6 findings from a new survey – https://theconversation.com/boys-are-still-in-the-grip-of-crippling-masculine-stereotypes-6-findings-from-a-new-survey-268488

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Koplin, Evidence and Translation Lead, National Allergy Centre of Excellence; Chief Investigator, Centre of Food Allergy Research; Associate Professor and Group Leader, Childhood Allergy & Epidemiology Group, Child Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland

A new study published in the journal Pediatrics shows peanut allergies are becoming less common in the United States.

The authors looked at the number of children diagnosed with a peanut allergy before and after the introduction of guidelines that recommended introducing peanut products to infants in their first year of life. This reversed earlier guidelines to avoid peanuts in the first few years of life.

The study found a 43% decrease in peanut allergy diagnoses in the years after the introduction of the new guidelines.

So are we likely to see a similar decline in Australia?

When your body mistakes food as as threat

Food allergies occur when the immune system reacts to something that is usually harmless, such as a peanut, and mistakenly sees it as a threat.

Almost any food can cause an allergic reaction, but the most common food allergy triggers are peanut, egg, cow’s milk, tree nuts, sesame, soy, wheat, fish and other seafood.

Symptoms can include swelling of the face, lips or eyes, hives (welts) on the skin, vomiting, difficulty breathing and collapsing.

Read more:
What’s the difference between a food allergy and an intolerance?

From delayed to early consumption

One of the biggest advances in allergy prevention was recognising the importance of introducing common allergy-causing foods, such as peanuts, to infants at the right time.

In 2008, a study reported that Jewish children in the United Kingdom had higher rates of peanut allergies than Jewish children in Israel. The children in Israel more often ate peanut products in their first year of life.

The authors suggested this earlier introduction of peanuts in Israeli children’s diets might be preventing peanut allergies.

The Learning Early About Peanut Allergy (LEAP) trial tested this theory, in a study that took almost ten years to complete. The researchers randomly assigned 640 infants with eczema or an egg allergy to either:

1. avoid peanut until age five years, or
2. start eating peanut by age 11 months.

When the children were five years old, peanut allergies were much less common in those who started eating peanut products early compared with those who avoided them.

Children who have eczema or egg allergy are more likely to develop a peanut allergy – although peanut allergy can also occur in children without eczema or other food allergies.

What do the guidelines say now?

Following the publication of the LEAP trial findings in 2015, guidelines in the US and Australia changed to recommend giving peanut products as part of the infant diet to reduce the risk of peanut allergy.

Current Australian guidelines recommend introducing all infants to a range of common foods that can cause allergy – including peanuts – in the first year of life. Ideally this should happen soon after solid foods are introduced.

Foods should be given in a form appropriate for infants, such as smooth peanut butter mixed with purees, and in small amounts to start with.

The new guidelines are a major change from previous advice. In the 1990s and early 2000s, some guidelines in the US and Australia recommended avoiding peanut products in the first few years of life for children with a family history of allergy.

We now know this did not prevent peanut allergies and in fact may have increased the risk.

Around 2008, guidelines in Australia and the US started to change. Although advice to avoid peanut products began to be removed from guidelines, it was not until 2015 that early introduction was explicitly recommended.

What did the US study find?

The US study looked at three cohorts of around 40,000 children aged 0–3 years at three points in 2012–14, 2015–17 and 2017–19.

Peanut allergy prevalence decreased from 0.79% in the 2012-14 cohort to 0.45% in the 2017-19 cohort, a 43% decrease.

However, there are some limitations to the US study.

Food allergies were not directly measured, and instead relied on a diagnosis of food allergy recorded in a medical database.

The way food allergies are diagnosed might change over time with the development of new tests and guidelines and changing awareness of food allergy. It also means children who didn’t access care for a suspected food allergy weren’t included in the data.

The study also did not look at whether the children with and without a peanut allergy had peanut products introduced into their diet in the same way as the guidelines recommended.

What are we seeing in Australia?

We found more than eight in ten families introduced peanut products to their infants in the first year of life after the guidelines were introduced, compared with fewer than three in ten before the guidelines.

We are also starting to see a possible decrease in peanut allergy. In one study, peanut allergy decreased from 3.1% to 2.6% after the guidelines, about a 16% reduction.

Unlike the US study, all children were tested for possible peanut allergy using objective tests. This could account for the higher prevalence of peanut allergy in the Australian study.

Other studies have shown hospital admissions for food anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction, stopped increasing once these guidelines were released.

It will be important to continue to measure changes in peanut allergy in Australia and internationally to see whether it continues to decrease.

We also know some children will develop peanut allergy despite introducing peanut in accordance with the guidelines, while others do not develop allergy even if they had a delayed introduction.

Our knowledge on how food allergies develop and how they can be prevented continues to evolve. Introducing common allergens in the diet in the first year of life is currently the only strategy to prevent food allergy.

These new findings support the current advice in Australia and may help parents and caregivers feel reassured to continue including common allergy-causing foods in their baby’s diet.

Jennifer Koplin receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. She is a member of the Executive Committee for the National Allergy Centre of Excellence (NACE), which is supported by funding from the Australian government.

Desalegn Markos Shifti is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)-funded Centre for Food Allergy Research (CFAR) Postdoctoral Funding.

Rachel Peters receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, National Peanut Board (USA), Asthma Australia, National Asthma Council, Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, and Allergy and Immunology Foundation of Australasia.

– ref. Peanut allergies have dropped dramatically in the US. Is that likely to happen in Australia? – https://theconversation.com/peanut-allergies-have-dropped-dramatically-in-the-us-is-that-likely-to-happen-in-australia-268481

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Giselle Woodley, Lecturer and Research Fellow, Edith Cowan University

The New South Wales parliament recently released a report exploring the impacts of pornography on people’s mental, emotional and physical health. It’s the first state-based inquiry of its kind, and rejects knee-jerk simplifications in favour of nuanced findings.

The Standing Committee on Social Issues sought input from a wide variety of voices including researchers, educators, parents, religious organisations, sex workers, women’s rights organisations, the adult entertainment industry, and young people.

The multitude of perspectives has helped the committee formulate an inclusive and well-rounded response to what has long been a contentious topic: what effect does porn have on young people?

In its first finding, the committee notes not all pornography is inherently harmful. This goes against mainstream public discourse that indiscriminately positions all porn as harmful.

Concerns about the potential harms of pornography have long overlooked that, much like any other media, the impact will depend on the specific content, its context and the individual consuming it.

Through roundtable interviews, the committee found young people are thinking both critically and compassionately when they engage with sexual content online.

At the same time, the reports acknowledges porn has the potential to impact intimacy in relationships, reinforce gender stereotypes, and distort perceptions of sex and relationships – but notes the evidence holds mixed results on these impacts.

Access to porn

Research has found access to pornography occurs at an average age of around 13 for young Australians. Another longitudinal study found the average age of accidental access is around age 11.

Most teens who deliberately look for porn tend to access it via internet searches, or websites such as Pornhub.

According to eSafety research, young people who accidentally come across the content tend to do so via internet pop-ups or gaming websites, or through a friend or peer.

Young people aren’t passive consumers

Based on numerous accounts, including from young people, and previous research, the report concludes sex education in it’s current form is not effectively exploring the topic of pornography with young people.

In the absence of sufficient education, young people may turn to porn for more information. This is especially the case for those may not see themselves or their sexuality properly represented in the curriculum, such as LGBTQIA+ youth. This was supported by our recently published research which shows some teens seek pornography which depicts mutual pleasure and queer sex.

Teens who took part in our research were able to critically reflect on storylines and the specifics of porn production in nuanced ways. For instance, many felt they were being algorithmically directed to the popular category of “step-family” porn.

Female and gender-diverse participants also expressed discomfort around the eroticisation of youth and “teen porn”, which they understood is generally created for the male gaze.

How might porn impact young people?

The report relayed various concerns in relation to young people’s access to pornography, as well as some benefits.

There were concerns from a mix of stakeholders regarding the lack of consent depicted in porn. A 2021 systematic review exploring consent in porn found there is no agreement in the literature regarding whether porn consumption can be correlated with better, or worse, understanding or practising of sexual consent.

Given the focus on consent in recent years, the teens in our research were hyper-aware of the lack of consent depicted onscreen. They suggested the industry could be held to higher standards, such as with better depictions of consent and better conditions and pay for actors.

A number of submissions were also concerned about the impact of porn on body image. Research shows boys and young men are more prone to body comparison and low self-esteem when watching porn as they may focus on masculine physique and penis size.

At the same time, one 2020 study noted in the report found young consumers felt porn offered a more diverse representation of body types than other media.

How to address these concerns

The report says further research should be conducted into young people’s porn viewing habits, and how they deal with a lack of information on sex.

It also suggests better support is needed for parents and educators. Our research found teens can often detect their parents’ inexperience and lack of comfort around the topic of porn. As such, they may avoid bringing it up.

The report recommends schools could help support parents by providing guidance on how to have judgement-free conversations with their kids about porn, and how to implement tools to prevent early access.

It also says further research, funding and training are needed to give educators skills and confidence to deliver effective sex ed.

Importantly, schools and teachers should go beyond simplistic messages such as porn is “fantasy” or “unrealistic”, as teens appear to already be aware of this. Instead, they should engage in meaningful discussion, and meet the existing wisdom of young people.

Giselle Woodley receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with Bloom-Ed Relationships and Sexuality Education advocacy group. Both Bloom-Ed and Giselle & Lelia made submissions to the NSW Parliament Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues Inquiry into the Impacts of Harmful Pornography on Mental, Emotional, and Physical Health. Giselle and Lelia were both called to address the inquiry as expert witnesses. This work is part of their professional practice and they received no remuneration for their submission or for giving evidence.

Lelia Green receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Edith Cowan University. Giselle Woodley and Lelia made a submission to the NSW Parliament Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues Inquiry into the Impacts of Harmful Pornography on Mental, Emotional, and Physical Health. They were both called to address the inquiry as expert witnesses. This work is part of their professional practice and they received no remuneration for their submission or for giving evidence.

– ref. Porn not ‘inherently harmful’, says first inquiry of its kind in Australia – https://theconversation.com/porn-not-inherently-harmful-says-first-inquiry-of-its-kind-in-australia-268105

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Wolpe, Non-resident Senior Fellow, United States Study Centre, University of Sydney

One year and a day after Donald Trump won a second term as president – and on the 35th day of the US government shutdown, which has tied a record for the longest in history – the Democrats swept to victory in key races across the county.

Democratic candidates won the governorships in the states of Virginia and New Jersey, while Zohran Mamdani became New York City’s next mayor.

The Democrats may have just become the winners of the fight to reopen the government, too.

Trump’s ratings dropping sharply

Sixteen years ago, then-President Barack Obama was staggered by Republicans winning the governorships in Virginia and New Jersey in the 2009 elections.

The message was indelible: voters wanted to put a check on Obama and his wide-ranging agenda, from health care to global warming. Many Americans wanted him to cool his jets, including on what would become his signature achievement, Obamacare.

The following year, in the 2010 midterm elections, the Democrats lost more than 60 seats and their majority in the House. For the next six years, Republicans had a veto over whatever bills Obama wanted Congress to enact.

With Democrats now winning the governorships in those two states, Trump and his Republican allies in Congress have just been sent the same message: you need to be checked, too.

Going into Tuesday’s elections, Trump’s approval rating in one major poll was just above 40%, and his disapproval rating just under 60% – the highest it’s been since the January 6 2021 attack on the Capitol.

Independent voters, who swung Trump’s way in last year’s election, are now disapproving of his performance by a 69–30% margin.

Trump’s leadership of what he calls the “hottest country in the world” is falling short in voters’ eyes on a number of key issues: inflation, management of the economy, tariffs, crime, immigration, Ukraine and Gaza.

What’s at the heart of the continued stalemate?

The US government has also been shuttered since October 1. Government agencies have been closed to the public, and hundreds of thousands of government employees are going without paychecks, while thousands of others have been laid off.

Millions of Americans have been affected by flight delays or cancellations due to air traffic controller staffing issues. And food stamps to 42 million Americans have been suspended, with the Trump administration only relenting to provide partial payments in response to a court order.

Closing the government was not solely the doing of Trump and the Republicans in Congress. After nearly a year of laying prostrate and appearing pathetically ineffective in responding to Trump and his agenda, the Democrats finally got off the mat to fight back.

Of all the issues with Trump’s so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” – which contained huge tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, huge spending cuts for Medicaid, huge increases in spending to control immigration, more funding for fossil fuels and an increase in the debt ceiling – Democrats seized on one glaring omission from the legislation.

At the end of this year, subsidies are due to expire that more than 24 million Americans rely on to purchase health insurance under Obamacare. As a result, millions are projected to lose their health care coverage.

That is the cross Democrats chose to die on. They’ve told the Trump administration: you want to keep the government open? Keep the insurance subsidies flowing. Fix it now.

Republicans in Congress have had no interest in caving to Democratic demands. They’ve argued Democrats must agree to reopen the government before discussing the subsidies. Their calculation: voters will turn on the Democrats for the turmoil caused by the shutdown.

Trump wanted nothing to do with any such negotiations either. Two days before the elections, he said he “won’t be extorted”.

But a recent poll shows 52% of Americans blame Trump and the Republicans for the shutdown, compared to 42% who blame Democrats.

The wins in Virginia and New Jersey drove this message home. Yes, the Democrats triggered the current shutdown. But the president owns the economy. For better or worse, Trump will own the economy going into next year’s midterm elections, too.

What happens next?

How can the Democrats get out of the shutdown box with a win? With the leverage they just gained in the elections. Republican stonewalling after these election defeats will hurt them even more.

There are two routes forward.

First, Democrats could reach an agreement with the Republicans on a fix to the health insurance issue, with a vote in Congress by Christmas to get the subsidies restored. A bipartisan compromise appears now to be in the works.

Second, if such an agreement cannot be reached, the Democrats can introduce a bill to restore the subsidies on their own, with an up-or-down vote in both the House and Senate. If this was voted down, the Democrats would then have a winning issue to take to the midterm elections next November. The voters would know who to blame – and who to reward.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has prevented the House from meeting for more than six weeks, but it has to come back in session to vote to reopen the government at some point.

Trump is also insisting the Senate change its rules to allow a simple majority to be able to reopen the government – without any compromises on health insurance subsidies. But this is not a viable political option after these election results.

Two other Democrats take centre stage

There were two other big Democratic winners on Tuesday. California voters approved a redistricting plan intended to partially offset Republicans’ gerrymandering of congressional electorates across the country for the midterm elections.

It was a high-risk strategy by California Governor Gavin Newsom, and it paid off handsomely: Newsom is now considered the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028.

And Mamdani, a Muslim socialist, was elected the Democratic mayor of New York City. Trump will no doubt continue to rubbish him as a communist radical extremist and follow through on his threats to cut federal funding for the largest city in the US.

Mamdani’s victory also places him on the national stage, but not centre stage. The Sinatra doctrine from his hit song New York, New York — “If I can make it there, I’ll make it anywhere” — does not quite apply in this situation.

To take back Congress next year and the White House in 2028, the Democrats will need all kinds of flowers to bloom — not just Mamdani’s bouquet. In 2028, the party is going to have to shop in a bigger greenhouse.

Bruce Wolpe has served on the staffs of Democrats in Congress and former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

– ref. Democratic election wins send Trump – and Republicans – a message: Americans blame them for government shutdown – https://theconversation.com/democratic-election-wins-send-trump-and-republicans-a-message-americans-blame-them-for-government-shutdown-269094

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emille Boulot, Lecturer of Law, University of Tasmania

For decades, conservation was focused on stemming how much nature was being lost. But a new era of nature positive environmental policy is taking hold worldwide, shifting from preventing further harm to restoring what’s been lost.

In 2022, almost 200 countries signed up to the goal of 30 by 30 – restoring 30% of lands and seas by 2030. Globally, the goal is to restore an area almost the size of India. Australia is working towards this international goal of increasing protection and restoring the highest priority areas under its Strategy for Nature. Over the last two centuries, Australia has already lost much biodiversity.

Laws should play a key role in protecting and restoring nature. But Australia’s national Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is not currently fit for purpose. The 2020 Samuel Review concluded the existing laws do not “facilitate the maintenance or restoration of the environment”.

In 2022, the Australian government promised to reverse the decline of nature with new nature positive laws which would repair ecosystems and help species recover. Shortly afterwards, parliament created a national Nature Repair Market to provide incentives for land managers to restore degraded ecosystems.

After a failed attempt at reform last year, the federal government last week announced its long-awaited broader reform package. In introducing the bill, Environment Minister Murray Watt said the laws would enable “stronger environmental protection and restoration”. Will these reforms be a game changer for restoration? It’s not so clear.

What would the proposed laws do for restoration?

Labor’s reform bills run to over 550 pages. This level of complexity means it’s hard to give a definitive answer on what the reforms would do for restoration.

At this stage, it appears that while the package contains long-awaited reforms, it falls short on ecosystem restoration.

The cornerstone of the reforms will be a new power for the Environment Minister to create National Environmental Standards, as called for in the Samuel Review. Once in place, they would work by requiring environment approvals not to be inconsistent with any standard.

These standards have been watered down somewhat. The Samuel Review recommended binding national standards which would outline clear requirements for protecting endangered species and other nationally significant matters. Under the current reforms, the minister is not obliged to make any standards and environment approvals need only be “not inconsistent” with them.

The reform package continues Australia’s reliance on environmental offsets – the practice of allowing developers to destroy habitat in one place by “compensating” for it by restoring habitat elsewhere.

The text of the draft bills suggests a developer must compensate for any long-lasting significant impact through offsets or paying a restoration contribution. The goal is to have a net gain for nature.

This sounds promising, but the concept of “net gain” is unclear and the focus on offsets still assumes the loss of nature somewhere.

A better option would be if developers were legally required to explore ways to avoid or mitigate environmental damage first before relying on offsets. While the minister must “consider” this hierarchy of options in making decisions, they’re not actually obliged to apply it.

Overall, this is disappointing. Rather than creating new incentives for restoration at a landscape scale, restoration work will instead be linked to the traditional legal model of approval for specific, environmentally degrading projects through the use of offsets and restoration elsewhere.

The new “restoration contributions” scheme is even more troubling. It would allow developers to contribute to an offset fund rather than undertake the work themselves. This would be a shortcut, allowing developers to pay for environmental destruction.

Offsets should only be used where habitat can genuinely be replaced. But as they stand, these reforms don’t require assessment of whether offsets are even feasible for a particular project. Biodiversity offsets have also been thoroughly criticised for their failure to prevent loss of nature, let alone generate nature positive outcomes.

The reforms would also allow biodiversity certificates issued under the Nature Repair Market to serve as offsets, despite the government ruling this out in 2023. Linking the nature repair market to offsets may divert investment away from some types of restoration projects. It diminishes the net gain from voluntary restoration when the results merely compensate for a loss elsewhere.

Planning across landscapes

To boost ecological restoration, the Samuel Review recommended better planning at the national and regional scale. Taking a zoomed-out view would help environmental planners connect habitat, safeguard climate refuges and protect critical habitat on a landscape scale.

These new reforms seem to be a step forward on this front. The minister, though, would retain a power to make bioregional plans at their discretion. If plans are made under the environment laws, they should specify zones for development and areas where restoration will be undertaken.

It’s heartening to see restoration included in these plans. The problem is, restoration is still tied to land-degrading activities such as mining or land clearing. That is, it’s done as a response to new damage caused to the environment, not to repair already degraded landscapes.

Time for a new model

What’s missing from the proposed reforms is a positive agenda to address Australia’s deep historic losses of nature.

As the draft laws are debated in parliament, the best outcome would be if clear measures to actually restore nature at landscape-scale and to do it actively, rather than as a response to development damage.

An excellent example Australia could look to is the European Union’s Nature Restoration Law adopted last year. It sets ambitious targets to restore the EU’s heavily degraded ecosystems: 30% by 2030, 90% by 2050.

The targets would help restore biodiversity while combating climate change and boosting nature-based adaptation. Under the law, EU states must prepare their own national restoration plans. Prototype ecosystem restoration laws are also being developed by the international Society for Ecological Restoration.

After decades of decline and species loss, Australians deserve environment laws which genuinely protect and restore unique wildlife and ecosystems. The government’s proposed reforms have promise. But they don’t yet make restoration the national priority it must be.

Emille Boulot receives funding from the Society for Ecological Restoration. She is affiliated with the Australian Environment Review and the Tasmanian National Parks Association.

Jan McDonald receives funding from the Australian Research Council, is a Director of the Tasmanian Land Conservancy and a member of the Department of Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water’s Biodiversity Assessment Expert Reference Group. She is a Lead Councillor on the Biodiversity Council.

– ref. Where’s nature positive? Australia must ensure environment reforms work to restore what’s been lost – https://theconversation.com/wheres-nature-positive-australia-must-ensure-environment-reforms-work-to-restore-whats-been-lost-269077

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tamar Hopkins, Honorary fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of Melbourne

British prosecutors have charged a 32-year-old British national with 10 counts of attempted murder in the mass stabbing attack that occurred on a train travelling from Doncaster to London on Saturday night. Another man was arrested but later released.

The attack has spurred a vigorous debate in the United Kingdom about whether police should reveal the racial identity and immigration status of suspects who have been arrested in high-profile cases. The race and nationality of both men were publicly divulged after their arrests.

UK police recently amended their guidelines to permit police to reveal the race and nationality of suspects in high-profile cases. The reason was to combat misinformation spread by far-right groups, who have blamed immigrants for crimes allegedly committed by white British nationals.

In one high-profile case, riots broke out last year in England and Northern Ireland after misinformation spread on social media that an illegal migrant was responsible for the murders of three girls.

What are some of the issues to consider when revealing the race and nationality of people who have been arrested?

The danger of implicit bias

There is a right-wing media environment in both the UK and Australia that thrives on spreading anti-immigration and anti-First Nations rhetoric, particularly in relation to crime.

As a consequence of these widely circulating stereotypes, many people will make an instinctive assumption when a criminal act is committed that the perpetrator comes from a particular racial, ethnic or immigrant background. This is called implicit bias.

An Australian study in 2020 revealed, for example, that 75% of Australians hold negative implicit biases towards Indigenous people.

These harmful biases create dangers for racialised communities, such as hate-based attacks and increased racial profiling by police.

Sharing details of race and national identity

In this context, it makes sense to release the racial details of suspects in high-profile cases when this information can counteract race-crime stereotypes.

For example, if an arrested suspect is a white citizen, then releasing these details will undercut any attempt by far-right movements to blame immigrants, asylum seekers or First Nations people and inflame implicit biases.

In high-profile cases involving racialised suspects, however, the best strategy may be to wait to release any details about race and nationality until defence counsel has described their client to a magistrate.

For example, if a suspect is from a racialised background, other details can help mitigate the spread of misinformation or the deepening of implicit biases. These could include the fact the suspect is not part of an organised criminal gang or does not hold particular ideologies.

Releasing details of suspects who have not yet been arrested is a different question. Stating that a suspect at large is white is unlikely to have consequences for white Australians. However, stating that a suspect is of African, Aboriginal or Lebanese descent can cause entire communities to fall under a shadow of suspicion.

Consequently, releasing the race and nationality of unidentified suspects is not a safe practice and can only be justified when accompanied by other highly detailed time-sensitive descriptions. These include height, age, gender, weight, facial hair, hair length, tattoos, clothing colour, backpack colour and where they were last seen (within a one-hour window).

Otherwise, all male or female members of an ethnic community could be interrogated for “fitting the description” – as they routinely are.

Very few Australian states and territories have released guidelines on the release of ethnic appearance data in high-profile cases.

New South Wales police prohibits the public release of a suspect’s ethnicity after their arrest, but permits it in the pre-arrest phase, when combined with a physical description. Victoria police permits the release of the perceived ethnicity of wanted suspects as a last resort.

These policies should be revisited to prevent racial profiling and the inflaming of racial biases in right-wing media coverage of crime.

What can be done to combat the problem?

Unfortunately, while it is important to address misinformation from circulating in the public, the police themselves are not beyond racial bias.

I founded the Racial Profiling Data Monitoring Project, which seeks to monitor the Victorian police’s compliance with its 2015 ban on racial profiling.

Victoria police data to be released later this month by the monitoring project reveal that in 2024, police were 15 times more likely to search Aboriginal people than white people and 8.6 times more likely to search people they perceive to be African than people perceived to be white.

These data suggest police are consistently more suspicious of certain racialised groups. It also supports the findings of other studies on racial profiling.

The release of aggregate data like these is critical to understanding systemic bias. This ought to be a priority for police oversight bodies, not just independent monitoring groups.

While reducing the spread of race-crime rhetoric and bias in the media is an important step in combating racial profiling by police, more is required.

One important step is to reduce the level of discretion police have in determining whom to stop, question and search. Unfortunately, legislation in Victoria is gradually expanding the ability of police to search people without reasonable grounds.

Police in every state and territory should also create or amend their policies to take implicit bias into account when deciding how and when to release information related to the race and nationality of suspects. More caution should be applied in cases involving First Nations people and non-white immigrants.

Dr Tamar Hopkins is the founder and a freelance researcher volunteering for the Racial Profiling Data Monitoring Project and the Centre Against Racial Profiling. She does paid consultancy work for Inner Melbourne Community Legal, Victoria Legal Aid and the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service.

– ref. Should police reveal a suspect’s racial identity and immigration status in serious crimes? – https://theconversation.com/should-police-reveal-a-suspects-racial-identity-and-immigration-status-in-serious-crimes-269076

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leah Ruppanner, Professor of Sociology and Founding Director of The Future of Work Lab, Podcast at MissPerceived, The University of Melbourne

You work a full day, drive the kids to various after school activities, make a mad dash to the supermarket to pick up something for dinner, check emails … and then remember you need a gift for Aunty June’s birthday tomorrow.

Sound familiar?

Our new research shows the “mental load” of managing a household on daily basis falls disproportionately to mothers. This means all the remembering, planning, anticipating and organising that keeps family life running “sticks” to mothers in partnered, heterosexual couples even when they work full-time, earn high incomes, or are the family breadwinner.

While mothers who earn and work more do less of the physical domestic tasks, the mental load remains unmovable. This reveals a less recognised or seen – but nonetheless enduring – barrier to gender equality at home that persists across different work and income patterns.

What is the domestic mental load?

The domestic mental load is the essential emotional thinking work that keeps family life functioning. We measured it by 21 distinct tasks, ranging from keeping track of when children’s nails need clipping, to ensuring the fridge is stocked for the next meal. We asked more than 2,000 US-based parents living in a heterosexual couple which partner is mostly responsible for each task.

On average, mothers report being mainly responsible for 67% more household management than fathers. As the figure below shows, we observed the largest gaps for “core”, routine tasks that often crop up daily, including family scheduling, managing the cleaning, organising childcare, managing social relationships, and taking care of the food.

While fathers report greater responsibility for cognitive tasks related to household maintenance and finances, these gender gaps are comparatively small. These are also tasks that are typically less urgent and done less frequently.

So, while fathers are contributing to mental labour tasks, they are much less likely to say they are primarily responsible for them. This is an important distinction because primary responsibility means accountability – it’s who gets blamed when things go wrong or are forgotten.

But cognitive labour is only one piece. We also found that, on average, mothers are doing 85% more of the physical childcare and housework, too. These patterns are not just a US parent phenomenon – our interviews with Australian parents demonstrate a similar pattern. Mothers are carrying heavier domestic loads both in their physical labour and in their minds.

Mothers’ ‘sticky’ situation

We know from decades of research and the results from our own survey that mothers who work longer hours spend less time in housework and childcare on average. Earning more money is also a key bargaining tool for mothers to reduce their domestic contributions.

Crucially, though, we do not see these same patterns when it comes to the mental load. Instead, mothers who work and earn more still do significantly more than their fair share of the mental load, even as their physical workloads lighten.

We call this “gendered cognitive stickiness”: once the mental load is socially assigned to mothers – and, given gender expectations of mothers’ role as primary caregivers, it almost always is – it tends to “stick” to them regardless of their employment status or how much they earn.

This reflects how different the mental load is from physical childcare and housework. Cognitive domestic labour is not seen, acknowledged, or discussed in the same way as physical chores. This is precisely because it happens inside our heads — anywhere, anytime — and is usually only visible when something goes wrong, such as a forgotten appointment or a key ingredient missing from the cupboard.

The fact mothers do so much more of this cognitive labour than fathers even as employment and earnings increase reflects how much harder the mental load is to outsource, offload, or devolve to others than physical chores.

Because of this, no amount of money or career success frees mothers from the unseen and constant need to remind, anticipate, and coordinate everything that needs doing for the family.

We do find that when fathers earn more, they take on more of this thinking work. For example, fathers earning more than $100,000 reported 17% more involvement in “core” mental tasks, such as arranging extracurricular activities. We suspect this reflects new norms that expect fathers to be more involved in the primary care of children as well as the flexibility more common in high-paying jobs.

However, fathers’ increased contributions do not offset mothers’ overall burden. Mothers are still shouldering the bulk of the mental load.

These findings indicate a plateau in progress towards gender equality. While women have achieved high rates of education and workforce participation, men’s participation in household work – especially the mental load – has not kept pace.

The enduring domestic mental load helps explain why mothers, including those working and earning healthy incomes, feel stretched thin, stressed, and short on time. They are holding down paid jobs and keeping on top of all the household needs in their heads. This has negative implications for women’s wellbeing, careers, and families.

Equalising the mental load is not just about fairness. It is also about ensuring that families can thrive and that progress toward gender equality continues rather than stalls.

Leah Ruppanner is the author of the upcoming book Drained: Reduce Your Mental Load to Do Less and Be More and receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Ana Catalano Weeks received funding from the Institute for Policy Research and the Department of Politics, Languages & International Studies at the University of Bath to support this research.

Helen Kowalewska has received funding from the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and currently receives funding from the British Academy/Leverhulme Trust.

– ref. Earning more doesn’t lighten mothers’ mental loads – they do more regardless – https://theconversation.com/earning-more-doesnt-lighten-mothers-mental-loads-they-do-more-regardless-268486

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Waa, Associate Professor in Public Health, University of Otago

Smoking rates among adults have declined in Aotearoa New Zealand over recent decades, from 18% smoking regularly in 2011/12 to 8% in 2023/24.

However, marked inequities persist for Māori and Pacific peoples. Consequently, these populations experience much higher rates of tobacco-related illnesses and early death compared to other ethnic groups.

Because tobacco addiction often begins in teenage years, an important way to reduce health inequities due to smoking is to lower adolescent smoking rates.

A previous study had suggested vaping might be displacing smoking among young people in Aotearoa – and in doing so, speed up the decline in youth smoking rates.

However, our recent research challenged this claim. Rather than speeding up the decline in smoking, our work showed that progress in reducing adolescent smoking rates slowed after the emergence of vaping in Aotearoa in 2010.

What our previous research did not examine, however, was whether progress in lowering adolescent smoking was the same across ethnic groups (Māori, Pacific, European and Asian).

This matters because just as vaping and smoking rates differ across these groups, vaping might also influence smoking habits differently across communities.

For instance, it might be that adolescent vaping is displacing smoking in some groups, thus accelerating declines in smoking rates. In other groups, it might be acting as a “gateway” to smoking, thereby slowing progress in reducing smoking rates.

Our new study published in Lancet Regional Health-Western Pacific is the first to examine this issue.

Is vaping linked with smoking among youth?

For each ethnic group – Māori, Pacific, European and Asian – we looked for changes in the rates of decline in smoking among school students aged 14 to 15 following the emergence of vaping in Aotearoa in 2010.

Specifically, we compared smoking trends from 2003 to 2009 (before e-cigarettes were widely available) with those from 2010 to 2024 (when vaping became increasingly common).

Before e-cigarettes emerged in 2010, smoking rates in this age group were rapidly declining across all four ethnic groups.

If the advent and rise of vaping led more adolescents to start smoking (the “gateway” effect), we might reasonably expect the pre-2010 decline in smoking to slow in that group from 2010 onwards. That is, smoking rates might continue to fall, but not as quickly as before vaping became available.

Alternatively, if vaping was displacing smoking, we might reasonably expect the pre-2010 smoking trend to decline even faster from 2010 onwards in that group.

We analysed data from nearly 600,000 school students aged 14 to 15, with 20% identifying as Māori, 9% as Pacific, 58% as European and 13% as Asian.

By 2024, nearly one in three Māori in this age group (29%) were vaping regularly (monthly or more often), compared with 19% of Pacific, 11% of European and 4% of Asian students.

From 2003 to 2024, the rates of 14-15-year-olds smoking regularly declined substantially in all four groups. However, the decline in smoking regularly significantly slowed from 2010 – the year vaping emerged in Aotearoa – for Māori, Pacific and European adolescents. It did not slow significantly for Asian adolescents.

In 2024, regular smoking among 14-15-year-olds was approximately 6.2% for Māori, 3.3% for Pacific and 2% for European adolescents. However, if each group’s pre-2010 trend had continued, the estimated 2024 prevalences would have been 4.2% for Māori, 1.8% for Pacific, and 0.7% for European adolescents.

This means that for every 1,000 students in each group, there were 20 more Māori, 15 more Pacific and 13 more European students smoking regularly in 2024 than there would have been if smoking trends had continued along their pre-vaping era trajectories.

We also checked other possible explanations for the slowing of progress in reducing adolescent smoking.

First, we explored whether 2010 was the right “change year” to mark the emergence of vaping, given it was still uncommon then. Second, we looked at whether changes in cigarette affordability could explain the slowing.

However, testing alternative change years from 2008 to 2018 and controlling for affordability made little difference to our findings.

What this means for teens

We found no evidence that vaping is displacing smoking among Māori, Pacific, European or Asian adolescents. On the contrary, we found progress in reducing regular smoking among Māori, Pacific and European adolescents slowed significantly after the emergence of vaping in Aotearoa (with no change for Asian students).

The implications of our findings are more serious for Māori and Pacific youth, who have higher rates of smoking and vaping than their peers. Rather than supporting claims that vaping reduces harms for these young people, it has substantially added to them.

It is a major additional source of nicotine dependence, carries its own health risks and has coincided with more adolescents smoking than if pre-vaping smoking trends had continued.

For Māori communities, nicotine dependence – whether from vapes or tobacco – undermines agency at an individual level and self-determination (tino rangatiratanga) at a collective level. It is a persistent reminder of ongoing colonial impacts, from the introduction of nicotine addiction to its continued entrenchment within society.

Addressing these harms requires the government to uphold its constitutional and World Health Organization tobacco control obligations to engage with and prioritise Māori and Pacific perspectives, and to support approaches grounded in equity, social justice and Indigenous rights.

Andrew Waa receives funding from the University of Otago and Health Research Council NZ. He is a co-director of ASPIRE Aotearoa and a member of Te Rōpū Tupeka Kore.

Becky Freeman is an expert advisor to the Cancer Council tobacco issues committee and a member of the Cancer Institute vaping communications advisory panel. She has received relevant competitive grants from the NHMRC, MRFF, NSW Health, the Ian Potter Foundation, VicHealth, and Healthway WA.

Judith McCool receives funding from the University of Auckland’s Faculty Research Development Fund, the Health Research Council NZ and the Heart Foundation NZ.

Lucy Hardie has received funding for public health-related e-cigarette research from the University of Auckland, Maurice & Phyllis Paykel Trust and the Auckland Medical Research Foundation. She is an advisor for the Health Coalition Aotearoa.

Sam Egger is supported by an Australian government scholarship.

– ref. Vaping has slowed progress in cutting teen smoking in NZ – new study – https://theconversation.com/vaping-has-slowed-progress-in-cutting-teen-smoking-in-nz-new-study-267851

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anastasia Hronis, Clinical Psychologist, Lecturer and Research Supervisor, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney

Loneliness is quietly emerging as one of the most significant health issues in Australia, and it can affect people of all ages, backgrounds and life stages.

Long-term survey data released last month showed the number of Australians who agree with the statement “I seem to have a lot of friends” has fallen noticeably since 2010.

The way we feel about the quality and quantity of our relationships matters. Loneliness is a subjective experience: it’s the gap between the social relationships we desire, and our actual network.

So, what can we do about it?

Loneliness is often compounded by economic and social factors, which are not down to individuals to fix.

But if you feel like your friendship circle has shrunk in recent years – and it bothers you – it might be time to refresh your approach. Here’s what you can do, and why it’s good for your health.

How friends affect health

There is a strong relationship between loneliness and psychological distress.

In contrast, adult friendships – especially high quality ones that provide social support and companionship – can protect against mental health issues such as depression and anxiety.

Friendships can also reduce how strongly the brain reacts to stress, shown to help protect people’s mental health after experiences of adversity.

In fact, having friends and social connections has even been linked to physical health benefits such as lower blood pressure and a healthy BMI.

What you can do

As adults, we often find it harder to make friends than when we were kids.

We’re busier. But many of us also find it harder to trust new people and may fear rejection.

Illness, disability or reduced mobility – as well as financial stress – can also leave us more socially isolated.

So what can we do about it?

Get involved

Activities based around a shared community can be a great way to meet people with similar interests. You could join a local running group, yoga class, choir or language meet-up, or try dining with strangers via websites such as Timeleft and The First Round. Many book clubs and craft groups meet in person or online.

Volunteer

This can be a way to meet new people of different ages and make friends. Volunteering increases opportunities for social interactions and can positively influence your wellbeing, sense of identity and belonging. There are many ways you can volunteer without leaving the house.

Put in the time

Researchers in the United States have tried to quantify how long it takes to build a friendship, estimating it takes roughly 50 hours of shared contact to move from acquaintances to friends.

Most of us also know when we don’t spend quality time with a friend we may fall out of touch – even when we haven’t fallen out.

You can start by setting aside ten minutes a day to focus on nurturing your friendships or rekindling old ones. It can be something small: sending a text, forwarding a funny video, sending a voice memo or giving someone a quick call.

Be prepared to be vulnerable

Listening and sharing personal parts of your life can help strengthen your bond, and move you from talking about what you do to also talking about how you feel.

It’s a good idea to start slow, and gradually build emotional intimacy. Be attentive if someone shares something personal and follow up with questions to show you care. You might find yourself sharing similar experiences.

Take the leap and reach out

Research shows people are surprisingly hesitant to reach out to old friends. But they tend to overestimate the awkwardness of getting in touch, and underestimate the positive feelings it generates – both for them and the other person.

Most would prefer the other person initiate contact. So take the leap, and next time something reminds you of that person – a place, a song, a photo – send them a message. Or just try a simple: “Hi, how are you? It’s been a while since we’ve last spoken and you crossed my mind.”

Remember – not everyone has to be a ‘best friend’

While close friendships are important, don’t forget that day-to-day social interactions can also help us feel less lonely.

This might mean a quick chat with a neighbour, or greeting the regular barista at the local coffee shop.

Evidence shows these “microconnections” are also important for boosting mood and a sense of belonging, and even provide support when we’re struggling.

So, if loneliness feels overwhelming, and trying to make new friends feels too big, it can help to start small and be open to unexpected connections.

Loneliness is a normal, natural emotion, and we don’t need to feel ashamed of it. But it sends an important message: we need connection.

Read more:
Why you should treat workplace friendships like your diet – aim for balance and variety

Anastasia Hronis 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. Lonely? Here’s how to connect with old friends – and make new ones – https://theconversation.com/lonely-heres-how-to-connect-with-old-friends-and-make-new-ones-265752