Blog

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gulshanara (Rumy) Begum, Senior Lecturer in Nutrition & Exercise Science, University of Westminster

Energy drinks are big business. Marketed as quick fixes for fatigue and performance dips, energy drinks are especially popular among young people, athletes, sports enthusiasts, and so-called “weekend warriors” – people who pack their workouts into the weekend instead of exercising regularly. Gamers are now a major target too.

But as the market grows, so do concerns about what’s actually in these drinks – and what these ingredients might be doing to our bodies.

Many energy drinks contain some combination of three familiar stimulants: caffeine, found naturally in coffee, tea and cacao; guarana, an Amazonian plant rich in caffeine; and taurine, a naturally occurring amino acid found in scallops, mussels, turkey and chicken.

Taurine, in particular, has drawn both hype and hope. It is credited with performance-enhancing properties and potential health benefits. But new research is raising important questions about how it behaves in the body – and when it might do more harm than good.

In May 2025, a study published in Nature sparked headlines and unease in equal measure. It found that taurine may fuel the progression of leukaemia, a group of blood cancers that begin in the bone marrow.

The study showed that while healthy bone marrow cells naturally produce taurine, leukaemia cells cannot. But they can absorb taurine from their surroundings and use it as a fuel source to grow and multiply. Research on mice and in human leukaemia cell samples demonstrated that taurine in the tumour microenvironment – the area around a tumour that includes blood vessels, immune cells and structural support – accelerated the progression of leukaemia.

Crucially, when researchers blocked taurine uptake by leukaemia cells (using genetic techniques), cancer progression slowed significantly. The authors suggest taurine supplements could potentially worsen outcomes in people with leukaemia and propose that developing targeted ways to block taurine uptake by cancer cells might offer a new treatment strategy.

Taurine: friend or foe?

Taurine is one of the most abundant free amino acids in the human body, found in especially high concentrations in the heart, muscles and brain. In healthy people, it’s mainly obtained through diet, but the body can also synthesise taurine from the amino acids methionine and cysteine, provided it has enough vitamin B6, which is found in foods such as salmon, tuna, chicken, bananas and milk.

Most people consuming a typical western diet take in 40mg–400mg of taurine a day from food alone. This figure refers only to taurine that is directly ingested, not including the additional amount the body can synthesise internally, which may vary depending on age, diet and health.

Taurine is listed on the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) generally recognised as safe (GRAS) database, and according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), it’s safe to consume up to six grams per day. By comparison, a serving of Red Bull or Monster contains around one gram – comfortably below that threshold.

Despite recent concerns about a possible link to blood cancer progression, taurine isn’t inherently harmful. In fact, some people may benefit from supplementation, especially those receiving long-term parenteral nutrition, where nutrients are delivered directly into the bloodstream because the gut isn’t working properly. People with chronic liver, kidney or heart failure may also have trouble producing or holding on to enough taurine, making supplementation helpful in specific clinical settings.

Ironically, some research suggests taurine may actually help reduce the side effects of chemotherapy in leukaemia patients – even as emerging studies raise concerns that it could also fuel the disease. This contradiction underscores how much context matters: the effects of taurine depend not just on dosage and delivery, but also on the patient’s underlying condition. What helps in one context, could harm in another.

But here’s the catch: taking taurine as a supplement for particular health reasons is very different from consuming large quantities through energy drinks, which often combine taurine with high levels of caffeine and sugar. This combination can put strain on the heart, interfere with sleep and increase the risk of side effects, particularly for people with underlying health conditions or those taking other stimulants.

The latest research raises important questions about whether taurine-heavy products could be harmful in some cases, especially for people with, or at risk of, blood cancers.

So, should you worry?

According to the current evidence, if you’re a healthy adult who occasionally sips an energy drink, there’s little cause for alarm. But moderation is key. Consuming multiple high-taurine drinks daily or taking taurine supplements (without prior professional consultation), on top of a taurine-rich diet might not be wise, especially if future research confirms links between taurine and cancer progression.

Until more is known, the safest approach would be to enjoy your energy boosts by consuming a nutritious diet rather than consuming energy drinks. If you have any underlying health conditions – or a family history of cancer – it’s always best to consult a healthcare professional before diving into taurine supplementation or consumption of energy drinks.

Gulshanara (Rumy) Begum 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. Taurine could power your energy drink – and maybe cancer cells too. Here’s what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/taurine-could-power-your-energy-drink-and-maybe-cancer-cells-too-heres-what-you-need-to-know-256957

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Hastings Dunn, Professor of International Politics in the Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham

At face value, Donald Trump’s announcement about his plans on Russia and Ukraine look like a major policy change. Speaking from the Oval Office on July 14, where he had been meeting with Nato secretary general Mark Rutte, the US president said he would send “top-of-the-line-weapons” to help Kyiv and – unless a ceasefire deal is agreed inside a 50-day time limit – the US would impose secondary sanctions on any countries dealing with Russia.

But while this represents a significant departure from Trump’s previous approach, it’s more of a step back towards the policy approach of his predecessor Joe Biden than the U-turn that some commentators are claiming.

For months Russia has stepped up its bombardment of Ukraine, buoyed by the fact that neither the US Congress nor the White House has authorised any new military aid to Kyiv. Moscow would have been aware of this lack of US action and its missile and drone attacks against Ukraine have aimed to run down the stocks of air defence missiles supplied by Biden while paying lip service to the idea of peace negotiations.

For Trump the penny appears finally to have dropped as to what was happening. His frustration and disappointment in Putin is what has finally led to him calling this out. According to Trump, Putin “fooled a lot of people – Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden – he didn’t fool me. At a certain point talk doesn’t talk, it’s got to be action”.

The decision to send new supplies of defensive – and potentially even longer-range offensive missiles – to Ukraine (even if the Europeans pay for them) is an important signal to Russia. But so too is the threat of tariffs of 100% on countries, such as India and China, that sustain the Russian economy by buying its oil and gas at knockdown prices.

The US senate, led by Lindsay Graham, the influential Republican senator for South Carolina, has been itching to pass these secondary sanctions for months. Now that the Trump administration appears to have adopted this plan it is a significant policy instrument to pile the pressure on Russia.

The change in Trump’s approach may also mean that the $US8 billion (£6 billion) of frozen Russian assets in the US (and US$223 billion in Europe) could be released to aid Ukraine, which would provide a ready means to pay for the US arms transfers.

Limits to US support

What has not changed, however, is the goal of Trump’s policy towards the war in Ukraine. While the Biden administration called out the illegality of Putin’s unprovoked aggression and called for the restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty, Trump is merely calling for a ceasefire.

Trump may say he is “disappointed” with Putin, but he has not labelled him as the aggressor. In fact at one point he was blaming Ukraine for the invasion. And, significantly, he has not demanded that Russia give up the 20% of Ukraine that it currently illegally occupies.

The US president is also silent on what the US would commit to in terms of security and stability for Ukraine after the fighting stops. This is a much bigger question than Ukraine’s Nato membership. America’s European allies in Nato regard some sort of stability force on Ukrainian territory as necessary to deter any future Russian aggression.

Whether or not US troops would be involved (and all the signs are that they would not), some sort of US security “back-stop” or guarantee is still seen in Europe as key to its success – as would be US logistical and intelligence support for its operation.

But why the 50-day delay?

Another aspect of the change in Trump’s policy is the long lead time that Russia has been given to come to the table. A lot of Ukrainian civilians are likely to die during this period if the intense bombardment continues. On the battlefield, 50 days would give the Russians an extended window during a renewed summer offensive to make further territorial gains inside the occupied provinces.

So Trump’s proposals have to be viewed through the prism of his propensity to set deadlines that are then pushed back multiple times – as with the on-again, off-again tariffs, which have given Trump the nickname Taco (“Trump always chickens out”) on Wall Street.

Russian senator, Konstantin Kosachev, was certainly taking this view when he told the BBC after Trump’s announcement that, “if this is all Trump had to say about Ukraine today, then so far it’s been much ado about nothing”.

This sentiment was shared by the Russian stock market which rose 2.7% in the aftermath of Trump’s announcement. Analysts had expected much worse, so the long delay in the prospect of anything actually happening was clearly seen as a long way off and potentially subject to change or cancellation. Trump is seen by many as both inconsistent in his threats and unpredictable as to where policy will eventually settle.

The fact that Trump told BBC Washington correspondent Gary O’Donoghue that while he was “disappointed” with Putin, he was “not done with him” – and his clear reluctance to act quickly and decisively in sanctioning Russia – should be seen as an important counterpart to the apparent policy shift.

Like so many things with the 47th US president, it’s important not to react to the media appearances or the headlines they provoke, without also paying attention to the policy actions of his administration.

David Hastings Dunn has previously received funding from the ESRC, the Gerda Henkel Foundation, the Open Democracy Foundation and has previously been both a NATO and a Fulbright Fellow.

– ref. What Trump’s decision to send more weapons to Ukraine will mean for the war – https://theconversation.com/what-trumps-decision-to-send-more-weapons-to-ukraine-will-mean-for-the-war-261192

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Pavan Mano, Lecturer in Global Cultures, King’s College London

The Bank of England has announced a redesign of its banknotes and invited the public to suggest new themes that might feature on them. Victoria Cleland, the Bank of England’s chief cashier, said this was as “a symbolic representation of our collective national identity and an opportunity to celebrate the UK”.

Even though they can appear like the unifying symbols Cleland suggests, my research shows that there are contradictions that surround many national symbols. They are not as unifying as they might seem. In fact, in many cases they also work to exclude people.

For a long time, there has been a persuasive argument about belonging and the nation. As one of the grand theorists of the nation, Benedict Anderson, once put it, the nation is an “imagined political community”.

The idea here is that the nation is simply a collection of people who form a community together, something larger than themselves. And national symbols are supposed to represent this community. As such, national symbols are often taken as markers of belonging.

But what is often overlooked is the exclusionary element of the nation. In my book, Straight Nation, I show how for some people to belong to a nation, others must be portrayed as not belonging. It can be difficult to pinpoint exactly how one belongs to the nation; it is far easier to point at someone else and declare that they do not.

The invitation to contribute to the redesign will therefore show two things. It will tell us how the country sees itself. It will also demonstrate the contradictions around national symbols and the exclusions they can produce. The former perhaps more straightforward than the latter.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

How does England see itself?

In theory, the banknote is a perfectly neat national symbol. It is an object that is only valid within the borders of the state it is issued in, so the images printed on it can be treated as representations of the nation. Current notes feature images of historically significant characters: former prime minister Sir Winston Churchill, author Jane Austen, painter J.M.W. Turner and scientist Alan Turing.

Indeed, the Bank of England has suggested that images should not be “divisive”. In other words, they need to be as inclusive as possible. But in the current political environment, far-right politics and division have become extremely commonplace both globally and closer to home.

In the US, the current administration has squarely taken aim at diversity, equity and inclusion programmes and launched a massive wave of deportations. Across much of western Europe, far-right parties are going from strength to strength.

In the UK, rightwing Reform has emerged as the party that would win the most seats if a general election were held this year. The current prime minister, Keir Starmer, recently gave a speech where he warned the UK risked becoming an “island of strangers” without tougher immigration policies.

Amid these political currents, it will be interesting to see which themes and images are eventually chosen to adorn the new banknotes from the consultation which closes at the end of July. The designs will be instructive not least because they will show how how the current climate translates onto these notes as well as how the country sees itself.

For instance, there has never been a person of colour and only three women have previously featured on a banknote. It would be a a long time coming if this were to change.

The exclusions at the heart of national symbols

Perhaps more importantly, however, is the ironic contradiction around asking for the public’s views on banknotes when banknotes are disappearing from public view.

At the start of this year, Lloyds Banking Group announced it would be closing 136 of its high street banks. This follows a broader trend. Since 2015, banks have closed more than 6,000 branches, and the number of cash machines has fallen by more than 7,000 between June 2021 and June 2024.

Banking is becoming increasingly digital and carried out through a smartphone app. A growing number of establishments have gone entirely cashless.

Many people are affected by this, including those with disabilities, older people, those living in rural areas and small businesses. Not only is cash no longer king, it is barely in the building.

When it is redesigned, the new banknote will be released into an environment where it is less used and, in a growing number of establishments that have gone entirely cashless, will be almost entirely unwelcome.

National belonging is often romanticised. There is a sense that nationalism and unity go hand in hand, and that the nation is simply a basin of belonging. National symbols are portrayed as a matter of pride.

We do not know yet what designs they will bear when the crisp new banknotes are issued. But we do know that they will be issued in decreasing quantities and many people will find it harder to get their hands on them. That captures the contradictions of national symbols, and the exclusions they produce.

Pavan Mano 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. England’s redesigned banknotes will reveal how the country sees itself – https://theconversation.com/englands-redesigned-banknotes-will-reveal-how-the-country-sees-itself-260842