Publisher Health

Most Americans don’t realize the cancer risks of alcohol. More than half of U.S. adults either underestimate or misunderstand how drinking increases cancer risk. Regular drinkers are the least aware. People who consume alcohol are especially likely to believe that drinking has no impact on cancer risk. Better awareness could save lives. Educating the public about the real link between alcohol and cancer may help more people follow the U.S. Surgeon General’s guidelines and reduce preventable cancer cases.Many Americans Unaware of Alcohol’s Cancer RiskNew research from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center shows that public understanding of the connection between alcohol and cancer remains surprisingly low in the United States. Despite decades of scientific evidence, more than half of American adults (52.9%) were unaware that alcohol affects cancer risk.
The findings, published October 30 in JAMA Oncology, reveal that only 37.1% of adults recognized that drinking alcohol raises cancer risk, while 1% believed it actually lowers it. The study also noted that individuals who had consumed alcohol recently, or who thought cancer was not fatal or preventable, were more likely to say that alcohol has no influence on cancer risk.
Lead author Sanjay Shete, Ph.D., professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology and Betty B. Marcus Chair in Cancer Prevention, called the results alarming. “It’s concerning that people who drink alcohol are the ones most likely to believe it has no effect on cancer risk,” Shete said. “Given people’s beliefs play a critical role in whether they choose healthier behaviors, we need to work on correcting these misperceptions, which could be essential to reducing the growing burden of alcohol-related cancers.”
Researchers examined what influences how people view alcohol and cancer risk, noting that health-related behaviors and beliefs strongly affect whether individuals make informed choices. The study found that certain demographic and behavioral traits were linked to greater misunderstanding of alcohol’s effects.
Current cigarette smokers, Black individuals, those with lower levels of education (below a college or high school level), and people who do not believe cancer can be prevented were more likely to say they did not know alcohol contributes to cancer risk.

Alcohol’s Proven Role as a Carcinogen
The World Health Organization classifies alcohol as a Group 1 carcinogen, the same level of risk as tobacco, asbestos, and radiation. Alcohol consumption has been tied to at least seven types of cancer, including breast, liver, and colorectal cancers. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), drinking alcohol accounts for about 5.5% of all new cancer cases and 5.8% of all cancer deaths worldwide.
Researchers suggest that correcting misinformation could help more people follow alcohol consumption guidelines, including those endorsed by the U.S. Surgeon General in his 2025 advisory, potentially reducing preventable cancer-related deaths.
The analysis drew on data from nearly 7,000 adults aged 18 and older (mean age 48) who participated in the 2024 Health Information National Trends Survey. Among respondents, 48.4% were female, 60.7% identified as white, 17.5% as Hispanic, and 11% as Black. Over half reported drinking alcohol within the past month, and almost 10% had a personal history of cancer.
Participants were asked, “In your opinion, how does drinking alcohol affect the risk of getting cancer?” They could choose from four responses: “decreases the risk of cancer,” “has no effect on the risk of cancer,” “increases risk of cancer,” and “don’t know.”
This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute (P30CA016672) and the Betty B. Marcus Chair in Cancer Prevention. A complete list of authors, disclosures, and funding sources is available in the full JAMA Oncology article.

Viruses are masters of efficiency, able to take over our cells and control vital processes using only a handful of genes. For years, scientists have wondered how something so small could do so much. Researchers have now uncovered the answer — a discovery that could reshape our understanding of how viruses work and lead to new ways to fight them.Breakthrough Reveals How Viruses Outsmart Human CellsA team of Australian scientists has uncovered how certain viruses manage to seize control of human cells, a finding that could lead to the next generation of antivirals and vaccines.
The research, led by Monash University and the University of Melbourne and published in Nature Communications, explains how the rabies virus can manipulate a wide range of cellular activities despite producing only a few proteins.
Scientists believe this same mechanism could also be at work in other deadly pathogens, including Nipah and Ebola viruses. If so, the discovery could pave the way for new treatments that block these viral strategies.
How Viruses Do So Much With So Little
Co-senior author Associate Professor Greg Moseley, head of the Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute’s (BDI) Viral Pathogenesis Laboratory, described the remarkable efficiency of viruses.

“Viruses such as rabies can be incredibly lethal because they take control of many aspects of life inside the cells they infect,” Associate Professor Moseley said. “They hijack the machinery that makes proteins, disrupt the ‘postal service’ that sends messages between different parts of the cell, and disable the defenses that normally protect us from infection.”
He explained that scientists have long puzzled over how viruses with such limited genetic material could be so powerful. “Rabies virus, for example, has the genetic material to make only five proteins, compared with about 20,000 in a human cell,” he said.
The Key: A Shape-Shifting Viral Protein
Co-first author Dr. Stephen Rawlinson, a research fellow in the Moseley Lab, said the team’s work offers a long-sought answer.
“Our study provides an answer,” he said. “We discovered that one of rabies virus’s key proteins, called P protein, gains a remarkable range of functions through its ability to change shape and to bind to RNA.”
“RNA is the same molecule used in new-generation RNA vaccines, but it plays essential roles inside our cells, carrying genetic messages, coordinating immune responses, and helping make the building blocks of life.”
Taking Over the Cell’s Inner World

Co-senior author Professor Paul Gooley, who leads the University of Melbourne’s Gooley Laboratory, said the viral P protein’s ability to interact with RNA allows it to shift between different physical ‘phases’ within a cell.
“This allows it to infiltrate many of the cell’s liquid-like compartments, take control of vital processes, and turn the cell into a highly efficient virus factory,” Professor Gooley said.
Although this research focused on rabies, he noted that similar tactics may be used by other deadly viruses, including Nipah and Ebola. “Understanding this new mechanism opens exciting possibilities for developing antivirals or vaccines that block this remarkable adaptability,” he added.
Rethinking How Viral Proteins Work
Dr. Rawlinson said the findings challenge how scientists have traditionally viewed multifunctional viral proteins. “Until now, these proteins were often viewed like trains made up of several carriages, with each carriage (or module) responsible for a specific task,” he said.
“According to this view, shorter versions of a protein should simply lose functions as carriages are removed. However, this simple model could not explain why some shorter viral proteins actually gain new abilities. We found that multifunctionality can also arise from the way the ‘carriages’ interact and fold together to create different overall shapes, as well as forming new abilities such as binding to RNA.”
A New Perspective on Viral Adaptability
Associate Professor Moseley said that the ability of the P protein to bind RNA allows it to move between different physical ‘phases’ inside the cell.
“In doing so, it can access and manipulate many of the cell’s own liquid-like compartments that control key processes, such as immune defense and protein production,” he said. “By revealing this new mechanism, our study provides a fresh way of thinking about how viruses use their limited genetic material to create proteins that are flexible, adaptable, and able to take control of complex cellular systems.”
This study involved Monash University, the University of Melbourne, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Australian Synchrotron), Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness (ACDP), and Deakin University.

2 hours agoShareSaveEmer MoreauBusiness reporterShareSaveGetty ImagesThe number of sick and disabled people out of work is putting the UK at risk of an “economic inactivity crisis” that threatens the country’s prosperity, according to a new report.There were 800,000 more people out of work now than in 2019 due to health conditions, costing employers £85bn a year, according to the review by former John Lewis boss Sir Charlie Mayfield.The problem could worsen without intervention, but Sir Charlie, who will lead a taskforce aimed at helping people return to work, said this was “not inevitable”.The move has been broadly welcomed, but some business groups said Labour’s Employment Rights Bill included some disincentives to hiring people with existing illnesses.One in five working age people were out of work, and not seeking work, according to the report, which was commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions but produced independently. Without intervention, another 600,000 people could leave work due to health reasons by the end of the decade.Sir Charlie said sickness cost employers £85bn a year through issues including lost productivity and sick pay, but it also cost the broader economy.”Work is generally good for health and health is good for work,” he told BBC Breakfast.He added that the rise in sickness was being driven by a “surge” in mental health issues among young people and muscular skeletal issues, aches and joint pain in older people that was leading them to leave work.”For employers, sickness and staff turnover bring disruption, cost and lost experience,” he said. “For the country, it means weaker growth, higher welfare spending and greater pressure on the NHS.”The state spends £212bn per year on illness-related inactivity, or nearly 70% of income tax, through lost output, increased welfare payments and additional burdens on the NHS.People could be encouraged to stay in work if health is viewed as “a shared responsibility between employers, employees and health services”, he said.Sir Charlie added his taskforce would work with GPs who say they find it difficult to judge whether or not a person is suitable to work while they are ill, but are asked to issue sick notes by patients.’I want to find a job’Loz Sandom has mental and physical health conditions which has made it difficult to find a job, and the last time they worked was a year ago. “I am willing to do the work, and I want to. I want to find a job,” said the 28-year-old, who has a degree in illustration and has previously worked as a digital marketing executive. With support from the charity Scope, Loz is looking for an employer willing to accommodate the adjustments they would need in a workplace.Loz said that part of the challenge was employers did not realise they had “a duty to provide reasonable adjustments”.”It’s such a shame because they’re missing out on so many fantastic disabled people that can do fabulous jobs.”And I’m not blaming employers entirely. They need support as well,” Loz added. “There are things that can be put in place to help employers, help save people.”Responding to the report, the government announced a major partnership with over 60 companies, many of them large employers, to “tackle the rising tide of ill-health that is pushing people out of work”.The companies include Tesco, Google UK, Nando’s and John Lewis.Over the next three years, they will “develop and refine workplace health approaches” which aim to “reduce sickness absence, improve return-to-work rates, and increase disability employment rate”.The government is aiming to develop these changes into a voluntary certified standard by 2029.Speaking to the BBC, Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said the report was a “win-win for employees and employers because it’s aimed at keeping people with sickness issues or developing disability issues in work”. “That’s in the interests of employers because these are good experienced staff and it’s in the interests of employees too because most people want to stay in work if they possibly can.”
The Resolution Foundation think tank’s chief executive Ruth Curtice said: “The review has accurately identified a culture of fear, a dearth of support and structural barriers to work as key challenges to overcome in turning the tide for Britain’s economic inactivity problem – which is currently trending in the wrong direction.”The CIPD, which represents HR professionals, welcomed the government’s vision for a preventative approach to illness in the workplace.But its chief executive Peter Cheese said: “The report’s success will depend on the extent to which these recommendations are understood by business in driving positive outcomes and backed by policy makers at a national and regional level.”The report comes as the government tries to move ahead with its Employment Rights Bill – which some businesses say will stifle growth.The proposed new law includes a right to guaranteed hours and cracks down on zero-hour contracts without the offer of work.As well as that bill, Chancellor Rachel Reeves is aiming to guarantee paid work to young people who have been out of a job for 18 months.Those who do not take up the offer could face being stripped of their benefits.

A council has won a High Court battle to vaccinate a baby against her mother’s wishes.Islington Council faced a legal challenge by one of its residents after it arranged for her eight-month-old daughter to receive routine vaccinations while the child was in its care.The mother, known only as Ms S, had refused the vaccinations out of her belief there was a link between the jabs and autism – a claim science does not support.At the High Court, Mr Justice McDonald decided that not vaccinating the girl would leave her at risk of childhood disease “at a very young age when she remains vulnerable,” and ruled in favour of the local authority.The baby, known only as P, has been under the north London council’s guardianship since February due to concerns that her mother could not meet her or her older siblings’ basic care needs.In July, the council proposed the infant stay with her mother at the family home while under its supervision, until it was decided whether or not she would permanently be taken out of her mother’s care.During this time the mother refused to have her daughter vaccinated.After the council moved ahead with the appointment out of concern for the child’s welfare, Ms S took the local authority to the High Court to try to stop it.The Local Democracy Reporting Service reports that the mother told the court she was convinced of the links between vaccines and autism or ADHD, and believed ethnic minority children were adversely affected by the jabs.She also said she had seen proof online that 4,500 children had died from preventable diseases and deemed this a low risk when compared to the country’s large child population.At the High Court hearing Mr Justice McDonald “gently pressed” the mother that there were no scientific studies proving the connection between autism and vaccinations.But Ms S maintained it was still her right to decide, arguing that her daughter was “too tiny to be pumped with vaccinations with all those chemicals”. She added that she might consider letting her child receive the jabs if she were older.The Children Act 1989 gives local authorities the power to arrange for children in care to be vaccinated even if their parents object.While there is no law that says children must be vaccinated, the NHS strongly urges parents to follow its routine schedule of vaccinations for babies under one year of age, starting at eight weeks, to protect against diseases like measles, tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough.

Researchers at North Carolina State University have identified a clear connection between the extent of cockroach infestations in homes and the amount of allergens and bacterial toxins known as endotoxins found indoors. The team discovered that when pest control successfully reduced cockroach numbers, both allergen and endotoxin levels dropped sharply. These results indicate that eliminating infestations may significantly improve indoor environmental health by cutting down harmful biological pollutants.
Endotoxins are fragments of bacterial cell walls that are released when bacteria die. Because cockroaches consume a wide range of materials, they host a diverse gut microbiome. Previous studies have shown that these insects shed large quantities of endotoxins through their droppings. Although humans and household pets can also produce endotoxins, the researchers found that a major portion of those detected in household dust originated from cockroach feces.
“Endotoxins are important to human health, as inhalation of these components has been shown to provoke allergic responses,” said Coby Schal, the Blanton J. Whitmire Distinguished Professor of Entomology at NC State and co-corresponding author of the study. “Past surveys in U.S. homes found endotoxin levels much higher in homes with self-reported evidence of cockroaches; that association is stronger in low-income homes than in single-family homes.”
How the Study Was Conducted
The research took place in multi-unit apartment complexes in Raleigh, North Carolina. Scientists measured the scale of cockroach infestations alongside concentrations of allergens and endotoxins in each home. To establish baseline readings, both settled and airborne dust samples were collected before any treatment began.
The findings revealed that infested homes contained high amounts of endotoxins, with female cockroaches producing roughly twice as much as males.
“Female cockroaches eat more than males, so more endotoxins are shed from their fecal matter,” explained Madhavi Kakumanu, an NC State research scholar in Schal’s lab and co-corresponding author of the paper. She noted that kitchens typically contained more endotoxins than bedrooms, since they provide abundant food sources for cockroaches.

Testing Pest Control’s Effectiveness
The infested apartments were split into two categories: untreated homes and those that received professional extermination to remove cockroaches. Researchers also included a control group of residences with no infestation. Dust and insect samples were collected again at three and six months.
Homes that remained untreated consistently showed high levels of both allergens and endotoxins throughout the study. In contrast, most units that underwent extermination were cleared of cockroaches and showed substantial reductions in both allergens and endotoxins.
“When you eliminate cockroaches, you eliminate their allergens. Small decreases in cockroaches don’t lower allergen levels because the remaining live cockroaches deposit more allergens,” Schal said. “Endotoxins significantly decreased in homes where cockroaches were eliminated. This paper shows that the cockroach is the most important depositor of endotoxin in infested homes.”
Kakumanu added, “We also saw that allergens and endotoxins can be airborne.”
Next Steps: Exploring Health Effects
Schal noted that future research will look at how cockroach allergens and endotoxins interact in animal models of asthma, such as mice.

“There exists the implication that asthma can be worse due to interactions between allergens and endotoxins,” he said. “We want to see if that is the case in mice.”
The research was published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: Global. Co-authors include NC State’s Richard G. Santangelo, Zachary C. DeVries from the University of Kentucky, and Jeffrey Siegel from the University of Toronto.
Funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Healthy Homes program (NCHHU0053-19, NCHHU0081-24); the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (2013-5-35 MBE); a Pilot Project from the Center for Human Health and the Environment under P30ES025128 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (award number 1R21AI187857-01); the Research Capacity Fund (HATCH) (project NC02639) from the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture; and the Blanton J. Whitmire Endowment at North Carolina State University.

New research has revealed that Escherichia coli (E. coli), a bacterium that normally lives in the human gut, can spread through populations at a rate comparable to the swine flu.
For the first time, researchers from the Wellcome Sanger Institute, the University of Oslo, the University of Helsinki, Aalto University in Finland, and their collaborators have been able to estimate how efficiently one person can pass gut bacteria to others. This kind of calculation, which measures transmission rates, has previously been possible mainly for viruses.
Tracking Dangerous Strains Across Populations
The study, published today (November 4) in Nature Communications, examined three key E. coli strains circulating in the UK and Norway. Two of these strains are resistant to several common classes of antibiotics. They are also the most frequent causes of urinary tract and bloodstream infections in both countries. The researchers suggest that better monitoring of these strains could guide public health responses and help prevent outbreaks of infections that are difficult to treat.
In the long term, gaining insight into the genetic factors that help E. coli spread could lead to more targeted therapies and reduce reliance on broad-spectrum antibiotics. The approach developed in this study could also be adapted to investigate other bacterial pathogens and improve strategies for managing invasive infections.
E. coli is one of the leading causes of infections around the world.1 While most strains are harmless and normally inhabit the gut, the bacteria can enter the body through direct contact such as kissing or indirect means like shared surfaces, food, or living spaces. When E. coli moves into areas such as the urinary tract, it can cause serious illness, including sepsis, especially in people with weakened immune systems.
Antibiotic resistance has made these infections even more concerning. In the UK, more than 40 percent of E. coli bloodstream infections are now resistant to a key antibiotic,2 reflecting a global trend of rising resistance levels.

Applying Viral-Style Transmission Metrics to Bacteria
Scientists often describe how infectious a pathogen is using the basic reproduction number, known as R0. This number estimates how many new cases a single infected person might cause. It is typically applied to viruses and helps predict whether an outbreak will expand or decline. Until now, researchers have been unable to assign an R0 value to bacteria that normally colonize the gut, since they often live in the body without triggering illness.
To overcome this, the team combined data from the UK Baby Biome Study with genomic information from E. coli bloodstream infection surveillance programs in the UK and Norway, previously compiled by the Wellcome Sanger Institute.
Using a software platform called ELFI3 (Engine for Likelihood-Free Inference), the researchers built a new model capable of estimating R0 for the three major E. coli strains studied.
Their results showed that one particular strain, known as ST131-A, can spread between people as rapidly as some viruses that have caused global outbreaks, including the swine flu (H1N1). This is particularly striking because E. coli is not spread through airborne droplets like flu viruses are.
The two other strains studied, ST131-C1 and ST131-C2, are resistant to multiple antibiotic classes but spread much more slowly among healthy individuals. However, in hospitals and other healthcare environments, where patients are more vulnerable and contact is frequent, these resistant strains could move through populations much faster.

Understanding R0 for Bacteria
Assigning an R0 value to bacteria opens the door to a clearer understanding of how bacterial infections spread. It also helps identify which strains pose the greatest threat and could inform public health strategies to better protect people with compromised immune systems.
Fanni Ojala, M.Sc., co-first author at Aalto University in Finland, explained: “By having a large amount of systematically collected data, it was possible to build a simulation model to predict R0 for E. coli. To our knowledge, this was not just a first for E. coli, but a first for any bacteria that live in our gut microbiome. Now that we have this model, it could be possible to apply it to other bacterial strains in the future, allowing us to understand, track, and hopefully prevent the spread of antibiotic-resistant infections.”
Dr. Trevor Lawley, Group Leader at the Wellcome Sanger Institute and co-lead of the UK Baby Biome Study, who was not involved in this research, noted: “E. coli is one of the first bacteria that can be found in a baby’s gut, and in order to understand how our bacteria shape our health, we need to know where we start — which is why the UK Baby Biome study is so important. It is great to see that our UK Baby Biome study data are being used by others to uncover new insights and methods that will hopefully benefit us all.”
A New Lens on Bacterial Genetics
Professor Jukka Corander, senior author at the Wellcome Sanger Institute and the University of Oslo, added: “Having the R0 for E. coli allows us to see the spread of bacteria through the population in much clearer detail, and compare this to other infections. Now that we can see how rapidly some of these bacterial strains spread, it is necessary to understand their genetic drivers. Understanding the genetics of specific strains could lead to new ways to diagnose and treat these in healthcare settings, which is especially important for bacteria that are already resistant to multiple types of antibiotics.”
The success of this study relied on extensive genomic data from the UK and Norway, all sequenced at the Wellcome Sanger Institute. This large-scale data made it possible to identify transmission patterns in detail. The datasets originated from earlier studies published in The Lancet Microbe,4,5 which laid the foundation for the modeling breakthrough achieved in this new research.
Notes Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators. (2022) ‘Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis.’ The Lancet. DOI: 1016/S0140-6736(21)02724-0 UK Health Security Agency. New data shows 148 severe antibiotic-resistant infections a day in 2021. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-data-shows-148-severe-antibiotic-resistant-infections-a-day-in-2021#:~:text=Over%20two-fifths%20of%20E,as%20cefiderocol%20to%20identify%20resistance ELFI can be found: https://www.elfi.ai/ R. A. Gladstone, et al. (2021) ‘ Emergence and dissemination of antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli causing bloodstream infections in Norway in 2002-17: a nationwide, longitudinal, microbial population genomic study’ Lancet Microbe. DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00031-8. A. K. Pontinen, et al. (2024) ‘Modulation of multidrug-resistant clone success in Escherichia coli populations: a longitudinal, multi-country, genomic and antibiotic usage cohort study’ Lancet Microbe. DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(23)00292-6.

A research team at the University of Missouri has made a discovery that could transform how glaucoma is detected and treated. Glaucoma, a major cause of irreversible blindness in older adults, often goes undiagnosed until significant vision loss has already occurred. Scientists are now closer to identifying a biomarker that may allow doctors to detect the disease much earlier and develop new ways to protect the eye.
Glaucoma occurs when retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) and their axons become damaged. These delicate nerve cells, located at the back of the eye, carry visual information to the brain. Once they deteriorate, vision loss begins. Current therapies mainly reduce pressure inside the eye, but none effectively protect RGCs from harm. This gap in treatment highlights the urgent need for neuroprotective strategies that can preserve these critical nerve cells.
Searching for Biomarkers and Protective Treatments
Pawan Singh, a researcher at Mizzou’s School of Medicine, is dedicated to finding both biomarkers that reveal glaucoma early and therapies that safeguard the optic nerve. His team recently discovered that glaucoma patients have lower levels of two naturally occurring molecules, agmatine and thiamine, in the clear fluid at the front of the eye compared with individuals without the disease. These small molecules, known as metabolites, may serve as early indicators that can be detected through testing.
“In several cases, people do not find out they have glaucoma until they are older and their eye pressure is elevated,” Singh explained. “Our long-term goal is to see if doctors could one day do a simple blood test to check for these biomarkers. If they can, hopefully they will be able to catch the disease much earlier, before vision loss occurs, so patients can receive treatment sooner.”
Promising Clues for Future Treatments
Beyond diagnosis, the discovery offers hope for new therapies. Singh’s pre-clinical research suggests that agmatine and thiamine may help protect RGCs and maintain visual function, offering neuroprotective potential. These molecules could eventually be developed into treatments, possibly in the form of eye drops or supplements, that slow or prevent vision loss from glaucoma.
“Mizzou’s impressive research infrastructure and our collaborative team help make this research possible,” Singh said. “While more work needs to be done, the eye doctors I have spoken to here at Mizzou are very excited about this research, so I am proud and hopeful for the future.”
The findings were published in Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science under the title “Metabolomic profiling of aqueous humor from glaucoma patients identifies metabolites with anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective potential in mice.”

9 hours agoShareSaveDr XandMorning Live doctorShareSaveBBC and GettyScroll through social media or glance at the supermarket shelves and you’ll see endless products claiming to improve your gut health.It seems everyone’s talking about looking after their microbiome – the trillions of tiny organisms living in our digestive system – which influence everything from digestion and immunity to mood and sleep.Gut health is all about having the right mix of bacteria and enough fibre-rich food to keep everything moving and your body feeling its best.The key to keeping the microbes happy is feeding them the right food and it’s easier than you think to maintain a healthy gut.Instead of reaching for pricey probiotic shots or snacks, I recommend making these five easy food swaps to give your gut a boost.Swap crisps for popcorn. Popcorn is a wholegrain so it’s packed with fibre that feeds the good bacteria in your gut and it’s also lighter and far less processed than a bag of crisps.Swap sweets for dried fruit. This can be a hard swap to make if you love sweets but dried apricots, raisins or dates can still hit that sweet spot whilst also delivering fibre, vitamins and natural sugars that your gut and your energy levels will thank you for.Add lentils or chickpeas to your bolognese. Pulses are full of prebiotic fibre which acts as food for your gut microbes and they can help bulk out your meal, making it go further while adding texture and extra plant-based protein so it’s a great way to eat less meat without feeling like you’re missing outSwap flavoured nuts for plain ones. Flavoured nuts are often loaded with salt and sugar while plain nuts give you healthy fats and fibre without the additives your gut could do without.Swap ice cream for frozen berries and kefir. Ice cream might make your taste buds happy, but frozen berries with kefir (a tangy fermented milk drink) give you natural sweetness, antioxidants and live cultures that can help your microbiome flourish.Of course there are many other foods you can consume to improve your gut health like drinking kombucha or eating fermented food such as kimchi or sauerkraut, but it’s not necessary to focus on that too much.The most important thing for your gut and overall health is eating a range of whole foods that are rich in fibre like fruits and vegetables.And when it comes to supplements and probiotics, my advice is the same – there’s no evidence it will do you any good and products like probiotic drinks and powders promising miraculous results can cost you hundreds of pounds which I see as a waste of money.Additional reporting by Yasmin Rufo

12 hours agoShareSaveJennifer MeierhansBusiness reporterShareSaveGetty ImagesA number of adverts for LED face masks have been banned for making unauthorised claims they can improve acne and rosacea.The popularity of at-home beauty devices has surged in recent years with social media feeds filled with influencers unboxing and reviewing the masks as the latest skincare trend.However, dermatologists are divided over whether light-emitting diodes (LED) in at-home masks can deliver the results of medical-grade devices used in clinics. The advertising watchdog banned adverts for cosmetic devices which were not registered with the medicines regulator.LED therapy is thought to stimulate cells and improve the skin, but devices must be registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to make medical claims about skin conditions like acne and rosacea.Devices registered with the MHRA can be searched on its Public Access Registration Database (PARD). Dermatologists have previously told the BBC there have not been clinical trials with large enough sample sizes for long enough periods of time to know the benefits of at-home LED masks.The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) used AI to search for ads which might break the rules, and the bans followed that search.’My acne had disappeared’An advert on Project E Beauty’s website showed before and after images of a woman’s forehead with and without acne, with the words: “By week three, my acne had disappeared”. The ad stated: “Our most advanced LED mask for deeper skin renewal”. It claimed it “treats acne” and offered “83% improvement in acne lesions in four weeks”.The ASA said “no medical claims could be made for the product, whether or not such claims appeared in customer testimonials.”Project E Beauty LLC said it had removed potential medical claims relating to “healing”, “treating acne” and “rosacea”.It also said it had amended the advert to state that any references to acne in before/after photos and reviews were testimonials based on personal experiences.Silk’nA paid-for social media ad for Silk’n featured a video of a woman using an LED face mask with the caption: “Finished with the blue light to help treat my acne and scars”.Invention Works BV, trading as Silk’n, acknowledged the term “acne” constituted a medical claim. It said the advert was created by a woman after prolonged use of the mask and the wording reflected her individual perception and results.The ASA told Silk’n the adverts must not appear again in that form.BeautaholicsOther adverts banned include one on the Beautaholics website for a RejuvaLux mask which stated: “This mask provides targeted solutions for…acne…rosacea.” Beautaholics said it would not make claims regarding the treatment or prevention of medical conditions in future.A paid-for social media ad for a mask by Luyors Retail Inc was also banned after it stated: “It helps tackle everything from acne…with clinical precision.”Luyors said it would ensure future advertising did not refer to “acne” or other terms that could imply a medicinal claim.Izzy Dharmasiri at the ASA said ads “can have an influence on what people buy,” so it was “important that advertisers don’t blur the line between cosmetic benefits and medicinal claims.”She said advertisers “need to have evidence to back up any claims they make in their ads”. She said the banning of the adverts was part of its work to protect vulnerable people “seeking genuine solutions to medical problems”.

This year, as President Trump threatened tariffs, nearly all of the wealthiest pharmaceutical companies have pledged to spend billions of dollars to build factories in the United States. Construction is underway in industry hubs like North Carolina on state-of-the-art plants that will produce blockbuster drugs.But the president’s drug-manufacturing renaissance in America is largely leaving out the production of generic medicines, which account for 90 percent of Americans’ prescriptions.For these factories, far more typical than the sight of cranes is the scene in Shreveport, La., where a plant shut down in March. Its workers are gone, and the machines that churned out millions of tablets each day are silent.Over four decades, the factory manufactured generic drugs that are staples in Americans’ medicine cabinets, like the pain relievers ibuprofen, aspirin and Tylenol, as well as treatments for burns and allergies.The factory’s owners have been trying to sell it for years, but no one has bought it — even as Mr. Trump has been calling for drug manufacturing to return to the United States.The plant is a vivid example of the decades-long decline of generic drug manufacturing in the United States and the hard realities that would make it difficult to revive.A decline in U.S. generic drug factoriesNumber of plants formulating generic drugs

Figures were reported several months before the start of each year.Source: F.D.A.Rebecca Robbins/The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.