Conspiracy theory on methane-cutting cow feed a ‘wake-up call', say scientists
Scientists say a recent methane-related conspiracy theory was 'a wake-up call' for the industry, reminding them they need to communicate better and more directly with the public.
Over the last few months, Bovaer, a cattle feed additive that is proven to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gas, has been at the centre of a swirl of misinformation, drawing in Reform UK, the dairy industry and even the billionaire Bill Gates.
The conspiracy kicked off when Arla, the multinational food group best known for Lurpak butter, announced in November it would be running a pilot of Bovaer to reduce the carbon footprint of its products.
Bovaer is the name given to 3-nitrooxypropanol, or '3-NOP', one of a range of additives that are given to cattle to aid digestion and reduce their flatulence, which is a significant cause of methane emissions. Cutting methane, a gas many times more powerful than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, would give the world breathing space in the fight to control temperature rises, many scientists have said.
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has been assessing the use of 3-NOP and says the additive has undergone rigorous testing over 10 years. According to Bovaer's manufacturer, DSM-Firmenich, the additive is now approved in 68 countries and given to more than 200,000 cows.
But what should have been an exciting announcement of a pioneering scheme to help reduce our greenhouse gas emissions quickly became a social media storm about the health effects of the additive, with people videoing themselves throwing away products by the brand and pouring milk down their sinks in protest.
On 2 December, the Reform MP Rupert Lowe stated on X that he 'won't be consuming anything containing Bovaer', and had requested that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs undertook 'an urgent review of its use in our food system'.
Some posters had been linking to a report by the FSA published in 2023 that found 3-NOP 'should be considered corrosive to the eyes, a skin irritant, and potentially harmful by inhalation' to humans handling it.
The agency eventually had to release further guidance on the safety of using Bovaer, stating that the additive breaks down in the digestive tract and is therefore not present in milk produced by the cows ingesting it, so would not pose any risk for human consumption. The guidance above would only apply to handling 3-NOP in its pure form at the manufacturing stage.
Other concerned social media users pointed to claims that 3-NOP could cause cancer. However, the results of a UK government assessment had concluded: 'The additive is not carcinogenic at the recommended inclusion rate.'
Somehow Bill Gates got dragged in too, with one variant of the conspiracy arguing that he was using his wealth to invest in population control – referring again to the concerns that if handled in its pure form, 3-NOP could cause male infertility.
While the Microsoft co-founder has no connection to Bovaer, or its manufacturer, he has invested in a rival startup called Rumin8, which develops a similar methane-reducing product using seaweed to break down the gas.
Arla released a statement dismissing any involvement from Gates in the trials, and DSM-Firmenich, a Swiss-Dutch company that develops products for the health, beauty, and nutrition industries, said it had 'fully developed' Bovaer and that the company had 'no other investors'.
The FSA website said: 'The FSA safety assessment concluded there are no safety concerns when Bovaer is used at the approved dose.
'More than 58 studies on potential risks were evaluated and it was concluded that the additive is safe at twice the recommended dose. The additive is metabolised by the cows so does not pass into the milk. It was not found in milk in any of the trials presented to the FSA.'
Answering questions at a press briefing on Monday about the scale of the misinformation, Dr Sinéad Waters, a senior researcher in host microbiome interactions at the University of Galway, said, 'It's a good wake-up call to scientists because really communication is with the farmers.
'We want to bring everyone along with us on the journey. Communication is key, we need to do more of that, not just with the farmers but with the general public.'
Also speaking at the briefing at the Science Media Centre was Prof Robin May, the chief scientific adviser at the FSA. He said: 'The overwhelming response we saw from the public was confusion rather than jumping on board. The more communication and transparency the better.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Reform is a serious political force in Scotland but Tories in trouble
Formerly a seat where the SNP could be confident of winning a substantial majority, Hamilton is now a marginal seat for the first time, with a Labour majority of just 602 votes over the SNP. Reform UK is clearly on the march in Scotland, and this result bears out the surge in support for the party seen in British-wide opinion polls so far this year, with over a quarter of voters who turned out in Hamilton casting their vote for the party. Read more It would be wrong to read too much into one by-election result. By-elections are unusual events, where governments tend to lose support, people may vote in protest and turnout is typically much lower than at Holyrood elections. Nonetheless, the result in Hamilton will matter to all Scotland's parties for its symbolic importance ahead of next May's Scottish Parliament elections. For Scottish Labour, this by-election win will help to reverse the recent narrative of Labour decline. Following the party's slump in the polls over the last 10 months, the result signals that Labour can still win in Scotland and will put wind back in the party's sails. It underlines that listening to and acting on voters' concerns can help to turn the party's fortunes around – Keir Starmer's announcement of a U-turn on cuts to the winter fuel payment may well have helped the party's popularity among voters in Hamilton. The win will also give the UK Labour Party a much-needed boost, after its heavy losses in parts of England at May's local elections, losing the Runcorn by-election to Reform UK and trailing 7 points behind Reform UK in the polls UK-wide. Nigel Farage is less popular in Scotland than he is in England (Image: free) The result is a major blow to the SNP, who were widely tipped to win the seat. While incumbent governments tend to suffer at by-elections, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is the kind of central belt seat that the SNP will need to retain if it is to hold onto power in Scotland next May. This result is an early sign that that will be a tough contest. The SNP has topped recent national polls, with a double-digit lead over Scottish Labour – a remarkable position for a party that has been in power in Scotland for 18 years. This by-election will be an unwelcome reminder that voters' preferences can and do shift. While John Swinney is widely seen as having steadied the ship since his election as party leader last May – and is the least unpopular of any of the party leaders among voters – this result suggests more turbulent times may lie ahead for the SNP. Reform UK were the unknown quantity ahead of this by-election. Their performance in Hamilton, finishing less than 1,000 votes behind the SNP, proves that the party can attract significant swathes of voters north of the border as well as in England. The result emphasises that Reform UK are now a serious political force in Scotland. Ahead of the next Holyrood elections, the party has a real opportunity to paint itself as the home for voters who want change. While Nigel Farage is less popular in Scotland than he is in England, this does not appear to have been holding the party back in the polls – reflecting that the rise of Reform UK may be being driven by wider public dissatisfaction and the unpopularity of other parties more than by views of its leadership. The result signals continued gloom for the Conservatives in Scotland. While the party was widely expected to come fourth, this was a poor result for Russell Findlay's party, who managed to hang onto their deposit with 6% of the vote. Read more The pattern seen in recent Scotland polls of the Conservatives haemorrhaging voter support to Reform has been borne out at this by-election. On this evidence, the Conservatives have a mountain to climb if they are to convince Scottish voters to lend them their votes next May. Will the result in Hamilton turn out to be a sign of which way the electoral winds are blowing ahead of Holyrood elections next May? It certainly underlines that this is a time of volatility in Scottish politics and shifting voter preferences. While Anas Sarwar and his team will take heart from this win, Scottish Labour's fortunes are closely connected with those of the UK party. How Scotland's voters are feeling about the UK Government's performance under Keir Starmer's leadership is likely to be an important factor shaping voter support at the ballot box. If it is to take seats from the SNP next May, Scottish Labour needs to show those who voted for the UK party at the General Election because of issues like public services, the cost of living and inequality that they were right to do so. Emily Gray, Managing Director, Ipsos Scotland
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Reform declares war on gold-plated public sector pensions
A Reform UK government would radically overhaul gold-plated public sector pensions to stop them bankrupting Britain. Richard Tice told The Telegraph he would put everything on the table and end the taxpayer 'rip off' if his party won the next general election. Reform's deputy leader said the party would consider moving all public sector employees out of their 'Rolls-Royce' pension plans and into the defined contribution schemes almost all private sector workers have. Britain currently hands £54bn a year to public sector retirees and another £35bn in pension contributions to current state workers, with both groups entitled to guaranteed, inflation-linked payments for life. It comes after Reform pledged to axe defined benefit council pensions, which a recent Telegraph investigation revealed now costs some local authorities more than half of what they raise in council tax. Britain currently has more than three million public sector pensioners, the vast majority of whom are retired NHS workers, teachers, civil servants and members of the armed forces. Their schemes are all unfunded, meaning the contributions that come in from employers and employees are immediately used to pay current retirees, rather than being prudently invested to pay future pensions. However, contributions have fallen short of the amounts paid out, with taxpayers funding a £49bn shortfall over the past decade alone. Historically, they also haven't covered the cost of new pension rights built up by current workers. John Ralfe, a pensions consultant, calculated that the shortfall between contributions and future pensions was £208bn between 2013-23 – and it will be met by current and future taxpayers. The system, which would be illegal in the private sector, has built up pension liabilities running into the trillions. Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Tice said action was needed where successive governments had failed. He said: 'We've got to have these conversations over the next few years and wake people up as to why we're in such a financial mess. Public sector pay and benefits have soared and yet productivity has collapsed, and it's a catastrophe. 'I want to be honest with the country. I want to say, 'if we don't sort this out, this will be a major factor in the country going bankrupt'. It's that serious.' He also confirmed that Reform would consider moving every public sector worker into the type of defined contribution schemes that almost all private sector workers are members of. He added: 'Everything has got to be on the table. The old rule was that public pay was less than the private sector because they had a more generous pension scheme, but successive governments have lifted pay in the public sector and therefore the old deal is no longer valid. 'Bluntly, there's been a failure to be honest about this. The public sector has pulled the wool over the eyes of the taxpayer. We're going to talk about it for the next four years: that taxpayers are being ripped off and it can't go on.' Last week, Mr Tice said that Reform-controlled councils would stop offering the generous pension scheme to new employees and reduce pay rises for existing workers to balance out the cost of funding their retirements. The Local Government Pension Scheme, the largest funded scheme in the UK, already spends £15bn a year on paying pensions across Britain. A recent Telegraph investigation uncovered five local authorities that stuff more than half of their council tax into staff pension pots. Another 19 fork out more than a third, while 60 spend more than a fifth on funding the generous schemes. It came after a series of Telegraph revelations about the cost of public sector pensions. Last year, we calculated that Britain's current bill was £4.9 trillion, with each household on the hook for £173,000. In October, we reported that another £20bn would be added to taxpayer-funded pension payouts after they rose another 1.7pc following September's inflation figure. Last month, we showed how the latest public sector pay rise would cost another £1bn in pension contributions alone. We also revealed how taxpayers have been handed extra pension bills of £45bn for Royal Mail, £1.7bn for the Environment Agency and more than £300m for retired train drivers. Switching public sector workers to defined contribution pensions could send the taxpayer's annual bill plummeting to around £4.5bn, saving almost £28bn a year, calculations have shown. However, Barry McKay, of pensions firm Barnett Waddingham, warned it would be difficult to make the change. He said: 'If you move to defined contribution, those contributions paid by existing workers would go into a pot somewhere to be invested and grow for the benefit of each worker, but in doing so there would be no money coming in to pay existing pensions. 'The Treasury would have to find a huge amount of money to pay the existing pensioners from somewhere else, because they don't have the contribution income any more. That leaves a massive hole in the Treasury accounts.' He added: 'There is a problem that we're effectively stuck with defined benefit.' Neil Record, a pensions expert and former Bank of England economist, said: 'The only practical solution to public sector pensions' increasingly intolerable burden on taxpayers is for the Government to offer a cash alternative, as an option, to all public sector employees. 'My guess is that in return for an approximately 30pc pay rise, most public sector employees would choose to give up accruing new pension rights as long as their existing rights were fully honoured.'
The Herald Scotland
6 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
All change after Hamilton – but not perhaps in the way you expect
To elect is, literally, to choose. And people in this by-election have chosen, narrowly, to put their faith in Labour's Davy Russell, who fought a doorstep campaign, remote from media concerns. This was the change contest. Understandably pleased, the Prime Minister hailed a 'fantastic victory' for Labour – before adding that 'people in Scotland had once again voted for change.' Read more Brian Taylor I think that is true but I suspect it may not be quite the change advanced by Sir Keir Starmer. I understand his perspective. He is seeking to fit Hamilton into the wider Starmer narrative. You will recall that, at the July UK General Election, Sir Keir repeatedly offered 'change'. His aim was to gain from the discontent – no, the loathing – which had attached itself to the Conservatives. To posit Labour as the remedy, without being all that specific about details. So, with these comments on Hamilton, he is seeking to suggest that Davy Russell's victory is, in some way, continuity: an endorsement of the approach pursued by his government. To repeat, I understand his motivation in so doing. But I am certain that this is awry. You have only to listen to senior figures from Scottish Labour to grasp that Hamilton disquiet was aimed at incumbency. The SNP at Holyrood, yes. But also Labour at Westminster. Broadcasting to an astonished nation on the wireless, I was most struck by Labour MSP Paul Sweeney who disclosed candidly that he had experienced 'pretty grim conversations' with voters. Despite those doorstep difficulties, Labour contrived to oust the defending SNP. Incidentally, only the third time the incumbents have lost in the twelve Holyrood by-elections which have taken place since devolution. But Labour's Scottish leader, Anas Sarwar, knows this fell far short of an enthusiastic vote of confidence. He knows people want much more from Team Starmer. He knows they are upset over the economy and benefit curbs. Still, that Labour victory does represent change. The ousting of the SNP. Which itself demands a further change. John Swinney acknowledged as much at his news conference. His party, he said, had made some progress – but not enough. The aim now must be to address the priorities of the people, specifically the cost of living and NHS waiting times. He was accused by Labour's Anas Sarwar of seeking to drive voters towards Reform UK. Again an understandable point, but not entirely valid. Certainly, Mr Swinney suggested that the by-election was a two-horse race between the SNP and Nigel Farage's party. In so doing, he was seeking to polarise the contest, to pitch his party as the ones to stop the seemingly resurgent Reform, aware that Labour had comfortably outpolled the SNP at the UK election last year. Sir Keir Starmer is keen to tie the by-election into a wider story about Labour (Image: free) It was, in short, a strategy rather than a forecast. Nevertheless, the SNP came up short – and a degree of humility can now be expected from the First Minister. So he too must change the SNP formula. To a substantial degree, he already has, concentrating upon popular priorities such as the NHS, while sidelining issues such as gender. Some within the SNP may question Mr Swinney's own judgement. I suspect, however, that the majority will back his determination to focus firmly upon the economy and public service delivery. If there was even a fragment of complacency in the SNP leadership, it has been utterly expunged by Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. Might this result also sideline the issue of independence, as the campaign group Scotland in Union suggest? Not in those terms. John Swinney will continue to pitch independence as a solution to persistent problems. But I expect he will primarily concentrate upon the problems themselves. Listening, in short, to voters. That emphasis may further disadvantage the Tories who tend to do well at Holyrood when they can depict themselves as the stalwart defenders of a threatened union. However, there are other changes to consider. Labour's vote is well down on the UK General Election in this area and on their by-election showing in Rutherglen and Hamilton West. Folk are scunnered with the SNP. But they are also unhappy with the PM and the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves. If she doubts that, perhaps she could have a word with her Commons aide, Imogen Walker. The MP for Hamilton and Clyde Valley. So Anas Sarwar will pursue a twin strategy. Gently, diplomatically urging his Westminster colleagues to pursue policies which palpably help voters. While at the same time offering to change the government at Holyrood. Pitching himself as the sole contender to oust Mr Swinney. Seeking to marginalise rivals. Another change is the emergence of Reform. They came a creditable third, consigning the Tories to a whimpering fourth. Indeed, they got a higher percentage in this area than the Tories have historically managed. A sign perhaps that Reform can appeal to a wider range of voters, also eating into Labour and SNP support. Read more But will that endure? Or will Reform fall back again, perhaps beset by the internal divisions which emerged sharply on polling day itself when their chairman, Scots-born Zia Yousuf, resigned? On quitting, he said that he no longer wished to devote his time to installing Nigel Farage in Downing Street. He was also less than delighted with the new Reform MP Sarah Pochin who said in the Commons that the burka should be banned. However, the Tories are not exactly exempt from internal division, at Westminster and Holyrood. They must simply strive to recover from this by-election nadir – and hope that Reform will subside. Does this by-election change expectations of the Holyrood outcome next year? In itself, no. It tells us that voters are scunnered. But then you already knew that. It tells us that folk want and expect change. They want an easing of this age of anxiety. But then you knew that too. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre - and Dundee United FC
