Fact-checking the Bovaer backlash

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

Suffs!

The new musical has made Tony award-winning history on Broadway.

We demand to be home!

Winner, best score!

We demand to be seen!

Winner, best book!

We demand to be quality!

It's a theatrical masterpiece that's thrilling, inspiring, dazzlingly entertaining, and unquestionably the most emotionally stirring musical this season.

Suffs!

Playing the Orpheum Theater, October 22nd through November 9th.

Tickets at BroadwaySF.com.

BBC Sounds, Music, Radio, Podcasts.

Hello, lovely, curious-minded people.

Welcome to the programme.

Today, we have our own scientific take on the marine fashion world as we investigate a bold new trend among killer whales.

They're wearing fish hats.

I am fully supportive of all orca-style choices, but we want to know why.

And why do billionaires seem to want to escape Earth and colonize other planets?

But first, people have been posting videos of themselves pouring milk away in protest over a new additive that's being tested in cow feed.

It's called bovia and it's been developed to make the cows that eat it burp less methane gas.

Just have a listen to this.

See what that is?

Yeah.

Arla, you're going down the drain, mate.

Won't be buying you again.

That's one of those protest posts on TikTok, and you might have seen a lot like it.

Some of them have had millions of views.

Many of them cite the company Arla Foods, which has started a trial of the Bovia supplement with three big supermarkets and 30 farms in the UK.

This is a story that's become wrapped up in conspiracy theory and misinformation, so we want to know exactly what the supplement is, how it's been tested, and how we know whether it's safe.

Joining me are Sharon Hughes, Professor in Animal Science, and food scientist Dr.

Stuart Farrimond.

Hello, both of you.

Welcome to the programme.

Hi.

Hi.

Thanks.

Can I start off with hopefully a simple question for you, Sharon?

How and why do cows produce methane and what's the problem with that?

Methane production is very, very natural in ruminants.

So your cows and

sheep, etc., they are quite unique.

They have a very complicated gut.

And the most important part of their gut is the forestomach, in particular the compartment we call the rumen.

And that rumen is full of all of the microbes that are required to break down feed.

So when they break down the feed, they naturally produce hydrogen.

And then we have these other microbes that take advantage of that and they will actually convert some of the carbon dioxide in that rumen with the hydrogen to make methane.

I see.

So and how much of a problem is it that cows burp a greenhouse gas, that they produce methane?

Well, it's a huge, huge problem.

They contribute most of the agricultural greenhouse gases through burping this methane.

Methane obviously has

more of a greenhouse warming effect than carbon dioxide.

And some of the estimations show that if we were to reduce methane emissions from these animals by 46%,

we would reduce the global warming by 0.3 degrees centigrade.

So in every fraction of a degree, it counts, doesn't it, when we're talking about targets?

It really counts.

So how does bovia reduce methane emissions?

So bovia

actually targets that last step in that conversion of carbon dioxide and hydrogen to methane.

So it inhibits that very last step.

And when it does that, it's very clever technology because it's been developed using computational-based techniques.

So they essentially look at that enzyme for that last step in the conversion of methane.

And then they looked at chemicals which would specifically inhibit that last stage.

But when it does it, it actually reduces methane by 25%.

And that data is consistent over 150 studies.

Right, so but the cows are still burping, but they're burping hydrogen instead of methane.

Is that right?

Exactly correct.

So, when they reach you the food, then hydrogen gets released, and of course, hydrogen is not a greenhouse gas.

And, Stuart, since ALA announced this trial of this supplement that is going to actually act inside the cow to reduce these methane emissions, there's been a number of claims circulating online from Bovia being toxic to causing cancer.

Now, the company that makes Bovia has told Inside Science that those claims are all fake news and misinformation and that it's been tested and it's safe.

So how do we know that?

What is the evidence?

Sure, well this has been used for many years and it's being used in 55 different countries and I completely understand why people are concerned about something being added and something that is synthetic and there's this natural reaction that we all have.

But unfortunately, this is a classic conspiracy theory of people getting half the facts and then sort of making a narrative around it.

Coming to Bovia specifically, how is it proven that it's a safe product, that it's a safe supplement?

It's been through lots of very, very lengthy testing that's done on cells, that's done on animals.

And because it's been used, we also know that it's broken down completely in the digestive tract of the cows and none of it gets into the milk at all.

So it's really nothing that we should be concerned about.

And actually, this should be a good news story.

I guess the fundamental point there is that

it's not in the final product.

And that has been tested, has it?

That there is no trace of this supplement in the milk or the cheese in that dairy product.

Yes, absolutely.

There was an EU report done, and they collected all the studies.

And yes, they came to the conclusion that there is none in the milk and it poses no threat to either the cow or to us.

But it is new, new and there is concern about it.

One of our listeners, AJ in Glasgow, actually emailed Inside Science saying he drinks a lot of milk and he wants to know exactly how Vovia is tested to make sure it's safe.

Can you go into just how you carry out those tests to prove that it's safe for humans?

So it starts off on the theoretical.

So you get this chemical and you test it on cells in a lab.

And so you get a theoretical idea of does this chemical have a potential to cause cancer?

You can also test it on animals, typically mice.

They're a good proxy for animals in general and for us.

And then you find out what the maximum dose is that they can tolerate before harm comes.

That then gives you a ballpark figure for scaling it up for larger animals, so us, what the maximum dose in us would be.

And is that realistic that we could ever get that level in our bodies for it to ever be a risk?

And you can also do tests on healthy human subjects.

So these are all a raft of different things that are done in the testing process.

And the conclusion from all those is that there is no harm.

And I guess a lot of this comes down to whether

people trust or sort of cite and understand that evidence.

But one of the issues was there was a Food Standards Agency report last year that said that one of the chemicals that Bovia contains should be considered corrosive to eyes and a skin irritant.

That was problematic because people then saw that as something harmful being added to

cattle feed.

You know, is that a worry?

My understanding of it is that it's added to the cattle feed, so when the farmers get it, it's just part of the feed.

And I think in the context of it being used by workers in concentrated amounts, then it would just be normal to wear protective equipment.

So I think it's just a standard safety precaution that's put there.

And it's destroyed in the guts of the cows.

We're not going to be exposed to it.

So again, I think you sort of joining the dots in a wrong way there.

And Sharon, what about in the cows themselves?

This is something that the cattle will eat.

How has it been tested to check that it's not detrimental to the cattle in any way?

Yeah, so there's been 150 studies in 60 different countries that have looked, you know, the first thing that whenever we do work of this kind, we look at animal welfare.

That's first and foremost.

So, when these experiments were done, they look at

the health of all of the organs over time.

Also, they will look at the health of the rumen itself.

So, really, very deep, very comprehensive studies.

And none of these studies have shown any detrimental effect on the animal.

Is bovia the first additive of its kind?

Is there anything else comparable?

Yeah, so so bovia is the first of its kind that's been developed to specifically inhibit that last step in methane production.

We have been looking at different dietary interventions for many years.

Many years ago, people would concentrate on some of the plant secondary compounds like essential oils, but none of them have the same effect as bovia.

So why do you think the story, Sharon, of bovia has been so difficult, has been so problematic?

Well you know the story of Bovia has been around for 15 years.

It's been 15 years in the making but for some people this might be the first time that they've heard of it and the minute that you hear that terminology or chemical of course it's going to ignite some fears etc and that's cascaded of course on social media but as was said you know that there is no other additive of its kind that's been tested in such depth.

And the evidence shows no detrimental effect.

And as was said in all of those 150 dairy studies where they looked for the presence of bovia in the milk, not one of those studies has picked up a trace of bovia because

once it's had its effect in that rumen, it's broken down.

Stuart, what would you say about that?

You know, is a lot of it about perception?

We seem to be happy with some food additives and processes, but not others.

Oh, absolutely, yeah.

One interesting thing about this is that at the same time the report came out about Bovia

being safe, the same report looked at 11 other additives to feeds.

And interestingly, none of those got picked up by social media.

So it shows that actually

there's very little logic to the fear that is being circulated.

Thank you to Sharon Hughes from Queen's University Belfast and food science broadcaster and author Stuart Farriman there for bringing some science to a dairy social media storm.

Now, 2024 was the year that saw the first civilian spacewalk by tech billionaire Jared Isaacman.

And of course, he's not the first billionaire to cast his travel aspirations beyond our planet.

Some have even set their sights on the colonization of Mars.

So, science author Kelly Wienersmith asks, is it really feasible for the richest people on Earth to live elsewhere in the solar system?

Earth is enduring its warmest decade on record.

World War III seems closer than at any time in recent memory.

AI is taking all the jobs, which means when the robot apocalypse comes, in addition to being dead, we'll be unemployed.

Meanwhile, two of the three richest men in the world are talking about settlements in space.

Is this a coincidence?

Or are the ultra-wealthy really packing their bags for redder pastures?

When we talk about billionaires with space settlement aspirations, we're really only talking about two people: Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk.

Let's start with Bezos, whose vision of space is one first detailed in the 1970s, in which enormous habitats rotate to simulate Earth's gravity.

The closest similar project thus far is the International Space Station, which, at a cost of several hundred billion dollars, does not rotate, has about the volume of a suburban house, and with regular resupplies, keeps alive a crew of about six.

Producing rotating space stations that can house orbital cities is a long way off.

Bezos realizes this and does not appear to expect that fleeing a burning Earth for space will be an option in his lifetime.

That leaves Mr.

Musk, as is often the case, as the center of attention.

He really does want to put a million-person city on Mars in the next 30 years, and his rocket company, SpaceX, is building the rocket to make it happen.

While he argues we need to colonize Mars as something of a plan B in case of earthly catastrophe, he doesn't appear to be arguing that starting anew on Mars will be more pleasant than remaining on a ravaged Earth.

Why?

Likely because Mars is so terrible, the idea of ever preferring it to Earth is bonkers, even by the standards of a Silicon Valley marketing pitch.

No human has gone farther from Earth than the Moon, so our knowledge of the physical effects of space is limited.

However, based on data gathered on space stations orbiting Earth and from our knowledge of conditions on Mars, likely problems for Martian settlers include degradation of bones and muscles, eye damage, cognitive decline, exposure to toxic dust, exposure to high radiation levels if one wishes to put on a pressurized suit and walk on the surface, occasional planet-wide dust storms, and the impossibility of live conversation with loved ones on the home planet.

On top of all that good stuff, Martian settlers will live in cramped habitats buried underground to avoid space radiation, likely while engaging in non-stop labor simply to keep the lights on, air clean, and food on the table.

How do we know?

In the largest ever attempt at keeping humans alive in a sealed bubble, Biosphere 2 in the 1990s, eight people worked eight to 10 hours a day, five and a half days a week, to keep the system running.

The Biosphereans diet, high in green bananas and beans, provided insufficient calories, resulting in a 10 to 18% drop in body weight.

And unlike Martian settlers, they got their light from the Arizona sunshine and their electricity from the grid.

If the first eight Martians are like the crew of Biosphere 2, they will also put in long hours fighting with management and each other.

And while Musk has been spending his money on gigantic rockets, basic research on questions related to the feasibility of human reproduction off-world are minimally funded, either by agencies or rich guys.

We don't even know if rodents can have generations of children under the physiological stresses just described, let alone human beings.

Without the relevant science, a large-scale, near-term Mars settlement is effectively experimentation on its future inhabitants.

Perhaps these horrors could be justified if the human species faced the imminent destruction of Earth, but...

We don't.

In all likelihood, no billionaires will be escaping a ruined Earth for the safety of Mars.

But if you aren't a fan of space billionaires, you might hope that they'll try.

While they're adapting to the mole-like lifestyle of a Mars habitat and wondering if the next resupply ship will come with a dentist, you will be enjoying an earthly lifestyle that, however frightening it might be right this second, is still the best bet in the solar system.

Thank you to Kelly Wiener Smith there.

And if you want to learn more about the feasibility of escaping Earth, check out Kelly and Zach Wiener Smith's Royal Society Prize-winning book, A City on Mars.

And have a listen to last week's episode of BBC Radio 4's Rare Earth, which is available now on BBC Sounds.

Suffs!

The new musical has made Tony award-winning history on Broadway.

We demand to be hosted!

Winner, best score!

We demand to be seen!

Winner, best book!

We demand to be quality!

It's a theatrical masterpiece that's thrilling, inspiring, dazzlingly entertaining, and unquestionably the most emotionally stirring musical this season.

Suffs, playing the Orpheum Theater, October 22nd through November 9th.

Tickets at BroadwaySF.com.

You're listening to BBC Inside Science with me, Victoria Gill.

Global talks that aimed to reach an agreement to cut plastic waste ended in failure last week.

So where does that leave us and our increasingly insurmountable plastic problem?

Steve Fletcher was in Busan, South Korea for the ill-fated UN talks last week, and he's back in the UK now, and he joins us.

Steve, welcome to the programme.

Hi, Victoria.

Hi, welcome back.

It looks like you made it out of Busan just in time.

They briefly declared martial law this week.

Yes, yeah.

I landed back in London to find that had happened, so just escaped in the nick of time.

Oh, right, okay.

So you didn't get embroiled in that.

That's good.

Well, welcome back.

Now, why did these talks fail?

What were the sticking points?

Well, it's interesting you're using the word fail there.

I think the talks were extended, so the talks didn't really fail or collapse.

It is true that there wasn't agreement at these talks, and the original plan was that a final text of a treaty would be agreed by this meeting in Busan.

But it really came, when it came down to it, there was just some fundamental disagreements that more time was needed to really focus on.

And those disagreements really focused around whether the treaty was about managing waste or whether it was about preventing plastic pollution at source.

Can you just give us an overview of what this treaty aims to do?

Well the treaty is mandated by the UN to

help stop plastic pollution in its entirety and this is the first time there has been a legally binding agreement being developed to tackle plastic pollution.

So it's a really ambitious thing to try and do.

And of course, there are a lot of countries in the world that benefit greatly from plastic production.

And those are the countries that are tending to hold back a little bit in the negotiations and to be much more focused on end-of-life management.

So, like recycling and incineration and things like that, rather than a group of countries who are a little bit more ambitious and are looking to place a cap on plastic production and to really reduce the pressure on things like recycling systems by reducing the plastic entering the economy in the first place.

Right.

So

where does this pause on those talks leave us now?

What's still to be figured out in terms of getting this treaty agreed upon?

Yeah, so it's really an interesting question.

So in the negotiations up until this point, the countries pushing back against a more ambitious agreement have really had the upper hand.

They've frustrated the process and really slowed it down.

But what we saw at the meeting in Busan really was for the first time a group of around 120 countries really pushing back and saying, no, we want a really strong treaty to tackle plastic pollution with caps on production of plastic, phasing out chemicals that are concerning because of their toxicity and focusing on

you know, uses of plastics that are really essential.

So what we see in the in the interim period, the period now between the last negotiations and the next, is a real opportunity to persuade those countries that are holding back that there is a different way, a better way of tackling plastic pollution.

I would say, Victoria, it's easy to be skeptical about that, though.

And just having another meeting doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be any easier to get agreement.

So, we really do need a concerted effort.

And then, that does sound like a really, that's really two two points at odds.

So

a kind of coalition of countries that want to produce less plastic and a coalition that want to grow that market.

That seems fundamentally at odds.

How optimistic are you that we can get to a global agreement?

Gosh,

it's really hard to answer that question, Victoria, to be honest with you.

There's so many variables and so many uncertainties about how the negotiations will progress.

I mean, I tend to be a bit glass half full in most things, so I'm reasonably optimistic.

The mood in the negotiation room on Sunday evening, when the countries were standing up one after the other, committing to an ambitious treaty, was really quite a moving sight.

And at one point, one of the delegates from the Rwandan delegation asked anybody in the room who supported ambition to stand up.

And virtually everybody in the room stood up and clapped and cheered.

And that was a really sort of emotional moment, but it was quite a turning point as well in the negotiations because nothing like that, you know, I'd not seen anything like that in any of the previous meetings.

And it just really spoke to a change in mood.

The ambitions there that you can see that in the room.

So what's the next step?

When will this reconvene?

Well, we don't know at the moment.

So the meeting only finished on Sunday evening, three or four days ago.

So

what will happen next is the Secretariat will go off and think about when the next meeting will be held and where it will be held and what work needs to be done in the interim to line up for a for a strong ambitious agreement.

Well, will you keep us posted, Steve?

Yeah, absolutely.

Yes.

Thank you very much.

Steve Fletcher, Professor of Ocean Policy from the University of Portsmouth.

Now, we are always keeping an eye on the latest style trends here on Inside Science.

So when we saw that a group of orcas off the northwest Pacific coast had been spotted wearing dead salmon on their heads as hats, we wanted to know more.

So joining me is Killer Whale Aficionado Darren Croft.

Hi Darren.

Hi Vic.

Lovely to have you on.

Can you give us a kind of potted history of this salmon hat trend, please?

Yeah, so this is a very special population of killer whales, the southern resident killer whales that live in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of the USA and Canada.

And around 35 years ago, they were first seen carrying salmon on their heads.

So the whales are swimming around with a salmon kind of balanced across their head.

A really unusual behaviour.

And it kind of lasted for a year or so and then kind of dropped out of the conversation if you like about the whales and then recently this autumn it's sort of resurfaced again in in the with a photograph of a of a salmon and obviously generated this interest around just why are they doing this

you described it there briefly because this is this is audio what what does a salmon hat look like um have you seen one in real life if you imagine the killer whale swimming along at the surface um and it's balancing a salmon across its head.

So it's, you know, the salmon is often out of the water.

The killer whales, the top half of its head is out of the water and the salmon is kind of draped over the top of it, if you like.

And these are salmon-eating killer whales, aren't they?

So is that the reason?

Are they saving a snack on their head?

Why are they doing this?

There's a number of possible reasons why.

It might be play.

They might be playing with their food.

Or...

they may possibly be kind of trying to keep the salmon away from other whales taking it from them.

So they may be carrying it on their head in a way to try and keep it to themselves.

And is that, would that have something to do with there not being enough food that they would become kind of more protective of the salmon they catch?

So I think the most likely explanation is its play.

And I think the fact that we haven't seen it very often, or rather, it hasn't been reported very often by people watching and observing the whales probably reflects that actually they're not finding enough food.

We know this

population of whales is nutritionally stressed.

So, why has this emerged now?

Well, thankfully, this population has just had a really good autumn feeding on chump salmon, and there's been plenty of salmon around for them to feed on.

So, it's likely that they're well fed, and actually, it's time to play a little bit with their food.

And are they playful animals?

You know, we see they kind of take front and centre role in wildlife documentaries about the marine world orcas, don't they?

Because they are so cooperative and smart.

We see a lot of stories about them.

How playful are they?

They're incredibly playful animals.

So, when we're observing the whales in the wild, we'll often see them pick up a piece of kelp and play with a piece of kelp.

And actually,

recently over the last decade or so, they've actually been playing with harbour porpoise, especially young harbour porpoise.

They won't eat the harbour porpoise, they only eat fish, but they'll play with it, just like you'd watch a cat playing with a mouse or playing with a frog.

They'll play with the prey.

Wow.

And what does that tell us about

their intelligence, their social behavior?

Seeing this play, what does it tell us about the animal's world?

It's just amazing to be able to watch these whales and see their behavior in the wild.

And one of the things that we do is we fly a drone over the whales so we can actually see what's going on under the water.

And their social lives are incredibly complex.

They're incredibly tactile.

They copy each other.

So they have very strong cultural traditions of copying each other's behaviour.

They just live a very rich and complex social life.

And as you say, they're highly intelligent.

Yeah, I should say I have a kind of a predetermined interest in this population of killer whales because you and I actually made a documentary together about them, a Radio 4 documentary, The Killer Whale Menopause, because these are some of the most studied killer whales in the world, aren't they?

How long have they been, how long have you been studying these animals?

I've only been studying them for a fraction of the time that the long-term survey has been going, which started in 1976 when I was about six months old.

So the population has been studied scientifically for approaching 50 years.

Every whale in the population of that time period has been tracked.

We know all the births and all the deaths.

We've got more data on this population of killer whales than any other population in the world.

And all of their style choices too, and all of their play habits.

But

this population is

you talked about the population being kind of undernourished, about the food stress.

You know, is that posing a threat to this very special population of killer whales?

A huge threat.

And actually

we're watching, unless we do something, we're watching extinction in slow motion.

This population specializes on fish and one species of fish in particular, Chinook salmon.

Those populations of Chinook salmon themselves are threatened and have crashed and declined.

These whales really are balancing on a knife edge and at risk of extinction.

There's only 73 animals left in the wild.

And if we don't do something now to help protect them and protect the wider ocean, we're at risk of losing this incredibly special population forever.

What needs to be done?

They need food.

Ultimately, it comes down to food and it comes down to fish.

And we need to make sure that they can wear salmon,

wear salmon on their heads for decades to come.

They need more salmon.

Amen to that.

Well, thank you so much, Darren Croft, Professor of Animal Behavior at the University of Exeter and Director of the Centre for Whale Research in Washington State in the US.

And that is all we have time for this week.

You've been listening to BBC Inside Science, which was presented by me, Victoria Gill.

The producers were Sophie Ormiston, Ella Hubber, and Jerry Holt.

Technical production was by Kath McGee, and the show was made in Cardiff by BBC Wales and West.

To discover more fascinating science content, head to bbc.co.uk, search for BBC Inside Science, and follow the links to the Open University.

Next week, I'll be finding out some of the scientific secrets of living alongside one of the planet's biggest predators.

Until then, thanks for listening, and bye-bye.

Sucks!

The new musical has made Tony award-winning history on Broadway.

We demand to be home!

Winner, best score!

We demand to be seen!

Winner, best book!

We the man to be qualmed!

It's a theatrical masterpiece that's thrilling, inspiring, dazzlingly entertaining, and unquestionably the most emotionally stirring musical this season.

Suffs!

Playing the Orpheum Theater October 22nd through November 9th.

Tickets at BroadwaySF.com.