Author: MIL OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nial Wheate, Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University

Could a simple patch, inspired by the weight-loss drug Ozempic, really help you shed excess kilos without the pain and effort of an injection?

Promotions of these Ozempic-style, weight-loss patches are popping up online, promising dramatic results with little evidence to back their claims.

Personal recommendations for the patches are common. This includes from some “doctors” on social media. But independent fact checkers have shown these endorsements are AI-generated.

So, before you spend your money, here’s why you should think twice about buying a weight-loss patch.

What’s in them? Do they work?

Ozempic-style patches are also known as GLP-1 patches. But they do not contain any pharmaceutical ingredient from Ozempic (semaglutide) or related drugs such as Mounjaro (tirzepatide).

Instead, the Ozempic-style patches contain a mixture of herbal extracts including berberine, green tea (Camellia sinensis), the tropical fruit Garcinia cambogia and bitter orange (Citrus x aurantium L.).

There is some laboratory evidence that select compounds from berberine, the polyphenols in green tea extract and hydroxycitric acid from G. cambogia may have some effect. This includes suppressing appetite, lowering blood glucose (sugar) levels and playing a role in regulating fat metabolism to promote weight loss.

However, laboratory evidence doesn’t automatically translate to what happens in humans. In fact, recent evidence in humans shows these herbs have little effect on weight loss.

Let’s take berberine. Mostly, the evidence indicates that people who take it don’t lose a lot of weight. One scientific review showed that taking up to 3 grams daily for a year had only a small effect on weight and waist circumference.

Another review that analysed data from multiple studies found that up to 2.4g of green tea extract supplement daily for 13 weeks and more than 4g of G. cambogia daily for 17 weeks did not affect people’s weight.

For bitter orange extract, a daily dose of up to 54 milligrams of synephrine (a compound isolated from bitter orange extract) for eight weeks did not lead to weight loss.

It is important to note that all these studies are for oral formulations of herbal extracts, such as tablets or capsules, rather than for extracts delivered by patches.

Do they get through the skin?

Whether an extract in a weight-loss patch gets through the skin depends on how the extract was made.

Our skin is highly lipophilic, meaning it absorbs oily or fat-soluble chemicals, and blocks water-loving, or hydrophilic, substances.

So not all medicines can be delivered through the skin. Ozempic, for instance, is administered as an injection because the drug molecule in it is too big and water-loving to pass through the skin.

If the extracts in the patches are made using a water-based process, their ingredients are unlikely to pass through the skin and will simply sit inactive on your body until you remove the patch.

The next issue is that patches can only hold very little herbal extract. In the studies we discussed above, grams of material were needed to see any effect. In reality, Ozempic-style patches typically hold less than 0.1g of extract.

So, even if the ingredients get through the skin, these patches don’t contain enough to have any meaningful effect.

You can’t assume patches are safe

The Therapeutic Goods Administration regulates medical products in Australia, including herbal extracts.

For a herbal product to be permitted for sale in Australia it must be listed on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. There are no Ozempic-style patches on the register.

This means the quality and safety of any patch you buy has not been assessed and cannot be guaranteed.

An Australian study found instances where contamination with undeclared plant materials, heavy metals and prescription drugs, such as warfarin, have been reported in unregistered herbal products. These contaminants are dangerous because they can potentially be absorbed through the skin, then circulate around the body.

In a nutshell

While the idea of Ozempic-style weight-loss patches might seem appealing, they do not work, and their safety is far from guaranteed.

Instead of wasting your money, speak to your doctor or pharmacist who can recommend proven treatments for weight loss. They can provide safe and effective options tailored to help you reach your health goal.

Nial Wheate in the past has received funding from the ACT Cancer Council, Tenovus Scotland, Medical Research Scotland, Scottish Crucible, and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance. He is a fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute. Nial is the chief scientific officer of Vaihea Skincare LLC, a director of SetDose Pty Ltd (a medical device company) and was previously a Standards Australia panel member for sunscreen agents. He is a member of the Expert Panel for the Haleon Pain Management Institute. Nial regularly consults to industry on issues to do with medicine risk assessments, manufacturing, design and testing.

Wai-Jo Jocelin Chan 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. Will Ozempic-style patches help me lose weight? Two experts explain – https://theconversation.com/will-ozempic-style-patches-help-me-lose-weight-two-experts-explain-275073

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/12/will-ozempic-style-patches-help-me-lose-weight-two-experts-explain-275073/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fabio Cortesi, ARC Future Fellow, Faculty of Science, The University of Queensland

The deep sea is cold, dark and under immense pressure. Yet life has found a way to prevail there, in the form of some of Earth’s strangest creatures.

Since deep-sea critters have adapted to near darkness, their eyes are particularly unique – pitch-black and fearsome in dragonfish, enormous in giant squid, barrel-shaped in telescope fish. This helps them catch the remaining rays of sunlight penetrating to depth and see the faint glow of bioluminescence.

Deep-sea fishes, however, typically start life in shallower waters in the twilight zone of the ocean (roughly 50–200 metres deep). This is a safe refuge to feed on plankton and grow while avoiding becoming a snack for larger predators.

Our new study, published in Science Advances, shows deep-sea fish larvae have evolved a unique way to maximise their vision in this dusky environment – a finding that challenges scientific understanding of vertebrate vision.

The nightmare of seeing in the twilight zone

The vertebrate retina, located at the back of the eye, has two main types of light-sensitive photoreceptor cells: rod-shaped for dim light and cone-shaped for bright light.

The rods and cones slowly change position inside the retina when moving between dim and bright conditions, which is why you temporarily go blind when you flick on the light switch on your way to the bathroom at night.

While vertebrates that are active during the daytime and predominantly inhabit bright light environments favour cone-dominated vision, animals that live in dim conditions, such as the deep sea or caves, have lost or reduced their cone cells in favour of more rods.

However, vision in twilight is a bit of a nightmare – neither rods nor cones are working at their best. This raises the question of how some animals, such as larval deep-sea fishes, can overcome the limitations of the cone-and-rod retina not only to survive but even to thrive in twilight conditions.

Starting where the fish start

To understand how newly born deep-sea fishes see, we had to start where they do: in the twilight zone of the ocean.

We caught larval fish from the Red Sea using fine-meshed nets towed from near the surface to a depth of around 200m. This way we got hold of three different species – the lightfish (Vinciguerria mabahiss) and the hatchetfish (Maurolicus mucronatus), both members of the dragonfishes, and a member of the lanternfishes, the skinnycheek lanternfish (Benthosema pterotum). Next, we studied what their photoreceptor cells looked like on the outside and how they were wired on the inside.

First, we used high-resolution microscopy to examine the cells’ shape in great detail. Then we investigated retinal gene expression to identify which vision genes were activated as the fish grew. Finally, we got some experts in computational modelling of visual proteins on board to simulate which wavelengths of light these tiny fishes may perceive.

By combining all the approaches, we were able to piece together a picture of how these animals see their world. This sounds relatively simple, but working with deep-sea fishes is anything but easy.

While these animals are generally thought of as monsters of the deep, in reality, most reach only about the size of a thumb – even when fully grown. They are also very fragile and difficult to get.

Working with larval specimens that are only a few millimetres long is even more difficult. However, by leveraging support from the deep-sea research community, we were fortunate enough to combine specimens from multiple research expeditions to piece together an unusually complete picture of visual development in these elusive animals.

So, what did we discover?

For decades, scientists have thought that, as vertebrates grow, the development of their retina follows a predictable pattern: cones form first, then rods. But the deep-sea fish we studied do not follow this rule.

We found that, as larvae, they mostly use a mix-and-match type of hybrid photoreceptor. The cells they are using early on look like rods but use the molecular machinery of cones, making them rod-like cones.

In some of the species we studied, these hybrid cells were a temporary solution, replaced by “normal” rods as the fish grew and migrated into deeper, darker waters.

However, in the hatchetfish, which spends its whole life in twilight, the adults keep their rod-like cone cells throughout life, essentially building their entire visual system around this extra type of cell.

Our research shows this is not a minor tweak to the system. Instead, it represents a fundamentally different developmental pathway for vertebrate vision.

Biology doesn’t fit into neat boxes

So why bother with these hybrid cells?

It seems that to overcome the visual limitations of the twilight zone, rod-like cones offer the best of both worlds: the light-capturing ability of rods combined with the faster, less bright-light sensitive properties of cones. For a tiny fish trying to survive in the murky midwater, this could mean the difference between spotting dinner or becoming it.

For more than a century, biology textbooks have taught that vertebrate vision is built from two clearly defined cell types. Our findings show these tidy categories are much more blurred.

Deep-sea fish larvae combine features of both rods and cones into a single, highly specialised cell optimised for life in between light and darkness. In the murky depths of the ocean, deep-sea fish larvae have quietly rewritten the rules of how eyes can be built, and in doing so, remind us that biology rarely fits into neat boxes.

Fabio Cortesi receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Lily Fogg previously received a Research Training Program scholarship from the Australian Government.

– ref. Deep-sea fish larvae rewrite the rules of how eyes can be built – https://theconversation.com/deep-sea-fish-larvae-rewrite-the-rules-of-how-eyes-can-be-built-275552

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/12/deep-sea-fish-larvae-rewrite-the-rules-of-how-eyes-can-be-built-275552/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Wright, Professor in Marine Geology, University of Canterbury

Hydrogen is emerging as a critical part of the low-carbon transition for industries where electrification is not a straightforward solution.

This includes the production of steel, fertiliser and methanol as well as long-haul transport. In New Zealand, these industries account for about 17% of total emissions.

Hydrogen could replace these emissions but this would require annual production of 600,000 to one million tonnes. The cost of producing low-carbon hydrogen is a critical factor.

Currently, “green” hydrogen – made by splitting water with renewable electricity – costs more than NZ$12 per kilogram.

Long-haul transport companies have already invested in green hydrogen, but it remains too expensive for heavy industry or large-scale chemical production. For these industries, the tipping point for economic viability is closer to $4–5 per kilogram.

But New Zealand could be uniquely placed to explore a potentially cheaper option – “natural” or geological hydrogen which the Earth produces and, in some cases, traps in underground reservoirs.

The promise of natural hydrogen

Around the world, researchers and companies are already turning their attention to natural hydrogen.

Near-pure hydrogen has been extracted at a single gas field in Mali, attracting interest from governments in the United States, Canada and Australia.

There is also interest from major international resource companies. By the end of 2023, 40 companies were exploring natural hydrogen globally.

One key process in the accumulation of natural hydrogen is “serpentinisation” – a reaction between water and iron-rich ultramafic rocks. When water alters these minerals, it converts ferrous iron to ferric iron, releasing hydrogen in the process.

The richer the rock is in iron, the more hydrogen is produced. Under the right conditions, these rocks can generate hydrogen at potentially economic scales.

Laboratory-based research shows that at the right temperature and pressure conditions, up to 0.6 kilograms of hydrogen can be released from a cubic metre of ultramafic rock (if it contains the right iron-rich minerals).

New Zealand’s turbulent geological history provides an unusual advantage.

The landscape has been shaped by major episodes of tectonic collision. Rapid and complex uplift of mountain ranges, active plate subduction and regular ruptures of faults that penetrate through the crust create exactly the kinds of geological settings where natural hydrogen can potentially form and accumulate.

Four promising geological situations stand out.

1. Belts of ancient ultramafic rock have been pushed up from deep in the Earth’s crust on both islands. In the North Island, many of these rocks lie beneath major industrial centres, raising the possibility of local “on-demand” hydrogen production close to where it would be used.

2. High-temperature geothermal systems drive powerful circulations of groundwater, enabling the generation and transport of hydrogen from magma.

3. Off the east coast of the North Island, the Pacific plate is being forced under New Zealand in a region known as the Hikurangi subduction zone. As it sinks, chemical reactions including serpentinisation produce methane and hydrogen.

Observed phenomena of this process include the presence of methane hydrates and seeps as well as plume emissions, mud volcanoes, hot springs and localised seeps of hydrogen.

4. Major faults in the South Island, including the Alpine Fault, act as deep conduits, allowing water to interact with ultramafic rocks.

In Fiordland, a remarkable site has vented gas that is 76% hydrogen for at least 40 years. This is one of the more notable seeps of natural hydrogen known worldwide.

These factors make New Zealand unusually well suited to natural hydrogen exploration. The country’s active geology, often thought of as a hazard, could also be a critical resource.

Researchers and industry are beginning to investigate whether these sources could provide hydrogen at $4–5 per kilogram or less. If natural hydrogen proves viable, New Zealand’s unique geology could put the country at the forefront of a new global energy frontier.

The authors acknowledge contributions by University of Canterbury colleagues David Dempsey, Jannik Haas, Rebecca Peer and Matt Watson.

Ian Wright receives funding from current TEC PBRF fund, and is a co-supervisor of a new MBIE-funded Applied Doctorate Scheme PhD project to study natural hydrogen emissions associated with faults.

Andy Nicol receives funding from the MBIE Endeavour Fund to assess the feasibility of hydrogen geostorage in Taranaki, and is a co-supervisor of a new MBIE-funded Applied Doctorate Scheme PhD project to study natural hydrogen emissions associated with faults..

Paul Viskovic receives funding for this research through the Strategic Science Investment Fund (SSIF) provided by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment.

– ref. Natural hydrogen can make decarbonising industry cheaper – NZ’s turbulent geology could give it an edge – https://theconversation.com/natural-hydrogen-can-make-decarbonising-industry-cheaper-nzs-turbulent-geology-could-give-it-an-edge-273210

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/12/natural-hydrogen-can-make-decarbonising-industry-cheaper-nzs-turbulent-geology-could-give-it-an-edge-273210/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nathan Howard Gray, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for International Trade, Adelaide University

Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell is in Brussels this week, trying to close a trade deal that has been nearly a decade in the making. The EU–Australia Free Trade Agreement is tantalisingly close, although EU Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen has yet to confirm a visit to Australia to seal the deal.

Both parties are keen to diversify their trading partners in the wake of US President Donald Trump’s assault on the global trading system.

The European Union and Australia face an increasingly hostile global trade environment, driven by US tariff volatility and China’s assertive trade practices. The EU–Australia Free Trade Agreement represents exactly the kind of initiative needed to reduce dependence on both and build strategic resilience.

European farmer protests

For the EU, despite the overwhelmingly positive benefits on offer, closing the deal is a tough proposition, facing strong opposition from some EU member states’ farming communities.

The EU–Mercosur Free Trade Agreement with the South American trade bloc was signed last month but only after a bruising battle, and mass tractor protests in Brussels and Paris. The European Parliament then referred the deal to the EU Court of Justice, delaying its ratification, which is far from assured.

Clearly, agricultural market access is politically toxic for the EU.

What gains are on offer from the Free Trade Agreement?

An EU–Australia agreement could boost Australia’s economy by up to $A7.4 billion by 2030, eliminating around 98% of tariffs between the two economies.

One of the most visible changes would be the removal of the 5% tariff on European cars and potentially the luxury car tax, which could cut the price of a BMW, Audi, Alfa Romeo or Renault by up to A$10,000.

The EU has long viewed Australia’s luxury car tax as an irritating trade barrier, and its removal would open the Australian market to more competitively priced European vehicles.

More broadly, the benefits would unlock opportunities across critical minerals, worker mobility, investment, carbon market cooperation, and digital trade.

One of the most exciting elements is a proposed labour mobility scheme that would allow Australians to live and work in EU countries, and vice versa.

This is designed for genuine career moves, mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and long-term economic integration. For young Australians dreaming of working in Berlin, Barcelona or Bologna, this could be transformative.

The EU desperately needs to diversify its supply of critical minerals, lithium and other materials away from China, and Australia has them in abundance. An EU–Australia agreement on critical minerals is already delivering results, with Australian companies securing projects.

The last sticking point is beef, and a handshake

Australia and the EU are close to agreement, having seemingly resolved issues such as naming rights for many foods. However, the sticking point is beef.

Australian beef exporters access the EU market through a high-quality beef quota at a 20% tariff. This quota was not created for Australia.

It originated from a trade dispute in which the United States successfully challenged the EU’s ban on hormone-treated beef imports. Under the resulting 2009 agreement, the EU established the quota for hormone-free, high-quality beef.

Crucially, under World Trade Organization rules, this quota had to be available to all eligible suppliers, not just the US. Australia qualified from 2010 and quickly built up a significant share, exporting up to 17,000 tonnes annually to Europe.

Then came the twist. In 2018, Trump threatened to impose punitive tariffs on European cars; the threat had BMW, Volkswagen and Mercedes in a cold sweat.

Fighting for the scraps

To fend off that tariff threat, the EU agreed to carve out a dedicated US share of the 45,000-tonne beef quota. The US would receive an initial 18,500 tonnes, rising to 35,000 tonnes over seven years.

But that left just 10,000 tonnes for Australia, Uruguay, Argentina and New Zealand to fight over. Australia alone had been shipping 17,000 tonnes.

Australia reluctantly accepted. But the understanding (a handshake deal) was that in future trade negotiations, particularly the Australia–EU FTA, Australia would receive an increased quota in compensation.

Perhaps that understanding has been forgotten by EU negotiators.

Securing improved market access for beef remains a priority for the Australian government, and the shifting global context has not made domestic politics any easier.

Today, the EU wants to cap Australian beef imports at around 30,000 tonnes per year, while Australia is pushing for 40,000 tonnes. The EU’s offer is a big increase on our current quota access, but the higher rate would lift Australia’s quota share to be commensurate with the quota access of similarly sized beef exporters, Brazil (50,000) and the US (35,000).

Farrell, the trade minister, has been blunt, warning he will walk away from the table as he did in free-trade talks with Japan in 2023, if the agricultural offer is not improved. The National Farmers’ Federation has backed him, declaring “no deal is better than a bad deal for Australian agriculture.”

The strategic case

A trade deal that would strengthen the rules-based trading system, deepen cooperation on critical minerals, boost worker mobility, and deliver billions in diversified economic growth is being held hostage by a beef quota arising from EU appeasement of Trump in his first presidency.

In a world of growing trade disruption, the strategic case for this agreement has never been stronger.

The momentum is real. The question is whether Brussels can look beyond the paddock and see the bigger picture, before someone else fills the strategic gap that this deal was designed to close.

Nathan Howard Gray receives funding from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Peter Draper 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. Why Australia’s trade deal with Europe hinges on a forgotten promise – and a handshake – https://theconversation.com/why-australias-trade-deal-with-europe-hinges-on-a-forgotten-promise-and-a-handshake-275429

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/12/why-australias-trade-deal-with-europe-hinges-on-a-forgotten-promise-and-a-handshake-275429/