Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Billie Eilish vs. Taylor Swift: Is the feud real? Who’s dissing who?

News Feed
Saturday, June 1, 2024

NEW YORK, NEW YORK - MAY 15: Billie Eilish performs onstage during "Hit Me Hard And Soft" Album Release Listening Party at Barclays Center on May 15, 2024 in New York City. (Photo by Arturo Holmes/Getty Images for ABA) The recent epic drama between Kendrick Lamar and Drake may have made the brutal diss track trendy again, but in the pop realm, indirect shade-throwing seems to be the order of the day. When the clash involves two of the biggest pop stars alive, and their mighty fandoms are the ones decoding their insinuations, even subtle or unintentional slights can become amplified to the point of absurdity. Yet that also leaves the rest of us asking what is and isn’t real. Are Billie Eilish and Taylor Swift really feuding? From a certain angle, it certainly seems like Eilish has spent the past couple of months using her promotional cycle for her new album, Hit Me Hard and Soft, to drop casual but pointed criticism at Swift. From another angle, it seems like Swift may have retaliated in her own Swiftian way — by releasing bonus editions for her new album, Tortured Poets Department, timed to compete with Eilish’s album release. While Swift’s reputation for petty feuding is so well known that she made a whole album about it, this fight seems totally out of character for the notably laid-back Eilish. Yet it seems to have been Eilish whose thinly veiled barbs against Swift first gained notice and steadily fueled the fire. Have we entered an era where fans look to turn everything into an epic rivalry — and they’ll find a way to do it, even when there’s nothing there at all? Or is the Eilish/Taylor beef — with layered jibes leading to battles waged by fandom foot soldiers on social media feeds across the internet — just how pop stars fight these days?  The drama is all about which album tops the Billboard chart — but it’s also about shade At the heart of this feud is the Billboard album chart. Swift’s Poets has been at the top since its April 19 release, and Swifties have a single-minded goal of keeping it up there as long as possible. One of the ways artists gamify the charts in a highly competitive digital age is by releasing variant album editions — a trick Swift is well-known for using. For Poets, she released a standard album, then immediately expanded it to a double album with 30 songs, then suddenly dropped three more surprise, limited-time album variants on May 17.  To Eilish fans, the timing of these three new album drops was sus: They landed the same day as the release of Eilish’s own new album, Hit Me. Swifties argued the timing was purely coincidental — just one more way of boosting Swift’s goal of keeping her album at No. 1 for as long as possible. For Eilish stans (who don’t have a collective name, oddly enough), that explanation fell flat: If the timing didn’t matter, why did Taylor step on Eilish’s release date? Especially since they were limited editions, meaning fans had a narrow window of time to buy them — a window of direct competition with Eilish. For their part, Swift’s fans were side-eying Eilish’s camp: They soon realized Eilish’s manager, Danny Rukasin, had liked and retweeted (and hastily deleted) a tweet implying that Swift had a long history of intentionally “blocking” other artists’ paths to the top of the chart by strategically dropping her own releases. The calendar is finite, so Swift’s releases are likely to be less about spiting other artists and more about limited space, and Rukasin may have been motivated less by this particular gripe and more by a general dislike of Swift as an artist. Fans soon dug up another instance when he shaded Swift on social media, which fed the flames of hostility between the two camps.  Meanwhile, both artists waged a back-and-forth with competing bonus editions of new tracks throughout the week, in an effort to cinch the top. Ultimately, Swift retained the No. 1 spot, with Eilish slotting in at No. 2. Of course, all of this might easily have been chalked up to unfortunate coincidence, inevitable competition, and heated emotions rather than beef — nothing that really rises to the level of a full-blown, two-sided conflict.  But what fandom these days thrives on a lack of conflict? It’s easy to see why neither fandom has backed off the drama. You don’t have to dig deep to find evidence that the beef might be real, and that Swift might have intended to go head-to-head with Eilish. That’s because Eilish might have been sitting on some longtime animosity toward Swift — a resentment that could have started with another artist altogether.  If this feud exists, it might have started, not with Eilish or Swift, but with a man’s garden-variety sexism To find the source of this mess, we might have to jump back to 2022. Damon Albarn, the frontman of seminal British bands Blur and Gorillaz, kicked off the year by bizarrely bashing Taylor Swift’s songwriting ability. In a January interview with the Los Angeles Times, Albarn first flatly claimed that Swift “doesn’t write her own songs,” then doubled down by adding that she doesn’t even co-write her own songs. Since Taylor Swift’s primary claim to fame is her songwriting ability, this was a very odd — if not outright misogynistic — hill for Albarn to randomly die on.  But within almost the same breath, he took things in an even weirder direction, by comparing Swift’s music to that of Billie Eilish and her brother Finneas O’Connell, with whom Eilish frequently co-writes: I’m not hating on anybody, I’m just saying there’s a big difference between a songwriter and a songwriter who co-writes. Doesn’t mean that the outcome can’t be really great. … A really interesting songwriter is Billie Eilish and her brother. I’m more attracted to that than to Taylor Swift. It’s just darker — less endlessly upbeat. Way more minor and odd. I think she’s exceptional. For all we know, the incident could have ended there — Albarn apologized to Swift after massive backlash, blaming the Times for “clickbait”-editing whatever he actually said.  However, fast-forward a few months, and Billie Eilish herself took things a step further. During her history-making gig at Coachella, where she was the youngest headliner in history, Eilish brought out Albarn for a surprise guest performance. This could have been a purely fannish gesture on Eilish’s part. However, while Eilish was praising Albarn and the influence he had on her own music, an unidentified male voice on a hot mic could be heard on the concert livestream joking, “We’re getting sued by Taylor Swift.” At the time, Swifties leaned toward the culprit behind the voice being Eilish’s brother O’Connell. Fans seemed torn on whether or not to view this as deliberate shade toward Taylor on the part of Eilish and O’Connell: After all, O’Connell had previously praised Swift’s songwriting as “inspiring,” and he attended her birthday party in 2021. Still, it’s easy for things to get twisted in the cutthroat game of entertainment, and we know how Swift can hold a grudge when she feels her art has been disrespected. And judging by multiple comments Eilish has made in the promotional cycle for Hit Me Hard and Soft — comments that certainly seem to be directed at Swift — the vendetta might go both ways. Eilish can’t seem to stop shading Swift — or are fans just reading into things? On March 23, weeks before Swift’s Poets release, Billboard published an interview with Eilish in which she spoke of the “wasteful” practice of artists releasing vinyl albums primarily to garner more album sales and secure longevity or higher sales rankings on the Billboard charts. Although the entire interview was about Eilish’s broader efforts to promote environmental sustainability, she was especially sharp in her criticism of this (admittedly, yes, wasteful) practice: I find it really frustrating as somebody who really goes out of my way to be sustainable and do the best that I can and try to involve everybody in my team in being sustainable — and then it’s some of the biggest artists in the world making f–king 40 different vinyl packages that have a different unique thing just to get you to keep buying more. It’s so wasteful, and it’s irritating to me that we’re still at a point where you care that much about your numbers and you care that much about making money — and it’s all your favorite artists doing that sh-t. Since, again, this is a tactic for which Swift is famous, fans read the entire sidebar as a swipe at Swift specifically. Eilish herself quickly responded via Instagram and denied that she’d intended to slight any specific artist. “It would be so awesome if people would stop putting words into my mouth,” she reportedly wrote. “I wasn’t singling anyone out.” If this had been a one-off statement, it would probably have been easier for fans to believe Eilish. Instead, this was just the beginning of a string of moments when Eilish’s general complaints could also be read as specific criticism of Taylor Swift. It’s worth noting that each of these subsequent interviews came after Swift’s May 17 “block” of Eilish’s album, so it’s also possible that what started out as pure coincidence on Eilish’s part quickly became personal. In a May 21 interview for Apple Music, Eilish drew still more attention for remarks that seemed to shade overtly autobiographical songwriting — you know, like the kind Swift is again notorious for.  “I really wanted the songs to not be like, ‘Oh, I know what that’s about,’” Eilish says.  I think that we live in such a world where everyone knows everything … Everyone is aware of the beef that happened and aware of the people that don’t like each other and aware of this and that. People put songs out, especially in the pop world — and I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it necessarily, but it’s just, we live in a world of, like, somebody puts a song out and everyone’s like, ‘So this is who this is about and this is the entire story of what happened,’ and it’s like, it doesn’t even give the listener a chance to interpret it how they want to interpret it and how they naturally hear it. And that I find really frustrating. I don’t want to hear a song that I’m like, ‘Ooh, my god’ — every single lyric, I’m like, ‘Oh, my god, this is about that person.’ At this point, her brother, O’Connell, chimes in, agreeing, “No, it can be gross … I don’t listen to ‘The Luckiest’ by Ben Folds and think about his wife. I think about who I’m in love with.”  Taken by itself, this is all pretty innocuous kvetching about the creative process. But taken as part of an ongoing pattern of the siblings subtly shading Swift, her songwriting, and her production process, it feels a lot more damning.   Oh, and then Eilish apparently added Swift-style performances to the checklist of things she doesn’t like. It’s no secret that a celebrity rivalry like this one drives sales. But there’s something frustrating about the ephemeral nature of this one. Last year, Eilish called both Swift and Beyoncé “untouchable superstars” in the LA Times, referencing their epic stadium shows, which can each run three hours or more. “The fact that they can put on a show that long, and it’s filled with so many incredible moments, is really amazing,” she said. At the time she sounded admiring, not confrontational.  Following the album release clash, however, her tone changed dramatically. In a May 23 broadcast on social radio platform Stationhead, Eilish stated, “I’m not doing a three-hour show. That’s literally psychotic. Nobody wants that. I don’t want that … I don’t even want that as a fan. My favorite artist in the world, I’m not trying to hear them for three hours.” Once again, Swifties rushed to allege that Eilish was shading Swift specifically (and Beyoncé, but the Hive seems less pressed). We’ve never known Eilish to overtly antagonize Swift before, and indeed in 2019 she thanked Swift for “taking care of [her]” through her music when she was a child. Yet this wouldn’t be the first time a younger female artist found herself in opposition to Swift. Just look at Olivia Rodrigo, who borrowed liberally from Swift as a key influence in her music. Swift embraced the young singer, until the pair had a rumored falling-out over the issue of song credits. That kerfuffle may or may not have led Rodrigo to burn Swift in the scathing 2022 song “Vampire,” in which she depicts the titular fang-bearer as a significantly older figure who exploits the singer’s youth and naivete.  Have we mentioned Rodrigo and Eilish are good friends? And that Eilish has said she feels “very protective” of her? Indeed, in a May 22 interview with Stephen Colbert to promote her new album, Eilish riffed poetically about the need for young artists to have the freedom to copy other artists while they’re finding their own style. “Inspiration is going to turn into more inspiration is going to turn into more inspiration,” she said. Though Eilish was ostensibly talking about her own vocal development, some gawkers watching the unfolding beef interpreted it as Eilish commenting on the Swift-Rodrigo feud.  It makes sense; there’s some speculation that Swift tapped Sabrina Carpenter to open for her “Eras” tour in part because Carpenter and Rodrigo have a longstanding enmity over a messy love triangle. Rodrigo likewise has been teasing an upcoming remix of “Vampire” as a collaboration with Lana Del Rey — who’s allegedly currently on the outs with Swift. Other celebrities also seem to be taking sides in the dispute. Sza, who incidentally is one of the artists whose album Swift was previously accused of trying to “block,” had previously denied there was ever any beef between the two. She was recently spotted “liking” an Instagram post dinging Eilish for her high concert prices and short performance times — an apparent subtle shade on behalf of Swift. For her part, Swift has yet to comment on the ongoing war between her fandom and Eilish’s — though her PR team’s Twitter account did make a post on May 25 referencing the line “try and come for my job” from Swift’s song “I Can Do It With a Broken Heart” — a post that many fans interpreted as a diss against Eilish for being unable to swipe the No. 1 chart ranking from Swift. Is any of this real or is it all just a manufactured face-off? It’s hard to tell. But the animosity has certainly driven attention and renewed energy toward both artists. In the middle of the feud, Swift’s album Midnights reportedly became the fastest album by a woman in history to reach a whopping 9 billion streams on Spotify. Meanwhile, Eilish’s album lead, the racy bop “Lunch,” reportedly became her fastest single ever to reach 100 million Spotify streams.  It’s no secret that a celebrity rivalry like this one drives sales. But there’s something frustrating about the ephemeral nature of this one. On the one hand, there’s plenty of plausible deniability around each of the statements from Eilish that fans are up in arms about. On the other, the fact there are so many statements during an active press tour implies Eilish isn’t playing. She also hasn’t bothered to clarify that she’s not talking about Swift. (Vox has reached out to both camps for comment.) When hip-hop artists create diss tracks, the general sentiment is that the gripes create good music, and the music is what matters. We’ll undoubtedly hear Swift’s side of this latest dispute in her next album. But the vacuum of real information about what’s going on here has left a gap that fans have chosen to fill with a lot of finger-pointing and side-taking. It’s a familiar routine for anyone who’s spent time around stan culture, but the drama detracts from the accomplishments of both artists. It’s hard to feel served by this fight the way, for example, Kendrick’s beef with Drake doubled as a commentary on authenticity in hip-hop culture. If Eilish really does think Swift’s songs are too literal, her concerts too long, her release strategy too wasteful, and her feuds too petty, there must be better ways to air those grievances.  Perhaps she should write a song about it.

The recent epic drama between Kendrick Lamar and Drake may have made the brutal diss track trendy again, but in the pop realm, indirect shade-throwing seems to be the order of the day. When the clash involves two of the biggest pop stars alive, and their mighty fandoms are the ones decoding their insinuations, even […]

NEW YORK, NEW YORK - MAY 15: Billie Eilish performs onstage during "Hit Me Hard And Soft" Album Release Listening Party at Barclays Center on May 15, 2024 in New York City. (Photo by Arturo Holmes/Getty Images for ABA)

The recent epic drama between Kendrick Lamar and Drake may have made the brutal diss track trendy again, but in the pop realm, indirect shade-throwing seems to be the order of the day. When the clash involves two of the biggest pop stars alive, and their mighty fandoms are the ones decoding their insinuations, even subtle or unintentional slights can become amplified to the point of absurdity.

Yet that also leaves the rest of us asking what is and isn’t real. Are Billie Eilish and Taylor Swift really feuding? From a certain angle, it certainly seems like Eilish has spent the past couple of months using her promotional cycle for her new album, Hit Me Hard and Soft, to drop casual but pointed criticism at Swift. From another angle, it seems like Swift may have retaliated in her own Swiftian way — by releasing bonus editions for her new album, Tortured Poets Department, timed to compete with Eilish’s album release.

While Swift’s reputation for petty feuding is so well known that she made a whole album about it, this fight seems totally out of character for the notably laid-back Eilish. Yet it seems to have been Eilish whose thinly veiled barbs against Swift first gained notice and steadily fueled the fire. Have we entered an era where fans look to turn everything into an epic rivalry — and they’ll find a way to do it, even when there’s nothing there at all?

Or is the Eilish/Taylor beef — with layered jibes leading to battles waged by fandom foot soldiers on social media feeds across the internet — just how pop stars fight these days? 

The drama is all about which album tops the Billboard chart — but it’s also about shade

At the heart of this feud is the Billboard album chart. Swift’s Poets has been at the top since its April 19 release, and Swifties have a single-minded goal of keeping it up there as long as possible. One of the ways artists gamify the charts in a highly competitive digital age is by releasing variant album editions — a trick Swift is well-known for using. For Poets, she released a standard album, then immediately expanded it to a double album with 30 songs, then suddenly dropped three more surprise, limited-time album variants on May 17. 

To Eilish fans, the timing of these three new album drops was sus: They landed the same day as the release of Eilish’s own new album, Hit Me. Swifties argued the timing was purely coincidental — just one more way of boosting Swift’s goal of keeping her album at No. 1 for as long as possible. For Eilish stans (who don’t have a collective name, oddly enough), that explanation fell flat: If the timing didn’t matter, why did Taylor step on Eilish’s release date? Especially since they were limited editions, meaning fans had a narrow window of time to buy them — a window of direct competition with Eilish.

For their part, Swift’s fans were side-eying Eilish’s camp: They soon realized Eilish’s manager, Danny Rukasin, had liked and retweeted (and hastily deleted) a tweet implying that Swift had a long history of intentionally “blocking” other artists’ paths to the top of the chart by strategically dropping her own releases. The calendar is finite, so Swift’s releases are likely to be less about spiting other artists and more about limited space, and Rukasin may have been motivated less by this particular gripe and more by a general dislike of Swift as an artist. Fans soon dug up another instance when he shaded Swift on social media, which fed the flames of hostility between the two camps. 

Meanwhile, both artists waged a back-and-forth with competing bonus editions of new tracks throughout the week, in an effort to cinch the top. Ultimately, Swift retained the No. 1 spot, with Eilish slotting in at No. 2.

Of course, all of this might easily have been chalked up to unfortunate coincidence, inevitable competition, and heated emotions rather than beef — nothing that really rises to the level of a full-blown, two-sided conflict. 

But what fandom these days thrives on a lack of conflict? It’s easy to see why neither fandom has backed off the drama. You don’t have to dig deep to find evidence that the beef might be real, and that Swift might have intended to go head-to-head with Eilish. That’s because Eilish might have been sitting on some longtime animosity toward Swift — a resentment that could have started with another artist altogether. 

If this feud exists, it might have started, not with Eilish or Swift, but with a man’s garden-variety sexism

To find the source of this mess, we might have to jump back to 2022. Damon Albarn, the frontman of seminal British bands Blur and Gorillaz, kicked off the year by bizarrely bashing Taylor Swift’s songwriting ability. In a January interview with the Los Angeles Times, Albarn first flatly claimed that Swift “doesn’t write her own songs,” then doubled down by adding that she doesn’t even co-write her own songs. Since Taylor Swift’s primary claim to fame is her songwriting ability, this was a very odd — if not outright misogynistic — hill for Albarn to randomly die on. 

But within almost the same breath, he took things in an even weirder direction, by comparing Swift’s music to that of Billie Eilish and her brother Finneas O’Connell, with whom Eilish frequently co-writes:

I’m not hating on anybody, I’m just saying there’s a big difference between a songwriter and a songwriter who co-writes. Doesn’t mean that the outcome can’t be really great. … A really interesting songwriter is Billie Eilish and her brother. I’m more attracted to that than to Taylor Swift. It’s just darker — less endlessly upbeat. Way more minor and odd. I think she’s exceptional.

For all we know, the incident could have ended there — Albarn apologized to Swift after massive backlash, blaming the Times for “clickbait”-editing whatever he actually said. 

Eilish holding a camera, filming O'Connell on the floor of the Kia Forum.

However, fast-forward a few months, and Billie Eilish herself took things a step further. During her history-making gig at Coachella, where she was the youngest headliner in history, Eilish brought out Albarn for a surprise guest performance. This could have been a purely fannish gesture on Eilish’s part. However, while Eilish was praising Albarn and the influence he had on her own music, an unidentified male voice on a hot mic could be heard on the concert livestream joking, “We’re getting sued by Taylor Swift.”

At the time, Swifties leaned toward the culprit behind the voice being Eilish’s brother O’Connell. Fans seemed torn on whether or not to view this as deliberate shade toward Taylor on the part of Eilish and O’Connell: After all, O’Connell had previously praised Swift’s songwriting as “inspiring,” and he attended her birthday party in 2021.

Still, it’s easy for things to get twisted in the cutthroat game of entertainment, and we know how Swift can hold a grudge when she feels her art has been disrespected. And judging by multiple comments Eilish has made in the promotional cycle for Hit Me Hard and Soft — comments that certainly seem to be directed at Swift — the vendetta might go both ways.

Eilish can’t seem to stop shading Swift — or are fans just reading into things?

On March 23, weeks before Swift’s Poets release, Billboard published an interview with Eilish in which she spoke of the “wasteful” practice of artists releasing vinyl albums primarily to garner more album sales and secure longevity or higher sales rankings on the Billboard charts. Although the entire interview was about Eilish’s broader efforts to promote environmental sustainability, she was especially sharp in her criticism of this (admittedly, yes, wasteful) practice:

I find it really frustrating as somebody who really goes out of my way to be sustainable and do the best that I can and try to involve everybody in my team in being sustainable — and then it’s some of the biggest artists in the world making f–king 40 different vinyl packages that have a different unique thing just to get you to keep buying more. It’s so wasteful, and it’s irritating to me that we’re still at a point where you care that much about your numbers and you care that much about making money — and it’s all your favorite artists doing that sh-t.

Since, again, this is a tactic for which Swift is famous, fans read the entire sidebar as a swipe at Swift specifically. Eilish herself quickly responded via Instagram and denied that she’d intended to slight any specific artist. “It would be so awesome if people would stop putting words into my mouth,” she reportedly wrote. “I wasn’t singling anyone out.”

If this had been a one-off statement, it would probably have been easier for fans to believe Eilish. Instead, this was just the beginning of a string of moments when Eilish’s general complaints could also be read as specific criticism of Taylor Swift. It’s worth noting that each of these subsequent interviews came after Swift’s May 17 “block” of Eilish’s album, so it’s also possible that what started out as pure coincidence on Eilish’s part quickly became personal.

In a May 21 interview for Apple Music, Eilish drew still more attention for remarks that seemed to shade overtly autobiographical songwriting — you know, like the kind Swift is again notorious for

“I really wanted the songs to not be like, ‘Oh, I know what that’s about,’” Eilish says

I think that we live in such a world where everyone knows everything … Everyone is aware of the beef that happened and aware of the people that don’t like each other and aware of this and that.

People put songs out, especially in the pop world — and I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it necessarily, but it’s just, we live in a world of, like, somebody puts a song out and everyone’s like, ‘So this is who this is about and this is the entire story of what happened,’ and it’s like, it doesn’t even give the listener a chance to interpret it how they want to interpret it and how they naturally hear it. And that I find really frustrating. I don’t want to hear a song that I’m like, ‘Ooh, my god’ — every single lyric, I’m like, ‘Oh, my god, this is about that person.’

At this point, her brother, O’Connell, chimes in, agreeing, “No, it can be gross … I don’t listen to ‘The Luckiest’ by Ben Folds and think about his wife. I think about who I’m in love with.” 

Taken by itself, this is all pretty innocuous kvetching about the creative process. But taken as part of an ongoing pattern of the siblings subtly shading Swift, her songwriting, and her production process, it feels a lot more damning.  

Oh, and then Eilish apparently added Swift-style performances to the checklist of things she doesn’t like.

It’s no secret that a celebrity rivalry like this one drives sales. But there’s something frustrating about the ephemeral nature of this one.

Last year, Eilish called both Swift and Beyoncé “untouchable superstars” in the LA Times, referencing their epic stadium shows, which can each run three hours or more. “The fact that they can put on a show that long, and it’s filled with so many incredible moments, is really amazing,” she said. At the time she sounded admiring, not confrontational. 

Following the album release clash, however, her tone changed dramatically. In a May 23 broadcast on social radio platform Stationhead, Eilish stated, “I’m not doing a three-hour show. That’s literally psychotic. Nobody wants that. I don’t want that … I don’t even want that as a fan. My favorite artist in the world, I’m not trying to hear them for three hours.” Once again, Swifties rushed to allege that Eilish was shading Swift specifically (and Beyoncé, but the Hive seems less pressed).

We’ve never known Eilish to overtly antagonize Swift before, and indeed in 2019 she thanked Swift for “taking care of [her]” through her music when she was a child. Yet this wouldn’t be the first time a younger female artist found herself in opposition to Swift. Just look at Olivia Rodrigo, who borrowed liberally from Swift as a key influence in her music. Swift embraced the young singer, until the pair had a rumored falling-out over the issue of song credits. That kerfuffle may or may not have led Rodrigo to burn Swift in the scathing 2022 song “Vampire,” in which she depicts the titular fang-bearer as a significantly older figure who exploits the singer’s youth and naivete. 

Have we mentioned Rodrigo and Eilish are good friends? And that Eilish has said she feels “very protective” of her? Indeed, in a May 22 interview with Stephen Colbert to promote her new album, Eilish riffed poetically about the need for young artists to have the freedom to copy other artists while they’re finding their own style. “Inspiration is going to turn into more inspiration is going to turn into more inspiration,” she said. Though Eilish was ostensibly talking about her own vocal development, some gawkers watching the unfolding beef interpreted it as Eilish commenting on the Swift-Rodrigo feud. 

It makes sense; there’s some speculation that Swift tapped Sabrina Carpenter to open for her “Eras” tour in part because Carpenter and Rodrigo have a longstanding enmity over a messy love triangle. Rodrigo likewise has been teasing an upcoming remix of “Vampire” as a collaboration with Lana Del Rey — who’s allegedly currently on the outs with Swift. Other celebrities also seem to be taking sides in the dispute. Sza, who incidentally is one of the artists whose album Swift was previously accused of trying to “block,” had previously denied there was ever any beef between the two. She was recently spotted “liking” an Instagram post dinging Eilish for her high concert prices and short performance times — an apparent subtle shade on behalf of Swift.

For her part, Swift has yet to comment on the ongoing war between her fandom and Eilish’s — though her PR team’s Twitter account did make a post on May 25 referencing the line “try and come for my job” from Swift’s song “I Can Do It With a Broken Heart” — a post that many fans interpreted as a diss against Eilish for being unable to swipe the No. 1 chart ranking from Swift.

Is any of this real or is it all just a manufactured face-off? It’s hard to tell. But the animosity has certainly driven attention and renewed energy toward both artists. In the middle of the feud, Swift’s album Midnights reportedly became the fastest album by a woman in history to reach a whopping 9 billion streams on Spotify. Meanwhile, Eilish’s album lead, the racy bop “Lunch,” reportedly became her fastest single ever to reach 100 million Spotify streams. 

It’s no secret that a celebrity rivalry like this one drives sales. But there’s something frustrating about the ephemeral nature of this one. On the one hand, there’s plenty of plausible deniability around each of the statements from Eilish that fans are up in arms about. On the other, the fact there are so many statements during an active press tour implies Eilish isn’t playing. She also hasn’t bothered to clarify that she’s not talking about Swift. (Vox has reached out to both camps for comment.)

When hip-hop artists create diss tracks, the general sentiment is that the gripes create good music, and the music is what matters. We’ll undoubtedly hear Swift’s side of this latest dispute in her next album. But the vacuum of real information about what’s going on here has left a gap that fans have chosen to fill with a lot of finger-pointing and side-taking. It’s a familiar routine for anyone who’s spent time around stan culture, but the drama detracts from the accomplishments of both artists. It’s hard to feel served by this fight the way, for example, Kendrick’s beef with Drake doubled as a commentary on authenticity in hip-hop culture. If Eilish really does think Swift’s songs are too literal, her concerts too long, her release strategy too wasteful, and her feuds too petty, there must be better ways to air those grievances. 

Perhaps she should write a song about it.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Costa Rica’s Banana Industry: The Hidden Cost of Pesticide Use

Costa Rica’s Caribbean region is often celebrated for its exuberant nature and rich culture. However, the area is also a key hub for banana production. The country ranks among the world’s leading commercial banana producers, boasting an average productivity of 2,325 boxes per hectare, equivalent to about 42 metric tons. Yet, as revealed by the […] The post Costa Rica’s Banana Industry: The Hidden Cost of Pesticide Use appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Costa Rica’s Caribbean region is often celebrated for its exuberant nature and rich culture. However, the area is also a key hub for banana production. The country ranks among the world’s leading commercial banana producers, boasting an average productivity of 2,325 boxes per hectare, equivalent to about 42 metric tons. Yet, as revealed by the British newspaper The Guardian, this production comes at a significant human and environmental cost. “At dawn and dusk, the skies over Matina, the capital of Limón province on Costa Rica’s Caribbean coast, are filled with aircraft spraying a viscous rain of agrochemicals onto banana plantations,” the article notes. Costa Rica is one of the world’s largest users of pesticides, averaging 34.45 kg of active ingredient per hectare annually, according to the UN. Despite bans in the European Union, Costa Rica continues to use hazardous chemicals. The pesticides chlorothalonil and mancozeb, both believed to be potentially carcinogenic, as well as chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxic agent, have been found in the blood of women and children living near plantations, where planes regularly spray these substances. Residents in these areas report side effects such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness, fainting, dermatitis, and burning eyes, according to the newspaper. The smell of the chemicals is sometimes so overwhelming that nearby schools must be evacuated, as children fall ill. Both students and teachers have been hospitalized after inhaling these toxic substances. The article emphasizes that such incidents are “far from exceptional.” At a plantation owned by the US company Dole, the air is “pungent,” fields are scorched, and the ground is littered with what looks like “charred pineapples” due to the use of paraquat, a chemical that dries and burns plants. Dole, however, denies these claims, stating it stopped using paraquat in 2008. Despite community efforts to denounce these practices to the authorities, no action has been taken. The government has also overlooked workers’ rights, wages, and working conditions. In addition to the health risks, the environment is suffering. Water and soil contamination is widespread, and local ecosystems are being destroyed. The article points out that the large-scale use of these chemicals persists because consumers demand perfect fruit, and mass production is required to meet global demand. It also places responsibility on the EU for allowing the export of these banned substances. However, there are alternatives. The Guardian highlights the Bribri community’s organic banana plantation, which operates without pesticides—demonstrating that it’s possible to produce fruit without harming people or the environment. The post Costa Rica’s Banana Industry: The Hidden Cost of Pesticide Use appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Tools for making imagination blossom at MIT.nano

New STUDIO.nano supports artistic research and encounters within MIT.nano’s facilities.

The MIT community and visitors have a new reason to drop by MIT.nano: six artworks by Brazilian artist and sculptor Denise Milan. Located in the open-air stairway connecting the first- and second-floor galleries within the nanoscience and engineering facility, the works center around the stone as a microcosm of nature. From Milan’s “Mist of the Earth” series, evocative of mandalas, the project asks viewers to reflect on the environmental changes that result from human-made development.Milan is the inaugural artist in “Encounters,” a series presented by STUDIO.nano, a new initiative from MIT.nano that encourages the exploration of platforms and pathways at the intersection of technology, science, and art. Encounters welcomes proposals from artists, scientists, engineers, and designers from outside of the MIT community looking to collaborate with MIT.nano researchers, facilities, ongoing projects, and unique spaces.“Life is in the art of the encounter,” remarked Milan, quoting Brazilian poet Vinicius de Moraes, during a reception at MIT.nano. “And for an artist to be in a place like this, MIT.nano, what could be better? I love the curiosity of scientists. They are very much like artists ... art and science are both tools for making imagination blossom.” What followed was a freewheeling conversation between attendees that spanned topics ranging from the cyclical nature of birth, death, and survival in the cosmos to musings on the elemental sources of creativity and the similarities in artistic and scientific practice to a brief lesson on time crystals by Nobel Prize laureate Frank Wilczek, the Herman Feshbach Professor of Physics at MIT.Milan was joined in her conversation by MIT.nano Director Vladimir Bulović, the Fariborz Maseeh Professor of Emerging Technologies; Ardalan SadeghiKivi MArch ’22, who moderated the discussion; Samantha Farrell, manager of STUDIO.nano programming; and Naomi Moniz, professor emeritus at Georgetown University, who connected Milan and her work with MIT.nano.“In addition to the technical community, we [at MIT.nano] have been approached by countless artists and thinkers in the humanities who, to our delight, are eager to learn about the wonders of the nanoscale and how to use the tools of MIT.nano to explore and expand their own artistic practice,” said Bulović.These interactions have spurred collaborative projects across disciplines, art exhibitions, and even MIT classes. For the past four years MIT.nano has hosted 4.373/4.374 (Creating Art, Thinking Science), an undergraduate and graduate class offered by the Art, Culture, and Technology (ACT) Program. To date, the class has brought 35 students into MIT.nano’s labs and resulted in 40 distinct projects and 60 pieces of art, many of which are on display in MIT.nano’s galleries.With the launch of STUDIO.nano, MIT.nano will look to expand its exhibition programs, including supporting additional digital media and augmented/virtual reality projects; providing tools and spaces for development of new classes envisioned by MIT academic departments; and introducing programming such as lectures related to the studio's activities.Milan’s work will be a permanent installation at MIT.nano, where she hopes it will encourage individuals to pursue their creative inspiration, regardless of discipline. “To exist or to disappear?” Milan asked. “If it’s us, an idea, or a dream — the question is how much of an assignment you have with your own imagination.”

The National Trust must again resist the group trying to turn grievances into policy | Rowan Moore

Burning with unquenchable resentment, Restore Trust is making another attempt at taking over the institutionThe leaves are starting to change and there’s autumnal coolth in the air. Which means that the opaquely funded private organisation called Restore Trust is once again making its annual attempt to take over one of the country’s most successful and best-loved institutions, the National Trust. Burning with unquenchable resentment about a 2020 report that truthfully stated that Winston Churchill opposed Indian independence; armed with inflated stories about mushroom bans, cancelled Easters and vote-rigging; and furious about a single disco ball in one room of one of the National Trust’s 230 historic houses, Restore Trust has once again put up a slate of candidates for the National Trust’s council, with a view to turning their grievances into policy. If you’re a member of the National Trust, and you’d rather not see it turned into a platform for an angry minority, vote now for its recommended candidates. Continue reading...

The leaves are starting to change and there’s autumnal coolth in the air. Which means that the opaquely funded private organisation called Restore Trust is once again making its annual attempt to take over one of the country’s most successful and best-loved institutions, the National Trust. Burning with unquenchable resentment about a 2020 report that truthfully stated that Winston Churchill opposed Indian independence; armed with inflated stories about mushroom bans, cancelled Easters and vote-rigging; and furious about a single disco ball in one room of one of the National Trust’s 230 historic houses, Restore Trust has once again put up a slate of candidates for the National Trust’s council, with a view to turning their grievances into policy. If you’re a member of the National Trust, and you’d rather not see it turned into a platform for an angry minority, vote now for its recommended candidates.Selective memoryA memorial wall in front of the Grenfell Tower. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/AFP/Getty ImagesIt must be terribly hard being Sodali & Co, an agency paid to defend the reputation of Kingspan, the building materials company found responsible in last week’s Grenfell Tower report for “deeply entrenched and persistent dishonesty”. But if, as Sodali puts it, you “advise corporate clients worldwide as they navigate the complex dynamic of shareholder and stakeholder interests”, you don’t quit. When I wrote about the disaster last week, its “head of special situations” sent me a near-instant email minimising Kingspan’s culpability and requesting a change to my online copy. I had told how they buried the results of a 2007 test of their insulation which threatened to burn down the laboratory where it was taking place. I should also say, Sodali argued that the test was for a “whole cladding system” of which Kingspan’s product was only one (albeit highly combustible) part.“Journalist mis-describes type of iceberg, says communications agency for the White Star Line” might be some sort of equivalent. What makes this request utterly brazen is the fact that Kingspan was happy to use a 2005 test to give the false impression that its insulation was safe on tall buildings. It glossed over that this too was a test of a whole system, one whose components were not (as the inquiry said) representative of a typical external wall. Its concern for precision as to the nature of a given test is, in other words, selective and self-serving.HoodwinkedRia Zmitrowicz as the Sheriff of Nottingham in Sherwood. Photograph: Sam Taylor/BBC/House ProductionsOne of the more risible skirmishes in the culture wars came when the TalkTV presenter Kevin O’Sullivan, apparently unaware that the BBC series Sherwood is not really about Robin Hood, lamented its portrayal of the Sheriff of Nottingham as a gay woman. GBNews then used the occasion as flimsy pretext to beat up the corporation.What’s odd is the sudden insistence on historical accuracy in such a mythologised story as that of Robin Hood. Where, pray, was O’Sullivan when Disney represented the outlaw as a fox?skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWinds of changeA wind turbine on a hill on Shetland. Photograph: William Edwards/AFP/Getty ImagesOn Shetland, my heart stirred to the majestic sight of wind turbines. The knowledge that they’re not oil rigs, nor power stations, nor fracking installations, nor coalmines, makes me happy. But I’m aware that many Shetlanders don’t feel the same, enraged not only by the turbines but the infrastructure that comes with them. Most of all, they don’t see much benefit. Most of the energy generated will go to mainland Scotland. So it was good to hear that the profits from a community windfarm in the Hebrides are paying for the planting of a million native trees. If all such facilities led to palpable local and environmental benefits, much of the opposition to them would melt away.

Norwegian outdoor tourism campaign shelved over environmental fears

State-owned company halts initiative after warnings over opening up ‘right to roam’ laws to large numbers of visitorsA Norwegian tourism campaign aimed at promoting the country as a destination for outdoor activities has been suspended after warnings that opening up the country’s “right to roam” laws to mass tourism could lead to environmental destruction.Allemannsretten – which gives Norwegians the legal right to camp, swim, ski and walk freely in nature, regardless of who the landowner is – provides the basis of friluftslivet (outdoor life), seen as foundational to the mountainous country’s culture. Continue reading...

A Norwegian tourism campaign aimed at promoting the country as a destination for outdoor activities has been suspended after warnings that opening up the country’s “right to roam” laws to mass tourism could lead to environmental destruction.Allemannsretten – which gives Norwegians the legal right to camp, swim, ski and walk freely in nature, regardless of who the landowner is – provides the basis of friluftslivet (outdoor life), seen as foundational to the mountainous country’s culture.But an initiative to extol these benefits to international tourists has met with strong criticism. Regional tourism bosses say it could lead to a surge of unregulated traffic and camping, putting too much pressure on the natural environment.Innovation Norway, owned by the Norwegian state, said it had wanted to “highlight the part of Norwegian culture that is about using nature” by putting outdoor activities at the centre of the campaign.Tourism bosses in northern and western Norway say they are already experiencing the effects of overtourism, however. Some called for the initiative to be suspended while they assessed any potential impact on commercial tourism, resulting in Innovation Norway halting the campaign.Interest in the the Nordic region as a whole has risen this summer as tourists have sought cooler destinations amid high temperatures in southern Europe. While tourism boards are aiming to capitalise on the surge in interest, many in Norway have urged caution.Stein Ove Rolland, the CEO of tourism board Fjord Norway, said: “We certainly want visitors to enjoy our nature, but we prefer it to happen through well-organised sustainable offerings provided by competent experienced companies within the tourism industry. This is to ensure that our amazing nature can be enjoyed by locals and visitors for decades to come.“We believe that marketing outdoor activities to a growing international holiday and leisure market can be risky because it may lead to more people wanting to explore vulnerable natural areas on their own. This can result in wear and tear on nature, increased littering, and could potentially lead to accidents and rescue operations.” As interest in tourism to Norway has grown, there has been a rise in the number of camper vans parked inappropriately, as well as litter and “general wear and tear on nature”. Rescue operations to find tourists lost in the mountains have also increased.Dag Terje Klarp Solvang, the general secretary of the Norwegian Trekking Association, which has recorded high international visitor numbers this year, said hiking could be a “very sustainable way of being a tourist” but the country needed to be prepared to handle visitor numbers before inviting them.“Too many people without being prepared can cause great damage to nature and the people living close to the actual spots being highlighted,” he said.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Headlines EuropeA digest of the morning's main headlines from the Europe edition emailed direct to you every week dayPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionAase Marthe Horrigmo, of Innovation Norway, said in a statement on the suspension of the campaign that some stakeholders had expressed concerns during preparatory work over increased tourism in vulnerable nature and the management of visitors in popular destinations. She said the decision to suspend was “to continue our dialogue with the county municipalities and destination companies that were sceptical of the idea, to ensure that we had fully understood and considered their concerns” and because discussions this year meant it had missed the spring window for filming.“It is important to encourage tourists to behave responsibly in Norwegian nature. We also want to inspire people to visit our country and discover amazing experiences that will create memories for life,” she said. “We will continue the dialogue with the travel industry and believe this is a concept that will encourage potential tourists to embrace the philosophy behind friluftsliv and ultimately encourage them to treat our unique nature with care and respect.”Bente Lier, the general secretary of outdoor recreation organisation Norsk Friluftsliv, said although it welcomed tourists to Norway, nature must be protected with a clear strategy for visitors before they were invited. “This includes a clear plan for where to channel them to where we have the capacity, how to meet them and how to introduce them to nature,” she said. “We cannot invite 30 guests if the table is set for four.“It is important to know that with allemannsretten or roaming rights also comes the obligation to show respect to nature. In short: we shall not leave any trace. This is something we learn in Norway when we are children – from family or at school – but it is not that obvious to many international tourists.”

New Strategies To Combat Dementia: 14 Risk Factors You Can Control

The 2024 Lancet Commission report identifies vision loss and high cholesterol as new risk factors for dementia, adding to 12 others previously known. It emphasizes...

A new report indicates that tackling 14 lifestyle and environmental risk factors from an early age could prevent almost 50% of dementia cases globally. Highlighting new risks like high LDL cholesterol and vision loss, the report calls for urgent, broad-spectrum preventive measures to curb the dementia epidemic.The 2024 Lancet Commission report identifies vision loss and high cholesterol as new risk factors for dementia, adding to 12 others previously known.It emphasizes the importance of early and lifelong management of these factors, including for those with a genetic predisposition to dementia. The report provides 13 recommendations targeting both individuals and governments to mitigate risk. These include managing hearing and vision loss, maintaining cognitive and social activity, using head protection in sports, managing vascular risks like cholesterol and diabetes, improving air quality, and fostering supportive communities. Research focusing on England indicates that implementing these measures could save about £4 billion by addressing risk factors such as excessive alcohol consumption, brain injuries, air pollution, smoking, obesity, and hypertension.According to the third Lancet Commission on dementia prevention, intervention, and care, addressing 14 modifiable risk factors from childhood and continuing throughout life could prevent or delay nearly half of dementia cases. This is crucial as global life expectancy increases and the number of dementia cases is projected to rise significantly in all countries. These findings were recently presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC 2024). Based on the latest available evidence, the new report adds two new risk factors that are associated with 9% of all dementia cases —with an estimated 7% of cases attributable to high low-density lipoprotein (LDL) or “bad” cholesterol in midlife from around age 40 years, and 2% of cases attributable to untreated vision loss in later life.These new risk factors are in addition to 12 risk factors previously identified by the Lancet Commission in 2020 (lower levels of education, hearing impairment, high blood pressure, smoking, obesity, depression, physical inactivity, diabetes, excessive alcohol consumption, traumatic brain injury [TBI], air pollution and social isolation), which are linked with 40% of all dementia cases.The new report estimates that the risk factors associated with the greatest proportion of people developing dementia in the global population are hearing impairment and high LDL cholesterol (7% each), along with less education in early life and social isolation in later life (5% each).The Commission, authored by 27 world-leading dementia experts, calls for governments and individuals to be ambitious about tackling risks across the life course of dementia, arguing that the earlier we can address and reduce risk factor levels, the better. The report outlines a new set of policy and lifestyle changes to help prevent and better manage dementia.More action is needed worldwide to reduce dementia risksBecause of the rapidly aging population around the world, the number of people living with dementia is expected to almost triple by 2050, rising from 57 million in 2019 to 153 million. Increasing life expectancy is also driving a surge in people with dementia in low-income countries. Global health and social costs related to dementia are estimated at over $1 trillion every year.However, in some high-income countries, including the USA and UK, the proportion of older people with dementia has fallen, particularly among those in socio-economically advantaged areas. The report’s authors say that this decline in people developing dementia is probably in part due to building cognitive and physical resilience over the life course and less vascular damage as a result of improvements in healthcare and lifestyle changes, demonstrating the importance of implementing prevention approaches as early as possible.Nevertheless, most national dementia plans do not make specific recommendations about diversity, equity, or inclusion of people from underserved cultures and ethnicities who are disproportionately affected by dementia risks.“Our new report reveals that there is much more that can and should be done to reduce the risk of dementia. It’s never too early or too late to take action, with opportunities to make an impact at any stage of life”, says lead author Professor Gill Livingston from University College London, UK. “We now have stronger evidence that longer exposure to risk has a greater effect and that risks act more strongly in people who are vulnerable. That’s why it is vital that we redouble preventive efforts towards those who need them most, including those in low- and middle-income countries and socio-economically disadvantaged groups. Governments must reduce risk inequalities by making healthy lifestyles as achievable as possible for everyone.”To reduce dementia risk throughout life, the Commission outlines 13 recommendations to be adopted by governments and individuals, including (see key messages on page 2 of the report for the full list):Provide all children with good quality education and be cognitively active in midlife.Make hearing aids available for all those with hearing loss and reduce harmful noise exposure.Detect and treat high LDL cholesterol in midlife from around age 40 years.Make screening and treatment for vision impairment accessible to all.Treat depression effectively.Wear helmets and head protection in contact sports and on bikes.Prioritize supportive community environments and housing to increase social contact.Reduce exposure to air pollution through strict clean air policies.Expand measures to reduce smoking, such as price control, raising the minimum age of purchase, and smoking bans.Reduce sugar and salt content in food sold in stores and restaurants.These actions are especially important given new evidence which shows that reducing the risks of dementia not only increases years of healthy life but also reduces the time people who develop dementia spend in ill health.As Professor Livingston explains, “Healthy lifestyles that involve regular exercise, not smoking, cognitive activity in midlife (including outside formal education), and avoiding excess alcohol can not only lower dementia risk but may also push back dementia onset. So, if people do develop dementia, they are likely to live fewer years with it. This has huge quality of life implications for individuals as well as cost-saving benefits for societies.”England could achieve cost savings of around £4 billionIn a separate study published in The Lancet Healthy Longevity journal alongside the Commission, Professor Livingston, lead author Naaheed Mukadam, and co-authors modeled the economic impact of implementing some of these recommendations, using England as an example. The study’s findings suggest that using population-level interventions of known effectiveness to tackle dementia risk factors of excess alcohol use (more than 21 units per week), brain injury, air pollution, smoking, obesity, and high blood pressure could achieve cost savings of more than £4 billion and over 70,000 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains (one QALY equates to a year of life in perfect health). The authors stress that potential benefits may be even greater in low- and middle-income countries and any country where population-level interventions such as public smoking bans and compulsory education are not already in place.“Given the much higher burden of dementia risk factors in low- and middle-income countries with the expected rise in dementia over the next few decades from rapid population aging and increased rates of high blood pressure, diabetes, and obesity, we need urgent policy-based preventative approaches that will have huge potential benefits far in excess of the costs,” says report co-author Dr. Cleusa Ferri from Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo and Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, Sao Paulo Brazil.Commission co-author Dr. Naaheed Mukadam of University College London adds, “Prioritising population-level approaches that improve primary prevention (eg, reducing salt and sugar intake) and effective health care for conditions like obesity and high blood pressure, restricting smoking and air pollution, and enabling all children to gain a good education, could have a profound effect on dementia prevalence and inequalities, as well as significant cost savings.”Prioritising advances in research and support for people living with dementiaThe report also discusses the hopeful advances in blood biomarkers and the Anti-amyloid β antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease. The authors explain that blood biomarkers are a significant move forward for people with dementia, potentially increasing scalability and decreasing the intrusiveness and the cost of testing for accurate diagnosis. While there are promising clinical trials, the report authors caution that Anti-amyloid β antibody treatments are new, without long-term data available, and call for more research and expanded transparency about the short and long-term side effects.Finally, the report calls for more support for people living with dementia and their families. The authors stress that in many countries, effective interventions known to benefit people with dementia are still not available or a priority, including activity interventions that provide enjoyment and reduce neuropsychiatric symptoms and cholinesterase inhibitors for slowing cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s. Similarly, many carers’ needs are unevaluated and unmet. They recommend providing multi-component coping interventions for family caregivers who are at risk of depression and anxiety, including providing emotional support, planning for the future, and information on medical and community-based resources.The authors note that while nearly all the evidence for dementia still comes from high-income countries, there is now more evidence and interventions from LMICs, but interventions usually need to be modified to best support different cultures, beliefs, and environments. They also point out that the prevention estimates assume there is a causal relationship between risk factors and dementia, and while they were careful to only include risk factors with convincing evidence, they note that some associations may only be partly causal. For example, while unremitting depression in midlife may be causal, depression in late life may be caused by dementia. Finally, they note that this risk modification affects the population, and does not guarantee that any individual will avoid dementia.References: “Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2024 report of the Lancet standing Commission” by Gill Livingston, Jonathan Huntley, Kathy Y Liu, Sergi G Costafreda, Geir Selbæk, Suvarna Alladi, David Ames, Sube Banerjee, Alistair Burns, Carol Brayne, Nick C Fox, Cleusa P Ferri, Laura N Gitlin, Robert Howard, Helen C Kales, Mika Kivimäki, Eric B Larson, Noeline Nakasujja, Kenneth Rockwood, Quincy Samus, Kokoro Shirai, Archana Singh-Manoux, Lon S Schneider, Sebastian Walsh, Yao Yao, Andrew Sommerlad and Naaheed Mukadam, 31 July 2024, The Lancet.DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01296-0“Benefits of population-level interventions for dementia risk factors: an economic modelling study for England” by Naaheed Mukadam, Robert Anderson, Sebastian Walsh, Raphael Wittenberg, Martin Knapp, Carol Brayne and Gill Livingston, 31 July 2024, The Lancet Healthy Longevity.DOI: 10.1016/S2666-7568(24)00117-XThe Lancet Commission was funded by University College London, UK, Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK and the Economic and Social Research Council. The full list of researchers and institutions who conducted the research is available in the Commission report.The Lancet Healthy Longevity paper was funded by the NIHR Three Schools.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.