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.

How Some Common Medications Can Make People More Vulnerable to Heat

News Feed
Wednesday, May 1, 2024

Summers are undoubtedly getting hotter. Extreme heat events are predicted to become longer, more intense and more frequent in the coming years—and rising temperatures are already taking a toll on the human body. A published last month by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that heat-related emergency room visits were substantially higher from May to September 2023 than in any year before. And now growing evidence suggests that people who rely on certain medications, notably including antipsychotics, may become especially vulnerable to heat-related illness and adverse side effects as temperatures climb.Studies have established that people with chronic illnesses such as schizophrenia, diabetes and cardiovascular or respiratory disease are generally more vulnerable to overheating—and the medications they need may actually worsen these risks. A 2020 PLOS ONE study found that various commonly prescribed drugs interfere with the body’s ability to perceive and protect itself from heat, increasing the risk of hospitalization. These include diuretics, antipsychotics, beta-blockers, stimulants, antihypertensives and anticholinergic medications (which include Parkinson’s and bladder-control medications). Illicit use of amphetamines and some other drugs, including unlicensed weight-loss drugs such as dinitrophenol, can alter body temperature.“There are a lot of drugs out there that diminish our ability to radiate off heat and cool down,” says Adam Blumenberg, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Columbia University Medical Center. Emergency room visits for medication-related heat stress or illness, also known as drug-induced hyperthermia, are still relatively rare—but Blumenberg says this will likely change as heat waves and record-breaking temperatures continue to increase.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The human body’s built-in “thermostat” system works to maintain an internal temperature between 97 and 99 degrees Fahrenheit (36 and 37 degrees Celsius), Blumenberg says, adding that a body temperature of more than 104 degrees F (40 degrees C) can be life-threatening. The brain structure called the hypothalamus helps orchestrate processes to keep that core temperature stable when the weather gets too hot. It acts on the autonomic nervous system, which is responsible for keeping the body in homeostasis via many important processes, including heart rate, blood pressure and respiration. The hypothalamus also regulates sweating and dilates blood vessels in the skin, arms, feet and face to dissipate body heat—and it can cause a sensation of discomfort that prompts the body to seek out shade, water or rest.Experts say many medications associated with drug-induced hyperthermia have one factor in common: they’re anticholinergic. These drugs block cells’ receptors from binding to a neurotransmitter called acetylcholine, which plays an important role in the autonomic nervous system and its heat-adjustment responses, such as perspiration. Blocking its action can cause dry mouth and urinary retention—feeling a need to urinate but being unable to do so. “Some of these medications might cause more heat sensitivity because you’re not sweating,” says Vicki Ellingrod, dean of the University of Michigan College of Pharmacy. “Your body is not making the secretions that it should be making.” Anticholinergics can also causeflushed skin, dilated pupils, blurred vision, fever and an altered mental state. Clinicians have historically used a mnemonic about these symptoms to diagnose anticholinergic poisoning.“A lot of drugs have mild anticholinergic properties, even if that’s not their main intent as a drug,” Blumenberg says. For example, some allergy medications primarily block a cell’s histamine receptors—but they might also bind to other receptors as well and thus still produce anticholinergic effects.Some antipsychotics and neuroleptics (first-generation antipsychotics) can also lead to this and can create a dopamine-blocking effect as well. Dopamine—often called the “feel-good” hormone—influences motivation, memory and even body movement; blocking it can make people feel stiff and cause problems with gait, balance and muscles. One way to decrease those side effects is by pairing an antipsychotic with an anticholinergic—further interfering with acetylcholine and potentially disrupting heat regulation. People who take the antipsychotic drug haloperidol for schizophrenia, for example, are often prescribed an anticholinergic drug called benztropine that decreases some adverse side effects but can, on rare occasions, elevate internal temperature. This shouldn’t happen if people take the appropriate prescribed dose, Blumenberg says, “but it’s possible.”Antipsychotic medications, as well as medications commonly prescribed for bipolar disorder, depression and insomnia, typically act on the brain, which means they could potentially influence the neural pathways that control temperature. Some older antipsychotics are known to occasionally cause a severe reaction called neuroleptic malignant syndrome, which impacts the body’s ability to thermoregulate, Ellingrod notes. “Now, with our newer medications, it’s not as common. But maybe with the impact of the climate, it’s going to be more common,” she says.New research into psychiatric disorders has rapidly improved existing treatments and led to new strategies to reduce some of the adverse side effects; such steps include pairing antipsychotics with other medications. But responses to medications can still vary from person to person. Additionally, “the degree in which [these drugs] actually block the acetylcholine receptors varies between medications, which is why you can see one drug in a class really having this [anticholinergic] effect and another drug in the same class not having the same effect,” Ellingrod says. For example, she adds, the antihistamines that cause more drowsiness tend to be more anticholinergic because they can cross the blood-brain barrier. Newer antihistamines have side effects that are less sedating and very rarely disrupt thermoregulation.A 2023 study in the European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology found that most heat-related adverse effects were reported for medications that act on the nervous system (such as drugs that have strong anticholinergic effects), followed by medications that modulate the immune system. People on heart medications might face thermoregulation complications under high environmental temperatures, too. A 2022 study in Nature Cardiovascular Researchfound that people taking beta-blockers and antiplatelet medications for cardiovascular conditions have a higher risk of experiencing a heart attack in hot weather.“Beta-receptor blockers could decrease the heart rate [and] reduce the blood flow to the skin. That makes people more vulnerable to heat exposure,” says Kai Chen, an assistant professor at the Yale School of Public Health and a co-author of the 2022 study. “The same goes for the [antiplatelet drugs], like aspirin. People taking that could increase core body temperature during passive heat stress, which will make them more vulnerable.”Chen notes that his study is based only on a small group of German participants. But he and his team are conducting studies to analyze these effects in bigger cohorts in the U.S., and they expect results in a couple of years. “We’re trying to see if this enhanced heat effect on these certain medications is due to the medication itself or due to the preexisting conditions,” he says. “If we can confirm through multiple studies at multiple locations with different populations that this is not a mere correlation or association and can maybe indicate a causation, then I think that will change how physicians advise the patients taking the medication during heat waves.”Soko Setoguchi, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and a co-author of the 2020 PLOS ONE study, says there is a growing effort to understand how drugs are affected by extreme heat—because any medication can have unintended effects, and there is still “limited evidence” on how heat influences various drug interactions.“The precise temperature threshold for these side effects to occur is not explicitly defined in the provided studies, as heat sensitivity can vary based on individual health status, medication dosage and specific environmental conditions,” Setoguchi says, adding that comprehensive data from larger trials are needed.The Food and Drug Administration monitors drugs’ safety even after they are approved, but it has not been tracking heat-related issues associated with medications. “If newly identified safety signals are identified,” the agency wrote in an e-mail to Scientific American, “the FDA will determine what, if any, actions are appropriate after a thorough review of available data.”Scientific American requested comment from 10 major pharmaceutical companies that make antipsychotic medications, but only one, Lundbeck, had responded by the time of publication. A spokesperson said in an e-mail that the company hasn’t “observed any side effects linked to weather conditions such as hot weather in relation to the use of antipsychotics. However, certain labels may mention side effects like flushing, tremor, and hyperthermia, which are linked to [medications that act on serotonin] and can resemble symptoms associated with hot weather.” (Serotonin is a hormone involved in temperature regulation.)Ultimately, some medications that can induce heat-related side effects are still necessary for treating certain conditions. Experts recommend consulting with physicians about potentially adjusting doses or scheduling and alerting a health care provider if any irregular reactions occur as the weather warms. Additionally, people taking medications known to produce an anticholinergic effect should be aware of strategies to keep cool. These can include staying hydrated, carrying fans or ice packs and seeking shade or air-conditioning. Until more research results emerge, clinicians and their patients should discuss best options for prescriptions—and ways to prepare for hotter days.

As climate change brings more intense heat waves, scientists are trying to understand how certain medications interact with the body’s thermoregulation system

Summers are undoubtedly getting hotter. Extreme heat events are predicted to become longer, more intense and more frequent in the coming years—and rising temperatures are already taking a toll on the human body. A published last month by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that heat-related emergency room visits were substantially higher from May to September 2023 than in any year before. And now growing evidence suggests that people who rely on certain medications, notably including antipsychotics, may become especially vulnerable to heat-related illness and adverse side effects as temperatures climb.

Studies have established that people with chronic illnesses such as schizophrenia, diabetes and cardiovascular or respiratory disease are generally more vulnerable to overheating—and the medications they need may actually worsen these risks. A 2020 PLOS ONE study found that various commonly prescribed drugs interfere with the body’s ability to perceive and protect itself from heat, increasing the risk of hospitalization. These include diuretics, antipsychotics, beta-blockers, stimulants, antihypertensives and anticholinergic medications (which include Parkinson’s and bladder-control medications). Illicit use of amphetamines and some other drugs, including unlicensed weight-loss drugs such as dinitrophenol, can alter body temperature.

“There are a lot of drugs out there that diminish our ability to radiate off heat and cool down,” says Adam Blumenberg, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Columbia University Medical Center. Emergency room visits for medication-related heat stress or illness, also known as drug-induced hyperthermia, are still relatively rare—but Blumenberg says this will likely change as heat waves and record-breaking temperatures continue to increase.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The human body’s built-in “thermostat” system works to maintain an internal temperature between 97 and 99 degrees Fahrenheit (36 and 37 degrees Celsius), Blumenberg says, adding that a body temperature of more than 104 degrees F (40 degrees C) can be life-threatening. The brain structure called the hypothalamus helps orchestrate processes to keep that core temperature stable when the weather gets too hot. It acts on the autonomic nervous system, which is responsible for keeping the body in homeostasis via many important processes, including heart rate, blood pressure and respiration. The hypothalamus also regulates sweating and dilates blood vessels in the skin, arms, feet and face to dissipate body heat—and it can cause a sensation of discomfort that prompts the body to seek out shade, water or rest.

Experts say many medications associated with drug-induced hyperthermia have one factor in common: they’re anticholinergic. These drugs block cells’ receptors from binding to a neurotransmitter called acetylcholine, which plays an important role in the autonomic nervous system and its heat-adjustment responses, such as perspiration. Blocking its action can cause dry mouth and urinary retention—feeling a need to urinate but being unable to do so. “Some of these medications might cause more heat sensitivity because you’re not sweating,” says Vicki Ellingrod, dean of the University of Michigan College of Pharmacy. “Your body is not making the secretions that it should be making.” Anticholinergics can also causeflushed skin, dilated pupils, blurred vision, fever and an altered mental state. Clinicians have historically used a mnemonic about these symptoms to diagnose anticholinergic poisoning.

“A lot of drugs have mild anticholinergic properties, even if that’s not their main intent as a drug,” Blumenberg says. For example, some allergy medications primarily block a cell’s histamine receptors—but they might also bind to other receptors as well and thus still produce anticholinergic effects.

Some antipsychotics and neuroleptics (first-generation antipsychotics) can also lead to this and can create a dopamine-blocking effect as well. Dopamine—often called the “feel-good” hormone—influences motivation, memory and even body movement; blocking it can make people feel stiff and cause problems with gait, balance and muscles. One way to decrease those side effects is by pairing an antipsychotic with an anticholinergic—further interfering with acetylcholine and potentially disrupting heat regulation. People who take the antipsychotic drug haloperidol for schizophrenia, for example, are often prescribed an anticholinergic drug called benztropine that decreases some adverse side effects but can, on rare occasions, elevate internal temperature. This shouldn’t happen if people take the appropriate prescribed dose, Blumenberg says, “but it’s possible.”

Antipsychotic medications, as well as medications commonly prescribed for bipolar disorder, depression and insomnia, typically act on the brain, which means they could potentially influence the neural pathways that control temperature. Some older antipsychotics are known to occasionally cause a severe reaction called neuroleptic malignant syndrome, which impacts the body’s ability to thermoregulate, Ellingrod notes. “Now, with our newer medications, it’s not as common. But maybe with the impact of the climate, it’s going to be more common,” she says.

New research into psychiatric disorders has rapidly improved existing treatments and led to new strategies to reduce some of the adverse side effects; such steps include pairing antipsychotics with other medications. But responses to medications can still vary from person to person. Additionally, “the degree in which [these drugs] actually block the acetylcholine receptors varies between medications, which is why you can see one drug in a class really having this [anticholinergic] effect and another drug in the same class not having the same effect,” Ellingrod says. For example, she adds, the antihistamines that cause more drowsiness tend to be more anticholinergic because they can cross the blood-brain barrier. Newer antihistamines have side effects that are less sedating and very rarely disrupt thermoregulation.

A 2023 study in the European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology found that most heat-related adverse effects were reported for medications that act on the nervous system (such as drugs that have strong anticholinergic effects), followed by medications that modulate the immune system. People on heart medications might face thermoregulation complications under high environmental temperatures, too. A 2022 study in Nature Cardiovascular Researchfound that people taking beta-blockers and antiplatelet medications for cardiovascular conditions have a higher risk of experiencing a heart attack in hot weather.

“Beta-receptor blockers could decrease the heart rate [and] reduce the blood flow to the skin. That makes people more vulnerable to heat exposure,” says Kai Chen, an assistant professor at the Yale School of Public Health and a co-author of the 2022 study. “The same goes for the [antiplatelet drugs], like aspirin. People taking that could increase core body temperature during passive heat stress, which will make them more vulnerable.”

Chen notes that his study is based only on a small group of German participants. But he and his team are conducting studies to analyze these effects in bigger cohorts in the U.S., and they expect results in a couple of years. “We’re trying to see if this enhanced heat effect on these certain medications is due to the medication itself or due to the preexisting conditions,” he says. “If we can confirm through multiple studies at multiple locations with different populations that this is not a mere correlation or association and can maybe indicate a causation, then I think that will change how physicians advise the patients taking the medication during heat waves.”

Soko Setoguchi, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and a co-author of the 2020 PLOS ONE study, says there is a growing effort to understand how drugs are affected by extreme heat—because any medication can have unintended effects, and there is still “limited evidence” on how heat influences various drug interactions.

“The precise temperature threshold for these side effects to occur is not explicitly defined in the provided studies, as heat sensitivity can vary based on individual health status, medication dosage and specific environmental conditions,” Setoguchi says, adding that comprehensive data from larger trials are needed.

The Food and Drug Administration monitors drugs’ safety even after they are approved, but it has not been tracking heat-related issues associated with medications. “If newly identified safety signals are identified,” the agency wrote in an e-mail to Scientific American, “the FDA will determine what, if any, actions are appropriate after a thorough review of available data.”

Scientific American requested comment from 10 major pharmaceutical companies that make antipsychotic medications, but only one, Lundbeck, had responded by the time of publication. A spokesperson said in an e-mail that the company hasn’t “observed any side effects linked to weather conditions such as hot weather in relation to the use of antipsychotics. However, certain labels may mention side effects like flushing, tremor, and hyperthermia, which are linked to [medications that act on serotonin] and can resemble symptoms associated with hot weather.” (Serotonin is a hormone involved in temperature regulation.)

Ultimately, some medications that can induce heat-related side effects are still necessary for treating certain conditions. Experts recommend consulting with physicians about potentially adjusting doses or scheduling and alerting a health care provider if any irregular reactions occur as the weather warms. Additionally, people taking medications known to produce an anticholinergic effect should be aware of strategies to keep cool. These can include staying hydrated, carrying fans or ice packs and seeking shade or air-conditioning. Until more research results emerge, clinicians and their patients should discuss best options for prescriptions—and ways to prepare for hotter days.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

‘Climate smart’ beef? After a lawsuit, Tyson agrees to drop the label.

Advocates say a recent settlement is a ‘win’ in the fight to hold industrial ag giants accountable.

Shoppers have long sought ways to make more sustainable choices at the supermarket — and for good reason: Our food system is responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of emissions from agriculture come from raising cows on industrial farms in order to sell burgers, steak, and other beef products. Beef production results in two and a half times as many greenhouse gases as lamb, and almost nine times as many as chicken or fish; its carbon footprint relative to other sources of protein, like cheese, eggs, and tofu, is even higher.  If you want to have a lighter impact on the planet, you could try eating less beef. (Just try it!) Otherwise, a series of recent lawsuits intends make it easier for consumers to discern what’s sustainable and what’s greenwashing — by challenging the world’s largest meat processors on their climate messaging. Tyson, which produces 20 percent of beef, chicken, and pork in the United States, has agreed to drop claims that the company has a plan to achieve “net zero” emissions by 2050 and to stop referring to beef products as “climate smart” unless verified by an independent expert.  Tyson was sued in 2024 by the Environmental Working Group, or EWG, a nonprofit dedicated to public health and environmental issues. The group alleged that Tyson’s claims were false and misleading to consumers. (Nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice represented EWG in the case.) Tyson denied the allegations and agreed to settle the suit.  “We landed in a place that feels satisfying in terms of what we were able to get from the settlement,” said Carrie Apfel, deputy managing attorney of Earthjustice’s Sustainable Food and Farming program. Apfel was the lead attorney on the case. According to the settlement provided by Earthjustice, over the next five years, Tyson cannot repeat previous claims that the company has a plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 or make new ones unless they are verified by a third-party source. Similarly, Tyson also cannot market or sell any beef products labeled as “climate smart” or “climate friendly” in the United States. “We think that this provides the consumer protections we were seeking from the lawsuit,” said Apfel.  The settlement is “a critical win for the fight against climate greenwashing by industrial agriculture,” according to Leila Yow, climate program associate at the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy, a nonprofit research group focused on sustainable food systems.  In the original complaint, filed in D.C. Superior Court, EWG alleged that Tyson had never even defined “climate smart beef,” despite using the term in various marketing materials. Now Tyson and EWG must meet to agree on a third-party expert that would independently verify any of the meat processor’s future “net zero” or “climate smart” claims.  Following the settlement, Apfel went a step further in a conversation with Grist, arguing that the term “climate smart” has no business describing beef that comes from an industrial food system.  “In the context of industrial beef production, it’s an oxymoron,” said the attorney. “You just can’t have climate-smart beef. Beef is the highest-emitting major food type that there is. Even if you were to reduce its emissions by 10 percent or even 30 percent, it’s still not gonna be a climate-smart choice.” A Tyson spokesperson said the company “has a long-held core value to serve as stewards of the land, animals and resources entrusted to our care” and identifies “opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain.” The spokesperson added: “The decision to settle was made solely to avoid the expense and distraction of ongoing litigation and does not represent any admission of wrongdoing by Tyson Foods.”  The Tyson settlement follows another recent greenwashing complaint — this one against JBS Foods, the world’s largest meat processor. In 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued JBS, alleging the company was misleading consumers with claims it would achieve net zero emissions by 2040.  James reached a $1.1 million settlement with the beef behemoth earlier this month. As a result of the settlement, JBS is required to update its messaging to describe reaching net zero emissions by 2040 as more of an idea or a goal than a concrete plan or commitment from the company. The two settlements underscore just how difficult it is to hold meat and dairy companies accountable for their climate and environmental impacts.  “Historically, meat and dairy companies have largely been able to fly under the radar of reporting requirements of any kind,” said Yow, of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. When these agrifood companies do share their emissions, these disclosures are often voluntary and the processes for measuring and reporting impact are not standardized.  That leads to emissions data that is often “incomplete or incorrect,” said Yow. She recently authored a report ranking 14 of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies in terms of their sustainability commitments — including efforts to report methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. Tyson and JBS tied for the lowest score out of all 14 companies. Industrial animal agriculture “has built its business model on secrecy,” said Valerie Baron, a national policy director and senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in response to the Tyson settlement. Baron emphasized that increased transparency from meat and dairy companies is a critical first step to holding them accountable.  Yow agreed. She argued upcoming climate disclosure rules in California and the European Union have the potential to lead the way on policy efforts to measure and rein in emissions in the food system. More and better data can lead to “better collective decision making with policymakers,” she said.  But, she added: “We need to actually know what we’re talking about before we can tackle some of those things.” Editor’s note: Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council are advertisers with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘Climate smart’ beef? After a lawsuit, Tyson agrees to drop the label. on Nov 21, 2025.

Fire Disrupts UN Climate Talks Just as Negotiators Reach Critical Final Days

Fire has disrupted United Nations climate talks, forcing evacuations of several buildings with just two scheduled days left and negotiators yet to announce any major agreements

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — Fire disrupted United Nations climate talks in Brazil on Thursday, forcing evacuations of several buildings with just two scheduled days left and negotiators yet to announce any major agreements. Officials said no one was hurt.The fire was reported in an area of pavilions where sideline events are held during the annual talks, known this year as COP30. Organizers soon announced that the fire was under control, but fire officials ordered the entire site evacuated for safety checks and it wasn't clear when conference business would resume.Viliami Vainga Tone, with the Tonga delegation, had just come out of a high-level ministerial meeting when dozens of people came thundering past him shouting about the fire. He was among people pushed out of the venue by Brazilian and United Nations security forces.Tone called time the most precious resource at COP and said he was disappointed it's even shorter due to the fire.“We have to keep up our optimism. There is always tomorrow, if not the remainder of today. But at least we have a full day tomorrow,” Tone told The Associated Press.A few hours before the fire, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres urged countries to compromise and “show willingness and flexibility to deliver results,” even if they fall short of the strongest measures some nations want.“We are down to the wire and the world is watching Belem,” Guterres said, asking negotiators to engage in good faith in the last two scheduled days of talks, which already missed a self-imposed deadline Wednesday for progress on a few key issues. The conference, with this year's edition known as COP30, frequently runs longer than its scheduled two weeks.“Communities on the front lines are watching, too — counting flooded homes, failed harvests, lost livelihoods — and asking, ‘how much more must we suffer?’” Guterres said. "They’ve heard enough excuses and demand results.” On contentious issues involving more detailed plans to phase out fossil fuels and financial aid to poorer countries, Guterres said he was “perfectly convinced” that compromise was possible and dismissed the idea that not adopting the strongest measures would be a failure.Guterres was more forceful in what he wanted rich countries to do for poor countries, especially those in need of tens of billions of dollars to adapt to the floods, droughts, storms and heat waves triggered by worsening climate change. He continued calls to triple adaptation finance from $40 billion a year to $120 billion a year.“No delegation will leave Belem with everything it wants, but every delegation has a duty to reach a balanced deal,” Guterres said.“Every country, especially the big emitters, must do more,” Guterres said.Delivering overall financial aid — with an agreed goal of $300 billion a year — is one of four interconnected issues that were initially excluded from the official agenda. The other three are: whether countries should be told to toughen their new climate plans; dealing with trade barriers over climate and improving reporting on transparency and climate progress.More than 80 countries have pushed for a detailed “road map” on how to transition away from fossil fuels, like coal, oil and natural gas, which are the chief cause of warming. That was a general but vague agreement two years ago at the COP in Dubai. Guterres kept referring to it as already being agreed to in Dubai, but did not commit to a detailed plan, which Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva pushed for earlier in a speech.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.This story was produced as part of the 2025 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organized by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

Engineered microbes could tackle climate change – if we ensure it’s done safely

Engineering microbes to soak up more carbon, boost crop yields and restore former farmland is appealing. But synthetic biology fixes must be done thoughtfully

Yuji Sakai/GettyAs the climate crisis accelerates, there’s a desperate need to rapidly reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, both by slashing emissions and by pulling carbon out of the air. Synthetic biology has emerged as a particularly promising approach. Despite the name, synthetic biology isn’t about creating new life from scratch. Rather, it uses engineering principles to build new biological components for existing microorganisms such as bacteria, microbes and fungi to make them better at specific tasks. By one recent estimate, synthetic biology could cut more carbon than emitted by all passenger cars ever made – up to 30 billion tonnes – through methods such as boosting crop yields, restoring agricultural land, cutting livestock methane emissions, reducing the need for fertiliser, producing biofuels and engineering microbes to store more carbon. According to some synthetic biologists, this could be a game-changer. But will it prove to be? Technological efforts to “solve” the climate problem often verge on the improbably utopian. There’s a risk in seeing synthetic biology as a silver bullet for environmental problems. A more realistic approach suggests synthetic biology isn’t a magic fix, but does have real potential worth exploring further. Engineering microorganisms is a controversial practice. To make the most of these technologies, researchers will have to ensure it’s done safely and ethically, as my research points out. What potential does synthetic biology have? Earth’s oceans, forests, soils and other natural processes soak up over half of all carbon emitted by burning fossil fuels. Synthetic biology could make these natural sinks even more effective. Some researchers are exploring ways to modify natural enzymes to rapidly convert carbon dioxide gas into carbon in rocks. Perhaps the best known example is the use of precision fermentation to cut methane emissions from livestock. Because methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, these emissions account for roughly 12% of total warming potential from greenhouse emissions. Bioengineered yeasts could absorb up to 98% of these emissions. After being eaten by cattle or other ruminants these yeasts block production of methane before it can be belched out. Synthetic biology could even drastically reduce how much farmland the world needs by producing food more efficiently. Engineered soil microbes can boost crop yields at least by 10–20%, meaning more food from less land. Precision fermentation can be used to produce clean meat and clean milk with much lower emissions than traditional farming. Engineered microbes have the potential to boost crop yields considerably. Collab Media/Unsplash, CC BY-NC-ND If farms produce more on less land, excess farmland can be returned to nature. Wetlands, forests and native grasslands can store much more carbon than farmland, helping tackle climate change. Synthetic biology can be used to modify microbe and algae species to increase their natural ability to store carbon in wetlands and oceans. This approach is known as natural geoengineering. Engineered crops and soil microbes can also lock away much more carbon in the roots of crops or by increasing soil storage capacity. They can also reduce methane emissions from organic matter and tackle pollutants such as fertiliser runoff and heavy metals. Sounds great – what’s the problem? As researchers have pointed out, using this approach will require a rollout at massive scale. At present, much work has been done at smaller scale. These engineered organisms need to be able to go from Petri dishes to industrial bioreactors and then safely into the environment. To scale, these approaches have to be economically viable, well regulated and socially acceptable. That’s easier said than done. First, engineering organisms comes with the serious risk of unintended consequences. If these customised microbes release their stored carbon all at once during a drought or bushfire, it could worsen climate change. It would be very difficult to control these organisms if a problem emerges after their release, such as if an engineered microbe began outcompeting its rivals or if synthetic genes spread beyond the target species and do unintended damage to other species and ecosystems. It will be essential to tackle these issues head on with robust risk management and forward planning. Second, synthetic biology approaches will likely become products. To make these organisms cheaply and gain market share, biotech companies will have an incentive to focus on immediate profits. This could lead companies to downplay actual risks to protect their profit margins. Regulation will be essential here. Third, some worthwhile approaches may not appeal to companies seeking a return on investment. Instead, governments or public institutions may have to develop them to benefit plants, animals and natural habitats, given human existence rests on healthy ecosystems. Which way forward? These issues shouldn’t stop researchers from testing out these technologies. But these risks must be taken into account, as not all risks are equal. Unchecked climate change would be much worse, as it could lead to societal collapse, large-scale climate migration and mass species extinction. Large scale removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is now essential. In the face of catastrophic risks, it can be ethically justifiable to take the smaller risk of unintended consequences from these organisms. But it’s far less justifiable if these same risks are accepted to secure financial returns for private investors. As time passes and the climate crisis intensifies, these technologies will look more and more appealing. Synthetic biology won’t be the silver bullet many imagine it to be, and it’s unlikely it will be the gold mine many hope for. But the technology has undeniable promise. Used thoughtfully and ethically, it could help us make a healthier planet for all living species. Daniele Fulvi receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology, and his current project investigates the ethical dimensions of synthetic biology for climate mitigation. He also received a small grant from the Advanced Engineering Biology Future Science Platform at CSIRO. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Australian Government or the Australian Research Council.

Exclusive-Europe Plans Service to Gauge Climate Change Role in Extreme Weather

By Alison Withers and Kate AbnettCOPENHAGEN (Reuters) -The EU is launching a service to measure the role climate change is playing in extreme...

By Alison Withers and Kate AbnettCOPENHAGEN (Reuters) -The EU is launching a service to measure the role climate change is playing in extreme weather events like heatwaves and extreme rain, and experts say this could help governments set climate policy, improve financial risk assessments and provide evidence for use in lawsuits.Scientists with the EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service told Reuters the service can help governments in weighing the physical risks posed by worsening weather and setting policy in response. "It's the demand of understanding when an extreme event happens, how is this related to climate change?" said the new service's technical lead, Freja Vamborg.The European Commission did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.The service will perform attribution science, which involves running computer simulations of how weather systems might have behaved if people had never started pumping greenhouse gases into the air and then comparing those results with what is happening today.Funded for about 2.5 million euros over three years, Copernicus will publish results by the end of next year and offer two assessments a month - each within a week of an extreme weather event.For the first time, "there will be an attribution office operating constantly," said Carlo Buontempo, director of Copernicus Climate Change Service. "Climate policy is unfortunately again a very polarized topic," said Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London who helped to pioneer the scientific approach but is not involved in the new EU service. She welcomed the service's plans to partner with national weather services of EU members along with the UK Met and the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre."From that point of view, it also helps if the governments do it themselves and just see themselves really the evidence from their own weather services," Otto said. Some independent climate scientists and lawyers cheered the EU move. "We want to have the most information available," said senior attorney Erika Lennon at the non-profit Center for International Environmental Law."The more information we have about attribution science, the easier it will be for the most impacted to be able to successfully bring claims to courts."By calculating probabilities of climate change impacting weather patterns, the approach also helps insurance companies and others in the financial sector.In a way, "they're already using it" with in-house teams calculating probabilities for floods or storms, said environmental scientist Johan Rockstroem with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research."Financial institutions understand risk and risk has to be quantified, and this is one way of quantifying," Rockstroem said.In litigation, attribution science is also being used already in calculating how much a country's or company's emissions may have contributed to climate-fuelled disasters.The International Court of Justice said in July that attribution science is legally viable for linking emissions with climate extremes - but it has yet to fully be tested in court. A German court in May dismissed a Peruvian farmer's lawsuit against German utility RWE for emissions-driven warming causing Andean glaciers to thaw. The case had used attribution science in calculating the damage claim, but the court said the claim amount was too low to take the case forward.So "the court never got to discussing attribution science in detail and going into whether the climate models are good enough, and all of these complex and thorny questions," said Noah Walker-Crawford, a climate litigation researcher at the London School of Economics. (Reporting by Ali Withers in Copenhagen and Kate Abnett in Belem, Brazil; Writing by Katy Daigle; Editing by David Gregorio)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

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.