The bins are always snapped up fast so the council says to please apply as soon as possible to avoid disappointment.

South Lanarkshire residents can once again apply for a free composter bin following the exceptional popularity of the pilot schemes that the council ran last year.

This time the local authority says there are 720 bins up for grabs so if you want one of the 220-litre composter bins,please complete an expression of interest form.

And what better time to start your own home composting and help to reduce waste than during International Compost Awareness Week 2026.

The composter bins will again be allocated on a first come first served basis – but the bins are always snapped up fast so please apply as soon as possible to avoid disappointment.

Applicants must meet the criteria which includes having a garden with suitable space to store the bin and agreeing to take part in an evaluation exercise.

Chair of the council’s Community and Enterprise Resources Committee, Councillor Robert Brown, said: “The demand from residents wishing to take part in the council’s composter pilot project is always high so we have decided to roll out an additional 720 bins to allow more households to participate.

“We are also very keen to hear your feedback as part of the consultation exercise.

READ MORE: South Lanarkshire compost project again overwhelmed by demandREAD MORE: South Lanarkshire expands popular compost bin pilot scheme following demand

“Composting turns your waste into a useful resource and can be used in a variety of ways to help your gardens and plants flourish.

“It’s great for the environment and it will save you money for years to come compared to purchasing bags of compost.”

More details on the benefits of home composting can be found on the Zero Waste Scotland website.

*Don’t miss the latest headlines from around Lanarkshire. Sign up to our newsletters here.

And did you know Lanarkshire Live had its own app? Download yours for free here.

READ MORE: Raise a glass for Strathaven Beer Festival on Saturday, May 2

For many people interested in health and wellbeing, the idea of ultra-processed food, or UPF, has become more than a technical term in nutrition research. In public debate, it often serves as shorthand for wider concerns about modern, industrially produced food.

Those concerns are not baseless. A large body of research has found associations between high UPF intake and poorer health outcomes. But the evidence is not always easy to interpret. Many studies rely on self-reported diets and struggle to separate the effects of processing from nutrient quality, eating patterns and wider social factors. The evidence points to the need for more careful use of the term.

In the US, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture began a formal process in 2025 to develop a uniform federal definition of ultra-processed foods, arguing that no single authoritative definition exists for the US food supply. The central question is: what exactly makes a food “ultra-processed”? Is it the ingredients it contains, the way it is made, the extent to which it has been altered from its original structure, or some combination of these?

This helps explain why the topic has become so divisive. Within nutrition research, there is no consensus on how far the UPF category should guide policy or individual dietary advice. Some researchers see it as an important way of identifying harmful patterns in modern diets. Others argue that it is too broad to serve as a sound basis for dietary guidance on its own.

That distinction is important. A category can be useful for tracking population diets while still being too blunt to tell someone whether a particular product belongs in their shopping basket, especially when it tries to capture ingredients, industrial processes, product formulation, marketing, palatability and dietary patterns within one category.

There are also valid concerns about the role of large food companies in shaping diets and public health. Many highly processed products are designed to be cheap, convenient, heavily marketed and easy to overconsume. But the political and commercial problems of the food system are not identical to the scientific problem of classification.

A better approach would distinguish more clearly between products that are ultra-processed and nutritionally poor, products that are ultra-processed but may still have a useful place in the diet, and minimally processed foods that people are encouraged to eat more of. This might include some fortified foods, high-fibre breads or medical nutrition products, depending on their composition and use.

One way to balance warnings about UPFs is to give more attention to positive dietary guidance. In the EAT-UP framework, I propose the term “unrefined plant foods”, or UPs, to describe plant foods whose natural structure remains largely intact. These include whole fruits, vegetables, beans and grains that have not been heavily broken down or reconstituted.

This is not a replacement for the UPF framework. Its main value may be communicative: it balances advice about what to limit with clearer guidance on what to add. Many dietary guidelines already encourage people to eat more fruit, vegetables, legumes and whole grains. Naming these foods more precisely may help make that advice clearer.

Like any food category, unrefined plant foods would need careful definition. The phrase “largely intact” is not self-explanatory, and different researchers, policymakers and consumers may draw the boundary differently. But the value of the concept lies in shifting part of the public health message from avoidance to addition.

Advice based only on avoidance can easily become confusing or punitive. Evidence that higher intakes of whole plant foods are linked with better health also has limitations, including food diaries, self-reporting, cohort studies and the difficulty of separating diet from wider lifestyle factors. Even so, fruit, vegetables, legumes and whole grains are consistently supported across dietary guidelines, public health research and long-standing evidence on diet quality.

These debates also shape how people understand food in everyday life. Dietary advice should avoid creating unnecessary fear around food. When processing is treated as inherently dangerous, the result can be confusion, guilt and anxiety rather than healthier behaviour. In some cases, highly moralised food messaging may even encourage disordered eating patterns, including an unhealthy fixation on foods perceived to be perfectly pure or healthy.

This is also why language needs care. Phrases such as “real food” are often used to mean foods that are minimally processed or close to their original form. But the phrase can also carry assumptions about what counts as proper eating and who is getting it wrong. Public health messages need to take account of differences in income, time, access and daily constraints.

À lire aussi :
Why stigmatising ultra-processed food could be doing more harm than good

Improving diets requires more than labelling a broad category of foods as harmful. It requires careful consideration of evidence, behaviour and context. The challenge is to produce advice that is scientifically sound, practical to follow and responsive to the real conditions in which people make food choices.

The UPF debate has rightly placed industrial diets and food quality at the centre of public health discussion. The next step is not to abandon the framework, but to improve it: to define categories more clearly, distinguish between different kinds of processing, and combine warnings about harmful products with practical advice about the foods people can eat more of. In practice, that means combining processing-based classifications with evidence about nutrient profile, fibre content, additives, marketing and the role a food plays in the overall diet.

There were 20 of town hall’s 60 seats up for grabs with Reform UK winning the most on the night with nine.

The Greens won three while the Conservatives also won three, with Labour winning two, the Horwich and Blackrod First Independents two and the Liberal Democrats one.

Overall this left Labour with the most seats with 20, but 10 off what they need for a majority.

The Conservatives were left in second place with 11 seats and Reform UK on third with 10 and the five Liberal Democrat with five.

When counting was done there were also four Greens, four Horwich and Blackrod First Independents, three Farnworth and Kearsley First Councillors and three independents.

BREIGHTMET RESULTS IN FULL

Gillian Fernley – Green Party – 413

Derek John Gradwell – Liberal Democrats – 80

Wendy Ann Hopkinson – Independent – 33

Kate Elizabeth Taylor – Labour & Co-Operative Party – 605

Mike Tucker – Reform UK – 1890

Adele Kay Warren – Conservative Party – 974

Households must follow strict council recycling rules or risk having their bin collection refused over a common mistake. A binman says rubbish won’t be collected if a simple item is spotted inside

Getting your bins out for collection is a chore we all face, but they could be left behind if inappropriate items are discovered inside. What you may not realise is that there are stringent regulations people must adhere to in order to ensure their waste is properly collected each week.

The guidance was recently provided by a refuse collector, known as The No 1 Binman on TikTok, who regularly shares useful tips about bin collections. According to him, straightforward errors can stop rubbish from being taken, leaving you with both an eyesore and a foul-smelling issue, particularly during the warmer months.

It’s not the only expert advice of this nature to be issued either. Previously, residents were warned to stop putting a common item in their food waste bins as well.

In a video posted online, he explained there are some extremely important regulations people must follow regarding plastic recycling. It’s not as straightforward as simply tossing it in the recycling bin.

This is because various types of plastic exist. You need to understand the distinctions before disposing of it, or you could end up with a headache.

He said: “Plastic, not all plastic is the same. Ok, so you have thin plastics, you have soft plastics, you have hard plastics, and it depends on the council which they actually take.

“Most of them just take normal bottles, or tins and stuff like that in your plastic bin. [They are] the only things they’ll take. They won’t take anything like carrier bags, black bags, they also won’t take any films.

“All that sort of stuff, it ruins the machines they send the stuff to. Every recycling centre is different, so they get told what they can take and what they can’t take, and they’re the ones who make the rules. Not the binmen.

“It’s not our choice. We just get told. So, if there are any plastics that you’re unsure about, maybe ask your council website or maybe you can ask the binmen. They might know.”

So, it’s vital you’re well informed before taking any action. Getting to grips with the process could benefit you in more ways than one.

Can binmen refuse to collect your rubbish?

You might not realise it, but refuse collectors can actually turn down your waste. This commonly occurs if your recycling is contaminated, deemed excessive (too heavy or bags left beside the bin) or if the bin hasn’t been presented properly.

It’s worth bearing in mind that they are generally obliged to collect household waste unless there’s a legitimate reason not to. This is because councils have a duty to provide the service.

When they do refuse to collect, it’s typically down to safety concerns, contamination or failure to adhere to council guidelines. Leaving “side waste”, for example, can cause issues.

However, it’s important to note that carrier bags should not be placed in your household recycling. Despite being recyclable, they must be taken to designated collection points, which are commonly found at larger supermarkets such as Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Morrisons and Waitrose.

Supermarkets offer in-store drop-off points for “soft plastics” such as bread bags, films and pouches. Should this type of item be found in your rubbish, refuse collectors are within their rights to leave it behind, as it risks contaminating the entire load.

It’s always advisable to check your local council’s website for guidance, as the rules can vary considerably from one area to another. Regulations can sometimes differ significantly between councils.

Daniel is a very introverted man. He’s not somebody who goes out boasting, and I know he’s taken some stick this week because of that quiet nature.

I am protective of him. I always try to talk to him before we go into any media event, prepare him.

He just doesn’t enjoy that part of the fight game. He’s really not into all the verbals.

Whoever you are, you look at how people behave and what their make-up is. That’s if you want to get the best out of them.

You have to be clever, not sly, in how you deal with it. Good interviewers do that. Daniel does all his talking in the ring.

I don’t think he’ll ever change. His dad is his mentor and that’s all he knows – he’ll look to his dad before answering the question and still usually does.

That family is a tight unit. Some boxers, as they get successful, go partying but he doesn’t do any of that stuff.

After he beat Anthony Joshua, he just wanted to go home.

I had to literally push him into the press room so the world could see him after that magnificent performance.

Our job as promoters is to find something you can bring out and get it to the public, so they want to be on this journey with this fighter.

Sometimes it’s difficult. With Prince Naseem Hamed, for example, it was easy. When I first met Naz, I knew exactly what I was going to do with him and how we were going to promote him.

So some guys are easily promotable, others it can be hard work, but that’s the business we’re in.

But Daniel has come out of his skin a bit lately. The funniest thing for me was when he did the head-to-head with Filip Hrgovic a few fights ago.

Hrgovic said Daniel had no heart, and Daniel just said he was going to knock him out – using an expletive I wouldn’t like to repeat.

I had never heard Daniel even swear before!

Everybody there was like: ‘What is that?’ It was like getting the vicar to swear. He found a voice from within himself.

The changes to school meals were approved in the budget earlier this year – with union chiefs hitting out at the health and jobs impact of the move.

A union has slammed plans to outsource the preparation of school meals which it says will lead to the loss of 50 jobs.

The changes to the current provision of meals in the region’s schools was a controversial part of the SNP administration’s budget approved in March.

It had come under criticism from Labour councillor Jen Preston, who said the region’s children deserved better than “frozen ready meals for lunch”.

But SNP councillor Gerry McLaughlan said the move was necessary as part of a package of “hard decisions” during the budget-setting process.

The heat has now been turned up in a letter from Tony Caleary from the Stirling branch of the Unison trade union to Stirling Council chief executive Brian Roberts, in which Mr Caleary outlines “grave concerns” over the plans.

In the letter, the union calls for the imposition of the changes to be “paused” until a full review of its impact is carried out – including on 50 jobs set to be affected.

Mr Caleary writes: “Unison are concerned that this budget savings proposal impacts on predominantly part-time, low-paid women who are effectively being de-skilled with the loss of over 50 posts. We believe that this could be an equality issue.

“It should also be noted that the catering staff are often the first point of contact for children in the school who are experiencing difficulties.

“They often highlight concerns around a child’s situation, in effect acting as safe-guarders.”

Unison Scotland local government lead John Mooney said: “Stirling Council needs to urgently pause these plans.

“They’re bad for staff, bad for children and bad for local businesses.

“No local authority should be seeking to sack low-paid workers and serve children unhealthier meals.

“This decision will have a negative impact on families and the local economy.”

A Stirling Council spokesperson said “Stirling Council is currently reviewing primary and nursery school meal provision as part of wider efforts to address a projected £12.25 million budget gap for the 2026/27 financial year.

“This review forms one element of a broader package aimed at achieving necessary savings across multiple service areas.

“All changes in service provision are underpinned by ongoing engagement with staff, trade unions, and communities as we navigate the financial challenges outlined in our budget planning process.

“The council would like to reiterate its commitment to no compulsory redundancies, and we are currently working on a package of support for those colleagues who are affected, which includes structured retraining programmes into other roles across the council, as well as upskilling support more generally.

“We remain committed to providing high quality, nutritional school meals that meeting all Scottish Government guidance.”