A study came out this week in Science magazine that connects bat decline and pesticide use to infant mortality. These kind of studies are rare: linking wildlife decline to human health. Rare, that is, compared to studies about impacts on animal health. It surprises me how easily we accept the inherent risks of our actions on other animals (even though we might do nothing about it), overlooking the fact that our own species is equally threatened. The fact is, people are animals too. This is why the death of wild animals is always a red flag for humanity.
Linking wildlife decline and human health
It’s not the first time such a connection has been made though. However, It often takes decades to establish a link to what would seem bleedingly obvious. This is an excerpt from my first book Wildlife in the Balance:
It took two decades for scientists to unravel complex evidence about cyanobacterial neurotoxins killing bald eagles and other animals in the US. The cause? The scientists think it comes from bromide in herbicides being used to destroy pest plants. It took forty years for scientists in The Lancet to publish work showing that the use of DDT pesticide (which also killed birds of prey) may have been the cause of one in six premature human births and deaths of babies. – excerpt from Wildlife in the Balance
The increase in insect pests was caused by the annihalation of insect-eating birds. This led to plagues of locusts and then DDT was invented, use that killed raptors. Thirty years later, DDT was linked to higher infant mortality. There are examples everywhere. We just don’t normally make the connection that people are another form of animal. We share many identical metabolic pathways with other living creatures, even insects.
In western Victoria, the EPA has ruled airborne pollution safe for humans but euthanased hundreds of other animals suffering from crippling ailments because of it.
The latest study
In the new paper, scientists discovered that white-nose syndrome, that has caused declines in bat species across North America, has increased the prevalence of agricultural pests. Farmers switched from a nature-based solution to using pesticides that have caused a 7.9% increase in infant mortality. There is a suggestion the syndrome is linked to use of glyphosate, neonicotinoids and other pesticides. Overuse of chemicals typically results in reduced immunity. Many such diseases are naturally occurring.
Why are such studies rare?
First, someone has to to consider it a problem. Then, a scientist has to find time, inclination and funds to look into it. After that, there is the lengthy process of data gathering and analysis. By the time it’s proved, so many of our children have died.
We cannot afford to keep relying on scientific proof before we take action to protect our health. If there is any indication that animals are at risk (which is the case for all chemicals designed to kill them) we should proceed with extreme caution.
