Human Pollution Causes Cancer in Wild Animals, Then They Die

The links between pollution and human health issues are well-established but it's not often you hear about how our industrial culture impacts animal health. That's about to change.

A paper published in the July edition of Nature Reviews Cancer summarizes that they see "mounting evidence of human's contribution to carcinogenesis in wild-animal populations across the globe, thanks to man-made toxins dumped into wildlife's natural habitats. Denise McAloose is the report's lead author and chief pathologist for the Wildlife Conservations Society's Global Health Program. "I am concerned that we as humans continue to impact the environment quite significantly," she says. "As the human population continues to grow and utilize resources and damage the environment, I do believe that we will continue to see the emergence of disease, including cancer in wildlife."

Christine Lepisto of TreeHugger adds: "Cancer is the second leading cause of death in Beluga whales living in the Saint Lawrence River estuary, collector of smelting effluents and known to have elevated levels of cancer causing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Higher rates of cancer in bottom feeding fish point to the potential dangers of carcinogens lurking in the sediments at the bottom of lakes and waterways."

There's good news for anyone who believes change is possible: It's been found that when pollutants are removed from a particular eco-system, carcinogenesis declines in some species. According to Newsweek "catfish living in Ohio's Black River had cancer rates ranging from 22% to 39% in the early 1980s. The disease killed virtually all fish before they reached five years of age. After a steel plant's coking facility closed in 1983, PAH levels dropped significantly; cancer rates dropped 75% and the amount of fish living past five years has tripled."

While much of the eco-blame should rightfully fall on large corporations and government agencies, we can each play a small role in the battle to protect wild animals from pollution-caused cancer. But, as Paul Hawken says "Really going green, means having less. It does mean less. Everyone is saying, 'You don?t have to change your lifestyle.' Well, yes, actually, you do."

As we consume more and more, production inevitably increases...along with the concurrent waste/pollution. If we commit to change—right now—the entire cycle is downsized. In this case, less is definitely more and choosing non-toxic eco-friendly products counts for something too.