Scientists scramble to stop savage, flesh-eating flies from invading U.S.
The big picture: The life-threatening maggots that prey on the open wounds of mammals pose a massive risk to ranchers and farmers nationwide.
The New World screwworm has been prevalent near the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean.
The parasites are poised for a U.S. invasion, according to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, but America has been working with Mexico to eradicate the bugs before they hit the country.
Driving the news: The Texas Department of Agriculture announced last week it will deploy a synthetic bait called "Swormlure" to attract the flesh-eating flies with a scent similar to open wounds.
The trap "will kill up to 90% of flies on contact," the state said.
The Texas plan also includes a new feed additive for livestock and deer, as well as the development of a vaccine that can kill screwworm larvae.
What they're saying: "When it comes to safeguarding Texas' $15 billion cattle industry, we need to focus on action rather than words," Texas Agriculture commissioner Sid Miller said in a statement.
"Texas ranchers deserve better than outdated practices and bureaucratic complacency," he added. "We're taking real action with effective solutions to stop NWS in its tracks."
What is a New World screwworm?
Context: The New World screwworm can threaten cattle, livestock and, in rare cases, humans.
How it works: The parasitic fly exploits open wounds to feed its spawn.
Female flies can drop hundreds of eggs on wounds. The screw-shaped larvae will emerge, and then twist and dig into the victim before eating them alive and leaving a deadly lesion behind.
What's next: Biologists and researchers reported in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases that the flies have been feasting on mountain tapirs, which were not previously known to be at risk.
This might be a sign that the parasites' appetite is expanding, researchers said.
U.S. plan to fight New World screwworm
Flashback: The United States eradicated the flies decades ago. However, a recent surge in Panama signaled the flies might move north.
The Trump administration announced plans to breed and sterilize billions of flies to airdrop over Mexico and southern Texas to weed out the maggot.
The USDA has a five-point plan that will help detect, control and eliminate the pest.
"The United States has defeated NWS before and we will do it again," Rollins said in a statement. "We do not take lightly the threat NWS poses to our livestock industry, our economy, and our food supply chain."
Yes, but: Former officials have warned that the Trump administration's cuts to agricultural research could make it harder to eliminate the flies, according to the New York Times.
"Screwworm's a pretty specialized thing, right?" Dr. Kevin Shea, a former administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, told the New York Times. "Not too many people know about it or ever worked in it, and if you lose people who have that expertise, that's a big problem."
Can New World Screwworms attack humans?
Humans are at risk of Myiasis, an infestation of maggots in the human tissue caused by the screwworm, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
People who travel to South America and the Caribbean, where the parasites are typically located, are most at-risk.
"You are at higher risk for NWS if you travel in these areas, are around livestock in rural areas where the flies are, and if you have an open wound," the CDC says.
Symptoms of New World Screwworm infestation
Zoom in: The CDC says that infestations are "very painful" where you see maggots around an open wound. " They could also be in your nose, eyes, or mouth," the CDC says.
Other symptoms include skin lesions that don't heal, wounds that get worse over time, bleeding from open sources and feeling larvae move "within a skin wound or sore, nose, mouth, or eyes."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
32 minutes ago
- NBC News
Hundreds of groups push back on Trump denying lawful immigrants access to Head Start, other programs
The Trump administration's expanded ban on immigrants' access to social services, such as Head Start and Meals on Wheels, could have a 'devastating' impact on children of immigrants, including U.S. citizens, hundreds of opponents told the federal government Wednesday. A total of 372 organizations have coalesced to oppose the administration's decision to make more federally funded health and human service programs off-limits to immigrants with some form of permission to be in the country. The groups say the administration wrongly promotes the expanded restrictions as part of its efforts to target illegal immigration. The policy actually 'directly targets lawfully present immigrants' by turning early learning centers, community health centers and mental health and addiction treatment programs 'into immigration checkpoints' where providers would have to check a person's immigration status, according to the groups. 'Undocumented immigrants already are not eligible for most federally funded programs. This is another case where the administration is lying to the public,' said Adriana Cadena, director of the Protecting Immigration Families coalition, which led the organizations' opposition to restrictions to be implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As a result, the restrictions will harm millions, the groups stated in official comments filed in response to the administration's expanded restrictions, published in the Federal Register July 14. The deadline for public comment on the new restrictions was set for 11:59 p.m. Wednesday. One in 4 children in the U.S. are in a family with at least one immigrant parent. In 2023, 86% of those children were born in the U.S., making them U.S. citizens, according to Migration Policy Institute, an immigration think tank. (President Donald Trump also wants to change such birthright citizenship.) Even if a U.S. citizen child is entitled to use a program, the Trump administration's restrictions are likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding, Cadena said, because of the many children who are in families whose members have different types of immigration status. "This is going to have long-term consequences we cannot begin to grasp," she said. In response to an NBC News request for comment, the White House sent a link to a July 10 news release by HHS announcing the new restrictions. The administration said in the release that it was ensuring that public benefits were not 'diverted to subsidize illegal aliens.' 'For too long, the government has diverted hardworking Americans' tax dollars to incentivize illegal immigration,' HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., stated in the July 10 release. 'Today's action changes that — it restores integrity to federal social programs, enforces the rule of law, and protects vital resources for the American people.' Expanding the programs restricted to 'qualified' immigrants The 1996 Personal Responsibility Reconciliation Act restricted the eligibility for federal public benefits to certain 'qualified' immigrants, according to KFF, a health policy group. Qualified immigrants have been defined as those lawfully present in the U.S. and do not include people with Temporary Protected Status, those who have Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and others, KFF reported. The HHS has added 13 more programs to the list of programs open only to qualified immigrants. Those newly added by the administration include Head Start, some of the funding for community health centers, family planning services, child welfare prevention, kinship guardian assistance, substance abuse prevention, treatment and recovery and mental health services and the Community Services Block Grant, the groups said. The federal government has said the list is not comprehensive and more programs could be added later. The groups argue that the programs and immigrants' access to them have a larger benefit to society as a whole and that "reducing access to these vital programs will make all of our communities less healthy, less safe, less stable, less able to thrive." Restrictions on the HHS programs announced in July were to be effective immediately. Groups said little guidance has been given to providers regarding their implementation, creating confusion and having a chilling effect on people who are eligible for the programs and benefits as well as on the nonprofits, local governments and others who provide them. Several states have sued over the changes, which they said would also affect programs such as Meals on Wheels, domestic violence shelters, housing assistance and more. A lawsuit also was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and others on behalf of parent groups challenging Trump's policies on Head Start. The administration provided a 30-day comment period for the new restrictions. "We do not necessarily expect that there is a real interest from the administration to seek comment on public policy that will impact millions of people," Cadena said. "This is all about the Trump administration's governmentwide attack on immigrant families, and to dismantle the safety net system that many Americans rely on," she said.
The Intercept
2 hours ago
- The Intercept
Veterans Are 'Guinea Pigs' in Trump's First National Abortion Ban Experiment
Ash Wallis knows she likely wouldn't survive another pregnancy. Doctors said as much years earlier after she suffered a pulmonary embolism following a miscarriage, and got a second blood clot. Getting pregnant again isn't a risk she is willing or able to take. 'I have two sons,' said Wallis. 'I don't want to leave them motherless.' Wallis, 40, begged her health care provider to give her an IUD — her best chance at preventing another pregnancy and protecting her life. But her provider, the Department of Veterans Affairs, refused to cover the procedure. Despite three years of service in the Army, Wallis was forced to pay out of pocket at a local clinic. 'The risks of me getting pregnant and there being a significant health issue were too much risk for me to gamble on,' she said. Access to reproductive care and abortion has long been a problem for those who rely on VA care. But a policy change by the Trump administration stands to make reproductive health for service members and veterans even worse. Last week, the administration posted a proposed rule for VA facilities that would severely narrow access to abortion — eliminating exceptions for health, rape, and incest, and only allowing the procedure in situations deemed to threaten the life of the mother. The rule would also ban any counseling for abortion through the VA. The proposed policy now enters a mandatory 30-day comment period, after which it can go into effect. Experts told The Intercept that the rule change will have devastating consequences for the millions of service members and veterans reliant on health care through the VA, as well as their families. 'It's the worst-case scenario,' said Rachel Fey, vice president of policy and strategic partnerships at Power to Decide, a nonprofit focused on reproductive and sexual health. The Department of Veterans Affairs has long excluded abortion care and abortion counseling from its medical benefits package, with a narrow exception for the 'life of the mother.' That changed in 2022 when the Biden administration, recognizing the danger posed to veterans and service members by the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, instituted a new rule allowing for abortion counseling and abortion care in an expanded list of circumstances. It's this Biden-era change that is under attack by the Trump administration. The administration describes the proposed policy shift as a return to form. 'Prior to the Biden Administration's politically motivated change in 2022, federal law and longstanding precedent across Democrat and Republican administrations prevented VA from providing abortions and abortion counseling,' wrote Gary Kunich, a Veterans Affairs spokesperson, in a statement to the Intercept. Fey and other reproductive health experts had anticipated the Trump administration would institute an abortion ban at the VA. But they told The Intercept that this version is particularly draconian considering the dramatic fall-off in abortion access following the Dobbs decision. 'This new policy would be one of the strictest abortion bans in the country, and for veterans living in the 12 states that ban abortion, it would further close off what may be their only opportunity to access urgently needed abortion care,' said Liz McCaman Taylor, senior federal policy counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, in a statement. 'For veterans living in these states, they may now be forced to carry pregnancies to term even if they were raped or the pregnancy puts their health in jeopardy.' The proposed rule would 'reinstate the full exclusion on abortions and abortion counseling.' Unlike under the Biden rule, which allowed for abortion counseling and abortion care to protect the health of the mother or in cases of rape and incest, the new proposed rule only includes a vague, narrow exception for 'life of the mother.' 'For the avoidance of doubt, the proposed rule would make clear that the exclusion for abortion does not apply 'when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term,'' wrote the administration in a summary of the draft proposal. However, in a potentially complicating line, the administration wrote: 'Taken together, claims in the prior administration's rule that abortions throughout pregnancy are needed to save the lives of pregnant women are incorrect.' Jaclyn Dean, director of congressional relations, reproductive health, at the National Partnership for Women & Families, said that the lack of medical clarity around when doctors are allowed to intervene is going to cost lives. 'If I'm a doctor for the VA,' said Dean, 'I'm very confused about what I'm legally allowed to do.' Fey said her organization, Power to Decide, was 'not aware of any circumstances' where the VA covered abortion care under the life exception in place before the Biden rule. 'There was always sort of supposed to be this very, very narrow life exception, but similar to what's happening now in the post-Dobbs world, we're seeing that those life exceptions don't work in practice,' she said. Lindsay Church, executive director of Minority Veterans of America, said the counseling ban adds another layer of risk because providers are prevented from even discussing the option of abortion until it may be too late. 'Good luck if you get to a place where you're dying,' said Church, 'because you can't get abortion counseling before that. And that, to me, is insulting. Not only that, but it could have deadly consequences.' Read Our Complete Coverage The counseling ban also means veterans or active-duty service members referred to the Veterans Affairs administration for care after being sexually assaulted can't discuss abortion as an option with their provider. 'We already know that women veterans experience Military Sexual Trauma at alarming rates, and many of us continue to fight battles long after our service ends,' said Stephanie Gattas, founder of the Pink Berets, which offers support for women veterans struggling with PTSD, military sexual assault, and other mental health issues. Over 8,000 service members, who can also be referred to the VA for care, reported being sexually assaulted last year. And nearly 500 people reported being sexually assaulted while on a VA campus last year, according to Church. Both numbers are likely a severe undercount. 'The military community is wrought with sexual violence,' said Church. 'Now, if you get raped and become pregnant … because of assault at the Department of Veterans Affairs, they won't help you.' Sylvia Andersh, a former service member who worked at Veterans Affairs hospitals as a nurse, called the lack of exceptions for rape 'cruel.' 'My faith in humanity has been quite tested with the fact that they're willing to blatantly hurt women,' said Andersh. For Wallis, who was sexually assaulted while serving in the military, the lack of rape exceptions is especially troubling. 'It feels like being spit in my face,' she said. 'I wrote a check up to and including my life for this country, and I'm not provided equal access to care,' Wallis said. Wallis also worries that this new policy could increase suicidal ideation among service members. 'An unexpected pregnancy, whether it's due to rape, incest, or contraceptive failure, doesn't matter what the cause is,' she said, 'it increases suicidal ideation, and in the lack of access to care, you add that in, and that risk increases further.' The biggest impact is going to fall on veterans and service members living in states with abortion bans, experts told The Intercept. The Department of Veterans Affairs is the largest integrated health care system in the United States, serving 2 million women veterans, over 400,000 of whom live in states with abortion bans. 'We were living in a much different world the last time this total ban was in effect.' Though the Trump administration insists the policy change would be a return to standard VA practice, Taylor, of Center for Reproductive Rights, points out that the landscape has changed following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision. 'We were living in a much different world the last time this total ban was in effect. This is the first time there has been a total abortion ban in VA health care facilities since Roe v. Wade was overturned,' said Taylor. 'Before Roe fell, if a veteran couldn't get an abortion at a VA health care facility, they could seek one elsewhere in their state. Now, abortion is banned in many states, and over 100 clinics have closed, meaning veterans living in those states will be totally out of options.' Wallis said she feels as if the administration is testing how far it can restrict access to care, pointing to the abortion ban and new restrictions on gender-affirming care at the VA. 'We're the guinea pigs they want to test what they're able to do to the general public,' she said. 'I truly feel like they're testing what they want to do with the rest of the country on us, and it's scary to me.'
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
The White House is launching a review of exhibits at eight Smithsonian museums. Here's what to know.
In response, the Smithsonian said in a statement on Tuesday that it remained committed to 'scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and the accurate, factual presentation of history.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'We are reviewing the letter with this commitment in mind and will continue to collaborate constructively with the White House, Congress, and our governing Board of Regents,' it said in a statement. Advertisement Here's what to know about the Smithsonian and the Trump administration's review of its museums. What is the Smithsonian Institution? A Smithsonian Institution sign is seen on the National Air and Space Museum on the National Mall on March 28, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Kevin Dietsch/Getty The Smithsonian Institution is the world's largest museum, education, and research complex, and includes 21 museums and the National Zoo, with 11 museums lining Washington's National Mall. It was founded with funds from British scientist James Smithson, who left his estate to the United States to create 'an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge' in Washington. Which Smithsonian museums are under review? The review, first Advertisement 'This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions,' the letter said. The letter said additional museums would be reviewed in subsequent phases. How long will the review take and what will it entail? The review will take a look at all public-facing content, such as education materials, social media and digital content 'to assess tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals,' according to the letter. The review will also include curatorial processes and guidelines, exhibition planning and collection use. The White House is directing the museums to submit materials from exhibits and drafts for upcoming events within 30 days. Within 75 days, museums are asked to submit the 'remaining requested documentation including promotional literature, grant data, educational materials, and guided tour content.' Within 120 days, the letter said, museums will be expected to take corrective action, 'replacing divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions.' Earlier this month, its National Museum of American History had temporarily What's Trump's existing relationship with the Smithsonian? On March 27, Trump Advertisement The order placed Vice President JD Vance, a member of the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Regents, in charge of overseeing the effort to 'remove improper ideology' across the institution's museums, education and research centers, and the National Zoo. 'Museums in our Nation's capital should be places where individuals go to learn — not to be subjected to ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history,' the Material from the Associated Press was used in this report. Alyssa Vega can be reached at
