
‘Don't call it zombie deer disease': scientists warn of ‘global crisis' as infections spread across the US
In a scattershot pattern that now extends from coast to coast, continental US states have been announcing new hotspots of chronic wasting disease (CWD).
The contagious and always-fatal neurodegenerative disorder infects the cervid family that includes deer, elk, moose and, in higher latitudes, reindeer. There is no vaccine or treatment.
Described by scientists as a 'slow-motion disaster in the making', the infection's presence in the wild began quietly, with a few free-ranging deer in Colorado and Wyoming in 1981. However, it has now reached wild and domestic game animal herds in 36 US states as well as parts of Canada, wild and domestic reindeer in Scandinavia and farmed deer and elk in South Korea.
In the media, CWD is often called 'zombie deer disease' due to its symptoms, which include drooling, emaciation, disorientation, a vacant 'staring' gaze and a lack of fear of people. As concerns about spillover to humans or other species grow, however, the moniker has irritated many scientists.
'It trivialises what we're facing,' says epidemiologist Michael Osterholm. 'It leaves readers with the false impression that this is nothing more than some strange fictional menace you'd find in the plot of a sci-fi film. Animals that get infected with CWD do not come back from the dead. CWD is a deathly serious public and wildlife health issue.'
Five years ago, Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, delivered what he hoped would be a wake-up call before the Minnesota legislature, warning about 'spillover' of CWD transmission from infected deer to humans eating game meat. Back then, some portrayed him as a scaremonger.
Today, as CWD spreads inexorably to more deer and elk, more people – probably tens of thousands each year – are consuming infected venison, and a growing number of scientists are echoing Osterholm's concerns.
In January 2025, researchers published a report, Chronic Wasting Disease Spillover Preparedness and Response: Charting an Uncertain Future. A panel of 67 experts who study zoonotic diseases that can move back and forth between humans and animals concluded that spillover to humans 'would trigger a national and global crisis' with 'far-reaching effects on the food supply, economy, global trade and agriculture', as well as potentially devastating effects on human health. The report concludes that the US is utterly unprepared to deal with spillover of CWD to people, and that there is no unifying international strategy to prevent CWD's spread.
So far, there has not been a documented case of a human contracting CWD, but as with BSE (or mad cow disease) and its variant strain that killed people, long incubation times can mask the presence of disease. CWD, which is incurable, can be diagnosed only after a victim dies. Better surveillance to identify disease in people and game animals is more urgent than ever, experts say. Osterholm says the Trump administration's proposed cuts to public health funding and research, and the US's withdrawal from international institutions, such as the World Health Organization, could not be happening at a worse time.
The risk of a CWD spillover event is growing, the panel of experts say, and the risk is higher in states where big game hunting for the table remains a tradition. In a survey of US residents by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 20% said they had hunted deer or elk, and more than 60% said they had eaten venison or elk meat.
Tens of thousands of people are probably eating contaminated game meat either because they do not think they are at risk or they are unaware of the threat. 'Hunters sharing their venison with other families is a widespread practice,' Osterholm says. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises people who suspect they have killed an animal infected with CWD not to eat it, and states advise any hunters taking animals from infected regions to get them tested. Many, however, do not.
The movement of meat around the country also raises concerns of environmental contamination. CWD is not caused by bacteria or a virus, but by 'prions': abnormal, transmissible pathogenic agents that are difficult to destroy. Prions have demonstrated an ability to remain activated in soils for many years, infecting animals that come in contact with contaminated areas where they have been shed via urination, defecation, saliva and decomposition when an animal dies. Analysis by the US Geological Survey has shown that numerous carcasses of hunted animals, many probably contaminated with CWD, are transported across state lines, accelerating the scope of prion dispersal.
In states where many thousands of deer and elk carcasses are disposed of, some in landfill, there is concern among epidemiologists and local public health officials that toxic waste sites for prions could be created.
Every autumn, Lloyd Dorsey has hunted elk and deer to put meat on the table, but now he is concerned about its safety. 'Since CWD is now in elk and deer throughout Greater Yellowstone, the disease is on everybody's mind,' he says. Dorsey has spent decades as a professional conservationist for the Sierra Club, based in Jackson Hole in Wyoming, and he has pressed the state and federal governments to shut down feedgrounds for deer – where cervids gather and disease can easily spread.
'Wyoming has wilfully chosen to ignore conservationists, scientists, disease experts and prominent wildlife managers who were all saying the same thing: stop the feeding,' he says.
Apart from the grave concerns about CWD reaching people, scientists describe it as 'an existential threat' to wild cervid populations, which are central to American hunting traditions. Nowhere is there more at stake than in the region surrounding the country's most famous nature preserve, Yellowstone.
A new study that tracked 1,000 adult white-tailed deer and fawns in south-west Wisconsin mirrors what research elsewhere suggests: over time infected animals die at rates that outpace natural reproduction, meaning some populations could disappear. No animals have demonstrated immunity to CWD and there is no vaccine.
If depopulating herds becomes necessary to reduce disease presence, it could have devastating consequences for people who rely on those animals and who have a connection to them.
Studies show that having healthy wild carnivores on a landscape can help weed out sick CWD-carrying elk and deer, but states in the northern Rockies have adopted policies aimed at dramatically reducing wolves, bears and mountain lions.
Other policies continue to contradict scientific advice. Wyoming has attracted national criticism for refusing to shutter nearly two dozen feedgrounds where tens of thousands of elk and deer gather in close confines every winter and are fed artificial forage to bolster their numbers.
One of the largest feedgrounds is operated by the federal government: the National Elk Refuge, where more than 8,000 elk cluster, and CWD has already been detected. Tom Roffe, former chief of animal health for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages the refuge, and Bruce Smith, a former refuge senior biologist, have said Wyoming has created ripe conditions for an outbreak of the disease, with consequences that will negatively ripple throughout the region.
'This has been a slowly expanding epidemic with a growth curve playing out on a decades scale, but now we're seeing the deepening consequences and they could be severe,' Roffe says. 'Unfortunately, what's happening with this disease was predictable and we're living with the consequences of some decisions that were rooted in denial.'
Roffe and others say the best defence is having healthy landscapes where unnatural feeding of wildlife is unnecessary and where predators are not eliminated but allowed to carry out their role of eliminating sick animals.
'As Yellowstone has been for generations, it is the most amazing and best place to get wildlife conservation right,' Dorsey says. 'It would be such a shame if we continued doing something as foolish as concentrating thousands of elk and deer, making them more vulnerable to catching and spreading this catastrophic disease, when we didn't have to.'
Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow the biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield in the Guardian app for more nature coverage
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Metro
02-06-2025
- Metro
What is New World Screwworm and could it spread to humans?
A flesh-eating parasite known as New World Screwworm is moving closer and closer to the US border in Texas. The devastating parasite eats cattle and other animals alive and has travelled north from Central America to Mexico. In response to the spread within 700 miles of the Texas border, Washington halted cattle imports from Mexico in May. But what is New World Screwworm and can it spread to humans? Screwworms are parasitic flies whose females lay eggs in wounds on any warm-blooded animal. Once they do this, the eggs hatch and hundreds of screwworm larvae burrow through living flesh using their sharp mouths. This helps them to feed on and make the wound bigger, which eventually kills the host if left untreated. It means that when screwworms infect a cow, something like a tiny scrape, a recent brand or a healing ear tag can quickly become a gaping wound. Screwworms were eradicated from the US in the 1960s after researchers released massive numbers of sterilised male screwworm flies that mate with wild female screwworms to produce infertile eggs. New World Screwworm typically impacts livestock but it can also affect humans. Dr Sonja Swiger, entomologist at Texas A&M University, told Metro: 'While it is rare for humans to get an infestation of NWS, it is not impossible. 'The flies are known to lay their eggs on any warm-blooded animal, but prefer livestock and wildlife over birds and humans, with dogs being another known target. 'One main reason humans are on the rare side is that most will keep their wounds clean or follow hygiene practices that might exclude them.' Dr Timothy Goldsmith, a veterinary medicine professor at the University of Minnesota, said homeless people are especially vulnerable to infestation. This is because they sleep outside and have less access to hygiene products and medical care. Dr Swiger recommended that if people are travelling to areas dealing with an outbreak or endemic for NWS, they should protect themselves and animals they may bring with them from attacks. This includes doing checks on animals before entry/re-entry into countries that are not endemic for NWS. 'The fly can only travel 10-20 km on its own, so animal movement or humans moving with infestations is of concern,' she said. Countries where NWS is endemic include Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and countries in South America, with cases spreading north to Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, and Mexico. Dr Swiger said that it is not yet clear what is behind the drive north, though animal movement is a major concern. A factory designed to breed and sterilise screwworms in Panama is releasing 100 million sterile flies every week, but the flies have already passed through the narrowest stretches of land in Panama and Mexico. Screwworms cannot fly more than 12 miles on their own, but they can cover large distances while burrowed inside their hosts. The spread to the US would cause problems with livestock population and economic concerns. More Trending 'The largest impact would be to the livestock and wildlife industries if NWS were to return to the United States,' Dr Swiger said. 'That is currently being estimated in the multi-billions of dollars. With an estimated impact of up to $2 billion for livestock and $9 billion for wildlife.' It was announced by the US Department of Agriculture on Tuesday that it would invest $21million (£15.6million) to convert a fruit fly factory in Mexico to produce sterile screwworms. It said the border would likely reopen to cattle imports by the end of the year. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Mum finds 'more than 100 maggots' in tin of tuna she bought for toddler's lunch MORE: Warning after 250,000,000 bees escape when lorry crashes MORE: I couldn't train my deaf puppy so I taught him sign language


New European
27-05-2025
- New European
Critical Mass: Is science failing, or are we failing science?
That work, by Russell Funk of the University of Minnesota and his coworkers, prompted a wave of hand-wringing. What's gone wrong with science? And can we justify expanding science budgets if there are diminishing returns? But Funk's claims also proved controversial, not least because it is very hard to know how to measure the disruptive impact of research. Some might be tempted to say: hello, what about AI? There can hardly have been a more disruptive technology, for better or worse, in the past few decades, as witnessed by the Nobel prizes in both physics and chemistry awarded last year to work in that field. Is science getting harder? Did the 20th century strip the tree of knowledge of all its low-hanging fruit – quantum and nuclear physics, say, or the structure of DNA – to leave the answers to remaining scientific questions harder to reach? That seemed to be the implication of a paper published two years ago that claimed to show that the rate of truly 'disruptive' discoveries – ones that transform a field and open up new possibilities for technologies and economic growth – declined from the mid-1940s to 2010. Despite increases in science funding and the number of researchers, we seem now to be in an age of incremental advances. But as a recent news analysis in Nature (which also published Funk's paper) shows, the impression that groundbreaking research is becoming more rare is widely shared in the research community. And if that's right, the discovery drought could slow down economic growth. So we had better understand if the trend is real, and if so, what's behind it. Funk and colleagues used a rather technical method to gauge a paper's (or a patent's) disruptiveness, which was connected to the citations of earlier work that it includes. The idea is that, if the paper transforms its field, it renders those citations obsolete by establishing a new ground zero, so that they won't feature much in subsequent publications. But is that a good metric for disruptiveness? Critics pointed out that citation practices changed a lot over the course of the last century: older papers had fewer. What's more, the 2021 paper that used AI to predict the structures of protein molecules, which won the 2024 chemistry Nobel, would on this measure be rated low in disruptiveness – which surely can't be right, can it? The arguments are all rather complicated, because so is the question: there's no way we can measure something like this with the certainty of measuring an object's temperature or mass. Surprisingly, however, the debate hasn't given much consideration to what history tells us. For one thing, over the long term science hardly looks like a steady accumulation of earth-shattering discoveries. Even though the so-called scientific revolution in the 17th century reset the way a lot of science was done, chemistry (to name one discipline) experienced a century of tentative steps until Antoine Lavoisier replaced the theory of phlogiston with his oxygen theory in the 1780s and 90s. And the economic growth produced by the chemical dye industry of the late 19th century didn't really come from a transformative discovery in understanding, but arose from a complex interplay between chemical research and market demand stimulated by industrialisation. There have been plenty of occasions when scientists have decided that all the big discoveries have been made. Famously, Lord Kelvin was said to have proclaimed as much for physics, just years before Max Planck initiated quantum theory and Einstein unveiled the theory of relativity. The Kelvin story is apocryphal, but others expressed similar sentiments that the future of physics was just about incremental improvements in accuracy. Besides, not all transformative science affects economic growth: that can hardly be said for the proof of the Big Bang (circa 1965), the discovery of dark energy (1998) and the discovery of the Higgs boson (2012). Despite all this, however, the question is important. It's conceivable that science is simply facing harder challenges now, but it's possible, too, that there are worsening problems in how it is conducted. Young researchers have less incentive to take risks, and they are also encouraged to carve it into publishable slices of diminishing size and impact. And it has long been noted that review panels for funding agencies are conservative, favouring the safe but mediocre. Academic scientists complain of being too burdened by admin and grant-chasing to actually do research. Perhaps the problem is not that all the easy science has been done, but that it's getting harder to do it at all.


The Independent
22-05-2025
- The Independent
FDA panel debates COVID vaccine recipe as questions swirl about fall shots
Government advisers are meeting Thursday to decide if COVID-19 vaccines need updating to improve protection this fall and winter — even as a new Trump administration policy has thrown into question who may be eligible for a shot. The Food and Drug Administration's outside experts have met regularly since the launch of the first COVID-19 vaccines to discuss tweaking their recipes to stay ahead of the virus. Thursday's meeting is the group's first since President Donald Trump took office. But it comes just two days after FDA leaders upended the prior U.S. policy of recommending annual COVID-19 boosters for all Americans ages 6 months and older. Instead, the FDA said routine approval of COVID-19 boosters will be limited to seniors and to younger people who are at high risk of severe infection. Manufacturers will need to do new studies to show whether seasonal shots still benefit healthy people younger than 65. That raises big implications for next fall's vaccination campaign, with uncertainty over whether healthy people still could get a vaccine even if it's not recommended for them — or whether insurers will keep paying for the shots for everyone. Nor is it clear what the policy means for babies who have never been vaccinated. 'This is a mess,' said Michael Osterholm, a University of Minnesota infectious disease expert. 'The one thing we don't want to do is put a barrier in place that prevents parents from getting their children vaccinated if they want to.' FDA's independent advisers may raise those issues Thursday, but the changes are not the focus of the meeting, which was scheduled before FDA's announcement. Instead, the panel is set to recommend whether the virus has mutated enough to warrant strain updates for shots from Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax. 'We are asking for guidance to help the FDA decide what strain to select for COVID-19 vaccines going forward,' FDA vaccine chief Dr. Vinay Prasad said in comments opening the meeting. Prasad added that the agency wants 'to give people a little more time to digest,' the new policy on vaccines and is open to feedback. Last fall's recipe was tailored to omicron descendants on the JN.1 branch of the virus family tree. Novavax brewed shots targeting the parent JN.1 variant while Pfizer and Moderna opted for a subtype called KP.2. That JN.1 family still dominates, although it continues to evolve. The question is whether last fall's shots still offer enough cross-protection or if manufacturers instead should match today's most common subtype, called LP.8.1. The World Health Organization recently said last year's version was OK but that vaccine makers could choose an update. The European Medicines Agency instead recommended targeting the newest subtype. FDA officials didn't express a preference in documents posted online ahead of Thursday's meeting. suggested earlier in the week that the government should move away from yearly updates. 'Instead of having a COVID-19 strategy that's year-to-year where we change things every single year, why don't we let the science tell us when to change?' Prasad said. Debating that science is what the FDA's vaccine advisers do each year. If they recommend leaving the shots unchanged — and the FDA agrees — it's possible that healthy adults and children may still get access to a fall booster, since this week's policy changes suggest new studies would be required only if manufacturers switch strains or introduce a completely new vaccine. Those would be large, six-month studies, and vaccine experts question if their cost and logistics could make them unfeasible. Still, the FDA's strain decision normally isn't the final word on recommendations about who should be vaccinated. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's own advisory panel meets in June to make recommendations about the fall shots. Among its options are keeping universal access or recommending vaccination for high-risk groups but still giving lower-risk people the choice in getting a shot. Prasad and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary were both outspoken critics of the government's handling of COVID-19 shots during the pandemic, particularly the recommendation for use in young, healthy adults and children. Before joining government, they each garnered attention from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who built a national following by casting doubt on the safety and benefits of vaccines. In a medical journal editorial outlining the FDA's new approach, they criticized the U.S.'s 'one-size-fits-all' approach, saying it has long been out of step with Europe and other places with more limited recommendations for boosters. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.