Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

How Safe Is It To Let Your Dog Lick Your Face?

News Feed
Wednesday, November 13, 2024

“A dog’s mouth is actually cleaner than a human’s mouth” is an oft-repeated adage by dog owners who happily accept their pet’s slobbery affections. However, having seen my own pup go to town on a freshly laid pile of “kibble” the deer left for him in the yard, I highly doubt that.When he wants to share his love and bestow my face with kisses, I’m in a bit of a bind. On the one hand, he is the light of my life and the most perfect baby boy. How can I tell him “no” when he wants to give me a little affection?On the other hand, as a skin care writer and former face-toucher, I’m all too aware of how bacteria and other impurities can wreak havoc on our skin.While the occasional breakout may be a small price to pay for accepting your furry friend’s love and affection, you may remember the 2019 news story in which an Ohio woman lost all four limbs from an infection caused by a kiss from her own puppy.Although that was a very rare case, should we nevertheless practice caution when allowing our pets to lick our faces? Or is the regular smooch from Fido fairly harmless?We spoke to experts in the dermatology and veterinary fields to find out more.How ‘Clean’ Is Your Dog’s Mouth, Actually?“All mouths are ‘dirty’ in the sense that they are full of microbes,” said Dr. Tessa LeCuyer, an assistant professor and veterinary clinical microbiologist at the University of California, Davis School of Veterinary Medicine.“A dog’s mouth is not any cleaner than a person’s mouth, as both are full of hundreds of different types of bacteria,” LeCuyer said.As dogs see the world with their noses, many are drawn to two particularly pungent sources brimming with bacteria and parasites — feces and carrion (aka dead critters). And to their owners’ abject horror, many dogs love to chow down once they find one of these forbidden snacks. While LeCuyer says that, generally, your dog’s love of “other chocolate snacks” won’t lead to disease, she does note that there are some parasites and bacteria that dogs can pick up from eating feces. “Dogs can ingest bacteria like salmonella from feces of other animals,” said LeCuyer. “Dogs that eat feces from other dogs are at increased risk for parasites such as roundworms.” She said the risk of your dog picking up certain pathogens can also depend on which animal’s feces is their treat of choice. “Bird feces are more likely to harbor salmonella than mammalian feces,” LeCuyer said. It’s no surprise that microscopic nasties could living in an animal corpse that your dog decides to chomp on. However, despite the popularity of feeding dogs raw meat as a part of a “raw food diet” in recent years, this trend could put your dog (and you) at risk of getting sick. “Ingestion of raw meat, whether carrion or food-grade, increases the risk of exposure to foodborne bacteria such as salmonella and listeria, which can cause disease in dogs as well as people,” LeCuyer said. Fortunately, LeCuyer says that dog owners can drastically decrease their risk of picking up a disease from their dog with good handwashing hygiene – particularly after handling your pet and/or their poop. And if your dog has a habit of going to the feces and carrion buffet, it may be time to implement a “no kissing on the lips” rule. “Transfer of bacteria or parasites could potentially occur when a dog licks someone around or in the mouth,” LeCuyer said. Zero Creatives via Getty ImagesWhat exactly has he been eating today?Can The Bacteria In My Dog’s Mouth Harm My Skin?You already have a highly sophisticated defense system that protects you against any germs living in your dog’s mouth, as well as any other environmental contaminants — your skin.“Most of the potentially harmful bacteria in a dog’s mouth can only cause disease in a person when there is a break in the skin that allows the bacteria to infect deeper tissues,” LeCuyer said.Generally, the most common way bacteria from a dog’s mouth can infect the deeper tissues of the skin is if it bites you. Dr. Danielle Dubin, a board-certified dermatologist and assistant professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, says dog bites on the hands and face, as well as deep bites, are prone to skin infections, particularly for immunocompromised patients. “It is important to have these types of injuries evaluated by a health care professional to determine if antibiotics are indicated,” Dubin said.Although it’s far more common to contract a skin infection from a dog bite rather than a dog kiss, our experts still urge exercising caution if your dog tries licking an area where your skin barrier might be weakened.“If you have any breaks in your skin, such as from rashes, cuts or pimples, the [dog’s] saliva could potentially cause an infection,” said Dr. Jennifer Chen, a board-certified dermatologist and clinical professor of dermatology at Stanford University.Consider Your Dog’s Smooching StyleWhen it comes to determining how “bad” it is for your dog to lick your face, think about the way your dog expresses affection. Does Fido give you a quick little peck when you return from a long day at work? Or do they treat your face to their full doggie-spa special?“A wet kiss or two is unlikely to cause any problems in an otherwise healthy adult with intact skin,” Dubin said. “However, repeated licking, even in [a healthy adult] population, carries a risk of developing irritant contact dermatitis,” Dubin said.Although your skin can probably withstand a kiss or two from your pup every now and then, constant licking could cause some issues.“The constant wet-dry cycle of exposure also disrupts the skin barrier,” said Chen. “This can result in a rash consisting of peeling, dry skin that may crack and bleed and become uncomfortable.”Beyond Bacteria: Other Ways Dog Saliva Can Affect Your SkinWhile most are concerned about the bacteria living in their dog’s mouth, that isn’t the only way your dog’s kisses can irritate your skin. Dubin points out that some individuals could potentially have an allergic reaction to the proteins in their dog’s saliva, resulting in allergic contact dermatitis.However, even if you aren’t allergic to dogs, Chen notes that saliva itself can be a skin irritant.Another risk factor, according to Chen, is that your dog may inadvertently pick up and transfer irritants to your skin. So, if your fur-baby particularly loves exploring the neighborhood poison ivy patch, you may think twice before letting them lick your face. “Sometimes we will also see patients become allergic to their dog’s products,” said Chen.Who Should Avoid Getting LickedWhile people with healthy skin should be OK accepting a slobbery peck from their pup every once in a while, some should exercise more caution.“[For] patients with pre-existing skin conditions such as acne, rosacea or eczema, dog saliva can trigger disease flares and/or skin-limited infections,” said Dubin.Our dermatologists also warn that if you have any cuts, rashes or breakouts on your face, you should also hold off on letting your dog lick you. “Patients who have medical conditions or are on medications that result in a suppressed immune system will also be at higher risk [of infection],” Chen said.Beware of Skin Care Ingredients That Can Harm Your PetEven if you are OK with putting up with the occasional breakout or risking a potential skin infection for the love of your pet, there is one other thing to consider before allowing your dog to kiss you: Certain skin care ingredients can potentially harm dogs if ingested.“Don’t let your pet lick any topical medications you apply to your skin or hair,” said LeCuyer.Several skin care ingredients can be harmful to pets, LeCuyer warns. “One of the biggest concerns is xylitol, which can be toxic to dogs even in relatively small amounts and is in many skin care and toothpaste products.”While many dog owners are well aware of xylitol’s presence in gum and other sugar-free products, they might not realize that this sweetener is also used as a moisturizing agent in some skin care products.Another common ingredient to look out for is zinc oxide. Though beloved by dermatologists for its ability to gently protect your skin from the sun’s harmful rays, it can trigger stomach upset or an allergic reaction in your pet if they ingest it, according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.Additionally, the ASPCA also warns that there are a number of topical ingredients, including many topical pain relievers like diclofenac, lidocaine and dibucaine, that can cause severe damage or death if ingested, even in small doses (i.e., if your dog licks the area where you applied the topical).When in doubt, LeCuyer recommends contacting the ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center via their 24/7 hotline, (888) 426-4435.

How much truth is there to the adage that a dog's mouth is actually cleaner than a human's?

“A dog’s mouth is actually cleaner than a human’s mouth” is an oft-repeated adage by dog owners who happily accept their pet’s slobbery affections. However, having seen my own pup go to town on a freshly laid pile of “kibble” the deer left for him in the yard, I highly doubt that.

When he wants to share his love and bestow my face with kisses, I’m in a bit of a bind. On the one hand, he is the light of my life and the most perfect baby boy. How can I tell him “no” when he wants to give me a little affection?

On the other hand, as a skin care writer and former face-toucher, I’m all too aware of how bacteria and other impurities can wreak havoc on our skin.

While the occasional breakout may be a small price to pay for accepting your furry friend’s love and affection, you may remember the 2019 news story in which an Ohio woman lost all four limbs from an infection caused by a kiss from her own puppy.

Although that was a very rare case, should we nevertheless practice caution when allowing our pets to lick our faces? Or is the regular smooch from Fido fairly harmless?

We spoke to experts in the dermatology and veterinary fields to find out more.

How ‘Clean’ Is Your Dog’s Mouth, Actually?

“All mouths are ‘dirty’ in the sense that they are full of microbes,” said Dr. Tessa LeCuyer, an assistant professor and veterinary clinical microbiologist at the University of California, Davis School of Veterinary Medicine.

“A dog’s mouth is not any cleaner than a person’s mouth, as both are full of hundreds of different types of bacteria,” LeCuyer said.

As dogs see the world with their noses, many are drawn to two particularly pungent sources brimming with bacteria and parasites — feces and carrion (aka dead critters). And to their owners’ abject horror, many dogs love to chow down once they find one of these forbidden snacks.

While LeCuyer says that, generally, your dog’s love of “other chocolate snacks” won’t lead to disease, she does note that there are some parasites and bacteria that dogs can pick up from eating feces.

“Dogs can ingest bacteria like salmonella from feces of other animals,” said LeCuyer. “Dogs that eat feces from other dogs are at increased risk for parasites such as roundworms.”

She said the risk of your dog picking up certain pathogens can also depend on which animal’s feces is their treat of choice. “Bird feces are more likely to harbor salmonella than mammalian feces,” LeCuyer said.

It’s no surprise that microscopic nasties could living in an animal corpse that your dog decides to chomp on. However, despite the popularity of feeding dogs raw meat as a part of a “raw food diet” in recent years, this trend could put your dog (and you) at risk of getting sick.

“Ingestion of raw meat, whether carrion or food-grade, increases the risk of exposure to foodborne bacteria such as salmonella and listeria, which can cause disease in dogs as well as people,” LeCuyer said.

Fortunately, LeCuyer says that dog owners can drastically decrease their risk of picking up a disease from their dog with good handwashing hygiene – particularly after handling your pet and/or their poop. And if your dog has a habit of going to the feces and carrion buffet, it may be time to implement a “no kissing on the lips” rule.

“Transfer of bacteria or parasites could potentially occur when a dog licks someone around or in the mouth,” LeCuyer said.

Zero Creatives via Getty Images

What exactly has he been eating today?

Can The Bacteria In My Dog’s Mouth Harm My Skin?

You already have a highly sophisticated defense system that protects you against any germs living in your dog’s mouth, as well as any other environmental contaminants — your skin.

“Most of the potentially harmful bacteria in a dog’s mouth can only cause disease in a person when there is a break in the skin that allows the bacteria to infect deeper tissues,” LeCuyer said.

Generally, the most common way bacteria from a dog’s mouth can infect the deeper tissues of the skin is if it bites you. Dr. Danielle Dubin, a board-certified dermatologist and assistant professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, says dog bites on the hands and face, as well as deep bites, are prone to skin infections, particularly for immunocompromised patients.

“It is important to have these types of injuries evaluated by a health care professional to determine if antibiotics are indicated,” Dubin said.

Although it’s far more common to contract a skin infection from a dog bite rather than a dog kiss, our experts still urge exercising caution if your dog tries licking an area where your skin barrier might be weakened.

“If you have any breaks in your skin, such as from rashes, cuts or pimples, the [dog’s] saliva could potentially cause an infection,” said Dr. Jennifer Chen, a board-certified dermatologist and clinical professor of dermatology at Stanford University.

Consider Your Dog’s Smooching Style

When it comes to determining how “bad” it is for your dog to lick your face, think about the way your dog expresses affection. Does Fido give you a quick little peck when you return from a long day at work? Or do they treat your face to their full doggie-spa special?

“A wet kiss or two is unlikely to cause any problems in an otherwise healthy adult with intact skin,” Dubin said. “However, repeated licking, even in [a healthy adult] population, carries a risk of developing irritant contact dermatitis,” Dubin said.

Although your skin can probably withstand a kiss or two from your pup every now and then, constant licking could cause some issues.

“The constant wet-dry cycle of exposure also disrupts the skin barrier,” said Chen. “This can result in a rash consisting of peeling, dry skin that may crack and bleed and become uncomfortable.”

Beyond Bacteria: Other Ways Dog Saliva Can Affect Your Skin

While most are concerned about the bacteria living in their dog’s mouth, that isn’t the only way your dog’s kisses can irritate your skin.

Dubin points out that some individuals could potentially have an allergic reaction to the proteins in their dog’s saliva, resulting in allergic contact dermatitis.

However, even if you aren’t allergic to dogs, Chen notes that saliva itself can be a skin irritant.

Another risk factor, according to Chen, is that your dog may inadvertently pick up and transfer irritants to your skin. So, if your fur-baby particularly loves exploring the neighborhood poison ivy patch, you may think twice before letting them lick your face.

“Sometimes we will also see patients become allergic to their dog’s products,” said Chen.

Who Should Avoid Getting Licked

While people with healthy skin should be OK accepting a slobbery peck from their pup every once in a while, some should exercise more caution.

“[For] patients with pre-existing skin conditions such as acne, rosacea or eczema, dog saliva can trigger disease flares and/or skin-limited infections,” said Dubin.

Our dermatologists also warn that if you have any cuts, rashes or breakouts on your face, you should also hold off on letting your dog lick you.

“Patients who have medical conditions or are on medications that result in a suppressed immune system will also be at higher risk [of infection],” Chen said.

Beware of Skin Care Ingredients That Can Harm Your Pet

Even if you are OK with putting up with the occasional breakout or risking a potential skin infection for the love of your pet, there is one other thing to consider before allowing your dog to kiss you: Certain skin care ingredients can potentially harm dogs if ingested.

“Don’t let your pet lick any topical medications you apply to your skin or hair,” said LeCuyer.

Several skin care ingredients can be harmful to pets, LeCuyer warns. “One of the biggest concerns is xylitol, which can be toxic to dogs even in relatively small amounts and is in many skin care and toothpaste products.”

While many dog owners are well aware of xylitol’s presence in gum and other sugar-free products, they might not realize that this sweetener is also used as a moisturizing agent in some skin care products.

Another common ingredient to look out for is zinc oxide. Though beloved by dermatologists for its ability to gently protect your skin from the sun’s harmful rays, it can trigger stomach upset or an allergic reaction in your pet if they ingest it, according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Additionally, the ASPCA also warns that there are a number of topical ingredients, including many topical pain relievers like diclofenac, lidocaine and dibucaine, that can cause severe damage or death if ingested, even in small doses (i.e., if your dog licks the area where you applied the topical).

When in doubt, LeCuyer recommends contacting the ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center via their 24/7 hotline, (888) 426-4435.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Louisiana town fights for relief after a billion-dollar oil disaster

Federal and state officials have sued the company behind the blast, but Roseland, Louisiana, residents say the case won’t bring relief to their town.

Four months have passed since a Louisiana oil facility burst apart, spewing a dense black sludge that drifted across homes, farms, and waterways as far as 50 miles away.  Since then, the U.S. Department of Justice and Louisiana environmental regulators have filed a sweeping lawsuit against Smitty’s Supply, the company that ran the facility storing oil and vehicle lubricants. But residents in the majority-Black town are skeptical that they’ll benefit from the $1 billion federal lawsuit.  Much of that belief stems from the fact that despite repeated calls for help, the black goo still clings to walls, roofs, and soil of more than half of the town’s properties, according to Van Showers, the mayor of Roseland, Louisiana.  “People want to know when they’re going to receive help, and there is nothing to make them think that this process would lead to that,” said Showers, who works at a local chicken processing plant and has struggled financially through the clean-up process.  That skepticism is rooted in hard experience — and in a broader history of environmental racism that has left Black communities shouldering disproportionate burdens. The gap has left residents in a state of prolonged uncertainty about their water, their health, and whether the legal action unfolding in distant courtrooms will ever reach their homes. It is a familiar pattern, particularly in Louisiana, where environmental disasters have consistently hit Black and low-income communities hardest while leaving them last in line for recovery. Read Next How government shutdowns give polluters a free pass Naveena Sadasivam Initially, residents in the town, where the average person earns just $17,000 per year, were told to clean up the mess themselves.  The explosion had sprayed the community of 1,100 residents with dozens of chemicals, including cancer-causing ones known as PFAS, or “forever chemicals.” One resident living on a fixed income told Capital B that in the weeks after the event she went over $1,000 in credit card debt to replace the stained panels on her trailer.  However, in October, after sustained pressure from residents, the tide seemed to turn. Federal and state agencies ramped up their presence in the disaster zone, canvassed the community, brought the lawsuit, and began testing wildlife — including fish and deer — for contamination. But even with the increased governmental response, attorneys, residents, and local officials warn that it is not nearly enough. The lawsuit compensation, if ever paid out, will most likely not trickle down to residents, Showers and local lawyers said. Civil penalties collected from federal lawsuits are generally deposited into the U.S. Treasury’s general fund and are often used exclusively to fund environmental cleanup costs, not to support residents.  “As far as the lawsuit, I don’t think it’s going to benefit the community,” Showers said. Read Next They survived the hurricane. Their insurance company didn’t. Zoya Teirstein The government’s suit alleges that for years, Smitty’s knowingly violated safety rules and pollution permits. The company failed to maintain basic spill-prevention and emergency response plans, regulators said.  The complaint says millions of gallons of contaminated firefighting water, oil, and chemicals flowed off-site into ditches, and seeks more than $1 billion in fines and penalties tied to the explosion and spill. In response to the lawsuit, a representative of Smitty’s wrote, “Smitty’s has been and remains committed to following all applicable laws and regulations, and to operating as a responsible member of the Tangipahoa Parish community.” The disaster was the “result of an unforeseen industrial fire,” the representative added, and the company is “implementing measures to help prevent future incidents and protect our waterways and neighbors.” Yet even since the lawsuit was brought, according to state documents, Smitty’s was caught pumping unpermitted “oily liquids” into local waterways.  Meanwhile, a recent Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality report shows a state contractor has recovered at least 74 live wild animals from the disaster zone and 59 of them had either digested the oily substance or were covered in it. At least eight animals were found dead, including four turtles and an alligator. Dozens more pets and livestock, including cattle and horses, have been coated in the residue. Many residents, including Showers, have seen their animals die. Those findings, combined with reports of stillborn calves, underscore how deeply the contamination has seeped into daily life, residents said.  The explosion has not only unleashed lasting environmental and health threats — the kind that, as Showers worries, “can lay dormant for years and then all of a sudden … you start getting a lot of folks with cancer” — it has also shuttered Roseland’s largest employer, Smitty’s Supply, indefinitely. Millie Simmons lives less than a mile from the explosion site. She has felt lingering health effects from the disaster. Adam Mahoney / Capital B For weeks after the explosion, Millie Simmons, a 58-year-old child care worker, had difficulty being outside in Roseland for longer than 10 minutes without respiratory irritation. Even when inside her home, she felt “drained” and “sluggish” for weeks.  Showers said she is not alone. The biggest complaints he is still receiving are that “people are still sick” and “want to know when they’re going to receive help as far as getting their property cleaned.” “Most definitely, we deserve something,” Simmons said.  A nation’s environmental divide In October, the federal government delegated the cleanup process entirely to the state and Smitty’s. Some residents say they have seen Smitty’s contractors cleaning a few properties, but others, including the mayor, say their claims have gone unanswered. Showers said the company reimbursed him for just one night in a hotel when he was forced to leave the town after the explosion and never responded to his request for compensation after a litter of his dogs fell ill and died in the weeks after.  Advocates with the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, or LEAN, who have notified Smitty’s and federal and state environmental regulators of their intent to sue, said residents continue to approach them about contaminated crops and water wells. They’re unsure if their water is safe, even months later.  “There’s so many unanswered questions that bring such huge anxiety to the communities,” said Marylee Orr, LEAN’s executive director. “People don’t feel safe in their homes.”​​ A litter of dogs owned by Roseland’s mayor, Van Showers, in 2023. His most recent litter died after the explosion, he said. Courtesy of Van Showers Orr said she is especially worried that the courtroom path now unfolding will repeat familiar patterns from other environmental disasters.  In places like Grand Bois in south Louisiana and in Flint, Michigan, she noted, residents waited years for historic settlements to turn into actual checks they could cash — only to see large portions of the money eaten up by legal fees. In Flint, residents have waited over a decade for compensation for the country’s most notorious water crisis that caused clusters of neurological and developmental issues among children. When it is all said and done, only a portion of the impacted residents will receive checks for about $1,000. In Roseland, Showers has found himself operating in an information vacuum. He is relying more on outside news reports than official briefings to learn the full extent of contamination in his own town. In fact, he did not know about the state report showing the harms to local animals until Capital B shared it with him.  “No one from the government has ever told me anything,” he said. “It’s aggravating.” That lack of transparency makes it harder, he added, to answer the basic questions residents bring to him at the grocery store, at church, and outside town hall: “Is my water safe? What’s happening to the animals? Am I going to be OK?” In October, Showers and residents of Roseland organized a town cleanup. Courtesy of the City of Roseland This is a dynamic that reflects both the long-standing political dynamics of Louisiana and deepening uncertainty under the Trump administration.  His position as a Black Democrat leading a majority-Black town in a state dominated by white, conservative leadership has only intensified that isolation, he told Capital B in September.  Historically Black communities have received less recovery aid than white areas with comparable damage during environmental disasters. Now, experts warn that federal support for environmental disasters in Black and Democratic areas is poised to weaken even further under the Trump administration, which has slashed EPA and DOJ enforcement to historic lows. During the first 11 months of Trump’s second term, the EPA and DOJ have filed just 20 enforcement actions against polluters, imposing $15.1 million in penalties. During the final 19 days of the Biden administration last January, the EPA and DOJ imposed $590 million in penalties.  The current administration has also instructed EPA officials not to consider whether affected communities are “minority or low-income populations” when prioritizing enforcement actions. Showers estimates that fewer than three-quarters of properties have been cleaned and that many residents who dutifully called the claims hotline are still living with stained roofs, sticky yards, and lingering health problems. “There’s just not enough information being put out or work being done to make people feel at ease about what’s going on.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Louisiana town fights for relief after a billion-dollar oil disaster on Jan 3, 2026.

Animals
Chemicals
Crisis

Are you a hellraiser mite or a knobbled weevil? Take the quiz and vote for NZ’s Bug of the Year

Take the personality quiz to match with one of NZ’s larger-than-life little creatures, then cast your vote.

The black tunnelweb spider. Samuel Purdie, CC BY-NCThe New Zealand velvet worm’s reign as Bug of the Year is coming to an end, with voting now open for the 2026 competition. This year, 21 nominees are vying for the crown in the competition’s fourth year. Nearly 100 bugs have so far featured, representing an incredible range of rich invertebrate diversity – from insects and arachnids to crustaceans, worms and molluscs. The term “bug” was chosen deliberately. While not scientifically precise, it acts as an easily understood umbrella definition of Aotearoa New Zealand’s sometimes overlooked littlest animals. As relatively large organisms ourselves, we humans tend to notice and celebrate larger and more charismatic fauna and flora, such as birds and trees. But they comprise only about 5% of New Zealand’s estimated 70,000 native land species. The rest are small and often unseen, but absolutely vital. Aotearoa is home to over 20,000 insect species – and those are just the ones we’ve identified. Around 6,000 beetle species alone crawl, burrow and fly across our landscape. Bugs are the tiny critters that run the world. Forming the base of many food webs and ecological interactions, they underpin much of our freshwater and terrestrial biodiversity. They pollinate food crops, decompose waste and recycle nutrients. Owing to their fast response to environmental changes, they also serve as key indicators of environmental health. Master of camouflage: the double-spined stick insect. Dougal Townsend, CC BY-NC And the nominees are … This year’s nominees are the most diverse in the competition’s history. There are repeat candidates, such as the endangered Canterbury knobbled weevil (Hadramphus tuberculatus), as well as new contenders such as the tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus apus viridis) which reproduces without males, or the double-spined stick insect (Micrarchus hystriculeus), which is an incredible master of camouflage. Some nominees, such as the sapphire spider fly (Apsona muscaria) – a fly that eats spiders – are relatively unknown. And there are more familiar species such as the impressively large black tunnelweb spider (Porrhothele antipodiana). Others are known for their outstanding features or behaviour, including the hellraiser mite (Neotrichozetes spinulosa), which looks like a walking pin-cushion, and a critically threatened avatar moth (Arctesthes avatar), named for the movie series with its themes of environmental destruction. We even have the ancient and gigantic glow-in-the-dark North Auckland worm, and the Otago alpine cockroach (Celatoblatta quinquemaculata) that can survive being frozen solid. There is also one of the world’s only marine insects, the intertidal caddisfly (Philanisus plebeius), whose nymph lives on the rocky shore. Like a walking pin-cushion: the hellraiser mite. Shou Saito, CC BY-NC Many are endemic and found only here. But like bugs and insect populations around the planet, they face mounting threats – described in one study as “death by a thousand cuts” – from climate change, agrichemical use and habitat loss or modification. Aotearoa is not exempt from these threats, but many of our bugs are data-deficient, understudied, underappreciated and often out-competed for attention by other wildlife. This summer, keep an eye out for the tiny things around you: the bugs that soar in our skies, scamper in our forests, settle in our rivers and lakes or even hide underground. As humans continue to expand urban landscapes into natural ones, the Entomological Society of New Zealand hopes its Bug of the Year contest will help build public support and appreciation for more research into these unsung heroes of the natural world. How to vote Not sure what to vote for? Take the personality quiz to see which bug you most align with. Voting closes on February 16 2026, with results announced on February 18. Nominees are suggested by the public, so if your top pick isn’t featured this year, you can make recommendations by July 1 for the 2027 contest and beyond. Connal McLean is affiliated with The Entomological Society of New Zealand and The Moths and Butterflies of New Zealand Trust. Jacqueline Theis receives funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (grant number UOWX2101). She is affiliated with the Entomological Society of New Zealand.

Animals
Business
Chemicals

The Top Human Evolution Discoveries of 2025, From the Intriguing Neanderthal Diet to the Oldest Western European Face Fossil

Smithsonian paleoanthropologists examine the year’s most fascinating revelations

The Top Human Evolution Discoveries of 2025, From the Intriguing Neanderthal Diet to the Oldest Western European Face Fossil Smithsonian paleoanthropologists examine the year’s most fascinating revelations Paranthropus boisei composite hand Courtesy of Carrie Mongle This has been quite the wild year in human evolution stories. Our relatives, living and extinct, got a lot of attention—from new developments in ape cognition to an expanded perspective of a big-toothed hominin cousin. A new view on a famous foot also revealed more about a lesser-known hominin species, Australopithecus deyiremeda. New tool and technology finds, coupled with dietary studies, showed us more than ever about the behavior of our ancestors and ourselves. New fossils gave us a glimpse at the earliest Europeans, predating both our own species and the Neanderthals. Finally, we dove deeper into the blockbuster story of the year, looking at some of the biggest Denisovan studies which give us a clearer than ever picture of these enigmatic human relatives.Human traits of chimps and bonobos Portrait of a bonobo Fiona Rogers / Getty Images A February study investigated theory of mind, or the uniquely human trait of recognizing the cognitive sapience of others, which allows modern humans to communicate and coordinate to an extent not seen in other animals. Study co-author Luke Townrow and colleagues set up an experiment where bonobos would receive a food reward hidden under cups, but only if they cooperated with their human partner and showed them where the food was first. Sometimes the bonobo could tell the human knew where the food was, and sometimes the animal could tell the human didn’t know where the food was. Bonobos pointed to the location of the hidden food more frequently and quicker when they knew the human was ignorant of the food’s location, indicating that they could interpret the human’s mental state and act accordingly, a hallmark of theory of mind. In addition to cooperating, an April study shows that apes also share, especially when it comes to fermented fruit. Anna Bowland and colleagues documented the first recorded instance of fermented food sharing in chimpanzees, observed in Cantanhez National Park, Guinea-Bissau. At least 17 chimps of all ages shared fermented breadfruits, ranging between 0.01 percent and 0.61 percent alcohol by volume. While this may not be enough ethanol to result in the sort of intoxication levels desired by many humans, this demonstrates that food sharing, and fermented food consumption, have deep evolutionary roots, supported by the evolution of ethanol metabolism among all African apes. On top of all that monkey business, an October study shows that chimps even have complex decision-making processes. Hanna Schleihauf and colleagues presented to chimps two boxes, one that contained food and one that was either empty or contained a non-food item. The chimps were allowed to choose a box twice, after receiving either weak or strong evidence about which box contains the food. The team found that chimps were able to revise their beliefs about the food’s location in response to more convincing evidence: When they picked the wrong box after the weak hint, they switched to the correct box after the following strong hint. Also, when they picked the correct box after a strong hint, they kept their selection after a weak hint. The study highlights the chimpanzees’ ability to make rational decisions, and even change decisions, in response to learning new information. Fun fact: Chimps may use medicinal herbs In a study last year, researchers collected extracts of plants that they saw chimpanzees eating outside of their normal diets in Uganda’s Budongo Central Forest Reserve. The researchers discovered that “88 percent of the plant extracts inhibited bacterial growth, while 33 percent had anti-inflammatory properties.” A holistic picture of Paranthropus The reconstructed left hand of the Paranthropus boisei Mongle, Carrie et al., Nature, 2025 Besides learning more about our ape relatives, we also learned a lot more about some of our hominin cousins this year. Paranthropus is a genus of hominins consisting of three species, mostly known for their large teeth and massive chewing muscles that they likely used to break down tough plant fibers. However, not much was known about them outside of their mouths and skulls. A Paranthropus study from April helps to close this gap, describing an articulated lower limb from the Swartkrans site in South Africa. Travis Pickering and colleagues described a partial pelvis, femur and tibia of an adult Paranthropus robustus dating back 2.3 million to 1.7 million years ago. The anatomy of the hip, femur and knee indicate that this individual was fully bipedal. This hominin would probably have been only about three feet tall, one of the tiniest hominins on record. Due to a lack of other fossil material for comparison and the pelvis fossil being very incomplete, estimating the sex of this individual is more difficult. However, another study from May pioneered the use of different methods to estimate the sex of Paranthropus fossils. Analyzing proteins preserved in fossil tooth enamel, Palesa Madupe and colleagues were able to determine sex and begin to investigate genetic variability in Paranthropus fossils from South Africa. Using these proteins, the team was able to identify two male and two female individuals, allowing for more accurate hypotheses about sexual dimorphism (sex-based body size and shape differences). The team also found that one of the individuals appeared to be more distantly related, hinting at microevolution within this species. Lastly, a study published in October described a Paranthropus boisei hand from the Koobi Fora site in Kenya, which allowed scientists to learn if Paranthropus could have made stone tools. Carrie Mongle and colleagues looked at the nearly complete Paranthropus hand, which reveals a mostly hominin-looking morphology. Yet with strong musculature and wide bones, the grasping capabilities of Paranthropus seem to converge with that of gorillas, although they likely used this powerful grip to strip vegetation and process food rather than for climbing. Additionally, with a long thumb and precision grasping capabilities, the authors hypothesize that nothing in their hand morphology would have prevented Paranthropus boisei from making and using stone tools. This builds on other recent finds suggesting that the ability to make and use complex tools was not limited to the genus Homo.The family of a famous footThe Burtele foot, a fossil from Ethiopia that was described in 2012 and originally not given a species designation, dates to about 3.4 million years ago. Despite being contemporaneous with Australopithecus afarensis, Lucy’s species, the fossil looked almost nothing like it. The locomotor adaptations were completely different, and the foot still had an opposable big toe, like modern apes and the earlier genus Ardipithecus. In November, Yohannes Haile-Selassie and colleagues published research on other fossils from the same site where the Burtele foot was found. A new mandible with teeth links the hominin fossils at Burtele to a less well-known species, Australopithecus deyiremeda. This species had primitive teeth and grasping feet, with isotopic evidence pointing to a plant-based diet more similar to that of earlier species like Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus anamensis. These new finds show that primitive traits persisted more recently into the timeline of human evolution and that our family tree is even bushier than previously thought.Ancient tool technologies An ancient ochre fragment that shows signs of re-use  d’Errico, Francesco et al., Science Advances, 2025 Archaeological sites, by definition, are evidence of past human behavior. But it’s not often a find is unearthed that turns out to be evidence of just one past human’s behavior. A study in August by Dominik Chlachula and colleagues reports on a small cluster of 29 stone artifacts from the Milovice IV site in the Czech Republic that were probably bundled together in a container or pouch made of perishable material: basically, a Stone Age hunter-gatherer’s personal toolkit. The 30,000-year-old blade and bladelet tools were made from different kinds of stone (flint, radiolarite, chert and opal). Use-wear analysis showed they were used for cutting, scraping and drilling, and the kit also included projectiles used for hunting. Now we move farther back in time, to when some of the earliest members of our lineage were making tools. In November, David Braun and colleagues reported on stone toolmaking in the Turkana Basin of Kenya that started about 2.75 million years ago at the new site of Namorotukunan, which contains one of the oldest and longest intervals of the making of Oldowan tools. This simple core-and-flake technology was, as revealed by this new evidence, nevertheless undertaken with enough skill—and the tools useful enough for various activities—to be made consistently for almost 300,000 years, through dramatic environmental changes, highlighting our ancestors’ resilience. However, not all ancient tools were made for practical purposes. In October, Francesco d’Errico and colleagues described three pieces of ochre, an iron-rich mineral pigment, from archaeological sites in Crimea, Ukraine. These artifacts were deliberately collected, shaped, engraved, polished, resharpened and deposited there by Neanderthals up to 70,000 years ago. Although it’s impossible to know what the Neanderthals did with these yellow and red pigments, the fact that they seemed to be kept sharpened suggests that their tips were used to produce linear marks. This suggests that they had a symbolic or artistic function, rather than a utilitarian one, perhaps playing a role in identity expression, communication and transmitting knowledge across generations.Neanderthal eating habitsWhen they weren’t busy coloring with paleo-crayons, our Neanderthal cousins are known for being skilled hunters of large animals, and two studies in July shed new light on their diets. First, Lutz Kindler and colleagues documented that 125,000 years ago, at the site of Neumark-Nord in Germany, Neanderthals processed at least 172 animals at the edge of a lake, most likely to extract bone grease. This “fat factory,” as the researchers called it, is much older than previously documented grease extraction sites, and this extreme bone-bashing behavior had not been seen before at Neanderthal sites. The team documented how Neanderthals transported the bones of these animals, mostly antelope, deer and horses, but even some forest elephants, to the site to crush, chop up and boil to get at the nutritious, calorie-rich fat inside. (Speaking of Neanderthals cooking things, a December study by Rob Davis, Nick Ashton and colleagues documented the earliest evidence of deliberate fire-making from the 400,000-year-old site of Barnham in England, where they found heated sediments, fire-cracked flint handaxes and fragments of iron pyrite—a mineral used to strike sparks with flint—likely brought to the site from far away.) Later in July, Melanie Beasley and colleagues made an intriguing suggestion about the Neanderthal diet. Humans and our earlier relatives can only eat a certain proportion of protein in our diets without getting protein poisoning, but chemical signatures (specifically, nitrogen isotope values) in Neanderthal bones indicate that they ate as much protein as other ancient hyper-carnivores. So, what was causing this? Maybe it was maggots, fat-rich fly larvae. When an animal dies, maggots feed on the decaying flesh, which has higher nitrogen values as it decomposes. Many Indigenous forager groups regard putrid meat as a tasty treat. If Neanderthals were eating nitrogen-enriched maggots feeding on rotting muscle tissue in dried, frozen or cached (deliberately stored) dead animals, that might at least partly explain their unusually high nitrogen values. While our later evolutionary cousins may have munched on maggots, a study in January by Tina Lüdecke and colleagues looked at carbon and nitrogen isotopes in the teeth of Australopithecus and other animal species dating back more than three million years ago from South Africa’s Sterkfontein site. The isotope ratios of the seven Australopithecus teeth were variable but consistently low, and more similar to the contemporaneous herbivores than the carnivores, suggesting they were not consuming much meat. This follows with other recent studies suggesting, contrary to common belief, that carnivory was not a major factor shaping our evolution.The earliest EuropeansTwo studies this year focused on early evidence for hominins in Europe. In January, Sabrina Curran and colleagues reported cut marks on several animal bones from the Graunceanu site in Romania, dating to at least 1.95 million years ago—now among the earliest evidence that hominins had spread to Eurasia by that time. To verify that these were cut marks made by stone tools, they compared 3D shape data from impressions of the marks to a reference set of almost 900 modern marks made by stone tool butchery, carnivore feeding and sedimentary abrasion. They concluded that the marks on eight Graunceanu fossils, mainly hoofed animals like deer, were stone tool cut marks. In March, Rosa Huguet and colleagues reported on the earliest hominin face fossil from Western Europe, dated to 1.4 million-1.1 million years ago, found in Spain. The shape of the left half of the face fossil is more similar to Homo erectus (which had not been documented in Europe), rather than resembling later and more modern looking Homo antecessor fossils found almost 1,000 feet away and dated to between 900,000-800,000 years ago. The scientific name of the new fossil is ATE7-1, but its nickname is “Pink.” This is a nod to Pink Floyd’s album The Dark Side of the Moon, which in Spanish is La cara oculta de la luna (cara oculta means hidden face). Also, Huguet’s first name, Rosa, is Spanish for pink.New Denisovan discoveries A reconstruction of the Harbin cranium by paleoartist John Gurche Courtesy of John Gurche Denisovan fossils have been found in Siberia and throughout East Asia, although they are few and far between. Denisovans may be our most enigmatic cousins, because we’ve learned more about them through DNA, including DNA we got from interbreeding with them, than from their fossils. Until this year, that is. A study from April described a new Denisovan mandible. Takumi Tsutaya and colleagues analyzed the Penghu 1 mandible, dredged up from the coast of Taiwan, and discovered that the morphology and protein sequences both matched it with Denisovans. Proteomics also allowed the team to determine this was a male individual, and this find expands the known range of Denisovans into warmer, wetter regions of Asia. Next, two stories from this summer took a second look at the Harbin cranium, termed “Dragon Man” and given the species name Homo longi in 2021. The first study, in June, looked at the proteome of the Harbin cranium, while the second study, in July, looked at the mitochondrial DNA; both studies were led by Qiaomei Fu. While no DNA was able to be retrieved from the fossil itself, proteomics and the DNA from dental calculus both suggested that this fossil was part of the Denisovan group. Together, these studies give the first look at the face of a Denisovan, lining up morphology with molecules. While more work needs to be done to build the body of evidence and give scientists a more complete view of Denisovan anatomy, habitat and behavior, being able to link complete fossils with the molecular evidence is a huge step forward. While it is unclear what this means for the name “Denisovan” itself, we hypothesize that it will persist as a popular or common name, much like how we call Homo neanderthalensis “Neanderthals” today. Lastly, in September, Xiaobo Feng and colleagues reconstructed and described the Yunxian 2 cranium from China, dating to one million years ago. The skull was meticulously reconstructed from crushed and warped fragments and appears to have a mix of primitive and derived traits, and it is also closely aligned with the Homo longi group. The phylogenetic analysis conducted by the team changes the perspective of late hominin divergence, with Homo longi and Homo sapiens being sister taxa to the exclusion of Neanderthals, and all three groups having evolutionary origins two to three times older than previously thought: at least 1.2 million years ago. While more finds will support or refute these phylogenetic claims, new fossil evidence continues to help refine our understanding of our lineage—and never stops surprising us.This story originally appeared in PLOS SciComm, a blog from PLOS, a nonprofit that publishes open-access scientific studies. Get the latest on what's happening At the Smithsonian in your inbox.

Animals
Business
Chemicals

Can pets thrive on a vegan diet? My husky put it to the test.

Vegan pet food is gaining human and animal fans alike, as people look to reduce their household’s environmental impact and enhance their pets’ health.

In today’s brave new world of pet food — full of raw-meat diets and homemade alternatives — one surprising category is ascendant: plant-based pet food.For years, a growing number of pet owners have taken their animal companions’ diets into their own hands or, like Martha Stewart, prepared gourmet meals for their cats and dogs (“I know exactly what they’re getting,” she wrote).

Animals
Food

Montana Judge Allows 2025-26 Wolf Hunting and Trapping Regulations to Stand While Lawsuit Proceeds

A Montana judge is allowing the wolf hunting and trapping regulations the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted earlier this year to stand, saying it's doubtful hunters and trappers will meet the record-high quota of 458 wolves this season

A Helena judge has allowed the wolf hunting and trapping regulations the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted earlier this year to stand, despite flagging “serious concerns” about the state’s ability to accurately estimate Montana’s wolf population.In a 43-page opinion, District Court Judge Christopher Abbott wrote that leaving the 2025-2026 hunting and trapping regulations in place while he considers an underlying lawsuit will not “push wolf populations to an unsustainable level.”In its lawsuit, first filed in 2022, WildEarth Guardians, Project Coyote, Footloose Montana and Gallatin Wildlife Association challenged four laws adopted by the 2021 Montana Legislature aimed at driving wolf numbers down. Earlier this year, the environmental groups added new claims to their lawsuit and asked the court to stop the 2025-2026 regulations from taking effect. The groups argued that a record-high wolf hunting and trapping quota of 458 wolves, paired with the potential for another 100 wolves to be killed for preying on livestock or otherwise getting into conflict with humans, would push the state’s wolf population “toward long-term decline and irreparable harm.” According to the state’s population estimates — figures that the environmental groups dispute — there are approximately 1,100 wolves across the state.In a Dec. 19 press release about the decision, Connie Poten with Footloose Montana described the ruling as a “severe setback,” but argued that the “resulting slaughter will only strengthen our ongoing case for the protection of this vital species.”“The fight for wolves is deep and broad, based in science, connection, humaneness and necessity. Wolves will not die in vain,” Poten said.Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks declined to comment on the order, citing the ongoing litigation. Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and the Outdoor Heritage Coalition, nonprofit groups that backed the state’s position in the litigation, could not be reached for comment on the order by publication time Monday afternoon.The order comes more than a month after a two-hour hearing on the request for an injunction, and about three weeks after the trapping season opened across the majority of the state. The trapping season is set to close no later than March 15, 2026.During the Nov. 14 hearing at the Lewis and Clark County courthouse, Alexander Scolavino argued on behalf of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission that hunters, trappers and wildlife managers won’t come close to killing 558 wolves this season. Scolavino added that the highest number shot or trapped in a single season was 350 wolves in 2020 — well shy of the 458-wolf quota the commission, the governor-appointed board that sets hunting seasons for game species and furbearers, adopted in August.Abbott agreed with Scolavino’s argument, writing in his order that it’s unlikely that hunters and trappers will “achieve anything near the quota established by the commission.” To reinforce his claim, he noted that hunters and trappers have not killed 334 wolves — the quota commissioners adopted for the 2024-2025 season — in any of the past five seasons. “In short, nothing suggests that the 2025/2026 season is likely to push wolf populations to an unsustainable level or cause them irreparable injury,” he concluded.Abbott seemed to suggest that livestock-oriented conflicts are waning and that it’s unlikely that the state will authorize the killing of 100 “conflict” wolves. He noted that livestock depredations dropped from “a high of 233 in 2009 to 100 per year or less today.” On other issues — namely the Constitutional environmental rights asserted by the plaintiffs and the reliability of the state’s wolf population-estimation model — Abbott appeared to side with the plaintiffs. Those issues remain unresolved in the ongoing litigation before the court.Abbott wrote that the plaintiffs “are likely to show that a sustainable wolf population in Montana forms part of the ‘environmental life support system’ of the state.” The environmental groups had argued in their filings that the existing wolf-management framework “will deplete and degrade Montana’s wolf population,” running afoul of the state’s duty to “preserve the right to a clean and healthful environment.”In his order, Abbott incorporated material from the plaintiffs’ filings regarding the economic and ecological benefits of wolves, including “the suppression of overabundant elk, deer and coyote populations,” “restoring vegetation that aids water quality, songbirds and insect pollinators,” and “generating income and jobs” by contributing to the wildlife-watching economy anchored by Yellowstone National Park.Abbott also expressed “serious concerns” about the way the state estimates wolf numbers — a model that relies, among other things, on wolf sightings reported by elk hunters — but ultimately concluded that the court is currently “unequipped” to referee “the palace intrigues of academia” in the wildlife population-modeling arena. In the press release about the decision, the environmental groups described these pieces of Abbott’s order as “serious and valid questions” that the court must still address.Another lawsuit relating to the 2025-2026 wolf regulations is ongoing. On Sept. 30, Rep. Paul Fielder, R-Thompson Falls, and Sen. Shannon Maness, R-Dillon, joined an outfitter from Gallatin County and the Outdoor Heritage Coalition (which intervened in the environmental groups’ litigation) to push the state to loosen regulations by, for example, lengthening the trapping season and expanding the tools hunters or trappers can use to pursue and kill wolves. The plaintiffs in that lawsuit argue that liberalizing the hunting and trapping season would reaffirm the “opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals enshrined in the Montana Constitution,” and bring the state into alignment with a 2021 law directing the commission to adopt regulations with an “intent to reduce the wolf population.”According to the state’s wolf management dashboard, 83 wolves have been shot or trapped as of Dec. 22. The department closed the two wolf management units closest to Yellowstone National Park to further hunting and trapping earlier this year after three wolves were killed in each of those units. This story was originally published by Montana Free Press and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Animals
Health
Science

Suggested Viewing

Return of the Buffalo

The Lakota people on the Rosebud Reservation of South Dakota welcome buffalo back to their land with hopes that this reunion will restore their cultural, physical, spiritual, and economic health.

Animals
Indigenous
Social Justice

The Custodians of the Andean Gold

In the Peruvian and Bolivian Andes, more than 3 800 meters above sea level, live alpaca and vicunia breeders. Quechua and Aymara families protect their animals live off of the sale of the animals’ fiber. Gold mining is another activity that predates the Conquest and is widespread among families living in the border area between Peru and Bolivia. The difficult compatibility on the same territory of these two production activities increases the need for environmental protection and workers' rights. It has become indispensable to support producers so that this activity does not disappear with the migration of native peoples, abandoning traditions and animals.

Animals
Indigenous
Business

Sockeye Salmon. Red Fish

Sockeye, a species of wild salmon, is born in Kamchatkan waters and spends its entire life in the Pacific Ocean. Only once does it return to fresh waters - to give offspring, start the circle of life, and die. It is an inexhaustible resource that feeds billions of people on the planet, restored every year! But soon, we may find ourselves facing the unimaginable: humans will exhaust the inexhaustible!

Animals
Food
Extinction

A Year With Northern Owls

We follow five North American owls in different seasons; from summer heat to spring rejuvenation.

Animals
Conservation
Documentary

The Straight Poop

Our animated short entertains while presenting eye-opening information on one of the fastest, most effective ways to slow the rate of global warming. Our film is an engaging way of addressing the dangers of climate change that educates in a non-threatening comical way. Individuals concerned about climate change can make relatively small personal choices that can have a huge positive effect.

Animals
Climate
Food

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.