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.

Microplastics are in human testicles. It’s still not clear how they got there.

News Feed
Thursday, May 23, 2024

No human organ is safe from microplastic contamination, it seems — not even the testicles.  Researchers at the University of Mexico recently tested 70 samples of testicular tissue — 47 from dogs and 23 from humans — and found microplastics in every single one. The attention-grabbing study, published last week in the journal Toxicological Sciences, highlights microplastics’ “pervasive presence” in male reproductive systems, and their potential consequences on male fertility.  The study isn’t the first to identify microplastics in the human male reproductive system; that came last year, when a small-scale analysis identified microplastics in six out of six testes and 30 out of 30 semen samples. The new paper built on that research by examining many more testes and finding more than 20 times as much microplastic in human samples as the previous study. The most dominant polymer found in the samples was polyethylene, which is the most commonly produced plastic globally.  The findings add to a growing list of studies finding microplastics throughout the human body, including in livers, lungs, carotid arteries, breast milk, and placentas, the organs that form to provide nutrients to growing fetuses. Microplastics are particles less than 5 millimeters in diameter — about the width of a paperclip — and they tend to slough off of larger plastic items as they break down. So how do the microplastics get into people’s bodies? The main pathways are through food, beverages, and air. Seafood is a particularly significant source — perhaps because so much plastic pollution winds up in the ocean, where it breaks down and can be mistaken by fish for food. The particles have also been found in dairy milk and other animal products, as well as tap and bottled water, salt, honey, and foods packaged in plastic. Many studies have documented microplastics in dust samples and ambient air, especially indoors. Synthetic clothing, furniture upholstery, and other textiles release microplastics all the time, and one 2022 study estimated that people may inhale more than 48,000 microplastic particles per day. The mechanism by which microplastics migrate from the lungs and stomach to other parts of the body is not fully understood, but microplastics have been shown to be absorbed into the human bloodstream. Plastic in the ocean breaks down into microplastics, which can be mistaken for food by fish. Sebnem Coskun / Anadolu Agency / Getty Images Xiaozhong Yu, an environmental health professor at the University of New Mexico and a co-author of the new study, said he hadn’t expected to see so much microplastic in testicular tissue because of a cell structure called the “blood-testis barrier,” which is supposed to prevent toxic materials from getting into and damaging the testes.  “After we received the dog results I was so surprised,” Yu told Grist. And he was even more taken aback by the human samples, which had on average three times more microplastic contamination: 328 micrograms per gram, versus 123 in dogs. The most contaminated sample of human testicular tissue contained 696 micrograms of plastic per gram. In a testicle that weighs 20 grams (0.7 ounces), that would translate to nearly 14,000 micrograms of plastic per testicle — about the weight of six 6-inch human hairs. Yu said microplastics may be hitching a ride through the body via blood vessels and then breaking through the blood-testis barrier, though more research is needed to understand how this is happening. More research is also needed to understand the exact effects of microplastics on reproductive health, although many scientists agree they’re probably bad news. Some 16,000 chemicals are used to make consumer plastic products, and many of them are endocrine disruptors, meaning they mimic or disrupt the body’s natural hormones. In the canine samples Yu tested, certain types of microplastic were associated with smaller testes and lower sperm count. (The human sperm count couldn’t be counted because the testicles had been preserved in a formaldehyde solution.)  Some experts suspect that endocrine-disrupting chemicals are contributing to a globally observed decline in sperm count over the past several decades. According to an analysis published last year, human sperm count fell “appreciably” between 1973 and 2018, with the greatest declines in the years since 2000. Meanwhile, lab studies have already established that microplastics can damage human cells at levels that reflect what people might be exposed to by ingesting contaminated food and water. Last year, a systematic review commissioned by the California Legislature concluded that microplastics are a “suspected” hazard to humans’ digestive and reproductive systems, and that they may contribute to cancer and respiratory problems. Read Next Plastic chemicals are inescapable — and they’re messing with our hormones Joseph Winters One of the researchers’ interesting findings was that there was significant variability in the microplastics identified across samples. In humans, testes from those older than 55 showed lower concentrations than those from younger people, and canine testes taken from public veterinary clinics showed higher levels of microplastics than those from private clinics. The authors couldn’t explain these observations, but said they highlighted a “complex interplay of environment, dietary, and lifestyle factors in the accumulation of microplastics within biological tissues.” There’s not yet much research yet on how microplastics impact different populations, but experts say that vulnerable populations are more likely to be harmed by the production, use, and disposal of plastics more broadly. Although microplastics are virtually everywhere, Tracey Woodruff, a professor of reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, said that it’s possible for people to limit their exposure. Because food and water are two of the main ways microplastics can get into people’s bodies, her tips include opting for nonplastic food and drink containers, not storing food in plastic wrap, and shifting away from highly processed foods, which may have more microplastic contamination than unprocessed ones. She also recommends keeping plastic out of the microwave, and — because microplastics are released from synthetic clothing and can migrate through dust particles — washing your hands before you eat.  The problem can feel overwhelming, Woodruff said, but consumers shouldn’t be solely responsible for protecting themselves. She called for policymakers and regulatory agencies to limit the growth of the plastics industry so there’s less of the stuff being produced in the first place.  “It is prudent to act now,” she said, pointing to ongoing negotiations over the United Nations’ global plastics treaty, where some countries are fiercely advocating for a cap on plastic production. “We don’t need more plastics in our lives.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Microplastics are in human testicles. It’s still not clear how they got there. on May 23, 2024.

People eat, drink, and breathe in tiny pieces of plastics — but what they do inside the body is still unknown.

No human organ is safe from microplastic contamination, it seems — not even the testicles. 

Researchers at the University of Mexico recently tested 70 samples of testicular tissue — 47 from dogs and 23 from humans — and found microplastics in every single one. The attention-grabbing study, published last week in the journal Toxicological Sciences, highlights microplastics’ “pervasive presence” in male reproductive systems, and their potential consequences on male fertility. 

The study isn’t the first to identify microplastics in the human male reproductive system; that came last year, when a small-scale analysis identified microplastics in six out of six testes and 30 out of 30 semen samples. The new paper built on that research by examining many more testes and finding more than 20 times as much microplastic in human samples as the previous study. The most dominant polymer found in the samples was polyethylene, which is the most commonly produced plastic globally

The findings add to a growing list of studies finding microplastics throughout the human body, including in livers, lungs, carotid arteries, breast milk, and placentas, the organs that form to provide nutrients to growing fetuses. Microplastics are particles less than 5 millimeters in diameter — about the width of a paperclip — and they tend to slough off of larger plastic items as they break down.

So how do the microplastics get into people’s bodies? The main pathways are through food, beverages, and air. Seafood is a particularly significant source — perhaps because so much plastic pollution winds up in the ocean, where it breaks down and can be mistaken by fish for food. The particles have also been found in dairy milk and other animal products, as well as tap and bottled water, salt, honey, and foods packaged in plastic. Many studies have documented microplastics in dust samples and ambient air, especially indoors. Synthetic clothing, furniture upholstery, and other textiles release microplastics all the time, and one 2022 study estimated that people may inhale more than 48,000 microplastic particles per day.

The mechanism by which microplastics migrate from the lungs and stomach to other parts of the body is not fully understood, but microplastics have been shown to be absorbed into the human bloodstream.

A plastic yogurt cup and fork on the seafloor, with a fish swimming in the background. A diver is in the far background.
Plastic in the ocean breaks down into microplastics, which can be mistaken for food by fish. Sebnem Coskun / Anadolu Agency / Getty Images

Xiaozhong Yu, an environmental health professor at the University of New Mexico and a co-author of the new study, said he hadn’t expected to see so much microplastic in testicular tissue because of a cell structure called the “blood-testis barrier,” which is supposed to prevent toxic materials from getting into and damaging the testes. 

“After we received the dog results I was so surprised,” Yu told Grist. And he was even more taken aback by the human samples, which had on average three times more microplastic contamination: 328 micrograms per gram, versus 123 in dogs. The most contaminated sample of human testicular tissue contained 696 micrograms of plastic per gram. In a testicle that weighs 20 grams (0.7 ounces), that would translate to nearly 14,000 micrograms of plastic per testicle — about the weight of six 6-inch human hairs.

Yu said microplastics may be hitching a ride through the body via blood vessels and then breaking through the blood-testis barrier, though more research is needed to understand how this is happening.

More research is also needed to understand the exact effects of microplastics on reproductive health, although many scientists agree they’re probably bad news. Some 16,000 chemicals are used to make consumer plastic products, and many of them are endocrine disruptors, meaning they mimic or disrupt the body’s natural hormones. In the canine samples Yu tested, certain types of microplastic were associated with smaller testes and lower sperm count. (The human sperm count couldn’t be counted because the testicles had been preserved in a formaldehyde solution.) 

Some experts suspect that endocrine-disrupting chemicals are contributing to a globally observed decline in sperm count over the past several decades. According to an analysis published last year, human sperm count fell “appreciably” between 1973 and 2018, with the greatest declines in the years since 2000.

Meanwhile, lab studies have already established that microplastics can damage human cells at levels that reflect what people might be exposed to by ingesting contaminated food and water. Last year, a systematic review commissioned by the California Legislature concluded that microplastics are a “suspected” hazard to humans’ digestive and reproductive systems, and that they may contribute to cancer and respiratory problems.

One of the researchers’ interesting findings was that there was significant variability in the microplastics identified across samples. In humans, testes from those older than 55 showed lower concentrations than those from younger people, and canine testes taken from public veterinary clinics showed higher levels of microplastics than those from private clinics. The authors couldn’t explain these observations, but said they highlighted a “complex interplay of environment, dietary, and lifestyle factors in the accumulation of microplastics within biological tissues.” There’s not yet much research yet on how microplastics impact different populations, but experts say that vulnerable populations are more likely to be harmed by the production, use, and disposal of plastics more broadly.

Although microplastics are virtually everywhere, Tracey Woodruff, a professor of reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, said that it’s possible for people to limit their exposure. Because food and water are two of the main ways microplastics can get into people’s bodies, her tips include opting for nonplastic food and drink containers, not storing food in plastic wrap, and shifting away from highly processed foods, which may have more microplastic contamination than unprocessed ones. She also recommends keeping plastic out of the microwave, and — because microplastics are released from synthetic clothing and can migrate through dust particles — washing your hands before you eat. 

The problem can feel overwhelming, Woodruff said, but consumers shouldn’t be solely responsible for protecting themselves. She called for policymakers and regulatory agencies to limit the growth of the plastics industry so there’s less of the stuff being produced in the first place. 

“It is prudent to act now,” she said, pointing to ongoing negotiations over the United Nations’ global plastics treaty, where some countries are fiercely advocating for a cap on plastic production. “We don’t need more plastics in our lives.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Microplastics are in human testicles. It’s still not clear how they got there. on May 23, 2024.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Warnings of imports of caged hen eggs as Ukraine and Poland become UK’s biggest suppliers

Shift raises food safety and welfare concerns as imports can bypass standards for domestic producersUkraine and Poland have overtaken other EU countries to become the UK’s biggest egg suppliers, sparking warnings that imports of eggs from caged hens are slipping “through the back door” despite welfare pledges.Freedom of information data from the Animal and Plant Health Agency shows that, while the Netherlands supplied a large proportion of UK eggs in 2022, its share has steadily fallen. By 2025, Ukraine and Poland together accounted for more than 15m kilograms, with Spain, Italy and other southern and eastern European countries also having increased their exports. Continue reading...

Ukraine and Poland have overtaken other EU countries to become the UK’s biggest egg suppliers, sparking warnings that imports of eggs from caged hens are slipping “through the back door” despite welfare pledges.Freedom of information data from the Animal and Plant Health Agency shows that, while the Netherlands supplied a large proportion of UK eggs in 2022, its share has steadily fallen. By 2025, Ukraine and Poland together accounted for more than 15m kilograms, with Spain, Italy and other southern and eastern European countries also having increased their exports.Ukraine has provided the most eggs so far this year by weight at 8m kilograms, followed by almost 7m kilograms from Poland and 5m from Spain, according to data provided up to July this year.Imports of eggs for consumption rose sharply from about 3,500 consignments in 2023 to more than 10,000 in 2024. Although overall tonnage declined, fewer big shipments have been replaced by many small ones from regions where caged-hen systems remain widespread.Mark Williams, the chair of the British Egg Industry Council, said UK farmers were being placed at an unfair disadvantage. “Our farmers are asked to invest in ever-higher standards of hen welfare while the government leaves the back door open to eggs produced in a system that is banned in the UK. This is morally wrong and unfair, and the government should not be doing this,” he said.Williams said battery cages outlawed in the UK since 2012 were still commonplace in Ukraine, and that eggs linked to food safety issues in mainland Europe continued to be traded.After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the country’s farms, factories and trade routes were badly hit. To help Ukraine’s economy survive, the UK and EU suspended tariffs on its goods, meaning products such as eggs could be exported without extra costs. Ministers argue this tariff suspension is a deliberate step to support Ukraine during wartime.Williams acknowledged the humanitarian case, but added: “Aid should not come at the expense of UK egg farmers – particularly when British retailers have already pledged to go cage-free by 2025. That promise is undermined if imports from countries with weaker welfare standards are allowed to fill the gap into the price-sensitive food service and processing sectors.”The UK currently produces about 88% of its own eggs, and imports the remaining 12%. Leading supermarkets only sell British Lion eggs in retail, following 2017 Food Standards Agency advice confirming they are safe to eat runny or raw. Imported eggs are more likely to be found in restaurants and food processing.“I am not worried about Ukrainian eggs entering retail,” Williams said. “But retail is only 65% of the market. The other two segments – food service (18%) and processing (17%) – are very price-competitive, which makes it attractive for Ukraine to sell eggs or egg products here.”skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionHe added that UK regulations on food safety, animal welfare and environmental protection accounted for about 14% of the cost of producing a dozen eggs. “Ukraine doesn’t face those costs, giving them a huge commercial advantage. That’s why it’s so attractive right now to send eggs and egg products to the UK.”Ukraine has asked Britain to keep tariff suspensions in place until 2029. While the UK has agreed to extend tariff-free trade on most goods to that date, eggs and poultry are classed as “sensitive products” and have only been granted a shorter, two-year extension.A government spokesperson said: “We are backing our farmers with the largest nature-friendly budget in history to get more British food on our plates and we will always protect our farmers in trade deals.“We are making the supply chain fairer and are engaging with the egg industry to draft new regulations to ensure a level playing field for producers.”

Renowned Primatologist Jane Goodall Dead At 91

The Jane Goodall Institute said Goodall passed away "due to natural causes."

English primatologist and anthropologist Jane Goodall speaks in the panel "Earth's Wisdom Keepers" on the last day of the forum's Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, in 2024.AP Photo/Markus SchreiberJane Goodall, the world’s most famous primatologist, died Wednesday at the age of 91, the Jane Goodall Institute announced on social media.According to the Institute, Goodall passed away “due to natural causes” while in California as part of a speaking tour of the United States.“Dr. Goodall’s discoveries as an ethologist revolutionized science, and she was a tireless advocate for the protection and restoration of our natural world,” the Institute said in a statement.Goodall, the world's foremost authority on chimpanzees, communicates with chimpanzee Nana in June 2004 at the zoo of Magdeburg in eastern Germany. The British primatologist has died.JENS SCHLUETER/DDP/AFP via Getty ImagesIn the spring of 1957, Goodall, then a 22-year-old secretary with only a high school education, boarded a ship from her native England to Kenya. Her work at a local natural history museum soon took her to the rainforest reserve at Gombe National Park (in present-day Tanzania), home to one of the largest chimpanzee populations in Africa.She felt an immediate connection to the chimpanzees. Over the decades that followed, she spent almost all her time in the reserve ― conducting research that reshaped our understanding of chimpanzees and even what it means to be human. Goodall was born on April 3, 1934, in London, to businessman Mortimer Herbert Morris-Goodall and novelist Margaret Myfanwe Joseph. She grew up in the middle-class resort town of Bournemouth, on the southern coast of England. In grade school, she started reading Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Tarzan novels and Hugh Lofting’s “The Story of Doctor Dolittle” and became obsessed with the idea of traveling to Africa.Goodall’s parents couldn’t afford to send her to college, so after she graduated from high school, she worked as a secretary for two years to save money for the three-week passage to Africa. Two months after arriving, she met renowned paleontologist Louis Leakey, whose work had shown that hominids originated in Africa, rather than Asia. Leakey recognized Goodall’s intelligence and hired her at the natural history museum in Nairobi, where he worked, intending to send her to the rainforest to study chimpanzees. Goodall appears in Gombe National Park in the television special "Miss Goodall and the World of Chimpanzees," originally broadcast on CBS in December 1965.CBS Photo Archive via Getty ImagesFor the first few months of her stay in Gombe, the chimpanzees were cautious, refusing to come within several hundred feet of the young woman. But Goodall persisted, using bananas as a lure for the chimpanzees, and they eventually became comfortable enough to allow her to observe them at close range. Goodall began giving them individual names — highly unorthodox in a field where the standard practice was to assign animals identifying numbers. And as she got closer to the chimpanzees, she discovered that they behaved in a manner that resembled the rich, complicated social structure of humans far more than anyone had suspected. She came to the belief that they could be caring and violent, resourceful and playful — much like human beings.Goodall feeds rescued chimpanzees on July 14, 2016, at the Sweetwaters sanctuary, Kenya's only great-ape sanctuary.TONY KARUMBA/AFP/Getty ImagesGoodall made what is still regarded as her most significant discovery about chimpanzee behavior in October 1960. Looking through her binoculars, she saw a male chimpanzee she’d named David Greybeard sticking a twig into a termite colony and using it to retrieve termites that he then ate. Before this moment, scientists had always believed that humans were the only creatures on earth capable of making and using tools.It hadn’t, in fact, been known that chimpanzees ate meat. Goodall later observed chimpanzees hunting and eating mammals, including other monkeys and even, on rare occasions, other chimpanzees.In 1962, Goodall enrolled in a Ph.D. program at Cambridge University, becoming one of just a handful of people ever to do so without an undergraduate degree. While there, she published her breakthrough finding on the tool-using chimpanzee in the prestigious scientific journal Nature.After getting her degree in 1965, Goodall returned to Gombe to continue her work with chimpanzees. She published her first book, “My Friends the Wild Chimpanzees,” in 1967. She has since published more than a dozen other books for adults and several for children. One of these books, 2013’s “Seeds of Hope,” was criticized for including passages lifted from several other sources without attribution, a misstep Goodall attributed to sloppy note-taking. She later published a revised edition.Goodall poses for a photo at Taronga Zoo on Oct. 11, 2008, in Sydney. Robert Gray via Getty ImagesIn 1977, Goodall established the Jane Goodall Institute to promote conservation and development programs in Africa. It now has projects across the world, including youth-focused programs in nearly 100 countries. As Goodall’s fame grew, she became an outspoken advocate for animal rights and conservation. She has been involved in numerous organizations working on behalf of better treatment of animals.“You cannot share your life with a dog, as I had done in Bournemouth, or a cat, and not know perfectly well that animals have personalities and minds and feelings,” she told The Guardian in 2010. “You know it and I think every single one of those scientists knew it too, but because they couldn’t prove it, they wouldn’t talk about it.”In a 2021 interview with HuffPost, she reflected on humanity’s stewardship of the world and expressed hope we might lean more on our intellect to work toward the mutually beneficial goal of environmental preservation.That intellect is ultimately what distinguishes us from chimpanzees, she said, and allows us to collaboratively plan for the future:20 Years OfFreeJournalismYour SupportFuelsOur MissionYour SupportFuelsOur MissionFor two decades, HuffPost has been fearless, unflinching, and relentless in pursuit of the truth. Support our mission to keep us around for the next 20 — we can't do this without you.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.Chimpanzees have a very brutal, dark, war-like side. They also have a loving and altruistic side. Just like us. But the big difference is the explosive development of our intellect, which I personally think was at least partly triggered by the fact we developed this way of talking with words. So we can tell people about things that aren’t present. We can make plans for the distant future. We can bring people from different disciplines together to discuss a problem. That’s because of words. We now have developed a moral code with our words. And we know perfectly well what we should and shouldn’t do. But there is this kind of innate territorialism, which leads to nationalism. That’s in our genes. But we should be able to get out of it because of this intellect. We have the tools. We have the language. We have the scientific technology. We understand that if we make the right decisions every day and billions of us do it, we can move in the right direction. But will we do it in time? I don’t know.Goodall married Dutch nature photographer Baron Hugo van Lawick in 1964. The two had a son, Hugo, in 1967, and divorced in 1974. She married Derek Bryceson, head of Tanzania’s national parks, in 1975. He died of cancer in 1980. Sara Bondioli contributed reporting.

Environmentalists, Politicians, Celebrities Recall Life and Influence of Primatologist Jane Goodall

Tributes poured in from around the world honoring the life and influence of Jane Goodall, the famed primatologist whose death at the age of 91 was announced on Wednesday

Jane Goodall was a pioneer, a tireless advocate and a deeply compassionate conservationist who inspired others to care about primates — and all animals — during a long life well lived, according to tributes from around the world.U.S. Sen Cory Booker of New Jersey posted a video of Goodall to social media, and thanked her for her “lasting legacy of conservation.” Journalist Maria Shriver said Goodall was a “legendary figure and a friend” who “changed the world and the lives of everyone she impacted."Here’s a roundup of some notable reaction to Goodall's death and legacy: U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres “I’m deeply saddened to learn about the passing of Jane Goodall, our dear Messenger of Peace. She is leaving an extraordinary legacy for humanity & our planet.” — on X. UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay “Dr. Jane Goodall was able to convey the lessons of her research to everyone, especially young people. She changed the way we see Great Apes. Her chimpanzee greetings at UNESCO last year — she who so strongly supported our work for the biosphere — will echo for years to come.” — written statement.“Jane Goodall’s brilliant mind, compassionate heart, and pioneering spirit helped us better understand our connection to nature and our responsibility to defend it — and she inspired generations to do their part. It was an honor to have her alongside us just last week to share with leaders a message that is more urgent than ever.” — on X.“Thank you Jane Goodall for a lasting legacy of conservation, service to all of us, and for always being brave.” — on X. Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “Heartbroken to hear of Dr. Jane Goodall’s passing. She was a pioneer whose research and advocacy reshaped our understanding of the natural world. Her wisdom and compassion will live on in every act of conservation. All of us who were so greatly inspired by her will miss her deeply.” — on X.“Jane Goodall was a legendary figure and a friend. I admired her, learned from her, and was so honored to get to spend time with her over the years. She stayed at her mission and on her mission. She changed the world and the lives of everyone she impacted. The world lost one of its best today, and I lost someone I adored.” — on X. PETA Founder Ingrid Newkirk “Jane Goodall was a gifted scientist and trailblazer who forever changed the way we view our fellow animals. Caring about all animals, she went vegan after reading Animal Liberation, and helped PETA with many campaigns, calling her 1986 visit to a Maryland laboratory full of chimpanzees in barren isolation chambers ‘the worst experience of my life.’ We could always count on her to be on the animals’ side, whether she was urging UPS to stop shipping hunting trophies, calling for SeaWorld’s closure, or a shutdown of the Oregon National Primate Research Center.” — in written statement. Kitty Block, president and CEO of Humane World for Animals “Goodall’s influence on the animal protection community is immeasurable, and her work on behalf of primates and all animals will never be forgotten.” — in written statement.“My friend Jane Goodall was the wisest and most compassionate person I’ve ever met. She could make anybody feel hopeful about the future … no matter the hardships of the present. Just this weekend, she wrote to let me know she was thinking about what she could do to alleviate all of the suffering in Gaza, in Ukraine, in Sudan, and beyond. She was my hero, my inspiration. I will miss her every single day.” — on X.“Jane Goodall was a groundbreaking scientist and leader who taught us all so much about the beauty and wonder of our world. She never stopped advocating for nature, people, and the planet we share. May she rest in peace.” — on X.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Evolution may explain why women live longer than men

In most mammals, females live longer than males, but in birds the trend goes the other way – a study of over 1000 species points to possible reasons for these differences

Women live longer than men on average in every countryPeter Cavanagh/Alamy We now have a better idea of why women live longer than men, on average, thanks to the most comprehensive analysis yet of the differences in lifespan between male and female mammals and birds. The average global life expectancy is about 74 years for women and 68 years for men. There are various ideas to explain why women tend to live longer than men, including the suggestion that young men are more likely to die in accidents or conflicts, and that women are better protected against potentially harmful mutations in the sex-determining chromosomes than men, but the picture is far from complete. To search for clues from other animals, Johanna Stärk at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and her colleagues analysed data on life expectancy in 1176 species – 528 mammals and 648 birds – in zoos as well as in wild populations. They found that in 72 per cent of the mammal species, females live longer than males, by 12 or 13 per cent on average. But in birds, males tend to outlive females in 68 per cent of the species, surviving about 5 per cent longer on average. The researchers say this trend backs up the idea that sex chromosomes account for some of the differences in lifespan. In mammals, having two copies of the X chromosome makes an individual genetically female, while males have two different sex chromosomes, an X and a Y. In theory, females are better protected against harmful mutations in the sex chromosomes, because the second copy of the X chromosome acts as a backup. In birds, the sex determination system is the other way around: females have two different sex chromosomes, called Z and W, while males have two Z chromosomes. So the different life expectancy trends in mammals and birds back up the idea that the sex with different chromosomes – the heterogametic sex – incurs a longevity cost. “But what was very interesting is that we found exceptions,” says team member Fernando Colchero, also at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. “And with those exceptions, our idea was to test other evolutionary hypotheses for why these sex differences occur.” Digging deeper into the data, the team found that mating systems seem to play a role. In polygamous mammals where there is strong competition for mates – such as baboons, gorillas and chimpanzees – males generally die earlier than females. “Due to competition for mating opportunities, individuals – typically the males – will invest into traits favoured by sexual selection, such as large body size, ornamental feathers or antlers,” says Nicole Riddle at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “These traits are costly to produce, and there are typically other costs associated with the competition for mating opportunities, for example through fights with other males.” These factors will mean that the individual has less resources available to invest in its own long-term survival, she says. Males that invest in costly traits to win mates may have shorter lifespans as a resultRebius/Shutterstock This is also true of birds with polygamous mating systems. “Overall, this may also explain why the male advantage in birds is considerably lower than the female advantage in mammals,” says Pau Carazo at the University of Valencia in Spain. He says that in mammals, both the genetic factor and sexual selection traits work in the same direction in shortening male lifespan, whereas in birds the pressures may balance each other out, because males are often involved in strong sexual selection, but females bear the costs of heterogamy. Stärk and her colleagues also found that the sex that invests more in raising offspring tends to live longer. In mammals, this is often the females. In long-lived species like humans or other primates, this is probably evolutionarily advantageous, because it helps females survive until their offspring are sexually mature themselves. However, there were exceptions. “Birds of prey are the opposite of everything that we’re finding in the other species,” says Stärk. “The females are larger, and it’s often the females that engage much more in protection of the territory, but still females live longer.” Why is a mystery, she says. The lifespan differences between sexes are smaller in zoo populations than in wild populations, says Carazo, probably because life in captivity minimises environmental pressures like fights, predation and disease. This control over the environment might also be why lifespan differences between the sexes in humans have been shrinking, he says, although they might never go away entirely. “There are still some very strongly coded differences – physiological differences and genetic differences – between men and women,” says Colchero. “Who knows where medical sciences are going to take us, but in general, we don’t expect that those differences are completely going to disappear.”

Suggested Viewing

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.