Arctic Wildlife and Human Health in a Changing Environment
The Arctic is often imagined as a remote wilderness of ice and wildlife, but for the people who live there it is also a vital food system. Animals harvested from land and sea remain central to nutrition, culture and wellbeing across northern communities. A new review in Zoonoses and Public Health, based on more than 3,000 scientific studies, shows that this close relationship between people and wildlife increases the relevance of zoonotic diseases, infections that pass from animals to humans.
The researchers examined studies conducted across Alaska, northern Canada and Greenland, highlighting both the depth of scientific attention given to Arctic animals and the gaps that remain. Most studies focus on animal health, environmental contaminants and wildlife populations. Far fewer examine what these findings mean for human health, despite the fact that many Arctic residents regularly consume wild animals. This imbalance is important because changes in wildlife health may translate into risks for food security and public health.
A consistent finding across decades of research is that a relatively small number of pathogens dominate the Arctic disease landscape. Among parasites, Toxoplasma and Trichinella are the most frequently studied in both animals and humans. These organisms can be transmitted through undercooked or raw meat, making them particularly relevant in regions where traditional food practices remain important. Among bacteria, Brucella and Leptospira are common in wildlife studies, while botulism stands out in human health research, often linked to improperly stored traditional foods. Rabies, maintained in Arctic fox populations, remains the most widely studied virus and an important public health concern because untreated infections are almost always fatal.
The research also shows a clear focus on the animals that matter most to people. Terrestrial species such as caribou and foxes, along with marine mammals like seals and whales, are studied far more often than other animals. This reflects their importance in subsistence harvesting and suggests that disease risks may be concentrated in the species most closely connected to human diets.
Despite the large volume of research, most studies focus on describing the problem. They measure how common a disease is, identify possible risk factors or document illness and death in animals and humans. Very few track how diseases spread over time or test ways to reduce infection. Studies that evaluate interventions, such as safer food handling practices or vaccination strategies, are rare. This highlights an important gap between understanding disease and preventing it.
At the same time, the Arctic environment itself is changing rapidly. The review found that climate change is increasingly being considered in research, particularly over the past two decades. Warming temperatures and shifting ecosystems are altering wildlife distributions and may be creating new opportunities for pathogens to emerge or expand. These changes have the potential to increase exposure risks for northern communities, especially where reliance on country food remains high.
One of the notable gaps identified in the review is the limited inclusion of Indigenous knowledge. Only a small fraction of studies explicitly incorporates the observations and expertise of Indigenous communities, despite their long-standing relationships with Arctic ecosystems. This knowledge can provide valuable insights into animal behavior, environmental change and safe harvesting practices. Strengthening collaboration between researchers and communities is widely seen as essential for improving both scientific understanding and public health outcomes.
The overall picture that emerges is one of strong scientific foundations alongside remaining gaps in knowledge and application. There is no shortage of data on Arctic wildlife and the diseases they carry, yet there is far less evidence on how to reduce risks for the people who depend on these animals. As environmental change continues, addressing this gap may become increasingly important. Protecting human health in the Arctic may require not only continued research, but also greater attention to prevention, community engagement and the integration of knowledge systems that have long guided life in the North.
Léa Zinsli, PolarJournal
