I think that in international relations we should respect and follow the principle of non-interference
As always, it depends. What are wet markets, how are they managed? Are there sanitary conditions with cooling facilities present? Are the animals there treated well and kept far apart from each other? Are they essential for the economy of poorer nations and is the food there essential for their inhabitants?
What is bush meat? This meat was the only meat available to humans throughout most of their history. Using bushmeat, for example, kangaroo meat in Australia, in a sustainable way, is much better for the environment than using factory-farmed meat which requires a high energy input and produces an enormous amount of pollutants. Indigenous populations have mostly protected species that were an important food source to them and thus helped species to survive. If we stay with the example of kangaroo meat, kangaroos are native to Australia and were an important protein source for indigenous Australians. Kangaroos do not destroy the soil surface with hooves as cows do, they produce very lean and healthy meat, they produce less methane than cows, they are part of the original landscape and they help to protect open grasslands. Furthermore, until their death, they have a happy, free-range lifestyle, can raise their own offspring, and their raising occurs automatically without much input from us. The risk of disease transmission can be mitigated by compulsory testing of the meat, which is customary in many countries. Also, many poorer nations have a protein-deficit, and bushmeat can help with that.
On the downside, excessive use of native animals and illegal traffic can quickly lead to the extinction of a species. Often the animals are killed inhumanely and have to suffer a lot. Testing of the meat does not occur and storage conditions of the dead animals are sub-standard as no cooling is available. Animals of different species are housed together in unsanitary conditions and disease transmission can easily occur.
So it is obvious that it all depends on how wet markets and bushmeat are managed.
Friederike Susette Eberhard You raise very valid points. i think that we should assist these countries in making the decisions. ultimately they should decide. other countries should not impose external preferences on them.
We have to find the reason why people eat wild meat are complex—from cultural norms and traditions to preferences for the taste. But food insecurity frequently plays an outsize role. In China, for instance, about 150 million people are malnourished, and wild meat can offer a source of protein. According to a 2018 study, 39 percent of households surveyed across Latin America, Asia, and Africa harvest wild meat, and poorer households tend to rely on it more.
Si I think its not easy to stop them completely. But I do agree with Friederike Susette Eberhard response like way these wet markets and bushmeat are managed need proper control.
Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/04/ban-wet-markets/609781/
Joseph Tham rather why we don't take a sample to check from wet markets before selling. For bush meat, of course, better to be ban.
As long as Countries can assure sanitary and ethical conditions (at least minimum levels, just at the beginning), the market can continue.
Roberto Molteni is correct but not every country can and/or will do that. Watch what is happening in my country(USA) over keeping simple distance rules. If our citizens won't then why would one expect any others would even with good leadership.
If the sources of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic causing Covid-19 disease are associated with the sale of certain foods in the inferior sanitary standards in rural markets in the Wuhan region of China, then the standards for anti-pandemic safety and sanitary sale of foods should be improved kind of markets.
Greetings,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Earlier this year, a research shows that the genome of the nCovid is is 96% similar to the Coronavirus in bats, something really similar to the SARS too. while it is difficult to assert how this said virus could have made it's what into human population, it is therefore safe to say with that percentage of similarity, the covid-19 is gotten from bats. Also like the deadly Ebola, Humans usually become infected with Lassa virus from exposure to urine or faeces of infected Mastomys rats. Hence, It is safe to say some governmental regulations on some bushmeat consumption will not be a bad idea, as the increase in viruses caused or transmitted by these bushmeat has become a major source of health concerns.
I agree with Friederike. It depends.
Not all wet markets are the same and certainly not all bush markets are the same.
Some conditions are horrible for the animals and this needs to be addressed.
However, the example of kangaroo meat is not appropriate as a wet or bush market. It is more controlled.
Another point to keep in mind is in rural areas, wild animals can be in close contact with humans and zoonosis can take place without markets. Example is the Australian bat lyssavirus for which we have a vaccine.
Michelle Balfour-Cunningham the question was also about bush meat, and kangaroo meat clearly falls into that category. The controls and sustainable practices in some countries could and should also be put into place for all kinds of bushmeat, but in some countries, this might not happen any time soon.
The problem with close human contact to potentially infectious species is also more severe now as more and more remote regions are inhabited, thus providing more areas of contact.
Regarding the question, if sovereign countries should have a right to decide about wet markets, of course, they do, but they should do it in a way that their own population and the rest of the world is protected as much as reasonably possible. As human beings, we have this responsibility towards any other living being regardless of which country we live in. We also have the responsibility to treat animals humanely. This is also not happening in factory farming in many developed countries.
We were not prepared for the Covid-19 crisis, and we are even less prepared for the looming consequences of on-going and worsening challenges such as climate change, biodiversity collapse, life-shortening air pollution, and ocean acidification.
As we move towards the next phase of the COVID-19 crisis in many countries, governments have a unique chance for a green and inclusive recovery that they must seize – a recovery that not only provides income and jobs, but also has broader well-being goals at its core, integrates strong climate and biodiversity action, and builds resilience. Stimulus packages need to be aligned with ambitious policies to tackle climate change and environmental damage. Only such an approach can deliver win-win-win policies for people, planet and prosperity. • • •
Earth Day provides us with the opportunity to take a comprehensive look at the sustainability of our environmental, economic and social systems, at the way they interact and create more resilient societies. This integrated approach to human health and well-being is at the core of OECD analysis. For example, the disruption of forests and ecosystems, rapid urbanisation and illegal wildlife trade bring people into closer contact with wild animal species, which in turn exposes humans to virus-carrying animals via zoonotic transfer. Exposure to air pollution increases the risk of cardiovascular, respiratory and development diseases, raising the vulnerability of individuals and communities, especially the poorest, to the effects of pandemics. Water access and quality are key to battling the spread of pandemics, while effective waste management is essential to minimize secondary impacts upon health and the environment from the pandemic.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biology