Name a disease caused by a novel coronavirus pathogen with a probable wildlife market origin that severely disrupts the economy, travel, and global supply chains. How about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? If it was 2002–2003, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) may have come to mind.

With SARS, a ban was placed on wildlife trade but was later lifted 6 months later. With COVID-19, China recently turned a temporary suspension on wildlife trade into a permanent ban—a ban that prohibits hunting, trading, transport of all terrestrial wild animals used for human consumption—until the current Wildlife Protection Law can be amended. Like with SARS, this ban may not be permanent. Details of the ban and proposed amendments have yet to be clarified. Until then, many wildlife farms and all wildlife wet markets had been shut down. 

At the end of December, the initial cases of COVID-19 were linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan China. This market, referred to as a “wildlife wet market,” sold both seafood and live exotic animals. Despite the widespread availability of supermarkets, wet markets remain a significant source of accessible, affordable fresh food for many. Not all wet markets sell wildlife. The name designation, “wet market,” refers to markets selling fresh food—including seafood, meat, vegetables, and tofu—and these markets are wet. On the floor, there is water from tanks, water from melting ice, water from cleaning hoses, and blood from slaughtered animals. 

Wildlife AND wet market patrons may see row after row of living animals including snakes, raccoons, bamboo rats, groundhogs, turtles, palm civets, pangolins, fox, porcupine, deer, bats, chickens, wild boars, fish (splashing in tubs), and peacocks in cages from top to bottom, side-by-side—with urine and excrement falling to those below. Animals may be slaughtered and butchered in front of buyers.

Animals at these markets are often stressed. With an eclectic assortment of highly susceptible animal hosts in very close contact, the opportunity is set for pathogens to connect, mutate, and infect a new host—animal or human. While the animal source for COVID-19 remains unclear, researchers believe a common coronavirus from one animal mingled with another coronavirus from another animal, mutated, and jumped over to humans.

Deep-rooted culture of “jinbu”

China is widely recognized to be the largest consumers of trafficked wildlife products. Demand is driven by the use of exotic animals for status, prestige, and medicinal uses. Using wild animals for food, medicine, ornaments, and pets has deep cultural roots. The “Inner Bible of the Yellow Emperor,” an ancient Chinese medical text describing eating exotic animals written 2,000 years ago, continues to be endorsed today. According to traditional Chinese medicine, bear gallbladder and bile treat jaundice and bats can restore eyesight. A stew of palm civet and snake meat can cure insomnia. Certain foods, particularly rare plants and animals, are believed to have mystical powers capable of filling voids known as “jinbu.” Voids needing to be filled include energy for men and blood for women. Winter months bring a greater need for “jinbu.” 

Eating foods fresh and raw provide the best replenishment: animals killed just before serving are more “jinbu” potent. This is one reason animals are sold alive in wet markets, and why some dogs are chased before being slaughtered—blood and energy ran high. While wet markets are not unique to China, mystical beliefs about foods having special powers are deeply embedded in the country.

This ban on consumptive wildlife trade, along with public support, may help send a strong message out that society's relationship with wildlife is up for re-evaluation. The majority of Chinese citizens do not consume wild animals. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an indication that public opinion of wildlife consumption was changing. Studies from the Beijing Normal University and the China Wildlife Conservation Association found that while a third of respondents in 2012 used wild animals in their lifetime, more than 52% of total respondents and 80% of respondents from Beijing agreed wildlife should not be consumed.

Aron White, a wildlife campaigner at the Environmental Investigation Agency, said, “The vast majority of people within China react to the abuse of wildlife in the way people in other countries do—with anger and revulsion. I think we should listen to those voices that are calling for change and support those voices.”

Lucrative industry

The wildlife trade industry also happens to be big business with extraordinary lobbying capacity. In 2017, a report published by the Chinese Academy of Engineering found wildlife trade was worth $73 billion (with wildlife trade exclusively for consumption valued at $18 billion). In comparison, China’s pork industry was worth $140 billion before African swine fever entered the picture. With pork prices out of reach to many, selling alternate meat sources in these markets has been especially lucrative. 

The role of China’s government in the wildlife trade industry is essential to understand. China’s leadership over the years has supported wildlife domestication as a key player in rural development, eco-tourism, and a way to eliminate poverty. In 1988, the Wildlife Protection Law designated wildlife as a natural resource owned by the state. Now defined as a resource, China would legally protect those using wildlife (a resource) for economic growth. Large scale wildlife farming was born. 

As currently written, the law fully protects around 400 wild animals. Around 1,500 animals are protected but can be sold commercially with proper documentation. Interpretation and enforcement of this law is ambiguous and riddled with loopholes. As an example, licensed farms often provided cover for illegal traffickers. As soon as poached animals are transferred to these farms, these animals fall under the guise of those deemed legal and are laundered in the marketplace. Identifying animal origin is challenging, if not impossible. 

Now, nearly 20,000 wildlife farms have animals unable to be sold, leaving farmers wondering how they will feed their families and if compensation will be granted. Currently, little information is available on what is happening to these animals. Regarding the issues surrounding closing down farms, Zhang Boju, a director of a Beijing based non-government organization (NGO) said, “How to deal with those animals, to compensate the farm breeders, a mechanism for them to exit the industry—these are the things that authorities need to pay attention in enforcing the ban.” 

The future of the ban

Complexities exist surrounding the longevity and success of a blanket ban. The wildlife industry is lucrative with deep cultural roots, and to some extent, governmentally supported. Answers to questions do not have simple answers. Will this ban be temporary like we saw with SARS? Will the ban become ambiguous, wrought with loopholes? Will a blanket ban push wildlife trade underground, illegally?

Sara Plato from a different Beijing based NGO suggests the need for a multidisciplinary team composed of researchers, those from NGOs, lawmakers, and businesses to effectively implement laws for a longtime solution. She says, “The Chinese government now has the potential and the opportunity to make a great change, and they should not do it just by themselves.”

There was hope. The world’s eyes watched the opening act in the Wuhan Market and unfold to the global COVID-19 pandemic finale. Light was cast upon the public health and conservation consequences of wildlife trade. In less than 3 months, COVID-19 became a global pandemic, spreading to more than 100 countries and killing more than 4,500 people. The world was paying attention. 

Two months following the ban on consumptive wildlife trade, affected farmers in several Chinese provinces will be offered an exit strategy. Governmental compensation for fourteen species of captive wildlife—raised for food—will be granted. A farmer may receive $3.40 per guinea pig and $84 per civet cat. A cobra snake may bring a payout of $17 per kilogram. Promoted alternative livelihoods include growing plant-based crops or breeding pigs and chickens. 

Of all animals on captive wildlife farms in China, 30 percent are bred for consumption. Seventy percent are raised for other commercial purposes including fur, traditional Chinese medicine, wildlife parks and pet trade, or research. These farms, the majority, remain unaffected and trade continues.  

Three fates are possible for the wild animals included in the ban. They may be released in the wild, culled, or with a pivot in commerce, sold commercially for other purposes (besides food) as listed above. After all, trade in animals for fur and for medicinal use remains unabated—and lucrative. The decision is left to the farmer. 

The wet markets have reopened. 

Now into the pandemic’s fifth month, COVID-19 has killed more than 430,000 people across the world. 

Editor’s note: The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily of the University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine. We present them here to further discussion around topics related to veterinary medicine that our faculty, staff, and students find important and worthy of deeper contemplation. We encourage you to send responses to cvmcomm@umn.edu.