Should we ban Wet Markets?
Post by: Lipi, Student
It was during the last few days of december 2019, that China was stumped with new cases of ‘pneumonia’ of an unknown cause. This new viral disease wasn’t anything like the ones we knew, and the first deaths due to this unknown virus were reported in the second week of January. Soon, we saw this disease- COVID-19, spread all over the world, and the situation worsened, leading to a pandemic. Immediately, stories about the origin of the virus were being circulated. Some ‘conspiracy’ theories claimed that the virus was a bioweapon which had leaked from a Wuhan lab. But, these claims were soon branded as unlikely. So, where did the virus originate? Search for the origins of the virus led scientists to a “wet” market in Wuhan- the first few cases had been in close contact with the market. Though there is no conclusive evidence to prove that the wet markets were the cause of the virus, there are enough reasons for us to believe so, based on past experiences (SARS) and research.
What are wet markets?
 |
| A wet market in Hong Kong has stalls selling fruit, vegetables, meat, fish and more. (Photo: Oqbas/Shutterstock.com) |
The coronavirus may have been transmitted to humans through a “zoonotic spillover” - the virus may have jumped from animals (mostly bats) to humans. Though it is still not yet clear as to how this might have happened, scientists believe that this “jump” took place through the human-animal interactions at the wet market. Wet markets are basically markets which sell fresh produce including animals. They are quite common all across Asia, and sell a variety of fruits, vegetables, and also beef and pork. They are called “wet” because they sell wet goods, like fish and other meat, which are freshly slaughtered, and are consistently splashed with water. These markets are an important source of affordable nutrition and livelihood for the local community.
Are wet markets and wildlife markets the same?
 |
| "Exotic" wild animals being sold at a market in Asia. (photo: Wikimedia Commons) |
Wet markets are easily confused with wildlife marktes, and this can lead to a lot of misinformation. Wet markets usually do not sell “live” wild animals, unlike the wildlife markets, which sell exotic wild animals, like peacocks, pangolins, civet cats, foxes, snakes and so on. The Wuhan market where the coronavirus is suspected to have originated had a wild animal section, where these wild animals were slaughtered and sold. Wet markets and wildlife markets are not the same.
It is speculated that the coronavirus jumped from a bat, to a pangolin before infecting humans. This implies that all these hosts must have intersected at a common point, for the virus to have found its way to the humans. Pangolins are exotic wild animals which are illegally trafficked for food and for medicine through the wildlife trade network. This is where the wildlife markets come into the picture. Wildlife markets act as breeding grounds for the emergence of deadly viruses like that of SARS and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) to jump from animals like bats to humans.
Should we ban wet markets?
But confusion has caused people to blame the wet markets for the pandemic, while the real culprit is the rampant and unregulated wildlife trade. Politicians and governments have called for a permanent ban on wet markets, due to panic and incomplete info. Western media has misrepresented the chinese wet markets as chaotic and unhygienic, which is unfair as their interpretations are based on dominant western ideologies, colored with aspects of racism and xenophobia. This is problematic, because banning the wet markets might not be such a good idea. It is certainly not a solution to the issues we are facing. The cries to ban wet markets fail to look at the perspectives of the chinese farmers, producers, and consumers. They fail to look at the historical and socio-economic context that has led to the birth of these markets.
Wet markets form an important aspect of Chinese culture and their everyday social life. They have provided a source of living for small independent farmers, and are a huge part of the cycle of food consumption in China. Banning wet markets permanently will deprive the local consumers, and may have unknown impacts on public health. It would also lead to the establishment of illegal underground wet markets, making it even harder to regulate them. What is required is a proper data-driven and scientific approach to the regulation of these markets, while simultaneously being sensitive to its social and cultural importance.
Bans are never the answer
There is a lot of evidence to show that bans are rarely successful in solving the problem we had intended to solve. Even “banning wildlife trade” is not the complete answer as it overlooks the complexity of wildlife trade and its network. We need to consider the impacts these bans will have on the vendors and consumers involved in them, and if it leads to an illegal operation, it will cause a much larger public health hazard. The wildlife trade in China is believed to be worth 520 billion yuan (US$74 billion), and employs more than 14 million people. The impact of the ban on this industry, its people and the animals is quite uncertain. There is also an element of cultural beliefs, traditions and social norms which feed the industry. The government should be held responsible for the proper regulation of wildlife trade. Thus, change needs to begin by eradicating the root of the problem, and not by making hasty decisions which might have unknown and devastating effects.
Check out later posts to better understand the social impacts of this pandemic!
References:
Comments
Post a Comment