Several hundred species are hunted for wild meat in the tropics, supporting the diets, customs, and livelihoods of millions of people. However, unsustainable hunting is one of the most urgent threats to wildlife and ecosystems worldwide and has serious ramifications for people whose subsistence and income are tied to wild meat. Over the past 18 years, although research efforts have increased, scientific knowledge has largely not translated into action. One major barrier to progress has been insufficient monitoring and evaluation, meaning that the effectiveness of interventions cannot be ascertained. Emerging issues include the difficulty of designing regulatory frameworks that disentangle the different purposes of hunting, the large scale of urban consumption, and the implications of wild meat consumption for human health. To address these intractable challenges, we propose eight new recommendations for research and action for sustainable wild meat use, which would support the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
Tag: game meat
Social Correlates of and Reasons for Primate Meat Consumption in Central Amazonia
Traditionally, humans have consumed nonhuman primates in many places, including throughout the Amazon region. However, primate consumption rates are changing with rising urbanization and market access. We characterize primate consumption in central Amazonia using 192 qualitative interviews with inhabitants in three rural villages and in the city of Tefé. We used a generalized linear model to investigate how individual consumer characteristics, such as age and gender, and livelihoods affected primate consumption. We also used principal coordinate analysis (PCoA), and word clouds and network text analyses, to describe reasons people gave for eating or avoiding primates. Our results show that men were more likely to say that they eat primates than women, and that the probability that a person said that they eat primates correlated positively with the percentage of their life lived in rural areas. People gave sentiment and ethical reasons not to eat primates. Custom influenced whether people said they eat primates both positively and negatively, while taste positively influenced whether people said they eat primates. A preference for other wild meats in rural areas, and for domestic meats in cities negatively influenced whether people said they eat primates. People also cited the perceptions that primates have a human-like appearance and that primate meat is unhealthy as reasons not to eat primates. People in urban areas also cited conservation attitudes as reasons for not eating primates. Our findings provide an understanding of factors influencing primate consumption in our study area and will be useful for designing tailored conservation initiatives by reducing hunting pressure on primates in rural settings and increasing the effectiveness of outreach campaigns in urban centers.
A systematic mapping review of links between handling wild meat and zoonotic diseases
1. Hunting, trade, and consumption of wildlife present a serious threat to global public health as it places humans in close contact with zoonotic pathogens. 2. We systematically mapped the literature on wild meat handling and zoonotic disease transmission (1996–2022) using the online database Web of Science and Google search engine and identified 6229 articles out of which 253 were finally selected for use in our mapping review; 51 of these provided specific information regarding transmission risks. 3. The reviewed studies reported 43 zoonotic pathogens (17 bacteria, 15 viruses, and 11 parasites) that could pose a potential risk to human health. 4. Sixteen hygienic and sanitary behaviours were described in the reviewed studies. Disease surveillance was the most frequent. Most of the surveillance studies were carried out in Europe and were less common in the tropics. 5. To inform policy and practical actions effectively, it is imperative to broaden our understanding of how various mitigation behaviours can be employed to minimize the risk of transmission.
Value orientations about wild meat in Guyana are determined by gender, ethnicity and location
Understanding what drives differences in values towards wild meat is important for developing legislation and behavioral change campaigns that promote sustainable use. Value orientations (VOs) underly behavior. VOs are influenced by personal (e.g., gender, generation), social (e.g., media, family), location (e.g., rural versus urban) and experience determinants. In Guyana, an ethnic diverse nation in South America, the national hunting laws have recently been instated. The wildlife management agency is rolling out a behavioral change campaign in collaboration with a sustainable use initiative. To support this campaign, we evaluated VOs towards wild meat across Guyana. Applying Multiple Correspondence Analysis and generalized linear models to data from interviews, we examined location, personal, and societal determinants for their influence on these VOs, and explored how VOs translated into behavior, specifically wild meat consumption frequency. Location (Indigenous, and coastal: rural, town, urban), intertwined with ethnicity, and gender showed the strongest associations with variation in VOs. Respondents from Indigenous territories expressed mostly positive VOs compared to coastal Guyanese. Women expressed more neutral or negative, and more negative biocentric VOs compared to men, and this difference was largest among Indigenous but non-existent in urban sites. Negative anthropocentric VOs towards wild meat consistently grouped together and dominated amongst those not consuming wild meat. Highest consumption was seen among those expressing positive materialistic VOs. Positive anthropocentric VOs were associate with intermediate consumption frequencies and most typical for men. Those expressing negative values towards wildmeat based on biocentric orientations towards wildlife consumed wild meat, but rarely. Our results direct behavioral change efforts to men on the coast who consume wild meat for enjoyment at bars, restaurants or family events. Based on our study, positive messaging promoting the coexistence between consumption of mostly resilient species and caring about wildlife would be well-received to support sustainable use policies.
From the forest to the coast: the wild meat trade chain on the Coast of Guyana
In the Caribbean region, very little is known about wild meat use and trade. To contribute to this knowledge gap, we studied the wild meat trade chain on the coastal area of Guyana, which geographically and culturally connects the Caribbean and the Amazon Region. In Guyana, the wildmeat sector is legal and in the process of being regulated. Our study shows that the market chain on the coast of Guyana is a short and direct market chain where the harvester most often sells directly to the consumer or through one level of intermediary (market vendors, home-based traders, roadside traders, restaurants, food stalls or rum shops). In coastal Guyana, wild meat can be considered a luxury, rather than a necessity: the price is higher compared to other alternative sources of meat and demand rises for special events. The topmost sold species are Cuniculus paca, Mazama americana, Tapirus terrestris, Dicotyles tajacu, Tayassu pecari, and Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris. The volumes traded to the coast of Guyana are equivalent to 361 tons of wild meat sold per year. Considering the population size on the coast of Guyana, this amount is equivalent to 1,4 g/capita/day and 4% of the protein intake from animal origin. These values are below those observed in urban towns from Central Amazonia in Brazil where wild meat consumption per capita equals to 18 g/capita/day. From a one health perspective, further attention is required with regards to food safety aspects along this legal trade chain.