In many countries around the world, wild animals are sometimes killed for food, including monkeys, rats and squirrels.

Wild meat contributes significantly to nutrition in Africa and to meeting dietary preferences in Asia.

In Africa, the annual harvest of wild meat, estimated at between 1 and 5 million metric tons, is substantial compared to the continent’s livestock production of approximately 14 million metric tons per year.

Public health researchers have long emphasized that unsanitary wild meat practices are potentially harmful due to the risk of transmitting pathogens from animals to humans, including through close contact during hunting, processing or consumption of undercooked meat.

This concern was particularly pronounced during the 2014 Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Ebola virus is known to jump from animals to humans, who are likely infected by touching or consuming sick or dead forest animals, such as fruit bats.

Mpox is another zoonotic disease known to jump from animals to humans. More than 1,100 people have died from mpox in Africa, where some 48,000 cases have been recorded since January 2024 in 19 countries.

Strategies to defeat the 2024 mpox epidemic have thus far largely focused on preventing human-to-human transmission.

But we also need to get back to the root causes of disease, especially when mpox is transmitted from animals to humans.

Applying lessons learned from food safety is essential to solving this urgent public health problem.

“Wet” markets
Wild meat is often sold alongside other fresh foods in informal markets, also known as “wet” markets. These markets generally operate with little regulation and hygiene standards, increasing the risk of disease.

We are public health researchers specializing in testing and evaluating solutions to zoonoses (when humans become infected with disease from wild animals), antimicrobial resistance (when antibiotics are no longer effective), and to food security.

In a new paper, together with colleagues at CGIAR, a global partnership to address food systems challenges, we examine promising solutions to address the risks of wild meat.

The key to all of this is a One Health approach. One Health brings together public health experts, veterinarians, wildlife specialists and community leaders to develop comprehensive measures.

Three-legged stool
Our research has shown that food security in hard-to-reach markets can be improved if, and only if, three key areas are addressed:

Capacity building: Capacity building provides training and simple technologies to food chain workers and consumers.

Food safety efforts in informal markets have traditionally focused on encouraging local communities to adopt safer practices.

It is essential to understand how people perceive disease risk and what influences these perceptions.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, there was a distrust of formal institutions and a rejection of government health messages linking Ebola to bushmeat.

In communities where people already recognize the risks associated with bushmeat, health messages could focus on practical and protective measures.

In places where skepticism reigns, sharing evidence of health risks may be more effective.

Instead of promoting an anti-hunting agenda, a more useful approach might be to provide ways to reduce the risk of disease transmission without completely discouraging hunting and consumption.

Although this approach does not eliminate all risks, it will likely be more effective than a campaign that fails to resonate with the community.

While it is important to have the right knowledge to encourage change, incentives are also necessary.

Motivation and Incentives: Although food safety is a major concern for consumers around the world, it often takes a back seat to affordability. For those struggling to afford food, food security is not a priority over cost.

Governments have often used bans and coercive measures, including fines and inspections, as “negative incentives” for change.

The Nigerian government banned the sale of bushmeat as a precautionary measure to stop the spread of mpox in June 2022. However, these bans can have unintended consequences, such as driving bushmeat practices underground with poorer hygiene practices.

It is potentially more effective to focus on economic, social or moral gains.

Economic incentives could include describing the potential financial gains of attracting a wider customer base through the credibility of safer meat.

Social incentives could involve gaining the trust of community members.

Moral incentives could arise from pride in ensuring that bushmeat is handled and sold in ways that reduce health risks.

Favorable policies and regulations: In some poorer communities, food safety laws are either non-existent or not applicable to informal markets.

Recognizing suppliers who are making notable improvements in food safety could inspire others to follow their lead.

Additionally, promoting alternative sources of protein by providing access to affordable and nutritious food options and supporting sustainable agricultural practices can help reduce reliance on bushmeat.

So, as countries plan their responses to mpox, three key considerations must be a priority:

• Firstly, it is important to recognize that bushmeat plays a crucial role in the lives of many communities and contributes to their health and well-being.

• Second, responses should be developed with input from local communities, which will increase the chances of success.

• Finally, high-income countries should lead the way not only in sharing knowledge, but also in increasing funding for global health initiatives, as this can significantly reduce the risk of future outbreaks.