Wildlife Consumption, Health, and Zoonotic Disease in China After the Emergence of COVID-19.

There has been much discussion in the conservation and policy realms of COVID-19 as a zoonotic disease, or a disease transmitted from wildlife to humans. However, wildlife consumption in China is not only a potential source of disease but also a practice embedded in complex beliefs about health. This paper used survey data (N = 974) collected in China in June 2021 to examine attitudes and behaviors related to (a) wildlife consumption, (b) Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and (c) zoonotic risk after the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. 40.1% of respondents self-reported that they are less likely to consume wild animals since the outbreak of COVID-19. Respondents who used wildlife supplements for TCM, who believed in the benefits of wild animal consumption and fresh slaughter of wildlife, and who had higher levels of agreement with the zoonotic origin of COVID-19 were more likely to report that they had decreased their wildlife consumption after the outbreak of COVID-19. Use of wildlife in TCM significantly increased the odds that a respondent believed that COVID-19 was very likely zoonotic. We discuss how situating wildlife consumption within complex beliefs about health and disease can assist with protecting wildlife and public health in the wake of COVID-19.

Perceptions of COVID-19 origins and China's wildlife policy reforms.

Given the link between perceptions of zoonotic risk and support for regulations such as wildlife consumption bans, debates regarding the origins of COVID-19 are likely to have conservation implications. Specifically, alternative hypotheses that cast doubt on COVID-19's zoonotic origins could potentially lessen momentum for China's wildlife policy reforms and their associated conservation impacts. To better understand the impact of COVID-19 origin debates on China's wildlife policies, we conducted a 974-respondent survey across mainland China, supplemented by policy and media reviews. We examined perceptions of three facets of COVID-19 origins: geographic location, source (e.g., wildlife farm, wet market, etc.), and specific wildlife species as transmitters. Our findings reveal that 64.6 % of respondents believed COVID-19 originated in the United States or Europe, not in China. Further, compared to the baseline group of respondents who selected China as the origin country, respondents who selected the United States or Europe as the origin had a greater likelihood of selecting laboratories/research and imported frozen foods as likely sources, while these respondents had a lower likelihood of selecting wild animals in a wet market or natural causes as likely sources. Despite such varied beliefs regarding COVID-19 origins, support for wildlife policy reforms was strong: 89.5 % of respondents who previously consumed wildlife self-indicated reduced consumption after the pandemic and 70.5 % of respondents supported banning the trade of all wildlife species. Moreover, those respondents who selected wild animals in a wet market as a likely source of COVID-19 had a greater likelihood of supporting a trade ban on all wild-caught wildlife and all farmed wildlife. Our results indicate that, although investigation of COVID-19's origins is on-going and politicized, there is clear support for wildlife reforms in China that can promote conservation outcomes.

Wildlife Farms, Stigma and Harm.

Wildlife farming, the commercial breeding and legal sale of non-domesticated species, is an increasingly prevalent, persistently controversial, and understudied conservation practice. The adoption or rejection of wildlife farms is a complex process that incorporates numerous ethical considerations: conservation, livelihoods, animal welfare, and cultural practices. This paper uses qualitative interview data with key informants (academics) to analyze (a) the harms and benefits of wildlife farms and (b) the factors that influence whether wildlife farms are stigmatized or accepted. In evaluations of wildlife farming's harms and benefits, respondents incorporated multiple considerations: animal welfare, environmental impacts, scale disparities between sustenance and commercial farms, consumer preferences, species differences, the substitutability and accessibility of wildlife products, and governance. The results further indicated that the stigmatization or acceptance of wildlife farms is affected by the "wildlife farm" label, if there is a stigma around use of a species, a form of production, or the perceived quality of a wildlife product, cultural differences in wildlife use, wildlife consumer typology, geopolitical factors, and demand reduction efforts. This paper analyzes the complexities of wildlife farming such that stakeholders can understand the impacts of this practice on species, human communities, individual animals, and the legal and illegal wildlife trades.