Of course the headline news of this week has been the recent novel coronavirus emergence from the Chinese city of Wuhan. At the time of writing this virus has already said to have claimed 80 lives and the number of people infected continues to rise, as does the number of countries with confirmed cases. I don’t intend to discuss the nature of this virus or the spread of it- I’ll leave that to the virologists and epidemiologists of this world. A number of media outlets have alluded to the fact that this virus likely emerged from a market selling a whole host of animal meats in Wuhan. Well it’s not unusual for viral epidemics to emerge from an animal host- just look at swine or avian flu, but initial reports (yet to be confirmed) suggest that this new strain may have arisen from snakes. As a striking example of the importance of one health (the interconnectedness of the health of humans, animals and the environment), I want to delve more into what is actually known about the origin of this emergent virus, and the role that law played (or didn’t play) in its creation.
A cluster of people associated with the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market are reported to be the first sufferers of the 2019 coronavirus. A price-list from the ‘wet market’ circulating on social media reveals that meat or products from an array of animals are sold there; including that of foxes, crocodiles, snakes, rats, wolf pups, bats and salamanders as just a few examples. Given that previous coronaviruses of notoriety such as SARS and MERS often circulate between animals, and with the link established between the cluster of patients and the market, it was suspected that the new virus had been passed from animals to humans. A trending article in the Journal of Medical Virology was published on the 22nd January. The Chinese scientist authors carried out a sequence analysis of the newly- sequenced coronavirus genome in an attempt to identify the animal species acting as the viral reservoir. They concluded that snakes were the most likely cause of the new viral outbreak. Just the next day the prestigious journal Nature published an article quoting a number of virologists refuting the snake connection, based on doubts that snakes can even harbour coronaviruses. A mammal or bird was then supposed to be the likely source. Indeed, a later paper implicates bats, the natural reservoir host for the SARS coronavirus. In spite of the criticism being levelled at the Chinese scientists over their (possibly incorrect) snake link, I say all credit to them for acting so quickly to carry out genome sequencing and getting it published. As an academic, the idea of going from research inception to publishing in a matter of days is somewhat inspiring. And, as for any possible error, a study is a small part of the puzzle, should generate debate and further research (it certainly has) and what about the role of peer review in all of this (I’m not going to go there……). It will probably take months of laboratory and field tests to confirm the actual animal source of the outbreak but could legal protection have prevented the outbreak?
China was quick to ban the trade in wild animals, at least temporarily. The regulations issued by the Agriculture Ministry, the State Forestry and Grasslands Administration and the State Administration for Market Regulation ban quarantine and breeding of wild animals, sale and transport, provide a reporting hotline, and suggest increased enforcement of these activities via inspections and penalty. Clearly, there are differing cultural viewpoints over the acceptability of eating various types of animal products, and this, as well as public health concern will play into an individual’s willingness to consume exotic meats, and the existence of a market for these products. Whilst trade within jurisdictions is regulated by National Governments and will take into account cultural practices and tastes, international law on wildlife trade is geographically uniform via the CITES framework (more on this later). But, the legal trade does not adequately represent the international market for wildlife. A common thread in the media coverage on the 2019 coronavirus is referral to the role of the ‘illegal wildlife trade’ in the outbreak. Few articles expand on the nature of this alleged trade, but it might be supposed to include breaches of both national and international law. In spite of a lack of large-scale efforts to quantify the value of the international wildlife trade, a number of sources estimate this to be between US$ 5 billion and 20 billion a year (t Sas- Rolfes et al 2019), making it one of the world’s largest illicit businesses; only second to narcotics.
CITES or the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora is the key player in the global governance regime for combatting illegal wildlife trade. For animal species listed, this document determines trade controls, such as whether they can be traded, and for what purpose. National governments sign up to CITES voluntarily, but after sign-up implementation is mandatory. And, sign-up is extensive with 183 current parties, including China. The existence of a trade in CITES-listed species at the Wuhan market is nothing more than speculation, but it is worth noting that the pangolin and tiger, both of which are prized in Chinese medicine are listed species. Bats are variably listed in CITES, dependent on species, but often don’t receive the highest level of protection to prohibit international trade. Many of the animals likely to be sold in wet markets will not be protected by CITES, and any regulation will need to be at the domestic level.
Illegal poaching, trade, and consumption in wildlife in the region probably exploits loopholes in the legal trade where vendors possess licences to sell some species, but manage to sell illegal products under the radar. In the wake of the SARS coronavirus, it was reported that a proportion of the wildlife sold in Chinese markets originated in bordering countries due to an ‘expanding regional network of illegal wildlife trade’ (Bell et al 2004). Unfortunately the ban and increased vigilance on the trade following SARS was only temporary, and the lessons don’t appear to have been learnt.
Another problem with these wet markets that laws relating to trade are unlikely to fix is that a large number of animals, of mixed species are held close together in cages. This can quickly create unsanitary conditions where viruses can mutate across species easily. And, animals are brought in close proximity to humans increasing the risk of spread. Correcting this problem by regulation requires laws (with enforcement), which directly influence animal husbandry and biosecurity practices.
So, to prevent the emergence of new, and possibly deadlier viruses in the future, we need to learn from the lessons of the past. People need to be educated on the risks of eating wildlife species, enforcement of laws on trafficking of protected species needs to be increased, and poorly regulated animal markets need to be closed or forced to improve. So can law prevent future viral outbreaks? Well, I say yes, as long as we remember the old adage that ‘ law is only as good as enforcement’.
Comments