Their names consistently appear in international news reports. The UN’s biodiversity chief and Sir Paul McCartney, who called them “medieval,” are just two of the many who have harshly criticized them. But what exactly are China’s wet markets, and do they have anything to do with the deadly coronavirus outbreak?
Despite the widespread belief among specialists that Wuhan’s Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, where many of the earliest documented cases of COVID-19 were exposed, is the virus’s likely birthplace, it is important to stress that this is not, strictly speaking, a wet market.
Contents
A staple of Chinese life
Many Chinese people visit wet markets on a regular basis. They are similar to European farmer’s markets in that they have an outdoor setting and sell a wide variety of fresh produce, meats, seafood, herbs, and spices. They provide a secure and inexpensive food source while also serving as social gathering spots for Chinese people to stroll and catch up with neighbors.
Will banning these Wet Markets end the #zoonotics?
The answer cannot be that straight. Not all wet markets are potential sources of zoonotics. But certainly those which deal with wild/exotic animals are. Therefore its the mandate of each country to check&control these markets. 8+ pic.twitter.com/oqtOOhwDXf— Sudha Ramen 🇮🇳 (@SudhaRamenIFS) March 31, 2020
They are distinguished from “dry” markets, which sell prepackaged goods like noodles, hence the name “wet” markets. It could also apply to the melting ice used to keep seafood fresh, or to the practice of some stallholders of hosing down their products to keep them cool.
The food courts found in many of them are reminiscent of those found in modern Western shopping centers. Even while live fish and chicken can still be found in some wet markets, many provinces in China and Hong Kong have outlawed the selling of live fowl due to avian flu outbreaks in the late 1990s.
The “wildlife marketplaces” in China are the true focus of health professionals’ concerns. Similar to the transmission of HIV and Ebola from humans to wild animals, the likely transmission route for COVID-19 from bats is close human-wild animal interaction. When animals are confined in filthy, overcrowded settings like those found in market cages, viruses can readily spread to workers and clients.
Badgers, wolf cubs, snakes, bamboo rats, and porcupines were just some of the wild animals for sale at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.
On a Chinese version of Yelp, the menu boasted that one shop had “approximately one hundred species of live animals,” including foxes, peacocks, and masked palm civets. (Civet cats are widely believed to have played a critical role in the spread of SARS from bats to humans during the 2002–2003 epidemic.) This meant that the market wasn’t a wet market in the conventional sense, but rather a wildlife market.
Even while certain US authorities, such as chief scientific consultant Dr. Anthony Fauci, have called for wet markets to be shut down, China has never really considered doing so. Still, the Beijing government has taken steps to limit the trade in wild animals.
After China temporarily banned the sale of wild animals for eating at the end of January, the Huanan market itself closed on January 1. However, there are disturbing rumors that markets selling cats, dogs, reptiles, and scorpions have reopened in southern China.
Secretary General of the China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation and prominent Chinese environmentalist Jinfeng Zhou have argued that the ban should be made permanent because it does not address the underlying issues of lax regulation and illegal trading. There is a wildlife preservation law in China, but it has not been amended since it was first enacted in 1988, and observers believe the law is not enforced in practice. The recurrence of these diseases is inevitable, Jinfeng warned, unless the trade was prohibited.
Cultural differences
There are indicators that enforcing bans on the commercial trading of wild animals and the use of “bushmeat” may be more difficult than initially anticipated.
The use of materials derived from wild animals is deeply ingrained in Chinese folk medicine, contributing to the problem. Meanwhile, political economist Hu Xingdou told the Bangkok Post that eating wild animals had other societal ramifications that many Westerners could find puzzling.
He compared Westerners’ focus on freedom and other human rights to the Chinese focus on food since hunger is “a big menace” and “a memorable part of the national memory.”
While many modern Chinese don’t have to worry about going hungry, for others, eating exotic foods or meats, organs, or parts from uncommon animals or plants is a way to assert their individuality.
Until recently, the Chinese government supported the breeding and sale of wild animals as a vital component of rural development and poverty reduction. Wildlife farming was estimated to be worth 520 billion yuan (US$74 billion) in a 2017 assessment by the Chinese Academy of Engineering.
Tens of thousands of farms producing anything from ostriches to wild boar have been forced to close as a result of the outbreak, and this has the potential to leave countless people without adequate means of subsistence.
After the ban devastated business for her peacock farm in Liuyang, Hunan, smallholder Chen Hong expressed worry to the Guardian in February regarding compensation. She also said that she had not gotten any notification about what to do with her unsold animals.
Complete prohibition, on the other hand, may drive an industry that the government is already battling to regulate underground. Although it is difficult to maintain track of the trade now that so much of it happens online, experts have pointed out that wild animals might potentially be sold at markets designed for captive-bred animals.
A rise in Racial Stereotypes
It is widely held among China’s neighbors that stricter measures should be taken. Survey results from Hong Kong, Japan, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam indicated that 93 percent of the 5,000 people polled in favor of government action to limit uncontrolled marketplaces.
Concerns about China’s wildlife trafficking should not, however, lead to prejudice or skepticism. Some Western media reports and politicians have used rhetoric reminiscent of the “Yellow Peril” hysteria that accompanied the initial waves of Chinese immigration to the United States, which has the potential to perpetuate unpleasant stereotypes about Chinese people.
There have been reports of Asians being treated differently on the street, with some even being called “walking pathogens,” and a Chinese travel blogger was recently compelled to apologize after appearing on camera eating bat soup in a video that had nothing to do with the recent COVID-19 outbreak.
Keep in mind that only a small percentage of Chinese people eat wild animals and that this is especially true among the elder generations.
In the meanwhile, a simple blanket ban is unlikely to eradicate the exploitation of wild animals for therapeutic purposes, despite receiving the greatest cultural criticism, especially in the West. Making the business illegal will drive it underground, where authorities can’t go and where dangerous practices are more likely to cause new fatal outbreaks.