Legislative, Conservational and Hygiene Strategies for Combating the Risk of Acquiring Zoonoses from Bushmeat and Exotic Pets

Current Enforced Legislation that Combats the Trade of Bushmeat and Exotic Pets

Penalties have been put in place (via the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997, COTES) for those convicted of selling illegally imported bushmeat (Bushmeat factsheet webpage, 2005):

• On summary conviction, a fine of up to £5000, a term of imprisonment of up to 3 months, or both; or
• On conviction or indictment, up to 2 years in prison, an unlimited fine, or both.

There have been convictions in the UK of people selling bushmeat the first being in January 2004 when a Ghanaian woman who had sold up to 2 tons of rotting meat was imprisoned for 3 months. In 2001 a couple (shopkeepers) were jailed for 4 months for the illegal import of bushmeat, with many of the imported species being endangered (BBC 2001, Kirby 2004 and Stickler 2004).

A number of countries have banned the importation of some exotic pets to prevent the transmission of zoonoses for example, imported African rodents such as Gambian Giant Pouched Rats which were the reservoirs for monkeypox, which was subsequently passed onto prairie dogs (Di Giulio et al. 2004 and the US Department of HHS 2003). Therefore after an outbreak of monkeypox in the US in 2003 the US HHS announced a banned the importation of African rodents into the country.

From 1975 the "US Public Health regulation 42 CFR 71.53(c)" in accordance with CITIES prevents the import and trading of NHPs as pets. But according to Ostrowski et al. (1998) even with this type of legislation in the US, it is estimated that $3 billion of wildlife is still exchanged unlawfully.

After an outbreak of tularemia in prairie dogs, Japan banned the importation of these animnals. Trapping and selling wild-caught species is prohibited in some US states but in the states where it is permitted there are no safety guidelines in place to prevent or reduce the chance of acquiring a zoonosis (Avashia et al. 2004).

Defenses and Safeguards to Prevent the Entry or Contain a Deadly Disease

There is a set of guidelines that are followed by WHO members called the International Health Regulations (IHR), which promote the monitoring of outbreaks of various diseases in every country. WHO"s Department of Communicable Diseases, Surveillance and Response (WHO-CSR) has developed a Global Outbreak Alert Response Network (GOARN). GOARN allows the international community to follow the outbreak of a disease in a particular country and also allows them time to consider whether precautions against the disease are necessary. The IHR along with the GOARN promotes continuous monitoring of a disease whilst allowing government to decide whether it is necessary to take precautions such as boarder closure and the halt of trade relations (preventing the entry of foreign imports). As well as there being a global surveillance network Europe has its own surveillance network, Eurosurveillance (Health Protection Agency (HPA) IHR webpage 2004).

In 1996 there was an outbreak of plague in India, a number of countries closed their boarders to India, others stopped incoming flights from India and halted trade relations to prevent the entry of plague into their country (these precautions were taken because GOARN was not as effective as it is today, post-revision). The US allowed the entry of travelers from India to enter the country. The CDC rapidly sent out information to public health officers, all medical practitioners, hospitals and private practitioners. Quarantine procedures were revised and put into place at all airports incase an infected passenger was recognized (Fritz et al. 1996 and HPA IHR webpage 2004).

Surveillance and actions that were devised for the possible entry of plague infected travellers into the US (Fritz et al. 1996). Similar precautionary processes of quarantine, prophalyxis and monitoring were in place for travellers who may develop syptoms once inside the country. These types of measures can be adapted to different situations if entry of a treatable disease was pending.

"Post 9/11" there has been a hightened alert (globally) of the possibility of an act of bioterrorism. In the UK the HPA is resposible for devising emergeny plans to contain a fatal infectious disease. The HPA has put in place a number of measures that the emergency services will carry out if a fatal infectious disease is recognized (Management of Outbreaks of Incidents of Unusual Illnessess 2004). The HPA continually keeps all medical practitionars upto date on the symptoms of infectious diseases that are not usually seen in this country, (Clinical Action Cards 2004).

The HPA is continually testing and revising national and local emergency proceedures in case an outbreak of an infectious disease occurs, for example on 21^st May 2004 in Cambridge, Exercise East Civet was carried out to test the effectiveness of the emergency services against a theoretical outbreak of SARS (HPA emergeny webpage 2004). The HPA has also devised "intrim guidelines for action" for a number of diseases based on the infective nature and lifecycle of the disease for example guidelines have been produced for Viral haemorraggic Fevers (VHF, such as Ebola) and plague (HPA Intrim Guidelines for Action for VHF 2003 and HPA Intrim Guidelines for Action for Plague 2003). These guidelines provide information about the disease, prophalyxis, treatment, precautions and quarantine measures needed when coming into contact with an infected patient for example medical staff.

Current African Legislation and The Bushmeat Trade

Bushmeat is the cheapest and most available source of protein available to people in third world countries. Many people who live in and around the Congo-basin are in extreme poverty and that hunting and selling bushmeat is a source of income. Also the majority of literature concerning the hunting, selling and consumption of bushmeat relates back to a number of African countries, therefore it is necessary to look at current African legislation.

The CITIES BWG has carried out a "Study on Wildlife Legislation and Policies in Central African Countries" (2003) for the 10^th Conference of Parties. The study looked at legislation and policies of six countries; Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Central African Republic (CAR), Cameroon, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea. It was found that after looking at all of the national forestry, wildlife, conservation and hunting laws the BWG found "üno bush meat specific laws." The BWG found that unautherised hunting and illegal hunted accounts for 98% of bushmeat in circulation. It was found that it is legal to carry out subsistance hunting for example in the Republic of Congo. Commercial hunting in many countries is legal and its legality has economical benefits due to the taxation and fees encoured whilst pursuing this activity. For example Cameroon generates a large revenue from legalised hunting. For example money is generated from hunting permits and capture tax.

The BWG discovered that all of these countries had only a limited number of law enforcement officers and that these conservation, wildlife and hunting enforcers were poorly funded and equiped and have to cover a vast regions. In areas where international organisations and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) fund conservation projects they are hampered by political frameworks or war for example in DRC. The BWG uncovered the general "Absence of anti-poaching stratergy (except for Cameroon)".

Future Strategies that Need to be Implemented to Reduce Bushmeat Trade

If the demand for bushmeat in countries is reduced because bushmeat is not essential and there are cheaper protein alternatives such as in the UK then hypothetically there would be reduction in the amount of bushmeat harvested (in Africa) and therefore reduce the number of people acquiring zoonoses. But the fact remains that there is still a large demand for bushmeat in the UK, it is seen as a cultural preference. Therefore it is important to assess the effectiveness of the legislation and enforcement in place to prevent the trade of bushmeat. The Animal Health Act 1981 (amended in 2002) states the rules for the import and export of animals and animal products into and out of the UK. Each year the act is reviewed and the resulted in the below figures.

Taken from the "Annual Review of Controls on Imports on Animal Products: April 2003-March 2004" showing that the seizures of illegal products of animal origin (POAO) that have entered the UK has doubled.

But we should not be mislead by the above government data because the National Audit Office has estimated that in 2003 99.4% of illegal bushmeat products were still entering the country.

In the "Annual Review of Controls on Imports on Animal Products: April 2003-March 2004" there were four key requirements the government had set out to improve:

• Strengthening enforcement strategies (both at the borders and inland)
• Understanding the risk
• Raising public awareness
• Informing stakeholders

In my opinion, the four new anti-smuggling units and 6 sniffer dogs are insufficient to cover all UK airports, boarders and ports. In Stickler"s BBC report an interview with an Environmental Health Officer revealed that there is a large problem with communication between HM Customs and the Environmental Health Officers therefore reducing the number of seizures and allowing an increased amount of bushmeat to enter the country. Therefore in my opinion the primary objective has yet to be forfilled.

The government can fully not assess the risk of infectious agents entering the UK via bushmeat via scientific tests because all of the seized material is incinerated immediately. The campaign to raise public awareness is vital and aiming it at those traveling to and from the UK is extremely important.

Therefore to reduce bushmeat trade the government investment in this sector needs to be spent more economically with more anti-smuggling units and sniffer dogs and possibly stricter customs regulations similar to that practiced in New Zealand and Australia.

There are only three primary reasons for the consumption of bushmeat:

1. Bushmeat is a readily available, essential source of protein.
2. The sale of bushmeat generates income, which is fundamental for those in "extreme poverty".
3. Indigenous people have a cultural preference towards bushmeat and for some it is a delicacy.

To reduce the bushmeat trade and therefore decrease the number of people unnecessarily exposed to zoonoses we must address the above three points. Before the bushmeat trade can be slowed or even stopped local governments must provide a cheaper alternative source of protein for example beef, gneutum leaves, fish, caterpillars and chicken (Ape Alliance 1998, Bowen-Jones et al. 1999, Bowen-Jones et al. 2003 and Wilkie et al. 1999).

To make these alternative sources more attractive (price-wise) governments should incur or raise taxes on bushmeat, this type of taxation was seen by the BWG in their "Study on Wildlife Legislation and Policies in Central African Countries" (2003) in Cameroon. The taxes obtained could then be spent on enforcement of anti-hunting and poaching laws and it could be used to educate local populations on the risk of acquiring zoonoses from hunting. The government could also use this money to purchase alternative sources of protein from farmers and then transport them to market where they could be sold for a small profit, and with taxes on bushmeat the poor are more likely to buy these alternatives.

Stricter hunting regulations, sustainable hunting practices via hunting quotas, hunting seasons, taxation on bushmeat, hunting permits and fines all of which can only take place under stricter law enforcement, these are all suggestions that would restrict the harvesting of bushmeat and increase bushmeat prices. Checkpoints on major bushmeat transport routes would hamper the bushmeat trade. Checkpoints have been successful in Sulawesi, Indonesia and have lead to a reduction in the trade of babirusas, wild pigs (Ape Alliance 1998, Bowen-Jones et al. 1999, Bowen-Jones et al. 2003, BWG CITIES 2003, Milner-Gulland et al. 2002 and Wilkie et al. 1999).

The large number of employees of logging and oil companies entering forest regions increases the demand for bushmeat. Thibault et al. (2003) mentioned that bushmeat was being transported on Shell's private flights and hunters are seen in company-marked vehicles. Thibault et al. (2003) and Dupain et al. (2000) stated that these companies should be encouraged not to transport, purchase or eat bushmeat especially when some of these corporations like Shell pride themselves on their environmental management.

Education of local populations is vital if cultural preferences are going to be changed. If government officials or personnel from WHO or NGOs like the Ape Alliance were to go to active bushmeat trade areas and warn the local population of the risks of acquiring bushmeat and even tell them of the risk of acquiring a HIV like infection (HIV is thought to have originated from SIV) from NHPs. Hypothetically this scare tactic may deter people from harvesting NHPs for bushmeat because the problem of HIV is very likely to be a problem close to home especially with its alarming spread in Africa.

The governments of countries where there is large scale logging and oil extractions should use some of tax they obtain from the oil and wood and plough it back into conservation and helping local populations with obtaining non-bushmeat products for consumption but this is unlikely and the money is probably being spent on wars.

Davies (2002) stated that the majority of people in and around the Congo-Basin are in extreme poverty and that their only source of income is from harvesting bushmeat. The BWG had suggested that initiating tourism trade within a region would bring an alternative source of money to the area, which would lead to a reduction in bushmeat harvesting. An increase in wildlife is also beneficial because it would encourage research scientists into the area along with more money and education (Dupain et al. 2000).

Hygiene and Precautionary Measures to be taken during the Handling of Bushmeat and Exotic Pets

The possibility of contracting various serotypes of Salmonella from exotic pets can be prevented by being basic hygiene practices for example washing hands after coming into contact with the reptile or after cleaning its cage and not eating or drinking whilst handling the pet. Risk of horizontal transmission of the disease can be reduced by keeping the pet away from at risk individuals (children, elderly and immunosuppressed) and food preparation areas (Stam et. al. 2003 and UK Department of Health, 2000). Poor hygiene (not washing hands) is most likely to be the cause of transmission of tularemia from prairie dogs to humans as described by Avashia et al. 2004.

A precautionary measure recommended by Williams and Miller (2002) and Belay et al. (2004) to reduce the risk of acquiring CWD is to dispose of the animal parts where the infectious prion protein is most likely to propagate for example the brain, spinal cord, lymph nodes and eyes. They also recommend the wearing of gloves when field-dressing a kill this corresponds to Hahn et al. (2000b) who mentioned that zoonoses were highly likely to be acquired when field-dressing.

© MicrobiologyBytes 2007.