Pandemic exposes need to regulate China’s wet markets

Even if the Huanan seafood market is completely exonerated and the lab virology in Wuhan is to blame for this pandemic (or whatever conspiracy theory you fancy), China’s wet markets have been the repeated epicentre of other notable infectious diseases, including SARS and avian flu, which has also infected and killed people worldwide.

In the absence of any multilateral convention to deal with animal trade in wet markets, the current pandemic exposes the collective need for its regulation in the sphere of international law. This undertaking should not be left in the regulatory hands of China as this pandemic confirms the serious shortfalls in its existing system.

China’s ban on the sale and consumption of wild terrestrial animals on Feb. 24 is no more than a political band-aid. This echoes the 2003 SARS outbreak, where China banned all wildlife trade in response to international pressures but lifted the ban later that year thanks to regulatory loopholes. For instance, civet cats were banned after their link to the SARS outbreak in 2003, but it was vacated in the same year as long as the animals were “farmed.”

Moreover, external international measures are also meagre. Although there are several conventions that focus on species protection and preservation of biodiversity, none effectively address animal trade in wet markets. And even if there is a remotely applicable convention, it lacks any bite.

For example, the convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora entered into force on July 1, 1975, and China is a signatory. The convention states that its approach toward compliance is “supportive and nonadversarial.” Clearly, both internal and external measures lack the teeth to evoke change and infiltrate the long traditions for consuming wildlife.

Despite their anticipated refusal, China must be a party to this convention as a form of restitution to the world for the injuries and losses it has caused by its active (or passive) contribution to these wet markets. Otherwise, global economic sanctions should be enforced until compliance is reached.

Although this may appear extreme, COVID-19 has been compared to war and front line workers to soldiers in battle. Simply because the enemy is invisible to the human eye, does not warrant laxity in our response.

Although zoonotic spillovers can occur anywhere, even with domesticated animals at farms, wet markets increase the transmission of these infectious diseases given their poor sanitary standards, porous governmental controls and proximity to humans.

Certainly in the wake of this virus the welfare of animals, whether in China or within our borders, farmed or wild, should be accorded greater protections. Otherwise, COVID-19 has exposed the boomerang effect between animals and humans: their continued destruction without any restraints or regard for life will return to humanity in kind with the same sentiment. Fatema Tokhy