Read on Twitter
NEW PAPER out on 'Investigating the risks of removing wild meat from global food systems' 
Mixed-methods study led by @ICCS_updates in collab with international experts
Summary infographic & thread below 
#OpenAccess paper @CurrentBiology: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(21)00144-5
(2/n) #zoonotic diseases like #COVID19 pass from animals to humans 
Ecosystem degradation + expansion & intensification of humans-animal interfaces (inc. with wildlife & livestock) increase outbreak risk COVID should be a wake up call to reset our relationship with #nature
Ecosystem degradation + expansion & intensification of humans-animal interfaces (inc. with wildlife & livestock) increase outbreak risk COVID should be a wake up call to reset our relationship with #nature
(3/n) There has been a focus on #wildlifetrade as a culprit of #COVID19 with calls for bans on wildlife use. But:
Wild meat can be an important food source, & is not always unsustainable or a public health risk
Loss of this food source could have unintended consequences 
Wild meat can be an important food source, & is not always unsustainable or a public health riskLoss of this food source could have unintended consequences
(4/n) We used mixed-methods:
Quantitatively explored global patterns in possible negative consequences via 2 hypothetical worst-case scenarios, using available (albeit limited) global data on game meat consumption from the GENuS database
Qualitatively explored 10 case studies
Quantitatively explored global patterns in possible negative consequences via 2 hypothetical worst-case scenarios, using available (albeit limited) global data on game meat consumption from the GENuS databaseQualitatively explored 10 case studies
(5/n) We identified 15 countries which rely on wild meat for more than 5% of animal protein, & are ranked in the bottom 50% of @TheEconomist global food security index; & 8 countries where per cap protein intake without wild meat would be below healthy levels recommended by @WHO
(6/n) On the other hand, if all wild meat were replaced by protein from animal agriculture 
:
10 countries would require 5,000-13,000 sq km of new agricultural land each (
& 
being the highest)
~124,000 sq km would be required globally (>23 million football pitches)
: 10 countries would require 5,000-13,000 sq km of new agricultural land each ( & being the highest) ~124,000 sq km would be required globally (>23 million football pitches)
(7/n) This land-use change would come with additional risks for:
#biodiversity: >250 species could be set on a pathway towards extinction, due to habitat destruction & degradation for ag expansion
#health: infectious diseases from livestock expansion & intensification
#biodiversity: >250 species could be set on a pathway towards extinction, due to habitat destruction & degradation for ag expansion #health: infectious diseases from livestock expansion & intensification
(8/n) Of course, in reality, the impacts of bans on wild meat would be moderated by context-specific factors:
Where wild meat is an important component of diets, & substitutes not readily available (e.g. parts of
) food insecurity or non-compliance with prohibitions
Where wild meat is an important component of diets, & substitutes not readily available (e.g. parts of
) food insecurity or non-compliance with prohibitions
(9/n) Where:
Ag already high-yielding, and/or there are available land & biotic conditions for expansion
+
Ppl have capacity & willingness to adapt
(e.g. parts of
)
Food systems could more easily adapt BUT with likely consequences for biodiversity & EID risk.
Ag already high-yielding, and/or there are available land & biotic conditions for expansion+
Ppl have capacity & willingness to adapt (e.g. parts of
) Food systems could more easily adapt BUT with likely consequences for biodiversity & EID risk.
(10/n) ACKNOWLEDGING INEQUITY: Importantly, negative consequences would not be uniform within nations - indigenous, rural & socially-marginalised groups may be most severely impacted - even in food-secure developed nations like USA & Canada 
- due to distributional issues.
& Canada - due to distributional issues.
(11/n) WHAT NEXT? An evidence-based food systems approach:
Risk-based regulation of #wildlifetrade
AND
Acknowledging & addressing the huge environmental & health costs of animal #agriculture
(plus no more scapegoating & 'othering' of wildlife use)
Risk-based regulation of #wildlifetradeAND
Acknowledging & addressing the huge environmental & health costs of animal #agriculture(plus no more scapegoating & 'othering' of wildlife use)
(12/n) CAVEAT: The data we used for our study had notable omissions & anomalies, which means our results represent a conservative 'first guess', to highlight some of these issues. Risk-based regulation of wildlife use would benefit from better data on wild meat consumption.
(13/n) ALMOST DONE: All that's left to say is a huuuuge thanks to the wonderful international team who made this happen, representing 17 institutions across 10 countries 
(14/14) If you enjoyed this thread:
Read the full #OpenAccess text @CurrentBiology: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(21)00144-5
Read my piece in @ConversationUK on #WildlifeTrade, #agriculture & the #GreenRecovery: https://theconversation.com/we-need-a-green-recovery-after-covid-19-but-banning-wildlife-trade-could-do-more-harm-than-good-155407
Read the full #OpenAccess text @CurrentBiology: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(21)00144-5 Read my piece in @ConversationUK on #WildlifeTrade, #agriculture & the #GreenRecovery: https://theconversation.com/we-need-a-green-recovery-after-covid-19-but-banning-wildlife-trade-could-do-more-harm-than-good-155407
