VJEL Staff Editor: Michelle Amidzich
Faculty Member: Siu Tip Lam
An Era of Pandemics: How China and the U.S. Must Take the Lead in Wildlife and Human Health Protection
Introduction
Within the past 40 years, zoonotic diseases, caused by germs that spread from animals to people, such as SARS, Ebola, and H1N1, triggered worldwide pandemics. COVID-19 is the most recent zoonotic pandemic that killed over 1 million people globally in seven months, but COVID-19 is not the last zoonotic pandemic the world will see. Epidemiologist David Morens at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and NIAID Director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, released a study that warned the world will see pandemic acceleration due to human deforestation, urban crowding, and wet markets for wild game. As top global consumers of wildlife and wildlife products, both China and the United States have an important role in leading the effort to protect wildlife and curb the causes that lead to this acceleration. Their failures to address animal wildlife conservation can lead the world toward massive environmental degradation and continued pandemics. If China and the United States take dramatic steps towards wildlife production and zoonotic disease protection, their leadership paves the way for other countries to follow. That is why these countries are the focus of this article.
This article analyzes whether recent laws proposed by China and the United States go far enough to protect wildlife. This article first explores the Wild Animal Conservation Law of the People’s Republic of China, offers a brief history, explores loopholes, and proposes solutions. Next, the focus shifts to the United States, which looks at the country’s demand for wildlife imports and animal protection laws. Then, it considers whether the Preventing Future Pandemics Act of 2020, introduced in the Senate by Cory Booker and John Cornyn on September 29, 2020, aids in minimizing the zoonotic pandemic risk in the United States and across the globe. Finally, the article provides a conclusion.
The Wild Animal Conservation Law of the People’s Republic of China
The People’s Republic of China passed the Wild Animal Conservation Law on November 8, 1988. The law attempted to facially protect the country’s wildlife through management and protection. However, the law encouraged wildlife domestication and breeding for human consumption and use. Its subsequent amendments in 2004 and 2009 continued to encourage wildlife domestication and breeding. In 2016, the government amended the law to remove the domestication and breeding of wildlife, and again amended it with minor changes in 2018 to allow captive breeding for commercial purposes and scientific research. The law allows the sale, purchase, and use of wild animals for “scientific research, artificial breeding” or other special circumstances, even if the animal is designated for the highest level of protection, so long as it is approved by the government. This loophole and the government’s history of encouraging domestication and wildlife breeding for consumption and use, including traditional Chinese medicine, led to the growth of wildlife breeding operations industry.
Fast-forward to today, and China attempted to strengthen its wildlife protection law because of COVID-19. In February, China announced, “a complete ban on illegal wildlife trade and the elimination of the unhealthy habit of indiscriminate wild animal meat consumption.” In late October 2020, the National People’s Congress of China put out the revision for public comment. While there are some positives in the revised draft like improvements to enforcement mechanisms and increased penalties, the revision does not go far enough. It does not address wildlife trade for non-food purposes, such as traditional medicine or decorative items. Some international conservation groups argue that banning wild animal medicinal use is more pressing than meat consumption because China’s demand for wildlife parts for traditional medicine creates public health risks due to the harvesting, collection, storage, processing, and consumption which festers disease.
China’s proposed ban also fails to address wild animal farming. This industry provides 14 million jobs in China, which reduces poverty and stimulates rural economies. However, the industry cultivates disease, and the government has yet to figure out how to address both reducing disease while supporting jobs. Many advocates press the government to take a “whitelist” approach, which would heavily regulate captive-bred animals and create a list of animals that farmers can breed for specific purposes. This approach’s goal reduces the size of the industry step-by-step, while the country simultaneously considers alternatives for the people who rely on the jobs of the booming wildlife farming industry.
Finally, many conservation organizations advocate for a “public participation” principle, so that the public and organizations can hold illegal behavior and administrative failures accountable. The principle allows for consultation on construction projects or other developments that may harm habitats. Advocates argue the participation principle creates a chain reaction in China and abroad to create more vigorous enforcement to close markets for wild animal products. The government could tackle these concerns when it plans to revise the law to address environmental and public health issues, which has support from advocates who are proposing the language for this revision.
U.S. Piecemeal Approach to Wildlife Protection and the Preventing Future Pandemics Act of 2020
Wildlife conservation to promote habitat protection and prevent zoonotic diseases is not just China’s problem. The United States also fails to robustly protect wildlife. The United States is one of the biggest global importers of wildlife for purposes such as its massive exotic pet industry, trophy hunting prizes, and medicinal products. A comprehensive study published in the U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health analyzed data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) from 2000-2013. The study shows that one-third of United States imports were live animals. Seventy-seven percent of the live animals were wild-caught, whereas captive-reared animals made up only 17.7%. The study cites regulatory oversight concerns that allow pathogen exchange from “animal domestication for companionship and food production, anthropocentric alteration of the environment and the global movement of animals and goods.” The study estimated that out of one-quarter of human deaths by infectious diseases, nearly 60% of those are zoonotic. Pathogen transmission spreads from contact due to poor transit conditions, lack of health screening at United States imports, and confiscation warehouses that practically look like live animal markets.
Three major United States laws aim to address the sale, transport, conditions, trafficking, and protections for wild animals. The Lacey Act targets illegal trafficking of fish, wildlife, and plants through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and USFWS. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) addresses the transportation, sale, and handling of certain animals. The AWA’s primary focus is on dealers and laboratory animals. Finally, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits the “taking of, sale, transportation, ownership, and harm of any listed species.” Each piece of legislation governs various aspects of certain animal’s lives, so it depends on the type of animal and the animal’s transportation method and uses to understand which regulations apply.
The United States’ piecemeal approach fails to adequately protect animal conditions, which factors into public health concerns. On September 29, 2020, Senators Cory Booker and John Cornyn introduced the Preventing Future Pandemics Acta bipartisan bill “that would prohibit the import and export of live wildlife for human consumption or medicine,” according to the Center for Biological Diversity’s press release. The 23-page legislation establishes that it would be the foreign policy of the United States “to work with international partners to shut down commercial wildlife markets and stop the associated wildlife trade, end the import, export and sale of live wildlife for human consumption in the United States, and phase out demand for wildlife as a food source.”
The legislation focuses on wet markets (markets where fish, poultry and other animals are alive then slaughtered and butchered right on the premises) because of their strong nexus to the emergence of zoonotic diseases as a start to combating the problem. Senator Booker recognizes that if the world “spent just 2% of the total cost inflicted by COVID-19 on the global economyapproximately $22-$31 billionto curb habitat loss, deforestation and wildlife trade, it would dramatically reduce the risk of future pandemics.” While Senator Booker is on the right path in that United States must confront and combat issues like exotic pet ownership, the legislation fails to address key problem areas in the United States, like wildlife pet ownership and clean and safe conditions for imported animals, which are also breeding grounds for zoonotic diseases.
Conclusion
As the world continues to grapple with and understand COVID-19, one thing that is for sure is that the United States and China must be leaders in comprehensive wildlife reform and public health protection. Patchwork protections to each new wildlife issue or pandemic fail to protect the world’s wildlife and human population. COVID-19 cost the global economy about $5 trillion in lost gross domestic product (GDP). Future zoonotic pandemics could continue to cost the world more in lost GDP, wildlife, and human lives. Scientists warned the world about COVID-19, and other zoonotic diseases will continue to happen if we do not listen to their science.