From wet markets to Wal‐Marts: tracing alimentary xenophobia in the time of COVID‐19

Abstract

COVID-19 has spread beyond China at lightning speed. Fear-based responses have moved even faster. Before we knew the term 'social distancing', Asian restaurants around the world saw a drop in clientele (Yeung 2020) and Asian people a rise in harassment (Yan et al. 2020). This fear of a marked group of people and their food fuels more than individual incidents. We argue that such alimentary xenophobia also leads to calls to eliminate foreign foodways without considering their social, economic and gastronomic values. Subtly embedded in these calls is the presumed superiority of industrialised, corporate foodways. The novel coronavirus likely first appeared at an open-air wet market in Wuhan, China, where meat was sold alongside live animals in conditions conducive to zoonotic viral transmission (Brulliard 2020; Woo et al. 2006). Many have called for the immediate closure of wet markets, reflecting the urgent need to change animal procurement, transport and slaughter practices (Blakeman 2020; Forgey 2020). These 'calls to close', however, homogenise heterogeneous markets around the world, painting them as universally dangerous instead of recognising specific practices within them as predictable catalysts for preventable disease. They also fail to recognise wet markets' social, economic and alimentary functions. 'Traditional' or 'municipal' wet markets are globally critical food centres, serving people and places that supermarkets do not (Figuié and Moustier 2009). From New York to Nairobi, Wageningen to Wuhan, open-air markets selling fruits, vegetables, meats and, in some cases, wild animals are bedrocks of diverse food economies. Broadly dismissing wet markets endangers the foodways of billions of people, from small-scale farmers to market vendors and urban eaters. Calls to close 'filthy' markets in poor countries (e.g. Froelich 2020) also slip into discourses of hygienic racism (Colloredo-Mansfeld 1998) and developmentalism (McMichael 2016). Such tropes shift geographies of blame to foreign foodways. For 'us' to be safe, this logic holds, 'they' must shut their markets. But where should people shop instead?

How do food safety concerns affect consumer behaviors and diets in low- and middle-income countries? A systematic review

“…The 'supermarketisation' of urban areas and cities is often viewed as a way to guarantee a regulated food system. However, traditional markets, such as wet markets, often represent an important and preferred food outlet in LMICs (Béné et al, 2020;Chuvileva et al, 2020;Figuié and Moustier, 2009). Therefore, the needs and preferences of low-income consumers is important to avoid the negative effects on purchase, consumption and livelihoods.…”

“…However, a focus on food safety and supermarket-only strategies, to reduce consumer unease about FS could distort the longer-term policy agenda away from other important issues. These trade-offs should be taken into consideration to create real solutions that ensure availability, nutritional adequacy and the safety of the food system, especially as the COVID-19 pandemic places a greater strain on food systems and dietary practices (Chuvileva et al, 2020;Fanzo, 2020). Taking the opportunity to combine these issues within the broader food system agenda, including overweight and obesity prevention or affordability of healthy foods is important.…”

Social Cohesion and Community Resilience During COVID-19 and Pandemics: A Rapid Scoping Review to Inform the United Nations Research Roadmap for COVID-19 Recovery

“…41,42 Some commentaries on the environmental impacts on wet markets with respect to COVID-19 and pandemics were identified. [53][54][55] These commentaries discuss some perspectives and misinformation that wet markets carry the responsibility for the spread of COVID-19. These commentaries emphasize that wet markets are an essential part of the food supply chain for these communities and play an important cultural and social cohesion role as well.…”

A better classification of wet markets is key to safeguarding human health and biodiversity

“…First, imprecise language can foster xenophobia towards different cultures, especially with respect to long-standing and largely innocuous dietary practices. 9 Many wet markets sell only fresh produce and dead domesticated animals, and serve as the primary means of food acquisition and nutrition for a great number of people in the world, especially in east and southeast Asia. 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 When all types of wet markets are conflated and sensationalised as threats to human health, 15 anti-Asian sentiments can emerge.…”