Surveillance for Ebola Virus in Wildlife, Thailand

Wacharapluesadee, Supaporn; Olival, Kevin J.; Kanchanasaka, Budsabong; Duengkae, Prateep; Kaewchot, Supakarn; Srongmongkol, Phimchanok; Ieamsaard, Gittiyaporn; Maneeorn, Patarapol; Sittidetboripat, Nuntaporn; Kaewpom, Thongchai; Petcharat, Sininat; Yingsakmongkon, Sangchai; Rollin, Pierre E.; Towner, Jonathan S.; Hemachudha, Thiravat

doi:10.3201/eid2112.150869

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is unclear whether intermediary animals may act as transmitters of Ebola virus disease to humans [61,62]. However, Ebola virus is endemic in Africa [63] and Thailand [148], which are hubs of wildlife trade and international distributors to various global markets, including pets.…”

Section: Public Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wildlife-pet markets in a one-health context

Warwick¹,

Steedman²

2021

Int J One Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aim: Wildlife markets are centers of trade involving live animals and their derivatives from wild-caught and captive-bred non-domesticated animals, including for the culinary, fashion, traditional medicine, curio, and pet sectors. These markets occur in Southeast Asia, India, North America, Latin America, Europe, Africa, and elsewhere. This study aims to address a diversity of related issues that have a one-health bearing while focusing on wildlife markets in relation to the pet trade. Across relevant regions and countries, all major animal classes are traded at wildlife-pet markets. Wildlife markets, in general, are considered distinct from so-called "wet markets" at which domesticated animals, fish, and other "seafood" are offered only for consumption. Several aspects of wildlife markets have attracted scientific and popular scrutiny, including animal welfare concerns, species conservation threats, legality, ecological alteration, introduction of invasive alien species, presence of undescribed species, and public and agricultural animal health issues. Materials and Methods: Onsite inspections were conducted for markets in the United States, Spain, Germany, The Netherlands, and the UK, as well as observational research of visual imagery of market conditions, and we compared these conditions with evidence-based standards for animal welfare and public health management. Results: Wildlife markets globally shared common similar structures and practices including the presence of sick, injured, or stressed animals; mixing of animals of uncertain origin and health state; and no specific or any hygiene protocols, with issues of animal welfare, public health and safety, agricultural animal health, and other one-health concerns being inherently involved. Conclusion: We conclude that wildlife markets are incompatible with responsible standards and practices, and we recommend that such events are banned globally to ameliorate inherent major problems.

show abstract

Section: Public Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%