Artworks on this page: Various Jugs, by Katie Grobler.

A new report from the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) reviews the effectiveness of training and certification schemes designed to give small-scale ‘informal’ sellers of ‘raw’ and/or boiled or informally pasteurized milk and (in India) milk sweets greater market access in East Africa and South Asia.

The report reviews such schemes in Kenya and Tanzania and in the state of Assam, in northwestern India. In all three countries, the informal sector dominates dairy marketing and trade and informal milk production and trade contribute significantly to the employment, livelihoods and nutrition of many millions of poor people.

From the executive summary
‘This paper reviews the status and policy contexts of informal milk markets in Kenya, Tanzania and Assam (India) to better understand the opportunities for a policy innovation based on training and certification to overcome market access barriers for sellers of informal milk by improving the health and safety practices of informal milk traders, thereby addressing policymakers’ concerns. It is based on an extensive review of available literature and a small number of expert interviews and contributions.

‘Informal economic activities have been defined as those that operate outside the formal reach of the law or where the law is not applied or enforced, or where the law discourages compliance because it is inappropriate, burdensome or imposes excessive costs (White and Aylward 2016). However, as in other types of informal markets, informality in milk markets is not a black-and-white phenomenon. Small-scale milk businesses operate at different points along a spectrum of informality—with those selling raw milk without any of the required licences at the more informal end of the spectrum and those selling only packed and industrially pasteurized/ultra-heat treated milk with all necessary licences at the formal end. Other measures of formality/informality include the type of labour, relations with suppliers or access to finance and credit (White and Aylward 2016).

‘Milk production in the three countries is predominantly informal and small-scale. Dominant farming systems in Kenya, Tanzania and Assam are smallholder-led sedentary farms and pastoralists.

Large volumes of milk are produced in all three countries and significant volumes are consumed on farm. The informal sector usually pays more to producers than the formal sector and pays in cash on collection—a key attraction.

‘Industrial milk processing in all three countries is largely under-developed. In Kenya, the market is highly consolidated , with Brookside Dairy Limited and New Kenya Cooperative Creameries Limited processing 75% of all milk, and there is some market concentration in Tanzania. Obtaining sufficient volumes of milk is a key constraint to growth of the industrialized processing sector in all three countries. Smaller and micro-scale processors are emerging in Assam and Kenya in response to the government push for pasteurization.

The informal sector dominates dairy marketing and trade. Mobile vendors, shops/kiosks and milk bars dominate retailing in Kenya and Tanzania, and mobile/street vendors in Assam.

The geography and size of all three countries and poor infrastructure make marketing challenging. A lack of cold chain facilities means the milk must pass through a short chain to reach the consumer to maintain its quality.

Low-income consumers dominate consumption of informal milk (chiefly raw and/or boiled, or informally pasteurized, or in the case of India, solid milk-based products such as sweets, ghee and paneer).

‘Rates of consumption among low-income consumers are still lower than the recommended rates of per capita consumption. Price, quantities available to purchase, perceptions of freshness and fat content, convenience and accessibility drive the preference for raw milk.

Health hazards are associated with milk consumption. But, due to prevalent boiling practices in all three countries (with the exception of African pastoralist communities), many of these hazards do not translate to actual risks.

Informal milk production and trade contribute significantly to employment and livelihoods of poor people, as well as nutrition. In terms of price per unit of protein, milk typically represents better value than other domestic animal products.

‘However, legitimate health and safety concerns exist for milk since it is highly perishable and can contain disease-causing parasites, bacteria, antibiotic residues and aflatoxins. Some of these cannot be eliminated by any form of heat treatment (including pasteurization) and are determined at the production node of the chain (for example, antibiotic residues and aflatoxins).

Informality poses significant challenges to policymaking. Our review has shown that current policy approaches are poorly equipped to address the persistent reality of informal dairy markets.

Informal trade of milk and dairy products in Kenya, Tanzania and Assam shows no signs of abating, and yet policy offers either unrealistic—and unachievable—standards to force a move towards formalization in the form of pasteurization, or neglect.

Neither of these options offers a path to dealing constructively with a sector that offers livelihoods and nutrition for millions, but that also suffers from public health issues.

Inappropriate policies may in fact increase the cost of milk to the disadvantage of consumers and may, paradoxically, decrease milk safety.

Training and certification schemes offer a glimpse of a possible policy alternative that reconciles the needs of governments for better oversight of the informal sector, of vendors for freedom of harassment and better livelihoods, and of consumers for affordability, taste and, if well implemented and grounded on positive incentives, safety.

‘These schemes were implemented in all three countries with varying degrees of success—in terms of impact, scale and sustainability. In Kenya and Tanzania, the initial promise shown by the schemes has not translated into long-term sustainability or scaling. In Assam, as of 2015, the scheme was still ongoing but some challenges in recruiting and retaining participants had been reported. Evidence on the impact of the scheme in the respective countries shows some improvements for businesses in terms of skills and quality control, but the evidence is mixed with regard to health and safety practices and income for vendors.

Our review suggests that training and certification schemes can provide win-win situations when they align the interests of different stakeholders, but that co-funding is often needed.

‘A number of challenges and constraints explain the inability of the schemes to be scaled and sustained, including unstable policy environments (changing attitude of government to informal players); absence of policy or wider social drivers; and a weak relationship between knowledge and practice—while knowledge and capacities were improved, these did not always or necessarily translate into changes in practice.’

Read the whole report: Informal milk markets in Kenya, Tanzania and Assam (India)—An overview of their status, policy context and opportunities for policy innovation to improve health and safety, by Emma Blackmore (IIED), Alejandro Guarín (IIED), Silvia Alonso (ILRI), Delia Grace (ILRI and Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich) and Bill Vorley (IIED), ILRI Project Report, Oct 2020.

Acknowledgements
ILRI scientists Amos Omore, Emmanuel Muunda, Ram Deka and Steve Staal reviewed this paper and ILRI communications specialist Tezira Lore edited it. The MoreMilk: Making the most of milk project is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the CGIAR Research
Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health, and UK Aid from the United Kingdom government.

Scientists from ILRI,
Korea and other partners
have discovered
a new set of genetic markers
in African cattle that signal
beneficial characteristics,
with a view to harnessing them
for future generations.

‘In a multi-national collaborative effort, scientists have announced the discovery of a new set of detailed genetic markers in African cattle that are associated with valuable traits, such as heat and drought tolerance, the capacity to control inflammation and tick infestations, and resistance to devastating livestock diseases like trypanosomiasis.

‘They discovered, via genome sequencing, how indigenous cattle were bred with the Asian breeds, with emerging animals benefitting from traits of both: the ability to endure humid climates as well as the hot dry climes of the Horn of Africa.

The sturdy Red Fulani of West Africa produce milk, meat and manure
for their keepers with only limited amounts of feed and water
(photo credit: ILRI: Stevie Mann).

‘. . . “We’re fortunate that pastoralists are such skilled breeders,” Hanotte said. “They left a valuable roadmap for efforts underway at ILRI and elsewhere to balance livestock productivity in Africa with resilience and sustainability.”

“You can see from studying the genomes of Indigenous cattle that breeding for environmental adaptation has been the key to successful livestock production in Africa,” said Kemp. “And that has to be the factored in our future efforts to develop more productive, more sustainable animals. If the goal is pure productivity, you’re doomed to fail.”

‘Institutions involved in the research include the Addis Ababa- and Nairobi-based International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Seoul National University (Republic of Korea), Rural Development Administration (RDA) Republic of Korea, University of Khartoum (Sudan), The Centre of Tropical Livestock Genetics and Health (CTLGH, Scotland), Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (Sweden), and the University of Nottingham (United Kingdom).

‘These research findings were published in the October issue of Nature Genetics.’

Read the whole news article by Mandy Parrett: ‘Genomic time travel’ for better cattle, New Food Magazine, 1 Oct 2020.

Read the editorial article in this issue (30 Sep 2020) of Nature Genetics, in which the ILRI-partner paper made the journal’s cover: Stories in the DNA.

Read the scientific paper by Kim, K., Kwon, T., Dessie, T. (ILRI), Dong Ahn Yoo, Okeyo, M.A. (ILRI), Jisung Jang, Samsun Sung, Saet Byeol Lee, Salim, B., Jaehoon Jung, Heesu Jeong, Mekuriaw, G., Tijjani, A. (ILRI), Dajeong Lim, Seoae Cho, Sung Jong Oh, Hak-Kyo Lee, Jaemin Kim, Choongwon Jeong, Kemp, S. (ILRI), Hanotte, O. (ILRI) and Heebal Kim. The mosaic genome of indigenous African cattle as a unique genetic resource for African pastoralism. Nature Genetics, 28 Sep 2020.

Read other news clippings about this new ILRI Nature Genetics paper
African Farming (UK): Study reveals valuable disease-fighting qualities in African indigenous cattle
Agence France Presse—English: African cattle bred for toughness tested by climate change
Selected online pick-up
Africa News Net
Barrons (UK)
British Journal
Caribbean News
Daily Gov Job
Dnyuz
France24
Macau Business
MSN
Manila Times
News 18
News 24
Radio France Internationale
Seed Daily
Space Daily
Uganda News Net
World News Monitor
Yahoo News
Agence France Presse- French: Le bétail africain a prospéré grâce à l’apport d’un cousin asiatique
Selected online pick-up
Algerie 9
Le Figaro (France)
Le Monde (France)
Le Soir (Belgium)
Agencia EFE: Descubren rasgos genéticos para reproducir bovinos africanos más resistentes
Selected online pick-up
Hola News
La Vanguardia
La Estrella De Panama
Agrolink (Brazil): Viagem do tempo já existe na genômica
AllAfrica.com: Africa: New Research Set to Produce More Productive, Sustainable Cattle
Selected online pick-up
News Knowledge
Street Journal (Ireland)
BBC NewsDay (UK): Olivier Hanotte interview with BBC on 29 September 2020 (Recording)
Commod Africa: Le séquençage des génomes permet de reproduire une nouvelle génération de bétail africain
Farm Weekly (Australia): African cattle: Scientists identify new genetic traits
Selected online pick-up
Land
Queensland Country Life
Lusa (Portugal): Descobertos traços que explicam maior resistência de gado africano
Selected online pick-up
Journal de Angola
Sapo
Nature-Asia: Tracing the ancestry of African cattle
Phi Hùng (Vietnam): Phát hiện cấu trúc gene giúp gia súc chống lại khí hậu khắc nghiệt 
Standard (Kenya): Study shows African cattle Unique traits
Xinhua: Study says African indigenous cattle more resilient to climatic shocks, diseases
Selected online pick-up
News Ghana
Press release pick-ups
African Eye Report
Beef Central
EurekAlert
Farmonline
Feedstuff
Kilimo News (Kenya)
News Break
Phy.org
Science Tech Daily
Stock & Land
Stock Journal
University of Nottingham
Lot Gain (Chinese release)

ILRI’s Kapiti Research Station (photo credit: ILRI/Jake Meyers).

‘Nairobi National Park wildlife ecosystem has more than doubled its land size to 78,000 acres after two institutions agreed to integrate their land with the wildlife conservancy.

On Thursday, 24 Sep 2020,
the Kapiti Research Station of Kenya’s
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)
and the neighbouring Swara Plains Conservancy
declared their 32,000 and 15,000 acres,
respectively, for wildlife conservation.

Zebra are among the many wildlife species that roam
ILRI’s Kapiti Research Station (photo credit: ILRI/Jake Meyers).

‘Tourism and Wildlife Cabinet Secretary Najib Balala handed over registration certificates to the two conservancies at a ceremony held at the Swara Plains Wildlife Conservancy.

‘”I wish to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the two conservancies on behalf of the government and the people of Kenya for this wonderful gift that will ensure our unique biodiversity thrives for posterity.

This will be an essential wildlife corridor,
for the animal population in Nairobi National Park,”
said Balala.

Giraffe at ILRI’s Kapiti Research Station
(photo credit: ILRI/Jake Meyers).

‘The CS added that Nairobi National Park is not big enough to meet the ecological requirements of its wildlife populations throughout the year.

‘”On the Northern side, we are looking into acquiring 1,500 acres of land to extend the Nairobi National Park to Ngong Forest.’

We hope that all this will enable Nairobi National Park
to be listed and declared a world heritage site,” Balala said. . . .

Read the whole article by Hilary Kimuyu: Nairobi National Park’s Land Size Doubles, Nairobi News, 26 Sep 2020.

Other news clippings about this:
Government expands Nairobi National Park by 49,000 acres to create wildlife migration corridor, by Linda Shiundu, Tuko, 26 Sep 2020.

Nairobi national park reserve increased to 78,000 acres, by John Ng’ang’a, KBC, 25 Sep 2020.

ILRI’s Kapiti Research Station commits to preserving biodiversity and conserving wildlife through its wildlife corridor, by ILRI, 30 Sep 2020.

Learn more about ILRI’s Kapiti Research Station in this brochure: Kapiti Plains Ranch: Farmhouse and research centre.

A recent interview by Caroline Stocks, a UK journalist who writes about food, agriculture and the environment, of air quality expert Frank Mitloehner, a professor of animal science at the University of California at Davis, calls into question how responsible cows are for climate change.

On overstated impacts of cattle on greenhouse gas emissions
‘For those who say cows contribute the most greenhouse gas emissions, that’s simply not true’, says Mitloehner.

As Stocks explains: ‘Livestock’s impact has been hugely overstated, while the major culprit—the use of fossil fuels, particularly for transportation—has largely been allowed to slip under the radar.

‘The issue is partly down to the methods used to calculate livestock’s impact: The UN’s most significant report, Livestock’s Long Shadow, claimed livestock are responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, but the figure calculated emissions along the entire supply chain, from land use to processing and refrigeration in supermarkets. Meanwhile, transportation figures, which are regularly reported as 28% of all greenhouse gas emissions, only factor in direct emissions from exhaust fumes, ignoring processes associated with manufacturing machinery, or moving people and produce.’

On mischaracterized impacts of bovine methane on greenhouse warming
Stocks goes on: ‘But perhaps more significant, however, is the lack of understanding about the methane famously emitted in cows’ burps, and how it acts in the environment.

‘While methane is 28-times more heat-trapping than carbon dioxide, methane’s lifespan is just a decade, while CO2—known as a long-life pollutant—remains in the atmosphere for 1000 years.

‘After ten years, methane is broken down in a process called hydroxyl oxidation into CO2, entering a carbon cycle which sees the gas absorbed by plants, converted into cellulose, and eaten by livestock.’

Stocks included in her news item the infographic below, from the Global Carbon Project, which details the annual average amount of global methane emitted into the atmosphere (558 tons) and, importantly, the (almost same) amount of methane that is annually absorbed back into plants and soils (548 tons).

Source: Global Carbon Project

On livestock use of marginal lands
‘Two thirds of the world’s agricultural land is marginal, which means it cannot be used to grow crops because the soil is not sufficient or there’s not enough water’, [Mitloehner] says. ‘We have to use that land for ruminant livestock, because it’s the only way to use it. Those who say stop animal agriculture because it’s better for the environment and humankind are effectively saying let’s get rid of two thirds of all agricultural land.’

On the need to improve livestock systems
Mitloehner is no livestock apologist. He well understands that the livestock sector is not perfect and must continually improve. In his interview, he tells Stocks that those in the livestock industry have ‘to continue to increase performance efficiencies, use new technologies to drive improvements—and, most importantly, talk about their work.’

‘More and more people are asking questions about their food, and farmers can no longer say they don’t want to talk to the media or the public. Farmers are the experts, they need to answer them.’

Read the whole article by Caroline Stocks, The methane myth: Why cows aren’t responsible for climate change, published on Medium, 6 Jun 2019.

Pork handling at Wambizzi Pig Cooperative Society, Uganda’s only centralized pig abattoir (photo credit: ILRI/Danilo Pezo).

Liam Taylor, a reporter for The Economist, recently interviewed Uganda-based food safety experts at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and at Uganda’s premiere university, Makerere, in development of an article about whether wet markets will be banned in the wake of COVID-19. . . Excerpts from the published article follow.

‘. . . Bustling markets selling live wild animals, often piled one atop the other . . . give virologists the heebie-jeebies. Poor hygiene, animals kept in stressful conditions (which may affect their immune systems, making them more susceptible to disease) and traders and customers packed cheek-by-jowl can easily result in a “spillover” event, when a virus jumps from an animal into a human, causing a new disease, says Olivier Restif, a virologist at the University of Cambridge.

‘. . . [M]any virologists think SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, originated in bats and then may have infected an intermediate species, possibly a pangolin, a scaly anteater prized for its meat and medicinal properties. What is undeniable is that Wuhan, in which live pangolins, civets and other wild species were sold, is exactly the sort of place where a new zoonotic disease might originate. . . .

‘Wild animals are particularly dangerous because humans have not grown accustomed to—or conquered—their bugs, as they have with many domesticated species. Because viruses and the like are nearly always passed on via the faeces or urine of the infected creature, markets with scant hygiene—for example where animals are poorly butchered and the bladder is contaminated—pose the greatest risk.

Yet many virologists, including Mr Restif, do not want to see a blanket ban on wet markets.

Rather, they prefer a more nuanced approach and more narrow regulation to control their most dangerous aspects.

To understand why, it helps to unpick what wet markets are, and their role in the feeding of billions of people.

‘The term “wet markets” . . . is, at its most basic, any grouping of vendors selling fresh goods. Markets are often watery because they are sluiced down, or because of the melting of the ice used to stop food from spoiling. . . . Wet markets come in many forms. They encompass both Tomohon and, for example, Chun Yeung Street in Hong Kong, which must adhere to stringent health guidelines and where the only live goods available are aquatic (fish are not considered a viable vector of such nasty diseases as COVID-19, in part because they lack respiratory systems comparable to those of humans, which many viruses attack).

‘Between those extremes lies somewhere such as Kalerwe market in Kampala, Uganda’s capital. At first sight, it presents many of the risks associated with wildlife markets. Live chickens can spend three weeks in cramped cages before being sold, says Clovice Kankya, a biosecurity expert at Makerere University. . . .

‘But the risks from the market can be overstated. With the exception of chickens, which are sold live, most animals in Kampala’s market have been slaughtered in abattoirs, rather than freshly killed in the market. Cases of animal-to-human disease transmission in Uganda have happened “mainly in the village”, where animals are slaughtered in homes without any inspections . . . .

‘Closing down wet markets would have wider implications. A study of 350 such markets in Nanjing, an urban area of 8m people in eastern China, found that they accounted for 80% of the city’s vegetable sales. Across the whole country it has been estimated that such places handle 73% of all the fresh vegetables and meat that is bought. In contrast, the study found that supermarkets tended to be where Nanjing’s households went to buy processed food.

Were markets closed and locals pushed into supermarkets, . . . their health would inevitably suffer, as they would be more likely to pick processed meals over fresh produce. . . .

Wet markets in China owe their popularity to their several virtues. Compared with supermarkets, they are more likely to be within walking distance of people’s homes. They also tend to be cheaper . . . [and] prices also tend to be negotiable . . .

All of which means that rather than pushing for the wholesale banning of wet markets, many scientists are calling for a more subtle approach.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) is working on a proposal to recommend suspending the sale of live wild mammals in marketplaces for food, but not live farmed creatures such as poultry and fish, which pose a lower risk and where controls can be introduced. . . .

Plenty of people will continue to call for outright closures. A lot of non-Westerners view this as cultural deafness. . . .

A full ban would also threaten to throw up an unintended consequence. By forbidding the selling of live meat in places where it is a “strong part of its source of food or a cultural pull,” says Mr Restif, “it will just go to the black market, where there can be no regulation.” . . .

No matter how well-regulated wet markets are, it will not end the threat of zoonotic diseases. Their danger lurks wherever humans encroach on wild animals, whether through logging, the building of settlements or the hunting and selling of meat.

But tighter oversight would at least go some way to reducing a big source of risk.

With the stakes so high, both for those vulnerable to a future pandemic, and the billions who rely on markets for nutrition, a measured response will be welcome.

Among Liam Taylor’s background notes for this published article in The Economist are the following, unpublished, observations and quotes.

‘Mohammed Juma is standing in a tin box in a roadside market in Kampala, the Uganda capital, swinging a machete at a slab of beef. Around three-quarters of all beef sales in the country are at small butcheries like his. One survey found that just 7% of them had soap for handwashing and 26% had receptacles for waste. But Mr Juma has no fears about hygiene. He points to a health inspector’s stamp on the goat’s leg hanging behind him. Anyway, his meat is cheaper and fresher than the shrink-wrapped sausages in the supermarket close by. The customers keep coming.

‘Anxieties about food and disease are understandable. . . . But the risks can be overstated. “We may know the hazards, but what is most important is the risk of exposure,” says Jolly Hoona, who is in charge of veterinary public health in the agriculture ministry. Pork sold from a butcher’s stall is roughly the same quality as that in the supermarket, says Kristina Roesel, who researches food safety in east Africa for the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). And consumption habits reduce the danger. Although most milk is sold raw, Ugandans usually boil it before drinking. They like their meat extremely well-done. . . .

Read the whole article, Curbing zoonotic diseases: Will wet markets be hung out to dry after the pandemic? They can breed new diseases, but banning them entirely might not be the best response, Economist, 26 May 2020.

For more information, read Wildlife markets in the pandemic: Prohibit or preserve them? Ban or promote them?, on ILRI.ORG, 2 Sep 2020.

Or contact ILRI research partner Clovice Kankya, a professor at Makerere University and a co-investigator in a food safety component of an ILRI project called Boosting Uganda’s Investment in Livestock Development (BUILD), at clokankya [at] gmail.com, or ILRI scientist and project leader Kristina Roesel at k.roesel [at] cgiar.org.

Fun with Lines and Curves by Elsie C. Ellison, 1972 (binding illustration).

The IDEAL project, first attempt to study

the complete pathogen landscape of any species,

has generated a unique dataset and biorepository

for researchers of infectious diseases

of cattle in East Africa.

‘The Infectious Diseases of East African Livestock (IDEAL) project was a longitudinal cohort study of calf health which was conducted in Western Kenya between 2007–2010. A total of 548 East African shorthorn zebu calves were recruited at birth and followed at least every 5 weeks during the first year of life. Comprehensive clinical and epidemiological data, blood and tissue samples were collected at every visit. These samples were screened for over 100 different pathogens or infectious exposures, using a range of diagnostic methods.

‘This manuscript describes this comprehensive dataset and bio-repository, and how to access it through a single online site. This provides extensive filtering and searching capabilities. These data are useful to illustrate outcomes of multiple infections on health, investigate patterns of morbidity and mortality due to parasite infections, and to study genotypic determinants of immunity and disease. . . .

‘In summary, this evolving dataset linked to its biorepository represents the first attempt to study the complete pathogen landscape of any species and a unique resource for the research community interested in infectious diseases of cattle in East Africa. The longitudinal collection of data allows the outcomes of multiple infections to be related to their effect on their host and their interaction with host genotype. We hope that this database will provide the opportunity for others to study the dynamics of infectious diseases, either as stand-alone work or used in synergy with other projects. The online format integrated with the biobank provides an opportunity to apply any new tools as they become available allowing new questions to be addressed.’

Read the whole IDEAL paper
IDEAL, the Infectious Diseases of East African Livestock project open access database and biobank, by Rebecca Callaby, Cezar Pendarovski, Amy Jennings, Samuel Thumbi Mwangi, Ilana Van Wyk, Mary Mbole-Kariuki, Henry Kiara (ILRI), Philip Toye (ILRI), Steve Kemp (ILRI), Olivier Hanotte (ILRI), Jacobus Coetzer, Ian Handel, Mark Woolhouse and Barend Mark de Clare Bronsvoort, 9 Jul 2020, Scientific Data 7: 224.

Find IDEAL samples meta-data
All the IDEAL samples meta-data can be found on the IDEAL project website: http://data.ctlgh.org/ideal/

Request IDEAL samples
The Azizi Biorepository maintains the samples on behalf of the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). Any use of the institute samples is regulated by ILRI which evaluates any requests for samples. In addition to the institute’s samples, the use of the IDEAL samples is regulated by the IDEAL project’s management committee.

Read more about ILRI’s Azizi Biorepository
ILRI News blog: ILRI’s ‘Azizi’ facility is storing samples of livestock and wildlife biodiversity for future research, 26 Jun 2020.

Read more about the IDEAL project
Reflections on IDEAL: What we have learnt from a unique calf cohort study, by Rebecca Callaby et al., Preventive Veterinary Medicine 181:105062.

Pork sold in a wet market in Cambodia (photo credit: ILRI/David Aronson).

ILRI and UN experts say
preserve and protect
the world’s ‘informal markets’
AND
invest and enhance these markets,
which provide billions of people
with food and incomes.

An opinion piece by ILRI scientist Kristina Roesel and ILRI deputy director general Dieter Schillinger

Around 60% of human infectious diseases are transmitted by animals. These diseases are known as ‘zoonoses’. While it is often viruses that cause zoonoses, such as Ebola, the human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI, or bird flu) and Zika fever, bacteria, parasites, fungi and degenerate proteins (so-called prions) from animals can also cause diseases in humans. Almost three-quarters of the infectious diseases transmitted to people from the animal kingdom come from wild animals.

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is suspected to have originated in a bat or other wild animal, calls are increasing for bans on consuming game meat or selling it in the traditional fresh markets ubiquitous in low- and middle-income countries, also known as ‘informal’ or ‘wet’ markets. But it is not yet clear where the spillover occurred, which is one argument against blaming the so-called ‘wet markets’.

So what is the right response to these informal markets?

As detailed in a recent report on preventing the next pandemic jointly published last July by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), eating game, or ‘bush’, meat is popular with many people and is common in poor countries, whose populations cannot afford to buy beef, lamb, pig, goat or chicken meat. In these countries, meat harvested from wild animals, unlike high-input livestock farming, requires no investments other than hunting. And this meat provides scarce proteins and micronutrients important for human development and health. It is also an important source of income for hunters and market sellers. And consumers consider game meat to be particularly fresh, natural and—relative to meat from farm animals—affordable. Wildlife body parts are also sold for decorative, medicinal and other commercial purposes. In addition, some communities consider hunting wild animals to be a status symbol. Wild animals are also captured to be sold live, for use as pets, for zoo collections and for medical experiments.

The ILRI-UNEP report cites estimates that around six million tons of game meat are hunted annually in Latin America and Africa. A recent survey of nearly 8,000 rural households in 24 countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia showed that around 39% of them hunted wild animals and almost all of them consumed wild meat. In Central Africa, the consumption of bush meat, at 48 grams per person per day, is even higher than the meat consumption of farm animals (34 grams). Increasing population growth and increasing prosperity will significantly increase the demand for animal proteins, and thus also for game meat, in the future.

Contacts between humans and wildlife
It is mostly human actions that are leading to increasing contacts between humans and wild animals, thus contributing to the outbreak and spread of zoonotic diseases.

Building roads in remote areas, for example, makes wildlife hunting and trade easier and increases the risk of zoonotic disease outbreaks. The clearing of forests and increasing, often chaotic, urbanization endanger ecosystems traditionally inhabited by wild animals, creating more contacts between humans and wild animals, greater trade and consumption of game meat and greater risk of pathogens ‘jumping species’ from wild animals to humans, sometimes via the domesticated animals that farmers raise.

Unfortunately, the rural communities of poor countries have been provided with few incentives to protect wildlife and their ecosystems. Although increasing chicken and pig farms are supplying increasing amounts of meat in many countries, this has done little to relieve pressure on wildlife populations and their habitats. Many rural poor communities continue to include game meat in their poor, largely starchy, diets and many urban elites continue to view eating game meat as a status symbol they are reluctant to forgo.

In Asia and Africa, wild animals as well as game meat are often sold alongside other farm animals and farm animal meats in the informal markets that most of their populations frequent. Lack of infrastructure and regulation in these informal markets mixing domesticated and wild animals can lead to hygiene deficits that make them potential breeding grounds for new zoonoses.

Does banning wildlife sales and consumption work?
Should the consumption of game meat, the trade in wild animals and the operations of traditional fresh markets therefore all be banned? Or is it possible to significantly reduce the risk of new infectious diseases arising from the hunting,  butchering and trading of wild animals and the processing and consumption of game meat?

SARS-CoV-2 and other new pathogens—viruses in particular but also bacteria and disease-causing microbes of all kinds that carry resistance to antibiotics or antimicrobial drug residues—have always been associated with traditional markets, where live farm and wild animals and their products are traded in confined spaces with minimum oversight and safety standards. However, there are studies that refute the idea that coronaviruses have ‘jumped’ from animals to humans mainly or solely in these markets. Overall, however, experts agree that informal markets harbour health risks, especially when live or slaughtered livestock and wild animals are traded under poor hygienic conditions.

But banning such markets outright is unfeasible as they are ubiquitous across the developing world. And, in any case, outright bans of informal markets would be disastrous to the food, nutrition and economic welfare of billions of people. A more realistic and judicious solution is to improve the conditions of these markets so that their zoonotic and other health risks are minimized. This is the position taken in a recent report on stopping the next pandemic jointly published last July by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Informal markets should be preserved, say the authors of the report, but continuously improved.

Essential for food security
For billions of people, the consumption of meat, milk, eggs and fish is an important source of high-quality protein, vitamins and trace elements that guarantee people’s health and productivity. Buying these nutritionally rich animal-source foods in supermarkets is beyond the means of most people in most poorer countries, who must make such purchases in lower-priced informal markets. Furthermore, these traditional markets remain indispensable to the incomes as well as nutrition of small-scale farmers, food processors and traders, especially women.

The traditional, informal markets of developing countries offer fresh animal and vegetable products, many also offer live animals such as poultry, fish, shellfish and, in some cases, wild animals. The products typically come from the immediate vicinity or region but are also imported.

A challenge to enhancing the safety of these markets is their very informal nature, which makes it difficult to enhance food safety by enforcing minimum safety standards, regulations and controls, or even to provide permits, to tax businesses or to train the market vendors in food hygiene and related matters. Furthermore, the optimal food safety frameworks to be applied will be diverse so as to suit diverse contexts and countries.

As mentioned, stricter regulation of the sale of food in these markets has proven difficult and impractical in the past, especially in countries where there is little effective monitoring. In general, there is a risk that such bans will lead only to the formation of black markets, which only exacerbate the problems to be solved.

Because informal food markets offer so many advantages to the poor—among them low food prices; access to local, regional and fresh foods; income for many women and youth as well as men; and attractions for tourists—these benefits need to be carefully weighed against the health risks for consumers on a case-by-case basis. This balancing is particularly important in the midst of a zoonotic pandemic.

China is taking rigorous measures
After the first COVID-19 outbreak in a traditional fresh food market in Wuhan in late 2019, the Chinese government closed the market immediately. A month later, on 26 January 2020, the government banned the trade and consumption of wild animals in fresh markets. The slaughter of farm animals was also prohibited in informal urban markets. Although this regulation is difficult to implement in rural areas, violations have been severely punished with stricter controls. Vietnam also stopped all imports of wild animals in mid-July 2020 and ordered the closure of illegal wildlife markets.

While imposing these rigorous measures is a logical attempt to reduce the spread of COVID-19, they inevitably cause bottlenecks in food supplies for poorer consumers. As a result of the lockdowns implemented to try to stem the pandemic, many people in developing and emerging countries, like those in industrialized economies, have lost their jobs, but most of the former have also lost their incomes and have no social security or health insurance. Every day without work exacerbates both their livelihood and their food supply problems. Among many of these people, game meat is their cheapest source of protein.

Maintain informal fresh markets and gradually reform them
The ongoing COVID-19 crisis is expected increase world hunger and poverty. The World Food Program estimates that by the end of 2020, around a quarter of a billion people will be hungry. ILRI and UNEP make a compelling case for private as well as public sectors to maintain informal fresh markets while making greater investments in them to enhance their conditions. Water, electricity, waste disposal and other basic infrastructure must be provided and food retailers trained in disinfection, good hygiene, use of protective equipment, etc. Food monitoring as a whole needs to be strengthened and economic incentives could encourage consumers to buy only from certified dealers.

Zoonotic outbreaks arising in the informal as well as formal sectors must be investigated in an interdisciplinary ‘One Health’ manner—e.g., by medical doctors, veterinarians, ecologists, geologists, sociologists and economists working together. Slaughterhouses in developing countries could, for example, serve as intervention points for the monitoring of infectious diseases, where slaughter staff and live and dead animals could be regularly tested for diseases. Routine monitoring of animal watering offers an even earlier opportunity to detect pathogens that could be transmitted from animals to people. In regional and supra-regional cooperation, the transfer of knowledge from Europe to Africa should be intensified in the area of risk assessment in food hygiene, the development of laboratory-independent rapid diagnostics and the monitoring of pathogens with pandemic potential at their source.

* * *

For more than two decades, ILRI has been investigating zoonotic diseases and promoting One Health approaches—uniting medical, veterinary and environmental expertise—to reduce them.

ILRI has also managed to elevate food safety in poorer countries from a ‘Cinderella issue’ to a major one in global development.

Meanwhile UNEP, which is also headquartered in Nairobi, has focused on addressing the most urgent global issues in environmental health and safety and  with a keen understanding of developing-country issues.
—Kristina Roesel, ILRI biomedical/veterinary scientist

* * *

With this new ILRI-UNEP collaborative work to prevent zoonotic pandemics in future, and with the recent creation of a One Health Research, Education and Outreach Centre for Africa at ILRI’s campus in Nairobi, Kenya, financed by Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), this multi-disciplinary, multi-sector, multi-institutional ‘One Health’ solution promises to become more focused, more intensive and more global in future.
—Dieter Schillinger, ILRI deputy director general for biosciences

Read the whole original opinion piece in German, Verbieten oder verbessern? Wildtiermärkte in der Pandemie, Welternährung, Aug 2020.

Read the ILRI-UNEP report: Preventing the next pandemic: Zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission, Jul 2020.

Read an ILRI News blog: Germany’s BMZ initiates a new ‘One Health Research, Education and Outreach Centre for Africa’, 11 Nov 2019.

Read previously published briefs on food safety and informal markets:

Grace, D., Roesel, K. and Lore, T. 2014. Food safety in informal markets in developing countries: An overview. ILRI Research Brief 19. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.

Grace, D., Roesel, K. and Lore, T. 2014. Food safety in informal markets in developing countries: Lessons from research by the International Livestock Research Institute. ILRI Research Brief 20. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.

Grace, D., Roesel, K. and Lore, T. 2014. Poverty and gender aspects of food safety and informal markets in sub-Saharan Africa. ILRI Research Brief 21. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.

Kang’ethe, E., Grace, D., Roesel, K., Hendrickx, S. and Makita, K. 2014. Safety of animal-source foods in informal markets in the East African Community: Policy engagements. ILRI Policy Brief 13. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.

All children’s artworks on this page are from Artsonia Art Gallery.

In the lead up to the United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021, Corinna Hawkes, director of the Centre for Food Policy at City, University of London, UK, asks all of us concerned with ‘food systems’ of one kind or another to think beyond ’empty signifiers’, even beyond visions for better food systems, and to get back to a fundamental question—what should be the purpose of food systems? If we can reach agreement on that, she argues, we can then set about creating diverse visions and actions, suiting diverse circumstances, for fulfilling that agreed-upon purpose.

So this is what I’d suggest for the UN Food Systems Summit:
create a universal sense of purpose for the food system
and then inspire millions of communities, cities, and countries
to build visions in their own spaces of what
their food systems would look like if they
were to put that purpose into practice.

It’s a shared, universal agenda that also allows us to celebrate
the wealth of diversity and difference in our food systems around the world.

More excerpts from Hawkes’ thoughtful article follow.

‘. . . [T]here is such a diversity of stakeholders in food systems, such a diversity of goals, that the promise of a “collective” journey seems distant. . . . Overall, this fragmentation means the tremendous power of these multiple communities to connect and act along a common path is being lost. . . .

‘. . . There are many food systems visions out there, full of words like “sustainable,” “equitable,” “inclusive,” “resilient,” “democratic,” “diverse” and “healthy.” Good words. But what do they actually mean? Well, lots of things, depending on how you interpret them. Easy to say, hard (and complex) to pin down. Everyone can agree on the vision of a sustainable, inclusive, healthy food system—and then promptly disagree profoundly on how to get there. . . . It’s a shared vision. But it’s a superficial one. Everyone can stand up and stake allegiance to this vision, and then carry on along their divergent paths. If it’s a collective journey we are looking for, it won’t get us very far. . . .

There is no one vision for every place. The Hudson Valley looks very different to New York City not far south. Nairobi is different to the pastoralist communities out in the Sahel. . . .  It’s no wonder that probably the most talked about visual vision of food systems transformation of the past few years—the Eat-Lancet diet, depicted on a plate—was derided for being culturally insensitive. When it comes to seeing things differently, people like to see it in their own places. A bold vision of the future it might be, but at least it should meet them where they are.

So for a universal agenda, the temptation is
to go back to empty signifiers again—
healthy, sustainable, inclusive, etc.—
useful, at least, in that they can be applied everywhere.

But there is another way:
to step back from the vision and ask instead:
what is the food system for?

‘. . . Funnily enough, unlike the call for vision, this question is rarely asked. Perhaps this is because it is obvious. To produce food, right? Well, yes. But is the universal purpose to produce enough calories? Or to support people’s nutrition, health and development? Is it to produce cash? Or is profitability rather a means to an end? Answers to these questions have profound implications for what needs to be done and how. If the purpose of the food system is to regenerate and nourish, this implies a very different food system to one which aims to provide calories and cash. If the purpose of the food system is to feed the world, this means producing more. If the purpose is to nourish people, this means it also has the task of actively enabling and encouraging people to eat well and nourishing the billions who labour in the food system. If the purpose is to regenerate, this has profound implications for every single action taken to produce, transport and sell food in the future.

It’s this shared sense of purpose for the food system
that ultimately we need to agree upon.

What is the food system for?
It’s a universal question that transcends place, population or plate.

Unlike the call for a shared vision, it allows for a universal answer.

Read the whole article by Corinna Hawkes on her
‘The Better Food Journey’ blog
What is the food system for?
A key question for the
UN Food Systems Summit
27 Aug 2020

Standing Rib, by Roy Lichtenstein, 1962.

‘Eat less meat’ is seen by many as a way of improving the health of the planet and its people.

But the issue isn’t quite so simple—at least where the nutrition security and livelihoods of millions of people in the Global South are concerned.

A call for a holistic view.

Animal-sourced food production sits right at the heart of . . . overlapping issues, which often entail significant technical and political trade-offs between different goals and different groups of people. . . .

Eating less meat would harm the livelihoods of many low-income populations who depend on livestock, poultry and fishing.

The challenge, then, for high-income countries is to reduce the consumption of animal-source foods (for their own health), and the challenge in lower-income countries is to improve the efficiency of animal source production (for the sake of the planet’s health).

For middle-income countries, the challenge is to improve on both dimensions. . . .

Decisions about food production and food consumption need to be informed by these trade-offs as well as the synergies.

This points to a need for a significant increase in research that explores the attainment of these goals simultaneously, particularly for middle- and low-income countries because most of the limited evidence is from Europe and North America.

The trade-offs and synergies are not only technical issues, they are also political. Different constituencies have different interests and different power.

The technical and political economy issues also have to be identified, analysed and navigated within a multi-goal framework if food systems are to be transformed for people, animals and the planet.

This is the challenge for the UN Food Systems Summit of 2021, and it is the challenge for all of us before—and after—the Summit.

Read the whole article
‘Eat less meat: if only it were that simple’, by Lawrence Haddad, International Journal for Rural Development, 17 Aug 2020.

Read more
GAIN Discussion Paper No. 5: The role of animal-source foods in healthy, sustainable, and equitable food systems, 2020.