No abstract

A growing body of evidence demonstrates the importance of forests and wild animal-based foods for diets within tropical environments. However, deforestation and associated land-use changes can have competing effects on nutrition and food security as communities reorient from wild food use and subsistence-based agriculture to import/export markets. This research examines dietary differences and associated changes in food security during intermediate stages of deforestation and market integration in the agriculture-forest frontier of Cross River State, Nigeria. We used participant responses to mixed-methods interviews (n = 528) in six communities to measure individual dietary diversity, household food access, and short-term nutritional status, with specific attention to animal-based foods and the cultural and economic values attached to them, in two interior forest (n = 177) and four forest-edge (n = 351) communities. Multivariate analysis of dietary compositions revealed differences in food categories and types of meat consumed between forest environments. People in forest-edge communities reported consuming less bushmeat and dark green leafy vegetables, and more pulses, domestic meat, fish, eggs, dairy, other vegetables, sweets, condiments, and non-red palm oil compared to interior forest communities. Bushmeat was highly preferred and had more economic value than other animal-based foods, regardless of location. Forest-edge communities had fewer households involved in bushmeat related activities, and fewer hunters per household. However, traders in forest-edge communities sold a larger proportion of meat to people outside of the community than did traders in interior forest communities. Measures of nutrition and food security, but not wealth, improved in relation to dietary patterns in forest-edge communities compared to interior forest communities. Our results may reflect a "best of both worlds" scenario during the intermediate stages of deforestation and agricultural expansion near forested areas, where people have access to forest resources, increased ability to Friant et al.Food Security in the Agricultural-Forest Frontier capitalize on forest goods, and access to market goods as they become integrated into market economies. Understanding the dietary consequences of environmental change is important, as food-related experiences may shape the trajectories of livelihood practices and landscape changes in tropical forests of biodiversity significance.

Background Understanding how and why people interact with animals is important for the prevention and control of zoonoses. To date, studies have primarily focused on the most visible forms of human-animal contact (e.g., hunting and consumption), thereby blinding One Health researchers and practitioners to the broader range of human-animal interactions that can serve as cryptic sources of zoonotic diseases. Zootherapy, the use of animal products for traditional medicine and cultural practices, is widespread and can generate opportunities for human exposure to zoonoses. Existing research examining zootherapies omits details necessary to adequately assess potential zoonotic risks. Methods We used a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative data from questionnaires, key informant interviews, and field notes to examine the use of zootherapy in nine villages engaged in wildlife hunting, consumption, and trade in Cross River State, Nigeria. We analyzed medicinal and cultural practices involving animals from a zoonotic disease perspective, by including details of animal use that may generate pathways for zoonotic transmission. We also examined the sociodemographic, cultural, and environmental contexts of zootherapeutic practices that can further shape the nature and frequency of human-animal interactions. Results Within our study population, people reported using 44 different animal species for zootherapeutic practices, including taxonomic groups considered to be “high risk” for zoonoses and threatened with extinction. Variation in use of animal parts, preparation norms, and administration practices generated a highly diverse set of zootherapeutic practices (n = 292) and potential zoonotic exposure risks. Use of zootherapy was patterned by demographic and environmental contexts, with zootherapy more commonly practiced by hunting households (OR = 2.47, p < 0.01), and prescriptions that were gender and age specific (e.g., maternal and pediatric care) or highly seasonal (e.g., associated with annual festivals and seasonal illnesses). Specific practices were informed by species availability and theories of healing (i.e., “like cures like” and sympathetic healing and magic) that further shaped the nature of human-animal interactions via zootherapy. Conclusions Epidemiological investigations of zoonoses and public health interventions that aim to reduce zoonotic exposures should explicitly consider zootherapy as a potential pathway for disease transmission and consider the sociocultural and environmental contexts of their use in health messaging and interventions.

Background: Understanding how and why people interact with animals is important for prevention and control of zoonoses. To date, studies have primarily focused on the most visible forms of human-animal contact (e.g., hunting and consumption), thereby blinding One Health researchers and practitioners to the broad range of human-animal interactions that can serve as neglected sources of zoonotic diseases. Zootherapy, the use of animal products for traditional medicine and cultural practices, is widespread and can generate opportunities for human exposure to zoonoses. Still, existing research examining zootherapies omits details necessary to adequately assess potential zoonotic risks. Methods: We used a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative data from questionnaires, key informant interviews, and field notes to examine the use of zootherapy in nine villages engaged in wildlife hunting, consumption, and trade in Nigeria. We analyzed medicinal and cultural practices involving animals from a zoonotic disease perspective, by including details of animal use that may generate pathways for transmission of animal-borne infections. We also examined the sociodemographic and cultural contexts of zootherapeutic practices that can further shape the nature and frequency of human-animal interactions. Results: Within our study population, people reported using 44 different animal species for zootherapeutic practices, including “high risk” taxonomic groups. Variation in use of animal parts, preparation norms, and administration practices generated a highly diverse set of zootherapeutic practices (n = 292) and variation in associated zoonotic exposure risks. Use of zootherapy was patterned by demographic and environmental contexts, with zootherapy more commonly practiced by hunting households (OR=2.47, p<0.01), and prescriptions that were gender and age specific (e.g., maternal or pediatric care) or highly seasonal (e.g., associated with annual festivals and seasonal illnesses). Specific practices were informed by different theories of healing (i.e., “like cures like” theory of healing and sympathetic healing and magic) that further shaped the nature of human-animal interactions via zootherapy. Conclusions: Epidemiological investigations of zoonoses and public health interventions that aim to reduce zoonotic exposures should explicitly consider zootherapy as a potential pathway for disease transmission and consider the sociocultural contexts of their use in health messaging and interventions.