A scoping review of live wildlife trade in markets worldwide

Limiting the spillover of zoonotic pathogens from traditional food markets in developing countries and a new market design for risk-proofing

“…(4) In situ slaughter and carcass dressing of animals such as goats, sheep, fish, and birds are also a conspicuous feature of traditional wet markets. (5) Some of these markets also illegally sell wild or slaughtered animals, such as wildlife and protected/ endangered animals, as has been reported in many African and Asian nations [9,11,[13][14][15]. (6) Abundant stray animals and birds feeding on waste material are a common sight in traditional marketplaces.…”

“…(12) Transactions in these markets are usually trust-based between retailers and consumers and are also influenced by product quality and cost. (13) Sellers in these markets are characterized by low awareness about product hygiene, low literacy rates, limited financial resources, and the absence of traditional safeguards such as insurance against business failure, rendering them reluctant to improve their hygienic practices. ( 14) Though these markets may operate under local regulatory bodies, they are often poorly regulated and escape supervision for multiple reasons.…”

An overview of the challenges and methods for defining the wildlife-disease interface in the context of disease spread modelling, including concepts of infectious diseases epidemiology

“…The wildlife-domestic interface represents risks of transmission of microbes between wild and domestic animals. Because such interfaces involve domestic animals, they are usually anthropogenic, occurring when people and their activities encroach on wildlife habitat (for example, agriculture (Jori et al (2021) or deurbanization (Ward et al, 2004)), people bring wildlife into built environments (for example, wildlife farming and markets; Brookes et al (2022); Wikramanayake et al (2021)), or wildlife become adapted to built environments (Bradley & Altizer, 2007).…”

“…A critical limitation of such models is that they are dependent on adequate data to produce meaningful and useful predictions. Recent reviews demonstrate that the data required for such models or about specific interfaces can be limited (Brookes et al, 2022;Gabriele-Rivet et al, 2019). Defining such interfaces in terms of the species and pathogens involved, and the extent of the interface (for example, spatially and temporally, the abundance or density of species involved, and the prevalence of potential pathogens) are minimum requirements, but fundamental to useful models is quantification of the probability or rate of effective contact such that microbe transmission could occur between individuals.…”

Diversity and prevalence of zoonotic infections at the animal-human interface of primate trafficking in Peru

“…For example, trade routes and husbandry practices govern the geographic range, intraand inter-species interactions, and level of exposure of wildlife to humans at live-animal markets, zoos, rescue centers, and households [7][8][9]. Wildlife trade is considered an important driver of parasite spread and disease emergence because it facilitates parasite sharing between species and individuals that do not naturally interact with each other, such as humans and most wildlife species [10][11][12][13]. To note a few examples, wildlife trade and traffic, wildlife markets, and wildlife pets have been associated with the global spread of chytrid fungus [14], the 2003 outbreak of Monkeypox in the United States [15], the H5N1 Avian Influenza [16,17] and SARS [18] epidemics, and presumably the recent SARS-CoV-2 pandemic [19].…”