Unintended consequences of the ‘bushmeat ban’ in West Africa during the 2013–2016 Ebola virus disease epidemic

Abstract

Following the 2013-2016 outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa, governments across the region imposed a ban on the hunting and consumption of meat from wild animals. This injunction was accompanied by public health messages emphasising the infectious potential of wild meat, or 'bushmeat.' Using qualitative methods, we examine the local reception and impact of these interventions. Fieldwork was focused in 9 villages in the Eastern and Southern provinces of Sierra Leone between August and December 2015. We conducted 47 semi-structured interviews, coordinated 12 informal group discussions, and conducted direct observations throughout. We also draw from research undertaken in Sierra Leone immediately before the outbreak, and from our participation in the EVD response in Guinea and Sierra Leone. Our findings underscore the social and political reverberations of hunting proscriptions. Messaging that unilaterally stressed the health risk posed by wild meat contradicted the experiences of target publics, who consume wild meat without incident. This epistemic dissonance radically undercut the effectiveness of the ban, which merely served to proliferate informal networks of wild animal trade and sale-rendering the development of acceptable, evidence-based surveillance and mitigation strategies for zoonotic spillovers almost impossible. Further, the criminalisation of wild meat consumption fuelled fears and rumours within communities under considerable strain from the health, social, and economic effects of the epidemic, entrenching distrust towards outbreak responders and exacerbating pre-existing tensions within villages. These unintended consequences are instructive for public health emergency response and preparedness. While wild meat is a risk for zoonotic infection, mitigating those risks entails interventions that fully take into account the local significances of hunting-including a communicative engagement that is designed, validated, and continually refined before emergency situations. Ultimately, our research questions the value of legal sanctions as a means of behavioural change in an emergency context.

Modeling Impact of Word of Mouth and E-Government on Online Social Presence during COVID-19 Outbreak: A Multi-Mediation Approach

“…Evidence was provided that rumors are spreading during the COVID-19 outbreak in other countries, but in China, people were likely to improve their emotions in the fight against COVID- 19 and stay strong during the outbreak period by sharing positive posts on social media. As of the date of writing, 9 March 2020, we have been in quarantine since20 January2020, having direct experience with both normal life and quarantine.…”

“…When they can see more danger, they might become more careful.In rural areas, maternal and child health (MCH) systems are progressing because the government has formed different partnerships and associations at different levels [17].In countries other than China, secrecy and trust were found to be hindrances to the use of social media [18]. Some countries do not allow people to post health information on social media without authentic reports [19]. Online communal support is also affected by online communication of health professionals with patients [20] and the use of online technology for societal help [15].…”

Chicken eggs, childhood stunting and environmental hygiene: an ethnographic study from the Campylobacter genomics and environmental enteric dysfunction (CAGED) project in Ethiopia

“…During the West Africa Ebola epidemic, for example, fear-based messaging on the dangers of hunting and consuming bushmeat was met with resistance because they did not fit within local experiences of disease or socioeconomic pressures and livelihood realities [34]. Like chickens, bushmeat has a double role as both a threat to health but also as a source of protein to nutrientdeficient populations.…”

The Emerging Threat of Ebola

“…Hunting and capturing infected animals for bush meat or for trading in black market as exotic pets can result in exposure and transmission of Ebola. There have been numerous instances of human infection resulting from contact with dead primates [8,87]. Contact with wild primates, especially those found dead should be avoided to curb the risk of contracting Ebola.…”