Should China’s wet markets be shut down?

While the world is reeling under a coronavirus pandemic, there has been a lot of noise about China’s ‘wet markets’. Countries have appealed to China for the closure of the same.

The source of COVID-19 is unclear. Though, there is some evidence that the virus originated from bats, passed on to pangolins, and then humans. The process was facilitated by a ‘wet’ seafood market in Wuhan, as suspected by many experts. Out of the first 41 patients, 27 were connected to this market.

The debate over its origin is interconnected with underlying international disputes between China and other countries such as the US, and hence a resolution seems far-fetched.

[You may read: What is the trade was between US and China?]

Nevertheless, ‘wet’ markets have become a central point of discussion due to the crisis. This article attempts to simplify the concept of wet markets, the current dispute, and possible solutions. In doing so, the economic aspect of wet markets will assume primacy. 

What are Wet Markets?

Contrary to popular belief, wet markets are commonplace in many Asian countries. These are markets that sell fresh produce- vegetables, fruits, fish, etc. They are called ‘wet’ markets because the floor of these markets is usually wet owing to the practice of washing fresh farm produce or using ice as preservatives. Most of these markets, even in China, do not sell exotic wildlife. Instead, they provide affordable access to fresh food.

The term ‘wet markets’ has been conflated with the ‘wildlife market’ by many experts. ‘Wildlife markets’ sell exotic wild animals and their meat for consumption and medicinal purposes. These are, by no means, typical in China, with only a few ‘wet markets’ dealing in wild animals. The consumption of wild animals is limited to a small elite minority in China and is seen as a status symbol.

It is the wildlife markets which are problematic in terms of virus outbreaks. The conditions in these markets are often poor. Wild animals are caged and stacked on top of one another. Body fluids of different animals’ spill over and intermix, leading to the transfer of viruses. The market then acts as a catalyst for the viruses to come in contact with humans.  Something similar might have happened in the present outbreak also.

Acknowledging this problem, the Chinese government banned the farming and consumption of wild animals for consumption purposes in February. However, the ban provided an exemption for the use of these animals as livestock, or for producing Traditional Chinese Medicines. Hence, the effectiveness of the ban is questionable. The ban does not concern the corrupt officials and corporate interests who use permits as a cover for illegal trade.

Also, no formal law has been passed. The Chinese government is considering amendments to its infamous Wildlife Protection Law, 1988, to give effect to this ban.

Let us look at a brief history of the law and the emergence of wildlife trade in China.

Great Leap Forward and after

The GLF was an economic and social campaign in China under its dictator Mao Zedong. It aimed at transforming China from an agrarian economy into an industrialised economy. This led to food security issues. An estimated 18 million to 45 million people died due to famine and related violence. To overcome the crisis, ordinary citizens started hunting and consuming wildlife indiscriminately. Putting this into context, the Mongolian Gazelle was nearly wiped out of existence. Unable to remedy the crisis, the Chinese government under Deng Xiaoping gave up centralised control in 1978 and allowed private farming. Small farmers started rearing and domesticating wild animals for sustenance. The government-backed it since it fed and sustained a lot of people.

In 1988, the Wildlife Protection Law was enacted. “Wildlife” was designated as natural resources to be owned by the state. The government would protect those engaged in the rearing of wild animals. Protection would be provided to only some species, which were vaguely defined in the legislation. Hence, the scope of protection remained narrow, and most wildlife animals entered the trading industry. Even animals such as pangolins and tigers, which fell within the narrow category, entered the market illegally. The law provided a platform for the industry to take off. Small farms transformed into industrial-sized operations. With a wide variety of flora and fauna, China realised that the industry had huge potential.

The wide array of wild animals, which were being farmed together, provided a breeding ground for viruses. The inevitable happened in 2003, with the SARS outbreak in China. The virus was tied to a wet market in Foshan and originated from civet cats. While China temporarily banned wildlife farming, it was soon made legal for 54 species, including civet cats.

By 2017, the wildlife trading industry was worth $74 Billion and employed 14 million people. These animals were not only used for consumption purposes but also for traditional medicines and as raw materials for the fur industry.

The problem in China is more complex than it seems. The consequences of a blanket ban can be disastrous without addressing these nuances.

Should China ban its wet markets?

Absolutely not. As explained earlier, these markets are a source of affordable fresh food for the majority of China’s population. They have survived despite steep challenges from supermarkets, which have become a more viable alternative.Supermarkets in China account for half of all grocery spending, followed by modern grocery shops. Wet markets are a distant third. Nevertheless, they remain the most preferred option for fresh produce, as compared to packaged food.

The wet markets also enable millions of traders and farmers to earn their livelihood. A blanket ban will be a gross over-reaction, considering that most of these markets do not even deal with exotic wildlife.

Should China ban its wildlife trade?

Yes, but not yet.

The wildlife industry is minuscule compared to China’s gigantic GDP. Yet, it is culturally essential. Besides being used for consumption, these animals are used in fur industries (74%) and traditional medicines (1%).

Banning trade in wild animals ultimately will affect these sectors. And it will be seen as an attack on their traditional culture. Issues such as these are very sensitive. Chinese society might not be ready for such a change, and the government is unlikely to give effect to the same.

Also, a ban on wildlife trading might push these activities underground, in rural areas. This can have dangerous consequences. The trade and their subsequent sale in the wet markets will become completely unregulated. A virus outbreak could become more imminent, and people will not report the authorities about any such outbreak because of the activity being illegal.

Many small farmers in the rural areas will find themselves out of job. Until now, the government in China has encouraged wildlife farming because it provides sustenance to many families

Hence, there is a need to regulate the existing trade better. The sale of animals in the wet markets can also be made more hygienic, by mandating the seller to use sanitisers and separating the caged animals.

The government should also define the term ‘wildlife’ is definite terms and make it broader. They should list animals that can be traded and sold in the market. Any illegal trade must be adequately monitored, and heavy penalties must be imposed. A step was taken is this direction when the Chinese government issued a new draft list of livestock that can be farmed for meat two weeks ago. Such a provision is yet to be incorporated into the law.

Then, there should be better awareness about the futility of using Chinese traditional medicines, most of which are based on ridiculous superstitions. The traditional medicines are sold as body-building, sex-enhancing etc. In fact, the Chinese government has suggested bear bile as a medicine for COVID-19. Such promotion of traditional medicines must be halted as soon as possible.

The consumers must also be sensitised against using products made of animal parts. This slow, incremental change will also allow the workers of these industries to find alternative employment opportunities.

Thus, better regulation and increased awareness will be more effective in preventing further virus outbreaks. The trade in wildlife can then be phased out slowly.

Economyria is now on Telegram. For a simplified analysis of topics related to economy/ business/ finance, subscribe to Economyria on Telegram