Though the Ebola virus experienced a surge in American public awareness in 2014, the Ebola virus has plagued international public health since 1976(1). Ebola rightfully earned international concern as the RNA filovirus initially causes a symptom profile nearly indistinguishable from other infectious diseases like malaria, typhoid fever, and meningitis. However, the fever, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and sore throat are soon followed by vomiting, diarrhea, rash, impaired kidney and liver function, and internal and external bleeding(2). Unsurprisingly, the average case fatality from Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) is 50% with the lethality varying from 25%-90% between strains.
It’s believed that the original 1976 emergence of the virus in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was a zoonotic spillover: a transmission of pathogens from wild animals to humans. Due to the close contact between the African population and wildlife, it’s widely accepted that Ebola was introduced into the human population through contact with bodily fluids and organs of infected animals. Such close contact provides a virus with an ample opportunity to evolve into infecting human hosts. The booming bushmeat trade of Africa provides viruses, such as Ebola, with ample opportunities to evolve into human infection.
Despite its illegality, many African communities depend on bushmeat for sustenance(3). In the Southwest African country of Gabon, bushmeat makes up nearly 100% of individuals’ animal protein intake. Through the bloody, unsanitary process of hunting bushmeat on such a massive scale, the evolution of viruses into human hosts is practically encouraged. In addition to posing a public health risk, the over-hunting of gorillas, chimpanzees and other primates, elephants, fruit bats, and more contributes to the further endangerment of these species(4).
Though the protection of these endangered species is very important in maintaining global biodiversity, it has failed to successfully convince African communities to give up an available food source and ingrained cultural custom. Some argue that before beginning efforts to eliminate the bushmeat trade, experts need to take an initiative to establish a relationship and trust with village chiefs and elders. From there, they could provide encouragement for alternative sources of protein. Experts could also research suitable alternatives so that convincing Africans to give up bushmeat isn’t convincing them to go without food.
However, others argue that such efforts would be a fool’s errand as bushmeat is too ingrained in African culture to eliminate the trade in this manner. These individuals instead emphasize the importance of information campaigns which warn against the consumption of clearly ill animals and which encourage greater sanitation. This suggestion is supported by the West African country of Liberia’s drop in bushmeat consumption from 81% to 16.5% in 2014 as a result of the Ebola outbreak. Clearly for some, the risk of succumbing to a lethal virus outweighs the convenience of bushmeat consumption. It’s evident the most effective initiative to truly undermine and eliminate the bushmeat trade is to convince locals it’s more advantageous to go without. By doing so and eliminating bushmeat trade, we can better safeguard international biodiversity and public health.