Social Europe

politics, economy and employment & labour

  • Projects
    • Corporate Taxation in a Globalised Era
    • US Election 2020
    • The Transformation of Work
    • The Coronavirus Crisis and the Welfare State
    • Just Transition
    • Artificial intelligence, work and society
    • What is inequality?
    • Europe 2025
    • The Crisis Of Globalisation
  • Audiovisual
    • Audio Podcast
    • Video Podcasts
    • Social Europe Talk Videos
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Dossiers
    • Occasional Papers
    • Research Essays
    • Brexit Paper Series
  • Shop
  • Membership
  • Ads
  • Newsletter

Preventing the next virus outbreak

by Michal Rotem on 16th March 2020 @rotemichal

TwitterFacebookLinkedIn

The coronavirus is not a natural disaster but the outcome of a system of agriculture subordinating animal, and human, welfare.

SARS-CoV China animal welfare
Michal Rotem

Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) poses global challenges and many scientists are trying to develop vaccines for the disease. Beyond the importance of discovering a drug, one must understand why the virus has spread and learn from this to prevent epidemics erupting in the future.

The outbreak, as the science writer Brian Resnick concluded, is due to human behaviour. How so? Scientists and reporters in China explain that one must go back to 1970.

Famine in China

That year, there was a heavy famine in China, which resulted in more than 36 million people starving. The Communist Party administration, which controlled food production, failed miserably to save the people. As a result, in 1978 it relinquished exclusive control over agriculture and allowed private entrepreneurs to trade. The private sector began to grow.

Make your email inbox interesting again!

"Social Europe publishes thought-provoking articles on the big political and economic issues of our time analysed from a European viewpoint. Indispensable reading!"

Polly Toynbee

Columnist for The Guardian

Thank you very much for your interest! Now please check your email to confirm your subscription.

There was an error submitting your subscription. Please try again.

Powered by ConvertKit

While most farmers domesticated animals such as poultry, pigs and cows, as well as growing cereals and legumes, a smaller, richer sector began to hunt and domesticate wildlife, such as bats, turtles and snakes. At first it was very small, growing and trading wildlife only around the home. Although initially this was illegal, the Chinese government turned a blind eye because it contributed to the livelihood of those engaged in it, necessary during those years of crisis.

Having come to realise the economic potential of selling wildlife, in 1988 the government changed the law, determining for the first time that wildlife was a ‘natural resource’ which one could therefore use for one’s own needs. This made wildlife trading increasingly interesting to the industry at the margin.

It soon became clear, however, that the decision was a precursor to the spread of new viruses. As the industry developed, in limited spaces huge markets emerged, selling a wide variety of animals: rhinos, wolves, mice, crocodiles, ducks and snakes, alongside pigs, chickens and more. Where there is a concentration of large animal populations, there is an opportunity for an animal disease to spread to other species and on to man—which is exactly what happened.

A market in Guangdong

In 2003, in a market in Guangdong province, the SARS virus (SARS-CoV) broke out, the source an Asian wild animal called the masked palm civet. The virus reached 71 countries, killing about 774 people. Following the outbreak, the Chinese government shunned the wildlife food industry.

Although its value was minimal for China’s overall gross domestic product, those who lost huge profits following the decision lobbied to allow the trade to recommence. The pressure told: a few months later, the government declared 54 wildlife species as legitimate to trade in once more. In 2016, more varieties were added, such as tigers and pangolins (scaly anteaters).

In 2019 the coronavirus erupted. This time, the virus has reached more than 80 countries and it has already killed more than 3,000 people. Scientists speculate that the source was probably a bat, which transmitted the virus to a pangolin, entering humans in the market in Wuhan.


We need your help! Please support our cause.


As you may know, Social Europe is an independent publisher. We aren't backed by a large publishing house, big advertising partners or a multi-million euro enterprise. For the longevity of Social Europe we depend on our loyal readers - we depend on you.

Become a Social Europe Member

High concentration

What is common to the two markets in which the SARS and corona viruses erupted is the high concentration of different animal types in dense conditions, allowing the transmission of viruses from one to another. The interaction of the three (bat-pangolin-human) depends on close proximity. As Peter Li, a professor of animal trafficking in China, explained,‘The cages are stuffed with each other. The animals at the bottom are soaked in fluids. One after the other.’ This is exactly how viruses emerge.

After the coronavirus broke out, the administration again blocked the sale of wildlife. But organisations around the world are pushing the Chinese to repeal the law allowing it completely. Yet since the government halted the trade after the outbreak of the SARS virus only to relent under pressure, it will not necessarily take a different tack this time.

When Resnick asked Jonathan Epstein, a veterinarian and epidemiologist, why it’s important to understand the source of the virus, his answer was, obviously, to avoid repetition. To him, epidemics occur because of human activity—it is not the animals’ fault.

Harsh conditions

Is the problem the sale of wildlife intrinsically or is it the living conditions of the animals? Probably both.

In other countries, animals also live under harsh conditions which cause disease outbreaks. For example, the source of swine flu which radiated from Mexico in 2009 was probably the town of La Gloria, east of Mexico City, where industrialised pig pens were located. Bird flu and the ‘mad cow’ disease which erupted in Britain can also be seen in this light.

The Chinese should not be judged for consuming animals others do not—there is really no difference between slaughtering tigers and cows or chickens. The main problem is the conditions, not the species.

Animal welfare

The solution may thus be more liveable conditions for animals or indeed the cessation of the industrialised processing of animals. Instead of putting a ‘band-aid’ on the problem (vaccines), it must be addressed more fundamentally. If we, humans, treat animal welfare as a necessary thing—not only for animals but also for us—and insist that public health is more important than the wellbeing of wealthy industries, then the outbreak of such plagues can be prevented.

Animal welfare—human welfare. It is time to think about the implications of our actions for animals, not just in terms of morality but also health. And of course (but that’s another topic) the environment.

TwitterFacebookLinkedIn
Home ・ Preventing the next virus outbreak

Filed Under: Economy Tagged With: coronavirus

About Michal Rotem

Michal Rotem is a PhD student at the Department of Political Science, Tel Aviv University, exploring the mutual influence of ideas from the natural and social sciences. She writes mainly about global warming, animal rights and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Partner Ads

Most Recent Posts

Thomas Piketty,capital Capital and ideology: interview with Thomas Piketty Thomas Piketty
pushbacks Border pushbacks: it’s time for impunity to end Hope Barker
gig workers Gig workers’ rights and their strategic litigation Aude Cefaliello and Nicola Countouris
European values,EU values,fundamental values European values: making reputational damage stick Michele Bellini and Francesco Saraceno
centre left,representation gap,dissatisfaction with democracy Closing the representation gap Sheri Berman

Most Popular Posts

sovereignty Brexit and the misunderstanding of sovereignty Peter Verovšek
globalisation of labour,deglobalisation The first global event in the history of humankind Branko Milanovic
centre-left, Democratic Party The Biden victory and the future of the centre-left EJ Dionne Jr
eurozone recovery, recovery package, Financial Stability Review, BEAST Light in the tunnel or oncoming train? Adam Tooze
Brexit deal, no deal Barrelling towards the ‘Brexit’ cliff edge Paul Mason

Other Social Europe Publications

Whither Social Rights in (Post-)Brexit Europe?
Year 30: Germany’s Second Chance
Artificial intelligence
Social Europe Volume Three
Social Europe – A Manifesto

Hans Böckler Stiftung Advertisement

The macroeconomic effects of the EU recovery and resilience facility

This policy brief analyses the macroeconomic effects of the EU's Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). We present the basics of the RRF and then use the macroeconometric multi-country model NiGEM to analyse the facility's macroeconomic effects. The simulations show, first, that if the funds are in fact used to finance additional public investment (as intended), public capital stocks throughout the EU will increase markedly during the time of the RRF. Secondly, in some especially hard-hit southern European countries, the RRF would offset a significant share of the output lost during the pandemic. Thirdly, as gains in GDP due to the RRF will be much stronger in (poorer) southern and eastern European countries, the RRF has the potential to reduce economic divergence. Finally, and in direct consequence of the increased GDP, the RRF will lead to lower public debt ratios—between 2.0 and 4.4 percentage points below baseline for southern European countries in 2023.


FREE DOWNLOAD

ETUI advertisement

Benchmarking Working Europe 2020

A virus is haunting Europe. This year’s 20th anniversary issue of our flagship publication Benchmarking Working Europe brings to a growing audience of trade unionists, industrial relations specialists and policy-makers a warning: besides SARS-CoV-2, ‘austerity’ is the other nefarious agent from which workers, and Europe as a whole, need to be protected in the months and years ahead. Just as the scientific community appears on the verge of producing one or more effective and affordable vaccines that could generate widespread immunity against SARS-CoV-2, however, policy-makers, at both national and European levels, are now approaching this challenging juncture in a way that departs from the austerity-driven responses deployed a decade ago, in the aftermath of the previous crisis. It is particularly apt for the 20th anniversary issue of Benchmarking, a publication that has allowed the ETUI and the ETUC to contribute to key European debates, to set out our case for a socially responsive and ecologically sustainable road out of the Covid-19 crisis.


FREE DOWNLOAD

Eurofound advertisement

Industrial relations: developments 2015-2019

Eurofound has monitored and analysed developments in industrial relations systems at EU level and in EU member states for over 40 years. This new flagship report provides an overview of developments in industrial relations and social dialogue in the years immediately prior to the Covid-19 outbreak. Findings are placed in the context of the key developments in EU policy affecting employment, working conditions and social policy, and linked to the work done by social partners—as well as public authorities—at European and national levels.


CLICK FOR MORE INFO

Foundation for European Progressive Studies Advertisement

Read FEPS Covid Response Papers

In this moment, more than ever, policy-making requires support and ideas to design further responses that can meet the scale of the problem. FEPS contributes to this reflection with policy ideas, analysis of the different proposals and open reflections with the new FEPS Covid Response Papers series and the FEPS Covid Response Webinars. The latest FEPS Covid Response Paper by the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, 'Recovering from the pandemic: an appraisal of lessons learned', provides an overview of the failures and successes in dealing with Covid-19 and its economic aftermath. Among the authors: Lodewijk Asscher, László Andor, Estrella Durá, Daniela Gabor, Amandine Crespy, Alberto Botta, Francesco Corti, and many more.


CLICK HERE

Social Europe Publishing book

The Brexit endgame is upon us: deal or no deal, the transition period will end on January 1st. With a pandemic raging, for those countries most affected by Brexit the end of the transition could not come at a worse time. Yet, might the UK's withdrawal be a blessing in disguise? With its biggest veto player gone, might the European Pillar of Social Rights take centre stage? This book brings together leading experts in European politics and policy to examine social citizenship rights across the European continent in the wake of Brexit. Will member states see an enhanced social Europe or a race to the bottom?

'This book correctly emphasises the need to place the future of social rights in Europe front and centre in the post-Brexit debate, to move on from the economistic bias that has obscured our vision of a progressive social Europe.' Michael D Higgins, president of Ireland


MORE INFO

About Social Europe

Our Mission

Article Submission

Legal Disclosure

Privacy Policy

Copyright

Social Europe ISSN 2628-7641

Find Social Europe Content

Search Social Europe

Project Archive

Politics Archive

Economy Archive

Society Archive

Ecology Archive

.EU Web Awards