The global wild meat trade is emerging as one of the most pressing environmental and public health challenges of our time. With millions of people depending on it for food and income, particularly in some of the world’s most impoverished and remote communities, wild meat plays a critical role in human survival. However, its unchecked exploitation is threatening biodiversity, spreading disease, and destabilising ecosystems across the globe.

Across Africa, wild meat, often referred to as “the poor man’s meat,” is a critical source of protein due to widespread scarcity of domesticated alternatives. In contrast, in parts of east and south-east Asia, it takes on a different role—served in high-end restaurants as exotic delicacies, it has become a symbol of wealth and status. This stark contrast highlights the multifaceted nature of wild meat consumption, shaped by culture, economy, and access.

Yet the risks associated with the wild meat trade are growing. The extraction of wildlife for food is often unsustainable, leading to serious ecological consequences and fuelling the illegal wildlife trade. It is also increasingly recognised as a significant factor in the emergence and spread of zoonotic diseases, such as Ebola and HIV, that jump from animals to humans. Wet markets—where wild meat is frequently sold—have come under particular scrutiny for creating environments conducive to the spread of infectious diseases.

A recent landmark study has taken a novel approach to analysing this global issue, shifting focus away from just the animals and hunting communities to centre on consumption and consumers. By investigating patterns of demand, motivations behind wild meat consumption, and the social and cultural contexts in which it occurs, the study offers a more comprehensive framework for addressing the trade’s complexities.

The findings show that the wild meat trade is vast and economically significant. In Africa alone, revenues are estimated at around $1 billion annually, while the illegal trade in south-east Asia generates between $8–11 billion. Meanwhile, wildlife farming in China is valued at a staggering $74 billion. These figures reflect the immense scale and reach of this global trade.

In terms of dietary reliance, wild meat remains a major source of protein. African foragers consume an average of 38kg per year, while rural farmers consume around 16kg—comparable to the average livestock meat consumption on the continent. In at least 60 countries, wildlife and wild-caught fish contribute over 20% of animal protein in rural diets, underlining its importance in food security.

However, the extraction of wild animals is largely unsustainable. Unlike livestock, which involves a limited number of species, the wild meat trade targets hundreds—about 500 in Africa and 300 in south-east Asia. Larger species near human settlements have often been hunted to local extinction, leaving smaller, fast-reproducing species like rodents and duikers as more viable but still vulnerable alternatives.

The illegal trade is also adapting. Increasingly shifting online, smuggling intensifies pressure on wildlife populations by expanding demand beyond local needs to global markets. This over-extraction contributes to “empty forest” syndromes, where forests appear lush but are devoid of large wildlife. While blanket bans have been implemented in some areas, they often drive the trade underground, complicating monitoring and enforcement.

Climate change is exacerbating the crisis. Droughts, erratic weather, and shifting ecosystems are making agriculture and livestock rearing more difficult, pushing communities toward wild meat as a fallback. In places like the Serengeti, wildlife numbers are already declining due to climate and land-use changes.

Addressing the issue requires multifaceted, context-sensitive solutions. In areas where hunting is common, alternative protein sources such as cane rats, Nile tilapia, bamboo rats, and guinea pigs have shown potential. High-reproducing “mini livestock” like rabbits and giant snails offer additional options. However, many of these interventions have met with limited success due to cultural and logistical barriers.

One proposed approach is to financially compensate people not to hunt, or to provide free or subsidised livestock meat. This could reduce reliance on wild meat without pushing communities into unsustainable farming practices. Changing consumer behaviour through public health campaigns and cultural messaging is another promising strategy. History shows that societies can quickly shift from viewing certain foods as delicacies to finding them repulsive, opening the door to behavioural interventions.

The wild meat trade is deeply rooted in cultural tradition, economic necessity, and environmental realities. While its complete eradication is unlikely, sustainable management practices, better regulation, and alternative livelihood support offer hope for a more balanced future. Protecting biodiversity, ensuring food security, and preventing future pandemics depends on finding that delicate balance—one that supports both people and the planet.