Home | Volume 18 | Article number 18

Research

Bushmeat consumption in Guinea: implications for public health and one health perspective

Bushmeat consumption in Guinea: implications for public health and one health perspective

Salifou Talassone Bangoura1,2,&, Castro Gbêmêmali Hounmenou1, Aminata Mbaye1, Maladho Diaby1,2, Emile Faya Bongono1, Abdoul Karim Soumah1, Gnouma Laurent Koniono1, Haby Diallo1, Cécé Kpamou1, Justin Masumu3, Stéphanie Maltais4, Alpha-Kabinet Keita1,5, Abdoulaye Touré1,2, Alioune Camara1,2

 

1Centre de Recherche et de Formation en Infectiologie de Guinée, Conakry, Guinea, 2Public Health Department, Faculty of Sciences and Health Techniques, Gamal Abdel Nasser University, Conakry, Guinea, 3Institut National de Recherche Biomédicale (INRB), Université de Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, 4Université d'Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada, 5TransVIHMI, Université de Montpellier-INSERM-IRD, Montpellier, France

 

 

&Corresponding author
Salifou Talassone Bangoura, Centre de Recherche et de Formation en Infectiologie de Guinée, Gamal Abdel Nasser University, Conakry, Guinea

 

 

Abstract

Introduction: bushmeat is an important source of protein and income for many communities in developing countries, although bushmeat-related activities have been associated with many outbreaks of infectious diseases. In Guinea, its consumption attracted increasing attention since the Ebola epidemic from 2013 to 2016. However, estimates of its national scale consumption are lacking. This study explored the bushmeat consumption in urban areas of Guinea to guide public policies and interventions from a One Health perspective.

 

Methods: the survey was conducted among 901 individuals aged 18 years and over from 458 households across the country's eight administrative regions. A two-stage random sampling method was used to select households. Data were collected through a questionnaire on socioeconomic status, sociodemographic characteristics, bushmeat consumption habits, consumed species, motivations, and sources of supply. A multilayer perceptron neural network analysis was used to identify the factors influencing bushmeat consumption.

 

Results: the overall prevalence of bushmeat consumption was 24%, ranging from 15.9% in Conakry to 50% in N'zérékoré. Bushmeat consumption was 22.8% in poor households, 20.9% in middle-income households and 27.4% in rich households. Bushmeat consumption was mostly occasional (79.4%). The species of bushmeat consumed were mainly aulacodes (42.1%), antelopes (42.1%), primates (21.0%) and hare/rabbit (21.0%). Taste was the main reason for consumption (86.9%) and the main sources of supply were sellers (55.1%) and hunters (41.6%). The multilayer perceptron neural network analysis revealed that males, Christians, and individuals from the Forest ethnic group were the main factors influencing bushmeat consumption.

 

Conclusion: the consumption of bushmeat remains a common practice in Guinea. Therefore, the implementation of effective policies and strategies for reducing the hunting of and dependence on bushmeat, which are based on the One Health approach, could make a major contribution to the conservation of the biodiversity of several species and improve health safety at both the local and global levels.

 

 

Introduction    Down

Bushmeat is any meat of non-domesticated animals, from wild or forest animals, hunted for food or commercial uses [1]. In isolated and poor rural areas, bushmeat is often an essential source of animal protein that contributes to food security, especially where livestock and fish are inaccessible or unaffordable [2,3], and is increasingly becoming a preferred meat for local populations in many African countries [4]. It is estimated that 30-85% of the daily protein intake of local populations comes from this bushmeat [5]. The data available for the Congo Basin indicate an annual production of 12 million tonnes of bushmeat and an annual consumption of between 10 and 200 kilos per capita [6]. In contrast to rural populations, urban consumers are increasingly likely to choose bushmeat for several reasons, such as taste, cost or perceived prestige [7,8]. However, bushmeat could serve as a channel for the spread of pathogens; therefore, bushmeat-related activities, such as hunting, handling and consumption, may present a risk of repeated transmission of pathogens between animals and humans, leading to epidemics [3,9]. Moreover, more than two-thirds of emerging human pathogens are known to be of zoonotic origin, and more than 70% of these pathogens are derived from wildlife [10]. In addition, several studies have shown evidence linking the trade, handling and consumption of bushmeat to the spread of infectious diseases, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and Ebola virus disease (EVD) [11,12]. For example, in several EVD outbreaks, recent contact with the blood of non-human primates during hunting or butchering of carcasses by the index case has been reported [13,14].

In Guinea, bushmeat is also rooted in the culture of specific local communities. In the forest region, for example, most ethnic groups eat more bushmeat because of the high price or limited availability of livestock meat [15]. However, bushmeat consumption received increasing attention during the EVD epidemic from 2013 to 2016, as bushmeat-related activities were allegedly implicated in the spread of the virus [16]. This situation led the government to forbid the hunting, sale and consumption of bushmeat to control the epidemic. This injunction was combined with public health messages highlighting the infectious potential of bushmeat [17]. Despite these interdictions, some people continue to consume bushmeat. However, little is known about bushmeat consumption in Guinea, and there are no estimates of national consumption. The available studies have focused mainly on zoonotic transmission routes, reservoir species and public perceptions of wildlife-associated diseases, as well as descriptions of the types of contact with wildlife that can lead to zoonotic transmission [18,19]. However, it is important to understand the role of bushmeat in the diets of urban populations in different regions, to identify practices that need to be adapted and to develop strategies based on the One Health approach. This is particularly important in light of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the growing risk of the emergence of new infectious diseases of zoonotic origin, to develop approaches to reduce the risk of exposure to infectious diseases associated with bushmeat activities [20]. This study explored the geographical inequalities in bushmeat consumption in urban areas of Guinea to guide public policies and interventions from a One Health perspective.

 

 

Methods Up    Down

The study was carried out in the chief cities of Guinea's eight administrative regions: Conakry (Matoto commune), Boké, Faranah, Kankan, Kindia, Labé, Mamou and N'zérékoré. The Republic of Guinea is located in southwestern West Africa, with a surface area of 245,857 km2 and an estimated population of 12,907,396 in 2021 [21]. It is subdivided into eight administrative regions, which correspond to different types of relief, climate, fauna, flora, and historical and cultural traditions. In Guinean cities, rice (local or imported) is the staple food, accounting for 40% of the daily diet, followed by cassava (11%). The majority of protein intake (85%) comes from plant-based products. Rice remains the leading source, representing an annual average of 43.1%, followed by other vegetables (10%) and wheat (7%). Cereals provide more than half (57%) of the protein intake, followed by vegetables (10%) and slaughtered meat (8.3%) [22].

Study design and population

This cross-sectional study of the general population was conducted from May 26 to June 23, 2023, among individuals aged 18 years and older residing in urban areas across the eight administrative regions of Guinea. All participants provided their free, written, and informed consent.

Sampling

The Schwartz formula was used to calculate the minimum size of households to survey. Considering a frequency of bushmeat consumption of 48.2% [23], a 95% confidence interval, a 5% margin of error, and a 10% non-response rate, the calculated sample size was 458 households. This size was allocated according to a selection probability proportional to the weight of households per region. A two-stage random sample was used to select households. At the first level, households in each regional chief city were selected randomly from the database of the third General Census of Population and Housing (RGPH-III), including information on all households in Guinea: identification code, enumeration area, region, name and contact of the head of household, etc.). Before the data were collected, the households were first identified and the residents were informed of the rationale and objectives of the study by the collection team with the help of a community agent who was known and accepted in the community. For each household selected, a complete list of all eligible members was drawn and used as a sampling base for the selection of people to include at the second level. Two people aged 18 years or over were randomly selected and invited to participate in the study.

Data collection

A standardized questionnaire was used to collect data concerning participants' sociodemographic characteristics (comprising age, sex, type of residence, ethnicity, marital status, religion, level of education, occupation) and their bushmeat consumption, including the type of bushmeat consumed, the species of bushmeat consumed, the frequency of consumption, the reasons for consumption and the sources of supply. To evaluate the socioeconomic status of households, information was collected about the possession of certain durable goods in the household (e.g., clock or watch, radio, television, mobile phone, fridge, handcart, bicycle, motorbike, car, savings account), sources of energy and drinking water, materials used to build the main house (wall, roof and floor), number of people per room, availability and type of latrine used.

Statistical analysis

A descriptive analysis of the data was carried out. Qualitative variables are presented as numbers and percentages. Quantitative variables are presented as median with interquartile ranges (IQR). The socioeconomic status of households was therefore constructed by assigning a score generated from a principal component analysis (PCA) to each of the goods or characteristics [24]. The scores obtained were standardized according to a standard normal distribution with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. We then defined a global score for each household by adding up the scores for each good. In the end, households were categorized into three levels on the basis tercile: poor, middle and rich. Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportions of bushmeat consumption according to participant characteristics. The statistical significance level was set at 0.05. Multilayer perceptron neural network (MLP) models were used with the resilient back-propagation (Rprop) algorithm to predict bushmeat consumption based on significant variables from the bivariate analysis. The best MLP architecture (the most effective model) was selected using quality fitting statistics such as sensitivity, precision, F-score, classification accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) applied to the test data (30% of the initial dataset). The closer the values of these criteria are to 1, the better the model. Before the models were implemented on the training dataset (70% of the initial dataset), the min-max method was used to normalize the data and, the synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE) was used on the training and test data to address the problem of unbalanced classes. Following the identification of the best model that fits the data, the Olden procedure was implemented using the "olden" function from the "NeuralNetTools" package to highlight the importance of each predictor in predicting bushmeat consumption [25]. The data were analysed using R statistical software (version 4.3.1, The R Foundation for Statistics Computing, Vienna, Austria). Map created with QGIS software (source of administrative boundaries map layer; GADM license).

Ethics statement

Ethical approval was received from the National Ethics Committee for Health Research (CNERS) in Guinea under number 194/CNERS/22. All activities were conducted in accordance with approved protocols. Free, written and informed consent was obtained from all participants interviewed. Data were collected anonymously with strict confidence. The research was conducted in strict accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

 

 

Results Up    Down

Characteristics of the respondents

A total of 901 people were surveyed in 458 households, including 18.2% (n= 164) in Conakry, 13.3% (n= 120) in Boké, 13.0% (n= 117) in Kindia, 12.8% (n= 115) in Labé, 12.3% (n= 111) in Mamou, 11.5% (n= 104) in Nzérékoré, 11.1% (n=100) in Kankan and 7.8% (n= 70) in Faranah. Approximately 34% of the respondents lived in rich households, 33.5% in middle-income households and 32% in poor households. Most of the respondents were women (71.4%) and young, with a median age of 28 years (IQR: 22-40 years). Most of the respondents were women (71.4%), married (54.5%), of Muslim religion (93.7%), belonged to the Maninka ethnic group (33.2%), and had a secondary education level (39.8%) (Table 1).

Bushmeat consumption

Approximately 24% of the respondents consumed bushmeat. Of these, 79.4% consumed bushmeat occasionally and only 4.7% consumed it regularly. The main reasons for consumption were taste (86.9%), availability (25.2%) and cost (17.8%). Hunters and sellers in markets or restaurants were the main sources of bushmeat for the respondents (Table 2). Figure 1 compiles the species of bushmeat consumed. Aulacodes and antelopes were the most consumed bushmeat species (42.1%), followed by primates (21.0%), hare/rabbit (21.0%), birds (13.1%), porcupine (10.7%), rats (9.3%), frogs (8.9%) and reptiles (7.5%) (Figure 1).

The prevalence of bushmeat consumption varied by region, with higher consumption in the region of Nzérékoré (50%), followed by the regions of Kankan (29.0%), Mamou (23.4%), Faranah (22.9%) and Boké (21.7%). However, bushmeat consumption was lowest in the prefectures of Conakry (15.9%), Kindia (16.2%) and Labé (17.4%) (Figure 2). The prevalence of bushmeat consumption varies according to a household's socioeconomic status. It was 22.8% in poor households, 20.9% in middle-income households and 27.4% in rich households (Figure 3).

The prevalence of bushmeat consumption was higher among men (32.6%) than among women (20.2%) (p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference according to age category, marital status, level of education or occupation (p>0.05). The prevalence of bushmeat consumption was significantly higher among Christian respondents (71.9%) than among Muslims respondents (20.5%) (p<0.001). The proportion of bushmeat consumed was greater among foresters (65.6%) and Maninka (25.4%), whereas it was 18% among the Peulh and Soussou ethnic groups (p<0.001) (Table 3).

Figure 4 provides information on the influence of each predictor on bushmeat consumption. Males, Christians and people from the Forest ethnic group are more likely to consume bushmeat. However, the Sousou and Maninka ethnic groups, followed by Muslims, have a negative effect on bushmeat consumption, indicating that they consume less bushmeat in Guinea.

 

 

Discussion Up    Down

The consumption of bushmeat is a persistent practice in many regions. Due to the rapid growth of human populations, the extraction of wild animals for subsistence and commercial purposes is a major threat to the conservation of the biodiversity of several species and an interface for the transmission of re-emerging zoonotic pathogens to humans [26]. In Guinea, hunting and trade in bushmeat are regulated by laws that generally aim to restrict hunting, by prohibiting hunting in certain protected areas and limiting hunting to certain species [27]. Despite this restriction, the use of wild animals for food or commercial purposes remains a common activity in Guinea. Our study revealed that almost a quarter of the respondents consumed bushmeat. The high urban consumption of bushmeat has a major impact on the conservation of the biodiversity of several animal species, as it would encourage hunters in rural villages to hunt more animals for commercial purposes to increase their income [6] and therefore run more risks that could expose them to zoonotic pathogens. Similar studies carried out in large urban centres in five West African countries and in Gabon reported prevalences of 30% [28] and 24% [29] of bushmeat consumption, respectively. These levels of bushmeat consumption raise concerns about the more sustainable use of wildlife.

This study shows that more than two-thirds of household members occasionally consumed bushmeat. This shows that urban populations, unlike those in rural areas, consume wild meat as an alternative source of protein [6]. As a consequence, bushmeat consumption may vary depending on the availability and accessibility of alternative sources, such as fish [30]. Although bushmeat consumption is widespread in all regions, it was highest in N'zérékoré, a densely populated prefecture in the forest region of Guinea, where hunting is a common activity for the local population [31], in contrast to the other prefectures where the inhabitants' livelihoods are centred on livestock, agriculture and fishing. This level of bushmeat consumption may be facilitated not only by the proximity of the forest and the availability and abundance of bushmeat on the market, but also by the cultural and identity links with traditional life. In addition, some consumers consider bushmeat to be healthy, as it comes from the natural environment and contains no additives or artificial products [1,8]. However, cultural preferences for consuming raw or undercooked bushmeat could increase the risk of transmitting pathogens [32]. Since the outbreak of the Ebola epidemic in 2014-2016, the forest region has been a source of concern for public health authorities in terms of zoonotic diseases. It has been the epicentre of several infectious disease epidemics, including EVD [33], and Lassa haemorrhagic fever [34].

Our study revealed that respondents from rich households consumed more bushmeat. The observation that rich households generally consume more bushmeat than poor households is common in urban areas, although the opposite trend is observed in rural areas where bushmeat represents an inexpensive and accessible source of proteins during times of economic hardship for the poor populations [35]. Studies of urban households in Gabon [36], Ghana, Cameroon, Tanzania and Madagascar [37] have shown that bushmeat consumption is greater in richer households. Importantly, to note that urban populations consume bushmeat as a luxury food rather than a basic food, so it constitutes an option of last resort that is consumed as a household's income increases [6]. Populations with poor socio-economic status often turn to hunting and selling bushmeat to increase their income. This practice exposes them to a higher risk of infection during the slaughtering and butchering of animals, unlike those who consume bushmeat cooked in restaurants or elsewhere. Nevertheless, the role of wealth as an explanatory variable for bushmeat consumption deserves to be explored in greater depth to increase our understanding and develop approaches that simultaneously consider income and biodiversity loss, even if bushmeat is also valuable for reasons that are not strictly limited to economic considerations.

This study reveals the diversity of species consumed in the different regions. Aulacodes, antelopes, primates and hares/rabbits were the most frequently consumed species. A survey of bushmeat consumer perceptions carried out in a locality in southeastern Guinea revealed that the species most consumed in urban area before and during the Ebola epidemic were duikers (78.3%), aulacodes (78.0%) and crested porcupine (77.7%) [38]. In West and Central Africa, bushmeat from bats, antelopes, squirrels, porcupines and monkeys has long held a place of honour on family menus, whether cooked, smoked or roasted [39]. These differences in the consumption of wild species could result from the interaction between consumer taste preferences and the availability of species on the market [40].

However, certain consumed species, such as bats, primates, rodents, and antelopes, can serve as reservoirs for major zoonotic diseases [41,42]. Exposure to bat bushmeat was suspected in the 2007 EVD outbreak in Luebo, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), as well as in the 2014 outbreak in West Africa [43,44]. Furthermore, several studies have highlighted the presence of pathogenic viruses in both fruit and insectivorous bats, including the Coronavirus [19], Ebola virus, Lyssavirus, and Henipavirus [45]. A further meta-analysis assessing the prevalence of monkeypox in animals reported a pooled prevalence of 16.0% (95% CI: 3.0-29.0%) in non-human primates, 8.0% (95% CI: 4.0-12.0%) in rodents, and 1.0% (95% CI: 0.0-3.0%) in shrews [46]. Consequently, the consumption of these species can pose significant risks to public health, particularly in the context of zoonotic disease transmission. In this context, strong measures to strengthen and enforce existing regulations on hunting and the exploitation of forest resources and products are necessary to limit health threats associated with bushmeat. Additionally, awareness programs on proper handling and consumption practices of animal-based products must be implemented to reduce the risk of pathogen exposure. Finally, establishing robust surveillance systems to monitor emerging diseases and ensure compliance with public health and conservation policies is essential. By integrating these measures into a One Health approach, it is possible to mitigate zoonotic risks while maintaining a sustainable balance between human health, wildlife conservation, and the well-being of local communities.

This study provides additional information that can guide public health, wildlife and environmental authorities in developing policies to regulate bushmeat and targeted, socially acceptable strategies for the sustainable management of wildlife and hunting. This strategy should reconcile the socioeconomic, cultural and ecological dimensions of the wildlife resource to reduce harvesting and dependence on bushmeat. Furthermore, the results of this study could help define interventions linked to communication and increase public awareness about the protection of the species most consumed and safety measures to prevent and reduce the occurrence of zoonotic diseases resulting from contact with bushmeat. Such initiatives should involve community leaders transmitting messages and acting as advocates of behavioural change. Moreover, this study could also help to identify research areas for the animal reservoir of emerging and re-emerging diseases.

However, this study has several limitations. First, the extent of bushmeat consumption could be underestimated, given the illegal nature of bushmeat hunting and consumption and the criminal penalties for breaking the law. Nevertheless, by carrying out the survey individually for each household member included, we reduced the sensitivity of the subject, and the respondents generally talked freely. Second, we were unable to estimate the quantity of bushmeat consumed in the regions, as most of the respondents were unable to provide reliable estimates and much of the trade was conducted illegally or through informal networks. Studies to estimate the local bushmeat trade and consumption are needed, because of potential food safety and health concerns. Additionally, given that our study did not anticipate the movement of pathogens through bushmeat, no samples were collected to determine the infectivity of bushmeat marketed or consumed. Future research should incorporate ethnographic surveys of the trade chain to examine the steps that take a wild animal from the forest to the plate of urban consumers, to analyse the dynamics of the spread and emergence of zoonotic diseases.

One Health perspectives for the sustainable use of bushmeat and public health

The social, environmental, and health challenges associated with bushmeat consumption constitute complex issues at the intersection of species conservation, global public health, and sustainable development. Addressing these challenges requires a holistic and integrated approach that combines efforts across multiple sectors to achieve common objectives [47]. Therefore, the One Health approach is essential for mitigating the risks associated with bushmeat harvesting and consumption, as well as for preventing the spread of zoonotic diseases [45]. This interdisciplinary framework enables the implementation of sustainable change through close collaboration between human and environmental health experts, public policymakers, and local stakeholders, ensuring the development of effective and context-specific solutions [48]. To achieve this, several strategic actions must be prioritized. First, strengthening and strictly enforcing regulations on hunting and the trade of forest resources is a crucial measure to better control the bushmeat supply chain. This approach aims to minimize the ecological and health risks associated with the overexploitation of wildlife. By effectively regulating these activities, it becomes possible to limit their impact on ecosystems while protecting the health of local populations.

At the same time, improving food security and economic resilience requires the promotion of sustainable alternatives to bushmeat consumption. The development of responsible livestock farming, sustainable fisheries, and agroforestry practices offers a viable solution to reduce dependence on wildlife resources [49]. By investing in resilient, nature-based local economies, it is possible to reconcile biodiversity conservation with community needs, fostering multifunctional landscapes that integrate agriculture, livestock farming, and ecosystem preservation.

However, to ensure the effectiveness of these alternatives, it is crucial to raise awareness among populations about proper handling and consumption practices. Information campaigns and educational programs on hygiene and zoonotic risks can help improve public perception and encourage behavioral changes beneficial to human health. By adopting safer practices, communities can reduce their exposure to animal-borne diseases and strengthen their resilience to health crises [50].

Finally, the establishment of robust monitoring systems for bushmeat markets and trade networks is essential to identify disease transmission risks and ensure compliance with conservation and public health regulations.

 

 

Conclusion Up    Down

The consumption of bushmeat remains a widespread practice in Guinea, with significant geographical disparities. These disparities reflect complex issues at the intersection of public health, biodiversity conservation, and socio-economic realities. A differentiated approach, based on the One Health framework, is essential for optimizing interventions. This approach must take account of the environmental, cultural, and socio-economic specificities of each region, while promoting viable economic alternatives, sustainable resource management, and food security adapted to local needs.

What is known about this topic

  • Bushmeat represents protein and income for many rural communities in developing countries;
  • The trade, handling and consumption of bushmeat has been associated with the emergence of infectious diseases.

What this study adds

  • Multilayer perceptron neural network models analysed bushmeat consumption patterns;
  • Urban bushmeat consumption remains significant, with regional disparities;
  • Bushmeat consumption is influenced by socio-cultural and economic factors - implementing a One Health approach is essential for sustainable bushmeat management.

 

 

Competing interests Up    Down

The authors declare no competing interests.

 

 

Authors' contributions Up    Down

Salifou Talassone Bangoura, Castro Gbêmêmali Hounmenou, Aminata Mbaye, Justin Masumu, Stéphanie Maltais, Alpha-Kabinet Keita, Abdoulaye Touré and Alioune Camara designed the study. Salifou Talassone Bangoura, Maladho Diaby and Cécé Kpamou contributed to data collection under the supervision of Alioune Camara and Abdoulaye Touré. Salifou Talassone Bangoura and Castro Gbêmêmali Hounmenou analysed the data. Salifou Talassone Bangoura wrote the main manuscript. Castro Gbêmêmali Hounmenou, Aminata Mbaye, Maladho Diaby, Emile Faya Bongono, Gnouma Laurent Koniono, Haby Diallo, Justin Masumu, Stéphanie Maltais, Alpha-Kabinet Keita, Abdoulaye Touré and Alioune Camara contributed to manuscript revision. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

 

 

Acknowledgments Up    Down

We would like to thank the Santé Plus Organization for their support in collecting the data.

 

 

Tables and figures Up    Down

Table 1: sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents

Table 2: frequency of bushmeat consumption and the reasons and sources of supply

Table 3: comparative analysis of the characteristics of bushmeat consumers and non-consumers

Figure 1: species of bushmeat consumed in the regions of Guinea, 2023

Figure 2: distribution of the prevalence of bushmeat consumption by region in Guinea

Figure 3: prevalence of bushmeat consumption by household socio-economic status in Guinea

Figure 4: model for predicting bushmeat consumption: the bar charts quantify the contribution and importance of the predictor variables within the network, using the Olden algorithm, that uses raw input-hidden and hidden-output connection weights in the neural network

 

 

References Up    Down

  1. Cawthorn DM, Hoffman LC. The bushmeat and food security nexus: A global account of the contributions, conundrums and ethical collisions. Food Research International. 2015 Oct 1;76(4):906-25. Google Scholar

  2. Nasi R, Fa JE. The role of bushmeat in food security and nutrition. InResearch Gate. XIVWORLD FORESTRY CONGRESS, Durban, South Africa 2015 Sep. Google Scholar

  3. Friant S, Ayambem WA, Alobi AO, Ifebueme NM, Otukpa OM, Ogar DA et al. Eating Bushmeat Improves Food Security in a Biodiversity and Infectious Disease "Hotspot". Ecohealth. 2020 Mar;17(1):125-138. PubMed | Google Scholar

  4. Codjia JT, Assogbadjo AE. Faune sauvage mammalienne et alimentation des populations holli et fon de la forêt classée de la Lama (Sud-Bénin). Cahiers Agricultures. 2004 Jul 1;13(4):341-7. Google Scholar

  5. Williamson D, Bakker L. The Bushmeat Crisis in West-Africa. An Indicative Overview of the Situation and Perception. FAO. 2017.

  6. Coad L, Fa J, Abernethy K, Vliet N, Santamaria C, Wilkie D et al. Toward a sustainable, participatory and inclusive wild meat sector. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Indonesia, 2019. Accessed May 25, 2025.

  7. Nasi R, Taber AV, Van Vliet N. Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins. International Forestry Review. 2011 Sep 1;13(3):355-68. Google Scholar

  8. van Vliet N, Mbazza P. Recognizing the multiple reasons for bushmeat consumption in urban areas: a necessary step toward the sustainable use of wildlife for food in Central Africa. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 2011 Jan 18;16(1):45-54. Google Scholar

  9. Milbank C, Vira B. Wildmeat consumption and zoonotic spillover: contextualising disease emergence and policy responses. Lancet Planet Health. 2022 May;6(5):e439-e448. PubMed | Google Scholar

  10. Jones KE, Patel NG, Levy MA, Storeygard A, Balk D, Gittleman JL et al. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature. 2008 Feb 21;451(7181):990-3. PubMed | Google Scholar

  11. Aghokeng AF, Ayouba A, Mpoudi-Ngole E, Loul S, Liegeois F, Delaporte E et al. Extensive survey on the prevalence and genetic diversity of SIVs in primate bushmeat provides insights into risks for potential new cross-species transmissions. Infect Genet Evol. 2010 Apr;10(3):386-96 PubMed | Google Scholar

  12. Leroy EM, Rouquet P, Formenty P, Souquière S, Kilbourne A, Froment JM et al. Multiple Ebola virus transmission events and rapid decline of central African wildlife. Science. 2004 Jan 16;303(5656):387-90. PubMed | Google Scholar

  13. Pigott DM, Golding N, Mylne A, Huang Z, Henry AJ, Weiss DJ et al. Mapping the zoonotic niche of Ebola virus disease in Africa. Elife. 2014 Sep 8;3:e04395. PubMed | Google Scholar

  14. Maganga GD, Kapetshi J, Berthet N, Kebela Ilunga B, Kabange F, Mbala Kingebeni P et al. Ebola virus disease in the Democratic Republic of Congo. N Engl J Med. 2014 Nov 27;371(22):2083-91. PubMed | Google Scholar

  15. Migliani R, Keïta S, Diallo B, Mesfin S, Perea W, Dahl B et al. [Epidemiological aspects of Ebola virus disease in Guinea (december 2013-april 2016)]. Bull Soc Pathol Exot. 2016 Oct;109(4):218-235. PubMed | Google Scholar

  16. Funk SM, Fa JE, Ajong SN, Eniang EA, Dendi D, Di Vittorio M et al. Pre-and post-Ebola outbreak trends in wild meat trade in West Africa. Biological Conservation. 2021 Mar 1;255:109024. Google Scholar

  17. Bonwitt J, Dawson M, Kandeh M, Ansumana R, Sahr F, Brown H et al. Unintended consequences of the 'bushmeat ban' in West Africa during the 2013-2016 Ebola virus disease epidemic. Soc Sci Med. 2018 Mar;200:166-173. PubMed | Google Scholar

  18. Fichet-Calvet E, Ölschläger S, Strecker T, Koivogui L, Becker-Ziaja B, Camara AB et al. Spatial and temporal evolution of Lassa virus in the natural host population in Upper Guinea. Sci Rep. 2016 Feb 25;6:21977. PubMed | Google Scholar

  19. Lacroix A, Vidal N, Keita AK, Thaurignac G, Esteban A, De Nys H et al. Wide Diversity of Coronaviruses in Frugivorous and Insectivorous Bat Species: A Pilot Study in Guinea, West Africa. Viruses. 2020 Aug 5;12(8):855. PubMed | Google Scholar

  20. Maxmen A. WHO report into COVID pandemic origins zeroes in on animal markets, not labs. Nature. 2021 Apr;592(7853):173-174. PubMed | Google Scholar

  21. National Statistical Institute. Annuaire statistique 2021. Guinea, National Statistical Institute, Guinea. 2022. Accessed October 9, 2023.

  22. Projet d'appui au suivi des ODD en Afrique (SODDA). Analyse des bilans alimentaires en Guinée sur la période 2010-2015. Guinée, Conakry, 2019. Accessed March 15, 2025.

  23. Dindé AO, Mobio AJ, Konan AG, Fokou G, Yao K, Esso EL et al. Response to the Ebola-related bushmeat consumption ban in rural Côte d'Ivoire. Agriculture & Food Security. 2017 Mar 14;6(1):28. Google Scholar

  24. Vyas S, Kumaranayake L. Constructing socio-economic status indices: how to use principal components analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2006 Nov;21(6):459-68. PubMed | Google Scholar

  25. Olden JD, Joy MK, Death RG. An accurate comparison of methods for quantifying variable importance in artificial neural networks using simulated data. Ecological modelling. 2004 Nov 1;178(3-4):389-97. Google Scholar

  26. van Vliet N, Muhindo J, Nyumu J, Enns C, Massé F, Bersaglio B et al. Understanding Factors that Shape Exposure to Zoonotic and Food-Borne Diseases Across Wild Meat Trade Chains. Hum Ecol Interdiscip J. 2022;50(6):983-995. PubMed | Google Scholar

  27. République de Guinée. Code de protection de la faune sauvage et réglementation de la chasse. Ministère de l'environnement des eaux et forêts. 2018. Accessed July 5, 2024.

  28. Luiselli L, Hema EM, Segniagbeto GH, Ouattara VA, Eniang EA, Parfait G et al. Bushmeat consumption in large urban centres in West Africa. Oryx. 2020 Sep;54(5):731-4. Google Scholar

  29. Bachand N, Arsenault J, Ravel A. Urban household meat consumption patterns in Gabon, Central Africa, with a focus on bushmeat. Human dimensions of wildlife. 2015 Mar 4;20(2):147-58. PubMed | Google Scholar

  30. van Vliet N, Nebesse C, Nasi R. Bushmeat consumption among rural and urban children from Province Orientale, Democratic Republic of Congo. Oryx. 2015 Jan;49(1):165-74. PubMed | Google Scholar

  31. Gurman TA, Diallo K, Larson E, Sugg K, Tibbels N. Balancing the uncertain and unpredictable nature of possible zoonotic disease transmission with the value placed on animals: Findings from a qualitative study in Guinea. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2024 Mar 28;4(3):e0001174. PubMed | Google Scholar

  32. Cantlay JC, Ingram DJ, Meredith AL. A Review of Zoonotic Infection Risks Associated with the Wild Meat Trade in Malaysia. Ecohealth. 2017 Jun;14(2):361-388. PubMed | Google Scholar

  33. Baize S, Pannetier D, Oestereich L, Rieger T, Koivogui L, Magassouba N et al. Emergence of Zaire Ebola virus disease in Guinea. N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 9;371(15):1418-25. PubMed | Google Scholar

  34. Magassouba N, Koivogui E, Conde S, Kone M, Koropogui M, Soropogui B et al. A Sporadic and Lethal Lassa Fever Case in Forest Guinea, 2019. Viruses. 2020 Sep 23;12(10):1062. PubMed | Google Scholar

  35. De Merode E, Homewood K, Cowlishaw G. The value of bushmeat and other wild foods to rural households living in extreme poverty in Democratic Republic of Congo. Biological conservation. 2004 Aug 1;118(5):573-81. Google Scholar

  36. Foerster S, Wilkie DS, Morelli GA, Demmer J, Starkey M, Telfer P et al. Correlates of bushmeat hunting among remote rural households in Gabon, Central Africa. Conserv Biol. 2012 Apr;26(2):335-44. PubMed | Google Scholar

  37. Brashares JS, Golden CD, Weinbaum KZ, Barrett CB, Okello GV. Economic and geographic drivers of wildlife consumption in rural Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Aug 23;108(34):13931-6. PubMed | Google Scholar

  38. Duonamou L, Konate A, Djègo Djossou S, Mensah GA, Xu J, Humle T. Consumer perceptions and reported wild and domestic meat and fish consumption behavior during the Ebola epidemic in Guinea, West Africa. PeerJ. 2020 Jun 10;8:e9229. PubMed | Google Scholar

  39. Samb S, Toweh A. Beware of bats: Guinea issues bushmeat warning after Ebola outbreak. 2014. Accessed May 29, 2025.

  40. Pruvot M, Khammavong K, Milavong P, Philavong C, Reinharz D, Mayxay M et al. Toward a quantification of risks at the nexus of conservation and health: The case of bushmeat markets in Lao PDR. Sci Total Environ. 2019 Aug 1;676:732-745. PubMed | Google Scholar

  41. Dell BM, Souza MJ, Willcox AS. Attitudes, practices, and zoonoses awareness of community members involved in the bushmeat trade near Murchison Falls National Park, northern Uganda. PLoS One. 2020 Sep 28;15(9):e0239599. PubMed | Google Scholar

  42. Fa JE, Nasi R, van Vliet N. Viande de brousse, impacts anthropiques et santé humaine dans les forêts tropicales humides : le cas du virus Ebola. Sante Publique. 2019 May 13;S1(HS):107-114. French. PubMed | Google Scholar

  43. Leroy EM, Epelboin A, Mondonge V, Pourrut X, Gonzalez JP, Muyembe-Tamfum JJ et al. Human Ebola outbreak resulting from direct exposure to fruit bats in Luebo, Democratic Republic of Congo, 2007. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2009 Dec;9(6):723-8. PubMed | Google Scholar

  44. Marí Saéz A, Weiss S, Nowak K, Lapeyre V, Zimmermann F, Düx A. Investigating the zoonotic origin of the West African Ebola epidemic. EMBO Mol Med. 2015 Jan;7(1):17-23. PubMed | Google Scholar

  45. Peros CS, Dasgupta R, Kumar P, Johnson BA. Bushmeat, wet markets, and the risks of pandemics: Exploring the nexus through systematic review of scientific disclosures. Environ Sci Policy. 2021 Oct;124:1-11. PubMed | Google Scholar

  46. Bonilla-Aldana DK, Bonilla-Aldana JL, Ulloque-Badaracco JR, Al-Kassab-Córdova A, Hernandez-Bustamante EA, Alarcon-Braga EA et al. Mpox infection in animals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Infect Public Health. 2024 Jul;17(7):102431. PubMed | Google Scholar

  47. Kurpiers LA, Schulte-Herbrüggen B, Ejotre I, Reeder DAM. Bushmeat and Emerging Infectious Diseases: Lessons from Africa. Problematic wildlife: A cross-disciplinary approach. Springer. 2015; p 507-551. Google Scholar

  48. El Zowalaty ME, Järhult JD. From SARS to COVID-19: A previously unknown SARS- related coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) of pandemic potential infecting humans - Call for a One Health approach. One Health. 2020 Feb 24;9:100124. PubMed | Google Scholar

  49. Roe D, Dickman A, Kock R, Milner-Gulland EJ, Rihoy E, 't Sas-Rolfes M. Beyond banning wildlife trade: COVID-19, conservation and development. World Dev. 2020 Dec;136:105121. PubMed | Google Scholar

  50. Jenkins J, Lawundeh W, Hanson T, Brown H. Human-animal entanglements in bushmeat trading in Sierra Leone: An ethnographic assessment of a potential zoonotic interface. PLoS One. 2024 Mar 28;19(3):e0298929. PubMed | Google Scholar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Search

Volume 18 (Sep - Dec 2025)

This article authors

On Pubmed
On Google Scholar

Citation [Download]

Zotero
EndNote XML
Reference Manager
BibTex
ProCite

Navigate this article

Similar articles in

Key words

Article metrics

Countries of access

Map loading delayed...

PlumX Metrics

Bushmeat consumption in Guinea: implications for public health and one health perspective