These 3 nations have a few of the greatest observed levels of wild meat intake, which frequently brings wild mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians into the market and dining establishments. Wild meat is an expensive meal in numerous locations, representing wealth and high status, and is likewise thought about to be a special or dietary with numerous health advantages. Such intake greatly threatens the survival of wildlife populations, fuels transboundary and domestic wildlife criminal activity, and substantially increases the threat of zoonotic spillover from animals to individuals. Most customers tend to be uninformed of the possible threat they are exposing themselves, their liked ones, and their neighborhood to when they take in wild meat meals and how such options can position both a public health and preservation risk.
Because of the different complex drivers of wild meat intake, Zero Wild Meat concentrated on decreasing the intake of especially high-risk wildlife that might cause zoonotic spillover and future pandemics, integrating health and preservation messaging. In partnership with nationwide and provincial federal government companies, business partners, non-profit companies, media, along with health professionals and social networks influencers, the message of the campaign—“a taste of wild meat brings unpredictable risks”—was extensively spread out both online and offline. The campaign looked for to show the negative effects of wild meat intake, consisting of the particular health threats, termination capacity of regional types, loss of nature, and legal consequences. This cross-sector partnership contributed in guaranteeing that this campaign’s message was extensive and put in front of those who required to see and gain from it.
Upon conclusion of the campaign, when asked, 95% of wild meat customers who saw the message of the campaign said that they were encouraged to entirely stop taking in wild meat, or less of it. Conservation—the security of nature and avoidance of wildlife termination—is the most typical factor in both Viet Nam and Lao PDR for not consuming wild meat, followed by legality issues in Viet Nam and the capacity for illness event in Lao PDR. In both nations, individuals who saw the campaign were most likely to decline wild meat than individuals who did not see the campaign due to issues about illness passing from animals to human beings.
