Global wildlife trade amplifies zoonotic spillover risks: systemic drivers of pathogen spillover in traded mammal species

Indigenous and traditional knowledge systems view wildlife not as passive vectors but as active participants in ecological balance, with pathogen spillover often attributed to human disruption of these relationships. For instance, the Yolŋu people of Australia’s Arnhem Land have observed that overharvesting of certain species correlates with increased disease incidence, a correlation mainstream science is only now beginning to validate. TEK also includes prophylactic practices—such as dietary taboos and seasonal hunting restrictions—that reduce spillover risks, yet these are excluded from global health policy. The dismissal of Indigenous knowledge as 'anecdotal' reflects a deeper epistemic violence that prioritises Western scientific paradigms over lived, place-based wisdom.

The global wildlife trade is rooted in 19th-century colonial specimen collection, where European museums and private collectors systematically extracted biodiversity from the Global South under the guise of 'scientific progress.' These trade routes later evolved into modern exotic pet markets and biomedical supply chains, creating persistent pathways for pathogen exchange. Historical parallels include the 1918 influenza pandemic, which spread via global shipping networks established during colonial expansion, and the HIV/AIDS pandemic, which emerged from bushmeat hunting practices intensified by colonial disruption of local food systems. The continuity between past and present trade systems reveals how extractive logics persist under new guises.

Cross-culturally, the framing of wildlife as 'diseased' or 'dangerous' is not universal; many societies view animals as sacred or as kin, with disease framed as a moral or ecological imbalance rather than a technical problem. In Hindu traditions, cows are revered and their diseases are managed through community care rather than culling, contrasting with Western approaches that often prioritise eradication. In the Amazon, Indigenous groups like the Yanomami have developed intricate systems of monitoring animal health and avoiding zoonotic risks through shared ecological knowledge. Meanwhile, in East Asia, traditional medicine systems (e.g., TCM) have long integrated animal-derived remedies, but these are now being scrutinised for their role in spillover risks without addressing the root causes of habitat destruction.

Scientific evidence confirms that global wildlife trade intensifies zoonotic spillover risks by increasing human-wildlife contact, disrupting ecosystems, and creating conditions for pathogen mutation and exchange. Studies show that traded mammals share pathogens at 6-7x higher rates than non-traded species due to stress-induced immunosuppression and high-density holding conditions. However, Western epidemiological models often overlook the role of social determinants (e.g., poverty, land tenure insecurity) in driving both wildlife trade and spillover risks. Additionally, the focus on 'hotspot' surveillance (e.g., wet markets) obscures how global supply chains—including legal and illegal trade—facilitate pathogen spread across continents.

Artistic and spiritual traditions often depict animals as messengers or omens, with disease framed as a call to restore balance rather than a purely technical problem. In African diasporic traditions like Candomblé, animals are seen as embodiments of orixás (deities), and their illnesses are interpreted as spiritual imbalances requiring collective healing. Indigenous Australian art frequently depicts animals as interconnected with human fate, suggesting that spillover risks are not isolated events but part of a larger ecological narrative. Meanwhile, Western art often portrays wildlife as either idyllic or monstrous, reinforcing a binary that obscures the complex realities of human-wildlife coexistence.

Future modelling must account for how climate change, deforestation, and urbanisation will intensify wildlife trade and spillover risks, particularly in biodiversity hotspots like the Congo Basin and Southeast Asia. Scenario planning should include 'One Health' approaches that integrate human, animal, and environmental health, as well as degrowth models that reduce demand for exotic pets and luxury wildlife products. Technological solutions (e.g., AI-driven surveillance) risk exacerbating surveillance capitalism unless paired with democratic governance and Indigenous leadership. Additionally, future models must grapple with the ethical implications of 'rewilding' projects that reintroduce species without addressing the structural drivers of habitat loss.

Marginalised communities—particularly Indigenous peoples, rural farmers, and low-income urban residents—bear the brunt of zoonotic spillovers despite contributing least to the global wildlife trade. In the Congo Basin, local hunters and traders are often blamed for spillovers, yet they are also the first to suffer from outbreaks due to lack of healthcare access. Women, who are primary caregivers and often responsible for household food security, are disproportionately affected by spillovers that disrupt local food systems. Meanwhile, Global South scientists and community health workers are sidelined in favor of Western-led surveillance systems, reinforcing epistemic injustice in global health governance.