Public Health

Evidence brief: Cultural and behavioural drivers of zoonotic disease risk along the wild meat value chain in rural Cameroon

A sourced PLOS One study, published 2026-08-05. Read the researchers’ findings, methods and context, with links to connected African health evidence.

A healthcare consultation in an illustrative clinical setting
Illustrative stock photograph from Unsplash. It does not depict the reported event, study participants or a confirmed Kenyan facility. Source: https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1576091160550-2173dba999ef

Published in PLOS One on 2026-08-05, this study is presented as an attributed evidence briefing. The excerpts below are the original researchers’ words, reproduced under their Creative Commons Attribution licence. Health Signal has selected the abstract and, where needed, opening background paragraphs; the complete methods, results, limitations and references remain in the linked paper.

Original authors: Julia E. Fa, Caleb Tata, Lauren Coad, Sagan Friant, Cédric Thibaut Kamogne Tagne, Joseph Mbane, Robert Okale, François Fouda, Pedro Mayor, Stephan M. Funk, Guillermo Ros Brull, Amy Ickowitz

Source: PLOS One • DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0355275

Read the complete primary study ↗ · Creative Commons Attribution licence

From the researchers

Abstract

Wild meat remains a critical source of food security and income in tropical regions, yet it poses significant public health risks due to the potential for zoonotic disease transmission. To better understand these risks, we conducted 2,374 structured interviews with hunters and food preparers across 44 rural villages in Cameroon and surveyed 64 wild meat vendors in four regional markets. This study explores prevailing wild meat handling practices and perceptions of disease risk, providing essential insights for designing targeted interventions to safeguard human health and livelihoods. Hunting patterns varied by ethnicity: a higher percentage of Indigenous Baka reported hunting than Bantu, and Baka hunters were more likely to target bats, a high-risk taxonomic group. Gender, age, and ethnicity also shape behaviours. Women and older individuals were generally less likely to hunt or handle animals exhibiting clinical abnormalities. However, notable differences were observed between ethnic groups. Among the Indigenous Baka, women frequently participated in hunting, particularly by setting snares, whereas Bantu women seldom did so. Across both groups, women were more likely than men to take home carcasses found dead and to hunt small mammals such as rodents. These distinctions highlight how gendered and cultural norms influence patterns of wildlife contact and exposure to zoonotic risk. Hygiene standards during the handling and processing of wild meat were generally very low. Fewer than 1% of household respondents reported using any protective equipment, and only 6% cleaned butchering surfaces with soap. A substantial number admitted to consuming or selling meat from animals that appeared visibly diseased, exhibiting signs such as abnormal organs, discolouration, or unusual odours. Injuries sustained during butchering were also commonly reported, further compounding health risks. Concern about disease was relatively low, reported by only 14.7% of households. However, it was associated with a modest increase in the likelihood of handwashing (by 5 percentage points) and a more substantial increase in the possibility of avoiding contact with dead animals (by 16 percentage points). Ethnic and gender differences influenced both concerns about disease risk and behaviours. These findings highlight the importance of designing public health strategies grounded in local sociocultural realities, aimed at reducing zoonotic risk while safeguarding livelihoods and respecting the economic and cultural roles that wild meat plays within communities.

Introduction

Wild meat plays a vital role in the livelihoods, food security, and cultural practices of many rural communities across tropical and subtropical regions worldwide [1–3]. In Central Africa, wild animals provide an important source of protein and income, particularly in remote forest regions where alternative livelihood opportunities and domestic livestock production are limited. At the same time, the harvesting, handling, and consumption of wild animals create opportunities for zoonotic pathogen transmission from wildlife to humans [4].

Reading this evidence

Use the full paper to check the study design, participant selection, comparator and outcome definitions before drawing a practical conclusion. An association does not by itself show cause and effect. A reported performance measure needs its denominator and uncertainty. A finding from a particular facility, sample or time period should retain that scope when it is discussed elsewhere.

This briefing makes the source accessible within the wider public health desk. It does not assess an individual patient or certify a product. When considering relevance to another health system, examine the original authors’ account of context and limitations, then seek local implementation evidence. The related reporting below provides other studies to read alongside this one; it is a topic connection, rather than a claim that their results are directly comparable.

© 2026 Julia E. Fa, Caleb Tata, Lauren Coad, Sagan Friant, Cédric Thibaut Kamogne Tagne, Joseph Mbane, Robert Okale, François Fouda, Pedro Mayor, Stephan M. Funk, Guillermo Ros Brull, Amy Ickowitz. Excerpts reproduced under CC BY. Selection, formatting and contextual notes by Health Signal. The researchers are the authors of the source study, not members of Health Signal’s staff.

Explore connected evidence

Health Signal Editorial Desk

Health Signal’s publication desk curates source-based health analysis and attributed research briefings. Study authors and originating institutions are credited within each article. Preparation used AI assistance; source and licence checks do not constitute independent replication or clinical endorsement.

More from this writer ↗