BANGKOK, THAILAND – A new report warns that the next pandemic may not originate in a hospital but from forests, markets, or live animal supply chains. The International Alliance against Health Risks in Wildlife Trade released its white paper, “Live Wildlife Trade and Markets,” in early June 2026, stating that global live wildlife trade creates ideal conditions for new pathogens to jump from animals to humans. For German-speaking residents in Thailand, this is a pressing issue, as the region is identified as a major hub for this trade, with Bangkok’s Chatuchak Market frequently cited by international experts.
Why three-quarters of new diseases come from animals
New studies indicate that approximately 75 percent of emerging human infectious diseases originate from the animal kingdom. This fact, established by the IPBES report in 2020, forms the basis of the current white paper. Pathogens like Ebola, SARS, MERS, and the coronavirus are all zoonoses, diseases transferable between animals and humans. Experts report a consistent increase in spillover events, where a pathogen first transmits to humans.
Scientists estimate that up to 1.7 million undiscovered viruses exist in mammals and birds globally. Between 540,000 and 850,000 of these viruses could potentially infect humans. The adaptability of such pathogens is evident in SARS-CoV-2, which has naturally spread to at least 35 different animal species, according to the white paper.
Not the animal, but the path to them
Authors emphasize that the danger stems not from wild animals themselves, but from how they are handled throughout the trade chain. Capture and transport inflict significant stress on animals, weakening their immune systems and leading to higher viral shedding. A crowded market environment, where different species are kept in close proximity, further facilitates viral genetic exchange and adaptation to new hosts.
Poor hygiene and direct contact with animal blood create conditions where historically devastating epidemics, such as HIV-1, may have begun. Weakened animals, diverse species, and open slaughter practices transform these environments into laboratories where chance dictates outcomes, according to virologists.
A $220 Billion Business with Loopholes
The legal global wildlife trade and its products represent a substantial economic sector. Data from the CITES Secretariat in 2022 valued the annual turnover at approximately $220 billion. This legal trade is linked to a wide array of dangerous zoonoses and is considerably larger than the estimated illegal trade, which amounts to up to $23 billion. The white paper unequivocally states that the risk is not confined to the criminal segment of the business.
The growing market for exotic pets, reliant on cross-border supply chains, adds another layer of concern. Health checks in this area are significantly lacking. Even developed nations like the United Kingdom and the United States forgo systematic screening for pathogens in certain imported wild animals, allowing animals with unknown health statuses to enter private homes.
Bangkok as an example close to home
The proximity of this issue is highlighted by the Chatuchak weekend market in Bangkok. As Thailand’s largest market, it is also one of Southeast Asia’s most significant pet markets. Experts from the NGO EcoHealth Alliance have long cited the animal section there as proof that risks are not exclusively linked to China.
Some animal trade operates in a legal gray area due to its location on railway land. Thailand’s animal welfare laws protect only native species, a loophole animal rights advocates have repeatedly criticized. WWF investigations over a decade documented trade in protected turtles, almost all of which originated from abroad. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, such markets were known as places where pathogens could mix freely.
Prevention is cheaper than the damage
The white paper advocates for a strategic shift from reacting to outbreaks to preventing them at the source. Without fundamental changes, future pandemics will claim numerous lives and severely disrupt global supply chains in tourism, transportation, and agriculture. The cost argument is clear: improved monitoring, reduced deforestation, and stricter regulation of wildlife trade would cost less than a twentieth of the annual economic losses from pandemic fatalities, according to the authors’ calculations.
The ‘One Health’ approach integrates human, animal, and environmental health into a holistic perspective. For a country like Thailand, heavily reliant on international tourism, this is more than just a scientific footnote.