By Ms Lydia Daring Bhebe
Last week, I had the opportunity to present my PhD research findings at the 2nd General Meeting of the SafeGameMeat (“Safety in the Game Meat Chain”) COST Action in Bucharest, Romania. The SafeGameMeat network brings together researchers, veterinarians, wildlife specialists, food safety experts, policymakers, and industry stakeholders from across Europe and beyond, all working towards a common goal: improving the safety and sustainability of game meat systems.
Across the different working groups, presentations explored a wide range of topics, including hunting and processing practices, hunter training, chemical contaminants, wildlife diseases, consumer behaviour, traceability, and regulatory systems. At first glance, these may appear to be separate issues. Yet, many of the discussions pointed towards the same underlying challenge: ensuring the safety of game meat requires understanding the entire system that produces it. Several presentations focused on biological hazards, including parasites, zoonotic diseases, wildlife disease surveillance, and the effects of climate and environmental change on disease dynamics. Others examined communal hunting systems and wildlife harvesting practices, highlighting the important interfaces among wildlife, domestic animals, people, and the environment.
At the same time, another group of researchers explored chemical hazards associated with game meat systems. Discussions covered lead ammunition, heavy metals, PFAS contamination, and even radioactive contaminants in wildlife populations. These presentations served as a reminder that food safety risks are not limited to pathogens. Environmental contaminants can enter food systems long before an animal is harvested, creating challenges that require monitoring, regulation, and ongoing research.
A third recurring theme was the importance of people. Several presentations examined hunter behaviour, consumer preferences, market pathways, and the practical realities of implementing food safety interventions. Scientific evidence alone does not automatically translate into behavioural change. Understanding why people make certain decisions, whether related to ammunition choices, meat consumption, or hunting practices, remains critical for improving food safety outcomes.
As a PhD researcher from South Africa, I found this meeting particularly interesting because many of the discussions echoed themes emerging from my own research on the game meat sector. My work explores how game animal health, food safety, and environmental management interact within production and supply systems, using a One Health perspective to understand these connections. Although South Africa’s wildlife industry differs considerably from most European contexts, I was struck by how often similar challenges surfaced throughout the meeting. Discussions around disease surveillance reflected concerns that also emerged in my interviews with veterinarians, industry stakeholders, and policymakers. Presentations on traceability, inspection systems, and regulatory variation echoed broader questions around governance and coordination that continue to shape game meat systems in South Africa. Likewise, conversations about environmental contamination, ecosystem health, and wildlife management reinforced the importance of looking beyond individual risks and considering how multiple factors interact across the wider system. One of the most valuable aspects of the meeting was recognising that many countries are grappling with similar questions, even when the specific species, regulations, landscapes, and market structures differ. The details may change, but the challenge of balancing food safety, wildlife health, environmental sustainability, and practical implementation appears remarkably consistent across contexts.
Rather than presenting a single solution, the meeting reinforced what has become increasingly clear through my own research: safe game meat cannot be understood by a single discipline or institution. It requires collaboration across wildlife management, veterinary services, food safety systems, environmental management, public health, and industry actors. This is where a One Health perspective becomes particularly valuable. The discussions in Bucharest repeatedly demonstrated that risks do not occur in isolation. Disease risks, food safety concerns, environmental pressures, governance challenges, and human behaviour are often interconnected. Addressing one part of the system without considering the others can leave important gaps in risk management and decision-making.
As game meat continues to attract attention as a source of food, livelihoods, conservation financing, and economic opportunity, these conversations become increasingly important. Networks such as SafeGameMeat provide an important platform for sharing experiences across countries and disciplines, helping researchers and practitioners learn from one another as they work towards safer and more sustainable game meat systems. The discussions in Bucharest reinforced a simple but important idea: when it comes to game meat, safety begins long before the meat reaches the plate.
See Lydia’s presentation from the conference here
