The detection of African swine fever (ASF) in wild boar near the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB) has caused a major uproar: the economic impact could be enormous if pigs on farms become infected. Whatever the cause of this outbreak, the institutional and media response has immediately focused on measures that, implicitly or explicitly, criminalize wildlife—in this case, wild boar. This view, besides being simplistic and tragic, distracts from the real problem.
African swine fever (ASF) is a viral disease that exclusively affects animals of the African swine family. Suidae (Pigs, wild boar, and other suids). The virus originated in sub-Saharan Africa, where it has circulated for thousands of years without causing mass mortality in the wild. However, it is lethal to domesticated pigs and European and Asian wild boar, which have evolved separately and lack acquired immunity. But the virus does not spread naturally over long distances because it relies on vectors such as specific ticks or direct contact. Therefore, all documented introductions of the virus outside of Africa to date have been caused by humans—primarily through the movement of infected pigs or feeding them contaminated remains. It should also be noted that the virus has been studied for years in laboratories across Europe in the search for a vaccine to immunize pigs on farms. This research involves transporting and working with the virus outside its territory of origin. Wild boar, therefore, are not and cannot be the cause of the spread of ASF: they are simply another victim.
The real risk factor is the current food production model. In Spain, there are almost 34 million pigs, more than 8 million of which are concentrated in Catalonia, housed in farms. It is a highly market-oriented industry—80% of the animals raised in Catalonia are for export—and it has a very significant impact on the Catalan economy. This impact influences public policy and leads many stakeholders to propose killing wild boars to "save" the confined pigs. However, the economic value of the pork sector is an illusion because it does not include the enormous ethical, environmental, and social costs of this business—costs borne by the animals, the public, public health, and future generations. Only this collective self-deception allows the elimination of wildlife to be normalized in order to preserve the pig industry.
This reversal of priorities is nothing new. We've been practicing it for centuries. Currently, of all the mammals inhabiting the planet, 4% are wild animals, 36% are humans, and 60% are mammals under human control. If we consider all animals under human control, 99% are exploited for human food. It has been estimated that this represents approximately 368 billion animals surviving on livestock and fish farms worldwide at any given time. But their lives are short. The turnover within these farms is such that it is estimated we kill around 27 trillion animals a year, including marine animals. That is, every year we kill to eat a number of animals equivalent to 231 times the number of all human beings who have ever existed on planet Earth. This situation is, for example, the reason why a third of the Earth's ice-free land surface and nearly 77% of agricultural land are dedicated to producing animal feed. The result is an unsustainable and ethically indefensible model that, in addition to generating billions of lives of suffering, extinguishes species, degrades the soil, pollutes the water and air, increases emissions, and repeatedly creates the conditions for new diseases to appear and spread.
In Catalonia, we promoted the increase of the wild boar population for decades because, after centuries of overhunting and profound changes in land use, their numbers had been drastically reduced, something hunters didn't approve of at the time. Now, the very animal we've been multiplying is being declared a "pest," and its mass eradication is being justified—with or without African swine fever.
The African swine fever (ASF) crisis has nothing to do with the current number of wild boars, which we arbitrarily deem excessive when it suits us. Rather, it is a symptom of an unsustainable food system that generates enormous animal suffering, occupies and pollutes the land, destroys biodiversity, and multiplies health risks. Continuing to blame nature is convenient. Reviewing the model that fuels this crisis is uncomfortable, but it is the only realistic path forward.
