How far does religious freedom extend when it conflicts with public health?
The mixture of religion and public health is often a tricky one. It's difficult in a multitude of ways, both legally and ethically, to infringe on one's religious beliefs. At the same time, public health officials must work to protect the well-being of the community, even if that means some sacrifice on the part of individuals. It's at times a tough line to walk.
A recent case illustrates this in a novel way. It's not the typical "public health vs. personal religious beliefs" set-up that we often see here in the US. It doesn't get near the debates on abortion, or stem cells, or vaccination, or sex education. Rather, the case centers on an immigrant from LIberia, and her custom of eating bushmeat: wild animals, often illegally hunted, including (but not limited to) gorilla, chimpanzee, and other primates.
Mamie Manneh, the woman at the center of the controversy, moved from Liberia to New York City when she was young, but brought with her the custom of celebrating religious holidays by eating monkey meat. She's had this imported from Africa, and it's gotten her in trouble legally:
The case dates to early 2006, when federal inspectors at JFK Airport examined a shipment of 12 cardboard boxes from Guinea.They were addressed to Manneh and, according to a flight manifest, contained African dresses and smoked fish with a value of $780.
Instead, stashed underneath the smoked fish, the inspectors found what West Africans refer to as bushmeat: "skulls, limbs and torsos of nonhuman primate species" plus the hoof and leg of a small antelope, according to court papers.
Manneh was arrested for smuggling, and authorities have noted that with the importation of such meat brings the potential to import animal diseases right along with it. This is something I've addressed previously regarding the importation of live animals as exotic pets, but the death of the animal doesn't necessarily prevent the transmission of any bacteria or viruses it may be carrying.
Also at issue is the market for bushmeat both in Africa and abroad. They suggest in the story that the amount Manneh consumed was insignificant as far as conservation of endangered species go, but they also note that the congregation of Manneh's church deems eating monkey meat something they do "for their souls." Even if one person's consumption of illegally obtained bushmeat may be a minimal threat to primate populations, it doesn't take much to multiply that by dozens of church members, and perhaps dozens of participating churches across the country, and the multitude of holidays and events they celebrate with bushmeat, and one can see how quickly this consumption could add up.
As the world becomes ever more interconnected, additional issues such as these will continue to surface. We've already seen exotic African or Asian viruses such as monkeypox and Ebola enter the United States...will the next arrival be in an unchecked shipment of bushmeat for a religious ceremony? And how long would it take us to recognize it if that were the case?
Finally, though Manneh's case is an example, bushmeat importation isn't small potatoes. It's estimated that as much as 15,000 pounds of bushmeat is illegally brought into the U.S. every month. With our current mechanisms of screening of imports (practically non-existent) and our poor support for public health and disease surveillance, we could have an epidemic on our hands before we ever even realize it.
Tags: bushmeat, monkeys, public health







Blog RSS Feed













1 Comments
+ Add Comment
November 29, 2007 11:47 AM
Matt Penfold
The answer is of course, nowhere.
But then there is no reason that religious freedom should be treated any differently than any other freedom. Here in Wales where I live there has recently been a furore over a 15 year old girl who claims to be Sikh and wishes to wear a religious bangle to school. The school has a pretty strict policy on what jewelery can be worn. Ear studs are fine, but they do no allow any other kind of earring, or necklaces or bracelets of any kind, including crucifixes. The girl's parents are saying this violates her rights to practice her religion.
My view is that religion should not come in to it. There could well be an argument for the school to have a less strict dress code but that does not mean that claiming an exemption of religious grounds is acceptable.
All this has just been a verbiose way of saying that religion should not grant anyone rights that others do not have, be it the right to eat bushmeat illegally imported or the right to wear a bracelet. Either all are allowed the right or none are, no exceptions for religion.
Post your comment