Zoonotic public health risks in farmed versus wild-caught wildlife for traditional markets for food: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Intensive farming, wildlife trade, and close human–animal contact in traditional markets for food (TMFs) are widely considered drivers of zoonotic disease emergence. However, comparative evidence assessing differences between farmed and wild-caught wildlife at the market interface remains limited. This study evaluated whether animals sourced from farmed versus wild-caught systems differ in pathogen detection as a proxy for zoonotic hazard and does not measure transmission or human infection outcomes. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and MEDLINE were systematically searched up to August 11, 2025, without language restrictions. Comparative studies reporting zoonotic pathogens in farmed versus wild-caught animals were included. Odds ratios (ORs) were pooled using random-effects models, with heterogeneity assessed using χ 2 and I 2 statistics. Twenty studies were included from 23,840 identified titles. Farmed aquatic species had lower odds of parasitic infection than wild-caught species (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03–0.44). For bacterial zoonoses, the pooled OR was 1.21 (95% CI 0.44–3.34). Subgroup analyses showed higher odds in farmed frogs (OR 13.54) and freshwater turtles (OR 4.24). Data on terrestrial animals were limited to snakes, water monitor lizards, and rats. Farmed reptiles had lower odds of parasitic infection than wild-caught reptiles (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12–0.60). Farmed rats had lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 detection (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.06–0·30). Overall, most studies had a high risk of bias, and heterogeneity was substantial (I 2 up to 98%). Parasitic zoonoses with indirect life cycles were consistently less prevalent in farmed aquatic and reptile animals. In contrast, bacterial findings were inconsistent, and viral data was scarce. Despite widespread concern regarding zoonotic risk in wildlife trade, direct comparative evidence between production systems remains limited and highly heterogeneous. Overall, zoonotic hazard is likely influenced by environmental and management conditions, although the current evidence base is insufficient to support generalised conclusions. High heterogeneity and risk of bias warrant cautious interpretation and further standardised research.