More than proteins for empty stomachs: Wild meat in the BaTonga food system

Our paper highlights the limitations of the framework used by many conservation‐focused programmes that incorporate food security objectives. This framework encourages the substitution of wild proteins with domestic proteins by promoting animal farming in communities located near conservation areas. We argue that this ‘protein substitution’ objective disregards key assumptions from the field of socio‐anthropology and food studies: Meat is more than just a source of protein; food security is more than a nutritional issue; food consumption is not straightforwardly linked to food production; and consumers need to be involved in governing their food system. To address these gaps, we analysed the food system of the BaTonga people living near a conservation area in Zimbabwe, with a particular focus on the role of wild meat. Our findings demonstrate that BaTonga food insecurity is intricately linked to a local historical context which is characterized by environmental injustice and limited access to essential resources from the local ecosystem, including wildlife. Therefore, reducing BaTonga food insecurity to a protein gap is a form of social violence. Despite its low consumption, the motivations behind the BaTonga's consumption of wild meat are diverse, including nutritional, but also health, hedonic, social, cultural and economic reasons. Furthermore, wild meat served as a safety net during the COVID‐19 pandemic. This demonstrates the multiple functions of wild meat in the local food system as well as its role in nutrition. Although domestic animals are present in most households, their contribution to the local meat supply is limited; they serve as productive assets, are bartered for basic foodstuffs, or are sold outside the area to better‐off consumers. To integrate food security objectives, conservation‐focused programmes must adapt their approach. More space must be given to food studies within their own right. Wild meat consumption must be treated as a component of complex and dynamic food systems rather than a mere source of protein. Food sovereignty and consumer agency must be recognized as legitimate objectives. This requires recognizing that wild meat is more than just protein, and that wild meat consumers are not just empty stomachs. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.