The World Health Organization (WHO) officially recognized traditional Chinese medicine for the first time on May 25, sparking widespread outcries from conservationists.
The demand for wild animal parts in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is a major driver of the illegal wildlife trade, encouraging the poaching of tigers, pangolins, rhinos, and more. This trade has decimated tiger (Panthera tigris) numbers, and now cats like jaguars (Panthera onca) are being hunted as well.
Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence that traditional Chinese medicines involving wild animal parts cure the vast array of symptoms they’re purported to treat.
Thus, as this article on Mongabay explains, conservationists were both concerned and flabbergasted by the WHO’s decision to include TCM diagnoses in its International Classification of Diseases. Experts like Panthera’s Dr. John Goodrich worry that this recognition will be interpreted as an endorsement of TCM by the WHO, helping to push threatened species towards extinction.
While the WHO did say that it doesn’t support the illegal wildlife trade, many conservationists claimed that its statement was weak. Given what’s at stake, the WHO needs to firmly condemn the use of wild animal parts in traditional Chinese medicine.
Click here to read the original story on Mongabay. For a fuller description of the problem, see Panthera’s press release.
The Jaguar 
What a shame…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, it’s a decision that makes little sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mongabay looks like a good site – will be subscribing – thanks Josh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They’re a great site! I get lots of my environmental news from them, along with The Revelator.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sad news…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very sad indeed :(
LikeLike
This is so scary. When organisations like the WHO take such decisions, they support the widespread massacre of innocent animals. Heartbreaking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s scary indeed: given the WHO’s reputation, their recognition of traditional Chinese medicine will likely be interpreted as expert validation of the practice. This, coupled with their weak statement about using wild animal parts, could prove very bad indeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person