Paper short abstract:

As China closes wet markets and promotes supermarkets in response to emerging viruses, this paper examines the "qualification devices" used by consumers to evaluate the safety of live or pre-slaughtered poultry in situations of uncertainty.

Paper long abstract:

Infectious disease scientists describe China's so-called "wet markets," where live poultry and other animals are sold, as potential sources of zoonotic diseases such as Covid-19 or pandemic influenza. In line with this assessment, China's own nonggaichao policy calls for the closure of wet markets and their replacement with supermarkets. However, many Chinese consumers purchase food at wet markets, including live animals, because they believe these markets provide healthier, fresher, and safer food. Meanwhile, consumers express concerns about the quality and safety of food sold in supermarkets, particularly in the aftermath of food fraud scandals such as melamine milk powder.

Rather than dismissing consumer perceptions of food safety as misinformed, this paper examines how vendors and consumers evaluate food safety and quality. How do food evaluations differ when applied to live animals versus slaughtered meats? Drawing on the concept of "qualification devices" proposed by STS scholar Michel Callon, the paper compares the techniques used by vendors and consumers to evaluate the qualities of food at a) wet markets and b) supermarkets. Live animal wet markets not only pose distinct risks from slaughtered meats (based in interspecies contact, not food ingestion), but also make available different testing devices for consumers to qualify food safety and quality (based in the intimate use of senses, rather than impersonal trust in official standards or brands). By observing how qualitiative signs are interpreted as indicators of safe or unsafe food, the paper shows how risk and uncertainty are lived in everyday practice.