Childhood anemia and conservation

A recent article on the Science Daily website proclaims "Taking Bushmeat Off the Menu Could Increase Childhood Anemia." My first question was "what is bushmeat?" Apparently bushmeat is meat obtained from wild animals as opposed to animals bred specifically for that purpose. In America, venison would be considered bushmeat.
The study was done by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley. That led to confusion on my part, as to why we needed to keep venison on the menu in America, until I read further and discovered that this was a study done on children in a remote wildlife preserve in Madagascar. In this area, a significant portion of meat in the diet of poor people comes from wildlife, especially bats and lemurs. 77 children under 12 years old were studied, and their eating habits were compared to their level of anemia over a year. The study found that children who ate more bushmeat had lower levels of anemia.
The results are really not very surprising, especially in an area where domesticated meat is expensive and a varied diet is not available. I have no problem with the results of the study.
What I have a problem with is the way the story is presented. As soon as one realises what bushmeat is, the immediate implication is that efforts to conserve wild animals is causing children to become sick! And the corollary is we should draw back on conservation efforts to protect the children!
I think it would have been much better for the article title to be something like "Poverty forces children to eat endangered animals for nutrition." This title turns the onus around; it makes poverty the enemy and not conservation. This is actually what the study concludes, that in these areas poverty forces people to eat wild animals for survival. It is unfortunate that poverty causes human health and wildlife conservation to to seem to have opposite objectives; and this news is not new if one considers problems of habitat destruction by subsistence farmers.
The authors of the article never suggest stopping conservation efforts. Instead, they suggest economic programs to allow the poorest to raise their own livestock; nutritional education and introduction of a wider variety of foodstuffs may also help correct the anemia without having to resort to eating meat. Maybe in these remote areas iron supplements could be introduced in pill form.
Readers of the article also have to remember that this is a situation existing in a small population in a remote area. We have no way of knowing if parallels exist in other regions, and we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that wildlife conservation and human health are always at odds. We would also do well to remember (and this will be hard to swallow for some) that we may be talking about the survival of an entire species versus the robust health of a subsection of subsection of a small part of the massive human population.