Prisoners in their own bodies: Medical experiments on chimps

My latest article for the Scavenger, Prisoners in their own bodies: Medical experiments on chimps.
-----------

Prisoners in their own bodies: Medical experiments on chimps

03 October 2011

A recent video of a group of chimpanzees being introduced to the outdoors after years of medical research touched the hearts of many. But while these chimpanzees are now awakening to the outside world, countless others are still suffering unspeakable torture out of public view, writes Susannah Waters.

They move towards the golden wall of light suddenly exposed by the sliding metal door. Crowding around the exit, they don’t immediately venture beyond the doorframe, instead taking turns to peek out into the vast expanse of brightness.  

They then take the plunge and converge on the grass, to bask in the precious sunshine. 

The recent footage of a group of ex-laboratory chimpanzees being released onto the sunny playground of a sanctuary in Austria, after enduring decades of invasive medical research, was simultaneously heart-warming and heart-wrenching. The video featuring the primates appeared prominently across the mainstream media, and was also popular on YouTube.

Vision of the chimpanzees cautiously inspecting the open door, glancing around at each other, and hugging before their first steps into the outdoors no doubt resonated with many, because the apes’ emotions were plain for all to see. Their apprehension and excitement was palpable. It wasn’t difficult to recognise the curiousity, the wonder, and the sheer joy they were displaying on their long overdue excursion into the sun.

Three decades of captivity had made this occasion particularly momentous. Ostensibly, the chimps were now (relatively) free.

But although now somewhat physically liberated, what could be the legacy of a lifetime of bondage to medical research?

The powerlessness of laboratory animals is all-encompassing. In his book Making a killing: The political economy of animal rights, Bob Torres posits that the bodies of lab animals transform into “an agent of their own suffering”; a mere tool to another’s ends. In this way, their bodies no longer belong to them, and represent their complete and utter subjugation.

The group of chimpanzees, many of whom were utilised for ultimately unsuccessful research into HIV, will no doubt bear mental scars long into the future.

This is largely because animal experimentation erodes the agency of the testing subject. All inherent value and autonomy of the individual is erased, via the hijacking of their body to serve as an instrument of scientific research. Personalities are suppressed, as individual expression is denied an outlet.

This is no secret. In fact, the premise upon which experimentation is built requires animal subjects to present a homogeneous mass, in order to afford uniformity of test results.

This transformation into anonymous beings serves the experimenters’ interests well, and facilitates the avoidance of ethical considerations.

Basic needs on every level are denied to those incarcerated in testing facilities – access to a normal living environment, a natural diet, the ability to satisfy impulse and instinct, to be amongst kin, and to mate. This denial of both the “self”, and the capacity to carry out behaviours intrinsic to the self, amounts to domination on a most monumental scale.   

The subjection of lab animals, therefore, transcends the physical and very much extends to their emotional lives. Their bodies may be an “agent” of their own torture, but so too become their minds. Thoughts and feelings, unable to flow freely and organically, are tightly tethered to - and dictated by - their state of imprisonment.

In the process of experimentation, a laboratory animal’s entire being is taken hostage.

The plight of those who are locked away, robbed of their very essence and exploited for profit, is rarely thrust under the media spotlight. This is largely because operations which exploit and harm animals do their utmost to ensure their actions are concealed from the public eye, in order to safeguard the bottom line. 

For example, the clandestine nature of animal testing facilities is an essential facet of the system’s continued survival. Public ignorance of the inner workings of these facilities is convenient for companies conducting animal testing; thus it is very carefully engineered.

Hundreds of thousands of non-human primates are appropriated for scientific research and testing each year, worldwide.

Currently only two countries – the United States and Gabon – continue to conduct experiments on chimpanzees. There are moves, however, to prohibit the use of great apes within research in the U.S. Bills recently introduced to the Senate and House of Representatives have garnered considerable support.   

The recent footage of the chimpanzees in Austria provided an opportunity to reflect on the countless animals languishing in testing facilities around the world - living beings enduring the wholesale violation of mind, body and soul, away from public scrutiny.

Newly released documentary Project Nim, centred on a controversial 1970s social experiment inflicted on a chimpanzee, has also given insight into the extent to which non-human primates have been sequestered by humans for research.

In her book Through a Window: Thirty Years with the Chimpanzees of Gombe, Jane Goodall, long vehemently opposed to research on primates, comments on the exploitation of non-human animals via vivisection.

“Surely it should be a matter of moral responsibility that we humans, differing from other animals mainly by virtue of our more highly developed intellect and, with it, our greater capacity for understanding and compassion, ensure that medical progress speedily detaches its roots from the manure of non-human animal suffering and despair”.

Primate vivisector John VandeBerg, nervous of the prospect of a U.S. ban on chimpanzee experimentation, has claimed "it will be a great tragedy for humanity if research with chimpanzees were stopped."

Conversely, it will be a great moral catastrophe for humanity if the exploitation of our closest living relatives is not brought to an end.

Photo of chimpanzee courtesy of Michael Elliott.

Indonesia’s forests: Paper trail to destruction

My most recent article for The Scavenger, "Indonesia’s forests: Paper trail to destruction", is about Indonesia's forests and the companies responsible for their demise. Deforestation is happening at an alarming rate in Indonesia, and it poses a massive threat to the livelihoods of local people and to native wildlife such as the orangutan and Sumatran tiger.

-------------

Indonesia’s forests: Paper trail to destruction

13 August 2011

Indonesia’s vanishing natural forests and wildlife species are testament to deforestation out of control. Government inaction, corruption, illegal logging and the complicity of high profile companies have made for a toxic mix that not even a moratorium on logging can effectively address, writes Susannah Waters.

World records are often a source of pride and admiration, but one specific listing in the Guinness Book of Records, attributed to Indonesia, had a distinctly reprehensible quality. So prolific was the record-breaking exploit that it was inked onto the world-famous book’s pages in both 2008 and 2009. 

Indonesia’s achievement? The fastest rate of deforestation worldwide.

In the period from 2000-2009, Indonesia’s forests were being cleared at the staggering speed of around 2 million hectares a year. This represents a land mass roughly equivalent to 300 soccer fields every hour, and a 2% yearly decrease in total forested areas.

Unfortunately, the country’s eco-ravaging accolades do not stop there. This South East Asian nation also smashes records pertaining to native species. Although one of the five most species-rich nations on Earth, it has the highest documented rate of threatened mammal species, and comes third for overall threatened wildlife species.

With such alarming reductions of native flora and fauna annually, Indonesia has reached a critical tipping point. Its wildlife species are at unprecedented risk, and loss of biodiversity is on a dangerous – and seemingly unstoppable - trajectory.   

Papering over responsibility

In addition to the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation is one of the primary drivers of greenhouse gas emissions. The UN claims that deforestation and forest degradation account for around 20% of all worldwide emissions.

Covering an area of land only second in size to Brazil’s forests, Indonesia’s rainforests are of great global significance. Consequently, the country’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions as a result of logging is substantial.

Indonesian government estimates indicate that forest and peatland depletion there produces around 1.6 billion tons of CO2 per year – a volume which trumps India’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions. Indonesia is the world’s third largest emitter. 

The main threats confronting Indonesia’s forests are fuelled by lucrative commercial operations involving numerous local and international corporations, functioning both inside and outside the bounds of the law.

Indonesia is the world’s largest producer of palm oil, and its forest products such as wood, pulp and paper are highly prized on international markets.

A company infamous for its activities in the region is Asia Pulp and Paper (APP).

APP is a subsidiary of colossal Indonesian conglomerate Sinar Mas, and has regularly attracted strong scrutiny for its business practices. APP is the leading paper producer in Indonesia, and is one of the largest pulp and paper producers worldwide.

Deemed Indonesia’s “most notorious forest destroyer” by Greenpeace forests campaigner Ian Duff, APP’s hand in forest desecration is acknowledged as a mighty one. The company has been accused of triggering a spectrum of disastrous outcomes for local communities, the environment and wildlife.

The allegations levelled against APP are damning.

It has been denounced for generating extensive pollution, eroding livelihoods by expropriating agricultural and forest areas traditionally relied on by local communities, threatening local food security and skirting legal obligations.

Additionally, some of its timber affiliates are being investigated for illegal logging.

Despite APP’s assurances that it is moving towards more sustainable practices, its track record casts a long shadow of doubt on such claims.

Cheap packaging with a heavy price

The role of Western corporations in the demise of Indonesia’s forests, through their business connections to companies such as APP, is also particularly noteworthy.

Regardless of its unscrupulous conduct, APP is not struggling to whip up business. Just last month, supermarket chain IGA’s Australian operations were discovered to be purchasing toilet paper from APP, which is then sold in-store under IGA’s home brands. 

A recent exposé by Greenpeace unearthed APP’s dealings with American company Mattel.

Mattel is a corporation which knows a thing or two about world records. A phenomenal sales performance has Mattel firmly positioned as the largest toy company in the world, while its centrepiece product, Barbie, is the world’s highest-selling doll.

Mattel’s connections to Indonesia’s forest woes were recently thrust under the spotlight via an inventive media campaign by Greenpeace. Playing on a recent Mattel promotion announcing Barbie and Ken’s reunion, timed impeccably for Valentine’s Day, Greenpeace had Ken calling time out on their relationship over Barbie’s recent behaviour.

Greenpeace’s comical video featured an initially upbeat Ken being delivered the shocking news that Barbie was hacking down Indonesian rainforest to “wrap herself in cheaper packaging”.

Greenpeace alleges it has traced Mattel’s cardboard toy packaging back to the rainforests of Indonesia after an exhaustive investigation which employed forensic testing and mapping data. The group also uncovered company certificates verifying Mattel’s link to APP.

The same investigation also revealed Hasbro and Disney’s use of APP’s products.  

In a statement, Mattel responded that it had “launched an investigation into the deforestation allegations”. The company declared that it would require its packaging suppliers to “commit to sustainable forestry management practices.”

But Mattel’s words appear to be a mere green sheen, attempting to appease its customer base.

It is unfathomable that corporations such as Mattel and IGA would not be well versed in all dealings along the supply chain. Failing to examine suppliers’ business practices, before contracts have been signed and trade has commenced, would no doubt be considered a quintessential act of evading corporate responsibility. 

Palming off accountability

In similar circumstances to Mattel, last year Nestlé was accused by Greenpeace of driving orangutans ever closer to extinction due to the food giant’s extensive use of unsustainably sourced palm oil. A video produced by Greenpeace focused specifically on Nestlé’s Kit Kat chocolate bar.    

The footage features a bored employee in the dull surrounds of an open plan office taking a “break” from his mundane task of paper shredding. He opens a plastic Kit Kat wrapper to reveal an orangutan finger, which he then bites into as blood spurts on his computer keyboard and drips down his face.

The scene then cuts to vision of an orangutan and her baby in the sole tree within the desolate wasteland of a former rainforest.

Greenpeace unveiled Nestlé’s use of palm oil from suppliers operating in critical orangutan habitat in Indonesia. One supplier was named as Indonesia’s top palm oil producer, Sinar Mas - a company which has become synonymous with forest destruction on a monumental scale.  

Last year, an audit of the company discovered that it had been partaking in widespread illegal land clearing in areas of high conservation value.

Greenpeace’s video played a pivotal role in sparking a widespread social media movement, which led to Nestlé partnering with not-for-profit group The Forest Trust. Nestlé pledged to relinquish ties with “companies owning or managing high risk plantations or farms linked to deforestation". Whether they will achieve this remains to be seen.

Many prominent corporations still conduct business with Sinar Mas, despite its reputation as a palm oil pariah.

The list includes KFC, Wal-Mart, Hewlett Packard and Tesco. However, Kraft, Burger King and Unilever have all recently ceased trade with the firm.

The palm oil industry amasses US$40 billion globally a year, and Indonesia has captured around a third of this market. The impact of palm oil plantations on orangutan habitat is well known.

The Sumatran Orangutan Society says that on the Indonesian island of Sumatra, there is now “more than 4 times as much land cultivated with oil palms as there is orangutan habitat remaining”. Orangutans are projected to be extinct within 10-20 years if forest protection is not urgently prioritised.

However, the “people of the forest” are not the only species fractured by habitat loss as a consequence of palm oil.

The Asian elephant, Sumatran tiger, Sumatran rhinoceros and proboscis monkey have also been gravely affected by the proliferation of plantations. These species are all either endangered, or critically endangered.

There are possibly less than 400 Sumatran tigers remaining in the wild.

Progress or posturing?

In a seemingly momentous victory for the future of Indonesia’s forests, the country’s president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono recently announced a two-year moratorium on logging permits for primary forests and peatlands. The suspension was confirmed as part of a $1 billion climate treaty with Norway.

However, the deal has attracted sharp criticism.

It applies merely to new concessions, meaning that companies holding existing permits in primary forests and peatlands can continue to convert that land and even extend their permits. A raft of other major exemptions in the moratorium, plus the exclusion of secondary forests, are also said to undercut its overall potency.

Chris Lang from the REDD-Monitor, which tracks the debate around REDD (reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation), called the moratorium a "disaster” which possessed "gaping loopholes". Lou Verchot of the Center for International Forest Research claims the moratorium will have scant effect, as some companies secured massive concession rights before it was enacted, and because monitoring and enforcement in rural areas is weak.

Environmental groups have echoed these concerns.

In an illuminating turn of events, the moratorium’s conditions were breached on its very first day of existence in May. An environmental group reported the burning of peat forest within a moratorium zone in Kalimantan, carried out by a Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantation firm.

Furthermore, the moratorium’s inadequacies are fortified by a pre-existing problem: illegal logging. A 2007 report by the United Nations Environmental Program claims that illegal logging accounted for 73-88% of all timber sourced in Indonesia. Corruption is also endemic among sections of the Indonesian government, and authorities have been caught out illegally issuing plantation licenses for personal gain.

This means that until illegal logging and corruption are stamped out, any embargo on deforestation is doomed to failure.     

Action by the Indonesian government has been long overdue, but local people and native species deserve genuine and decisive measures rather than largely ineffectual, tokenistic gestures.

Taking care of business

At a time when environmental and climate concerns should be shaping future decisions, the world’s forests are still being plundered at an astronomical rate. Land the size of Costa Rica is levelled across the globe annually, releasing with it approximately 10 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Vast tracts of Indonesian rainforest are being bulldozed every single day to feed a hunger for an ever-increasing bottom line. Throw-away items are being produced at the expense of unique and threatened species, and to the detriment of the health and livelihoods of countless people.

And despite the tainted reputation of corporations such as APP and Sinar Mas, there is still no shortage of Western firms willing to do business with them.

According to the UN, it is the International Year of Forests - but how would we know it?

You’d be forgiven for thinking that it’s business as usual.

Find out more about the recent Greenpeace campaigns to stop companies sourcing products from APP, which is accused of the widespread destruction of Indonesian forest and threatening wildlife species – Mattel: Barbie It’s Over and IGA: Stop Wiping Out Tigers.

To support action on the unsustainable use of palm oil, and to find out the latest news concerning the palm oil issue, visit the Palm Oil Action Group.

My article posted to the Sydney Aquarium Conservation Fund's website

The Sydney Aquarium Conservation Fund has mentioned my article "Shark fin soup: A recipe for extinction" on their website under the heading "Shark finning - how can we stop it?", along with a link to my article.

From the page: "Shark finning is taking its toll on the marine environment, not to mention the many species of sharks affected. Read the lastest article from The Scavenger by Susannah Waters, about this devastating practice, and how if we don't do something soon, time may have run out for many of our shark species".

Their Research and Education Manager, Claudette Rechtorik, was one of my interviewees for the piece and I really appreciate all of her fantastic help.

Shark fin soup: A recipe for extinction

Shark fin soup: A recipe for extinction is my latest article for The Scavenger.

This was one of my favourite articles to write - the words flowed quite effortlessly, which does not always happen with my writing! I hope you enjoy it.
---------

Shark fin soup: A recipe for extinction

17 July 2011

Sharks are disappearing from the world’s oceans at an alarming rate. The demand for shark fin soup has driven many shark species to the brink of extinction, and threatens to destabilise the entire marine ecosystem. While some progressive shark conservation steps have recently been made, tough international measures are urgently needed to protect sharks, writes Susannah Waters.  

“And does anyone know what species THIS shark is?!”, the museum tour guide asks the crowd of children in a high-pitched, excited tone. A chorus of voices shrieks back an array of guesses, with the guide praising the correct answer.

“Indeed – a tiger shark!”.         

                    

He then leads the boisterous group to another display further along, repeating his question. 

Rounding the next corner, the guide becomes slightly agitated and glances nervously to the left. He turns and bypasses that display, moving on briskly to continue his guessing game at the next exhibit.

What the guide is so eager to avoid is a video, on continual loop, about the gruesome practice of shark finning. The graphic images of sharks being butchered alive was likely deemed too disturbing for the visiting children.  

But the video, highlighting shark finning’s devastating effect on global shark populations, was undoubtedly the most important aspect of the Planet Shark - Predator or Prey exhibition at the Australian National Maritime Museum earlier this year.

The price of fins

Shark finning – the process of cutting off a shark’s fins for commercial use - is driven by a multi-billion dollar a year industry servicing the shark fin soup market. 

The principal market for shark fins is Hong Kong, which imported 10 million kilograms (10,000 tonnes) of shark fin in 2008, and encompasses up to 80% of the entire trade. The majority of fins transited through Hong Kong wind up on the Chinese mainland, where shark fin soup is afforded a high status.

Demand for the soup has escalated in recent years, and has accordingly spearheaded a steep drop in shark populations.

Tooni Mahto of the Australian Marine Conservation Society has a special interest in shark conservation. The Marine Campaigns Officer affirms that shark finning’s repercussions on shark species are enormous.  

“Shark finning and the targeted fishing of sharks around the world pose the greatest threat to the continued existence of sharks in our global oceans”, Mahto tells The Scavenger.

Research indicates that worldwide shark numbers have plummeted by as much as 90% in recent decades, largely attributable to shark finning. It is estimated that an astonishing 100 million sharks are killed specifically for their fins each year.

Mahto pinpoints the “immense” financial incentives to obtain shark fins as central to the problem.

A single bowl of shark fin soup can fetch as much as US$400. Animals Asia claims that a large whale shark pectoral fin can sell for US$15,000 in China.

This relentless quest for profit has placed sharks in unprecedented danger. In fact, their dwindling numbers are providing further enticement for the industry to continue its trade. Animals Asia explains: “As sharks become scarce, the value of their fins increases, as does the incentive for fishermen to search out remaining populations”. Sharks are therefore entrapped in a vicious cycle of overexploitation.

Presently, around 30% of all shark species are threatened with extinction.

According to Claudette Rechtorik, Research & Education Manager at the Sydney Aquarium Conservation Fund, many species are being fished at a rate faster than their reproductive capacities can replenish numbers.

“Given the finite number of sharks in the system and the number of mortalities occurring annually, based on simple maths, shark populations will continue to decline”, Rechtorik tells The Scavenger.

The scalloped hammerhead is just one species classified as endangered in recent years, due to the demand for shark fin soup. A decrease in numbers of 98% in some regions has placed this species at great risk of extinction.

Butchered alive and abandoned at sea

A two-metre shark is hauled on board a wooden boat. She lashes about in fear as two sets of human hands attempt to steady her. A third pair of hands, wielding a knife, moves in toward the panicking shark.

As the long blade severs the dorsal fin from her writhing body, pure terror inhabits her dark eyes. Within seconds, the same menacing hands dismember her tail and pectoral fins. The group then rolls the terrified and bleeding shark back into the ocean, where she sinks to an unknown fate.

This grisly technique of removing a shark’s fins places prime value on retention of the fins, while the remainder of the shark is generally dismissed as surplus. Shark meat doesn’t generate returns in the same realm as fins, so after enduring the violent removal of their fins, the disabled sharks are typically tossed back into the sea to suffer an excruciating death.

Sea Shepherd reveals that many sharks ultimately bleed to death, or are attacked by other sharks or fish. Others drown, as their inability to swim results in a lack of oxygen circulating through their gills.

Every day, hundreds of fishing vessels roll into dock, strewn with the souvenirs of shark slaughter on deck - evidence of a vicious war being waged against sharks, away from public view and in the name of profit.

Legally lame

Shark protection is undermined by an absence of laws preventing fishing in the open seas. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of individual nations to enact legislation governing their own territorial waters, and many countries do not have such regulations in place.

Nevertheless, national regulations and laws are often not decisive enough to protect sharks adequately. The existence of legal loopholes can often enable fishing vessels to simply bypass shark finning restrictions.  

Earlier this year the U.S. government ratified the Shark Conservation Act, effectively closing a loophole which had facilitated the purchase of shark fins on the open sea by U.S. vessels for years. The fins were on-sold at an inflated price on U.S. markets.

Shark finning has been illegal in U.S. waters since 2000. However, as it is stipulated that fins can be transported back to port provided they are accompanied by their associated carcass, fins are still entering the market.

Australia also has a somewhat ambiguous position on the issue of shark finning. While the finning and disposal of sharks at sea is illegal - owing in part to a campaign by the Australian Marine Conservation Society - it is still permitted to utilise a shark’s fins, provided the entire shark is retained by the fishing vessel.   

Hundreds of thousands of sharks are fished legally in Australian waters every year. The lucrative fins are frequently the primary target, and the carcass is generally appropriated for less profitable flake products.

Disappointingly, this means that Australia is still feeding the supply chain of the trade, and is doing very little to discourage the slaughter of sharks for their fins. Mahto reveals that in 2007, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service recorded the export of 165 tonnes (165,000 kg) of shark fin from Australia.

Furthermore, Australia imports approximately 10,000 kilograms of dried shark fin per year, which is tantamount to 26,000 sharks. Mahto says that Australia is sadly lagging behind precedents being set by other nations, and that the best hope for sharks in the region is for the trade of all shark products to be outlawed.

Globally, illegal fishing is rampant, and the preservation of marine protected areas can be flouted with full knowledge of the authorities.

This was highlighted in the 2006 documentary Sharkwater. It uncovered clandestine shark finning operations functioning with government collusion in Costa Rican marine reserves, where sharks are ostensibly protected.

An International Plan of Action for sharks was established by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation in 1999. However, as adhering to the Plan is voluntary, the UN has no authority over non-compliance. Moreover, the Plan’s recommendations do not explicitly state that shark fins should not be acquired – only that sharks not be fished purely for their fins.

Global initiatives

Positively, Mahto believes that a “groundswell of international support” for sharks is beginning to gain traction. She applauds what she deems “incredibly positive international shark conservation steps” taken by some countries in recent months.

She cites the recent announcement of a permanent shark sanctuary in Honduras, which will uphold a moratorium on the commercial fishing of sharks established there last year.

Other international steps indicate that shark protection is creeping onto the global agenda.

Last year, the Maldives extended a national embargo on shark hunting, banning shark fishing in all its waters plus all shark product exports. In a joint report, TRAFFIC and the Pew Environment Group claim the decision was based on “evidence that sharks are more valuable as a tourist attraction than as exported meat and fins”.

The Malaysian state of Sabah, which has seen drastic reductions in shark species, is currently preparing legislation for a ban on shark finning.

A bill adopted by Hawaii which bans all trade and the possession of shark fins will come into effect this July.  Similar bills have recently passed, or are pending, in several U.S. states.

But are these efforts enough? Are they too little, too late?

Rechtorik says that while many organisations and some governments are working hard on shark protection, “when working with cultural norms it can take time. Unfortunately we don’t have that time”. She believes that the need for action by the international community is “urgent”.

Mahto agrees that “global protection” for sharks from fishing and finning is desperately needed.

Thus, while individual legislation within countries is commendable, it is clear that piecemeal measures are grossly insufficient to rectify a problem of this scale. In the absence of any legally binding and enforceable international agreements protecting sharks, they remain vulnerable and largely left at the mercy of a ruthless industry with a lot to gain.

International cooperation, in the form of a mandatory agreement, is possibly the last hope for the continued survival of sharks.

The future

In what have been described as “shocking” findings, a high-level workshop of marine scientists, convened by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO), recently analysed the current state of the world’s oceans. Their assessment was grim.

IPSO claims the multi-country panel produced “a grave assessment of current threats - and a stark conclusion about future risks to marine and human life if the current trajectory of damage continues: that the world's ocean is at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history”.

Scientists have long warned that if sharks disappeared from our oceans, there would be a snowball effect on other marine species and the entire ocean environment. And while there appears to be consensus that the impact on marine ecosystems would be catastrophic, we are yet to fully grasp the magnitude of the crisis.

According to Rechtorik, the over-exploitation of sharks is causing “untold ecological damage”. She says that there is already evidence of what occurs when “top predators” such as sharks disappear from the environment.

One significant outcome is that “prey species proliferate and ecosystem function becomes unbalanced”. Rechtorik also asserts that damage to habitat is a natural consequence of this.

The Australian Marine Conservation Society contends that marine ecosystems risk total collapse without sharks. Mahto remarks that this is because sharks bring an “element of stability” due to their “incredibly important role” in the marine environment. Consequently, she believes that a worldwide recognition of the value of sharks is crucial to the health of the ocean.

“If sharks species are to go extinct in our lifetime, this will not only have a catastrophic effect on marine health, but will also be a tragic testament to the way in which we interact with our wild blue planet”, Mahto says.

Sharks are an ancient species which has survived for at least 400 million years through several global mass extinctions – a demonstration of their resilience. With 100 million sharks being brutally killed for soup each year, Mahto’s words are particularly pertinent. Will we allow them to disappear on our watch?

Images from top: Shark finning, photo by Shelley Clarke; the Great White Shark, photo courtesy of the Australian Marine Conservation Society.