Animal Research And The Macaque Trade
Macaques are primate species commonly used in medical experiments, particularly those designed to develop vaccines. They are imported and exported in accordance with international agreements like CITES, the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, to avoid unsustainable trading practices. However, it’s unclear whether countries are adhering to international trade standards.
This study investigates CITES data on global macaque trades between 2000-2020 to understand whether the trade is being regulated responsibly or if the demand for macaques in scientific research is leading to questionable practices. The authors contend that an unregulated macaque trade not only undermines the scientific process, but also poses risks to animal welfare and the risk of zoonotic disease outbreaks.
To narrow down their data, the authors sought records of live macaque imports and exports specifically for commercial, medical, and/or scientific reasons. They included the animal source (e.g., wild or captive) and focused on exports from known global producers and/or from Southeast Asia, where most macaque species are located. Overall, the database contained 1474 records of trade shipments, but only 463 records contained the numerical data needed for analysis.
Results show that the macaque trade does not have a clear trend over time. While exports tended to coincide with public health emergencies in the early years of the data, this connection wasn’t seen after 2007. China was the largest exporter overall, typically accounting for between 32.5% and 66% of total macaques traded from 2000 to 2018. The U.S. was the largest macaque importer, typically accounting for between 42% and 70% of the annual trade. Other major importers included France, the U.K., Japan, and China.
The authors found a number of discrepancies between reported export and import quantities. They offer potential explanations, such as animals dying in transit, countries trading fewer animals than were originally allowed under CITES, and countries not providing accurate reports. Whatever the reasoning may be, the authors point out that such irregularities need to be investigated.
The authors also found confusing data from Cambodia, China, and the United States. After 2018, Cambodia increased its exports whereas China—usually one of the largest macaque exporters—reported no exports without a clear explanation. Starting in 2019, Cambodia accounted for 59% of all macaques exported, a significant anomaly given that its next highest export percentage was 25% back in 2006. Although China banned its wild animal trade in 2020 due to COVID-19, this ban is too late to explain China’s sudden 96% drop in exports. Similarly, while the authors retrieved their data in late 2022 and early 2023, the U.S. still hadn’t provided a report on their macaque trade for 2020 (despite being a major importing country). The authors call for further investigation into these anomalies.
According to the authors, Cambodia’s increased prevalence in the macaque trade can be partially explained by its sudden reporting of “indirect” trade numbers (when macaques are exported to a country for transit and then re-exported to another country). They point out that Cambodia has a history of participating in the illegal wild animal trade, meaning that their exports may be partially fueled by dubious practices. For example, Cambodia reported a supply of 30,000 macaques from 2019-2020, an increase from 10,000 in 2018. The authors argue that, based on Cambodia’s reported number of breeding females and the total number of captive macaques housed across their six facilities, this number would be extremely difficult to achieve.
Unregulated live animal trades increase zoonotic risks and opportunities for pathogen spillover events, especially as animals are often stressed, sick, malnourished, and crowded together in unregulated environments. In addition, humans and traded wild animals are put in close contact with each other. Oftentimes, the health certificates provided during trade are not legitimate. Inspection reports from breeding facilities in countries like Cambodia are often unavailable. Thus, it is increasingly unclear what, if any, protocols are being taken to prevent disease from spreading during the macaque trade.
Overall, the findings suggest that the live macaque trade for research purposes is insufficiently regulated with broader effects on conservation, animal welfare, and public health. The authors call for stricter monitoring of this industry via law enforcement and for scientific ethics committees to more stringently monitor the sources of animal subjects. They also call for scientists to avoid purchasing “cheaper” animals and racing to develop new medicinal discoveries without considering how their demand for live animal subjects could lead to the next pandemic. Finally, from an advocacy perspective, problems with the macaque trade are difficult to justify as scientists continue to develop ethical, animal-free research alternatives. Advocates can use this study to continue pushing for a future without animal testing.