The sharks we don’t see
Exposing the global shark trade.
The world’s oceans are groaning with a hidden slaughter. Sharks, apex predators vital to healthy seas, are being caught, finned and chopped on a scale that dwarfs public awareness.
As we said many times, up to 100 million sharks and rays are killed every year worldwide, driven by demand for shark fin soup and… MANY other products. Shark fin soup is (or used to be) a prestigious delicacy in China and Southeast Asia, “a status symbol and celebratory meal” traditionally served at weddings and banquets.
But fins are just the start. The global trade spreads into everyday life on every continent. Sharks show up in cosmetics, supplements, meat and even souvenirs.
Scroll down to see what’s behind.
Where are these sharks?
The biggest questions we receive when we talk about sharks are “Who is eating them?” “Where are those sharks if I don’t see any in supermarkets?”.
Well, they are well hidden…
Here are the main uses:
Culinary luxury: Shark fin soup remains the main driver for shark fins. Markets from Hong Kong to Miami are supplied by countless fins cut from sharks worldwide.
Meat (and mislabeling): Shark flesh is eaten (despite being oily and low-value). Fillets are often sold under innocuous names like “flake”, “whitefish” or “rock salmon”. In Australia and NZ, for example, spiny dogfish is relabeled as rock salmon and elephant/ghost sharks as “flake”. Unwitting consumers bite into endangered species.
Supplements and cures: Shark cartilage pills and powders are marketed as health supplements (for arthritis, cancer “prevention”, etc.), yet they often mix cartilage from multiple sharks without disclosing species. Recent investigations found even whale sharks being processed for these pills – buyers of an OTC “shark cartilage” supplement in the USA and Canada were unknowingly ingesting parts from the world’s largest (endangered) shark.
Cosmetics and vaccines: Shark liver oil (rich in squalene) is a trendy ingredient in anti-aging creams, shampoos, lip balms and even some vaccine adjuvants. In fact, about 90% of the global squalene harvest goes to cosmetics, implying on the order of 2.7 million deep-sea sharks killed each year for their livers. (Shark liver oil is also used in vitamins, and some companies (not all of them!) still use shark-derived squalene in flu vaccines. Currently, GSK, Seqirus, Novartis/CSL, Sanofi, and others still rely on shark-derived squalene in their influenza and pandemic vaccines, while moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech, and J&J do not. The industry is now pivoting toward sustainable, plant- or biotech-derived squalene.)
Trophies and trinkets: Shark jaws, teeth, cartilage and preserved specimens (e.g. mounted fins or baby sharks in jars) are sold as curios or décor. Boutique shops and online auctions move shark parts marketed as trophies or “exotic” art, fueling demand for trophy catches. Even jewelry is made from shark teeth, while fertilisers and pet treats can be laden with shark byproducts.
The global loop
This $1+ billion industry operates through a global loop: sharks taken in one ocean end up as luxury or niche goods on another continent.
The University of Adelaide’s new research shows the flow clearly: “most products seized upon entry to Australia appear to originate from Asia, with the most seized commodity being shark fin products”.
Trophies and specimens tend to arrive via North America, while fins and meat come from Hong Kong, mainland China, and other Asian hubs.
Likewise, New Zealand intercepted shark parts mostly routed from Australia. Shockingly, about one in five shark products seized by New Zealand authorities came from Australia.
In other words, a fin caught offshore China can end up steaming in a private banquet soup in Sydney, or a “souvenir” shark jaw carried through an LAX layover en route to Hong Kong, with Hong Kong or Houston customs rarely the wiser.
The United States itself has been an unwitting middleman: from 2010–2017, up to 772 tons of shark fins (the equivalent of roughly 1.3 million sharks) passed through US ports en route to Asian markets, many labeled innocuously as “dried seafood” to slip past inspectors. Meanwhile the sharks themselves have no safe haven. Tens of millions die in the process every year.
The border illusion
No border is watertight. Authorities in Australia and New Zealand mostly catch tourists lugging shark parts as baggage, but these seizures are only the tip of the iceberg.
Lingard’s study found that seized shark parts were almost always carried in personal luggage or mail packages: “likely transported for personal use, as trophies, or for resale or consumption”. In other words, a traveler could buy shark fin soup in Singapore, stash spare fins in a suitcase, and fly home through Melbourne without triggering any alarms. Even when shipments are inspected, the documentation is woefully incomplete. More than 99% of all seizure records lacked ANY species identification.
The reports are frequently disjointed and overloaded: descriptions like “shark specimen” or “shark in blue liquid”, with no clue to what kind of shark. Without a species name, customs can’t know if the item comes from a “common” shark or a CITES-listed endangered species. This data vacuum means enforcement agents have no way to target the real hotspots of illegal trade.
The illusion of control is dangerous. Reduced seizure numbers (for example during COVID-19 border closures) do not mean the trade stopped, smugglers simply adapted routes or got luckier. The very act of “seizing” products can lull policymakers into a false sense of safety.
In reality, every recorded seizure likely represents hundreds more that got through. As Lingard warns, sharks are frequently listed only by generic codes, and even cargo manifests often label them as undifferentiated “seafood”.
By the time a fin or jaw is found in luggage, it has already slipped past multiple layers of oversight. We cannot let borders be a fig leaf for a trade that continues virtually unchecked.
The species we don’t name
Law enforcement faces an absurd no-win situation: if they don’t know which species they’re dealing with, they can’t apply protection. Investigators found almost nothing identified by species in the records. In a two-decade dataset of 580 shark-product seizures (Australia + NZ), only 18 individual sharks were ever identified to species – and 14 of those were already protected under CITES.
That means the few clues we have almost always point to illegally traded endangered sharks. But with 99% of items left as anonymous “shark meat” or “shark products”, those endangered animals remain invisible in the stats.
Part of the problem is the global coding system. Sharks are often lumped under generic harmonized customs codes. Some countries record shark as “seafood, frozen”, others as simply “shark fins”, still others by weight or number. Inconsistency reigns.
The result: a ton of shark parts can cross a border labeled as “fish maw and oils” or “guano fertilizer” (all too plausible in tropical ports) and no one bats an eye. Even in regulated markets, retailers use umbrella terms. For example, studies of Australian fishmongers found labels like “flake” or “huss” used for several shark species. People eat dogfish or ghost sharks thinking it’s generic “fish”. An exposé by Shark Allies highlights how easily sharks disappear behind names: “Saumonette” in France or rock salmon in the UK and Australia are just spiny dogfish.
Enforcement is similarly blind. Officers at an airport might confiscate a wooden box with a shark jaw, but unless they have a DNA scanner on hand, they’ll never know if it’s a milk shark or a critically endangered hammerhead. It took an activist sting to reveal that “all-natural” shark cartilage pills on Groupon contained CITES-listed whale shark ingredients.
Until every shark part is identified, traders laugh. They know that by selling everything under broad labels they sidestep protections.
The CITES loophole
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is supposed to police this market, but it only scratches the surface.
First, few sharks are even covered: only about 100 of the 500+ threatened sharks and rays are listed on CITES appendices. Two-thirds of globally endangered sharks have no CITES shield whatsoever. And even for the listed ones, nations routinely mis-report or omit data. A 2024 TRAFFIC review found widespread underreporting of shark and ray trade: quotas are fudged, units switched between count and weight, and some key nations simply don’t report.
Taiwan (a top fishing power) doesn’t submit CITES shark trade data at all. Countries do half of their tracking off the record.
Even where CITES applies, enforcement gaps abound. Some countries ban finning at sea but allow fins to be sold ashore (how does that make sense?). The US, for example, outlawed on-board finning in 2000, but until late 2023, most American states permitted landing sharks and slicing off fins for domestic sale. (In December 2022, President Biden signed the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act into law as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. This law prohibits the possession, transport, sale, or purchase of shark fins or products containing shark fins in the US).
Meanwhile, fisheries rules like fin-to-carcass ratios are easily manipulated: a vessel can claim every shark was landed whole, but swap jaws, tails and fins between sharks to conceal extra kills. The Shark Stewards finning review notes that even Regional Fisheries Management Organizations still allow partial detachment of fins, a loophole that essentially permits uncontrolled high-grading.
Population controls don’t fix the problem either: overfishing continues under official radar. Many “legal” shark fisheries are virtually unmanaged; some countries never set quotas at all. Poachers exploit every gap: no-take marine sanctuaries exist, but international waters remain a shark free-for-all. When one endangered whale shark is processed for liver oil and cartilage, US customs may consider it a “seafood shipment”, not a wildlife crime.
In short, CITES is only as good as its weakest loophole, and there are many. Unless the Convention is universally honoured, with clear species-level reporting and stiff penalties, it will never halt the shark slaughter.
What real protection looks like
Actual conservation is possible, but only with full transparency and strict bans. In China, a massive public campaign by NGOs and celebrities convinced the government to ban shark fin soup at official banquets. In 2013, that single action made shark fin soup far less prestigious at state events. Hong Kong followed with similar policies, like shipping bans, and saw its fin imports plunge by over 50% in a decade. These demand-side measures prove public attitudes can change.
On the supply side, better tracking is crucial. Experts now urge that all shark fins be kept naturally attached to the carcass at landing, with electronic tagging from vessel to market. Every fin should carry a species DNA ID. Solutions like TRAFFIC’s SharkTrace exist, an initiative that advocates for a full traceability system, including mandatory weight reporting, unified product codes, and digital catch logs, so authorities can trace products from ocean to plate.
In practice, this could mean pilot programs for DNA fingerprinting in ports (already used for elephant ivory and tigers) or blockchain tracking for fisheries.
We have the technology; what we lack is the will.
Countries must also close loopholes. Banning not just finning, but any commercial trade in shark parts should be adopted globally. Nations must enforce vessel monitoring and catch-reporting. If every fisher knew each shark was on camera and each fin was logged by serial number, illegal kills would plummet.
Finally, consumers have a role. The market ultimately drives the hunt. Pressure on airlines and shipping companies to refuse shark cargo has already stopped some flows. Over 40 airlines1 “voluntarily” (driven by consummers’ wills and pushed by organizations like Fly Without Fins) banned shark-fin shipments in the last few years. Airbnb2 and other platforms disallow wildlife souvenirs.
But we can demand more: for example, US consumers balked at ads for shark cartilage on Groupon back in 2014 until the company pulled them. Grassroots outrage moved that needle.
In sum, real protection means treating sharks like the irreplaceable wildlife they are: shutting down demand, slapping on traceable labeling, and outlawing every part of the trade.
It means funding enforcement, more inspectors, DNA labs and sting operations, not just collecting data for annual reports. And it means marine reserves where sharks can recover, far from nets and clubs. The difference between a token gesture and real conservation is stark: a ban on trays of fins is a ban, but leaving loopholes means the killing just continues under a different name.
What you can do
Boycott shark products. Never order shark-fin soup or buy shark cartilage supplements.
Ask restaurants what “flake”, “huss” or similar terms are. If it’s shark, explain to them what you’ve just learned. If they don’t know, be suspicious.
Avoid lotions, lip balms or supplements listing squalene/squalane or generic “chondroitin”. They’re often shark-derived. Buying these makes you an unwitting part of the crime.
Check labels. Look for plant-based or synthetic squalene in cosmetics (the label should say “plant-based” or “shark-free”. If a health product boasts “marine collagen” or “shark cartilage,” question its source. Ask the retailer which shark species are used. Remember that a product containing shark cartilage or liver oil must, by law, identify it, and it almost never does.
Speak up. Support organizations like ours pushing for stronger laws. Contact your legislators and tell them sharks deserve real protection, ban the sale of shark parts and fund scientific monitoring. Ask local businesses (fisheries, pet stores, markets) to remove shark-derived products.
Spread the word. Share these facts on social media and in your community. Teach friends and family why “shaggy dog” or “rock salmon” might be sharks. Every person who refuses that soup or potion is saving lives. Sign petitions and support campaigns. If you see shark products being sold, report them to wildlife authorities and your national environment agency.
Choose marine-friendly alternatives. Squalene for vaccines and creams can be made from olives or sugarcane, and glucosamine supplements from shellfish or plants. Opt for those products. Eliminate or reduce your seafood intake so that bycatch mortality is also reduced.
Every shark spared is a victory for the ocean. The illegal shark trade thrives in darkness and silence.
Break that silence.
Demand transparency, accountability and zero tolerance for killing the oceans’ most important predators. The seas depend on it.
Stand with the ocean. Before the silence becomes permanent.
Sources and references
Lingard, J., Haase, T., Booth, H., & Huveneers, C. (2024). Global trade of shark products entering Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand via personal luggage and mail. Pacific Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC23091
Dent, F., & Clarke, S. (2015). State of the global market for shark products. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 590. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org/3/i4795e/i4795e.pdf
TRAFFIC. (2024). Lack of transparency and traceability in global shark and ray trade hampers conservation. https://www.traffic.org/news/global-shark-and-ray-trade-report-2024
Dulvy, N. K., Pacoureau, N., Rigby, C. L., Pollom, R. A., Jabado, R. W., Ebert, D. A., ... & Simpfendorfer, C. A. (2021). Overfishing drives over one-third of all sharks and rays toward a global extinction crisis. Current Biology, 31(21), 4773–4787.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.08.062
Oceana. (2021). Shark fin trade: How the U.S. facilitates the global market. https://oceana.org/reports/shark-fin-trade-how-us-facilitates-global-market/
Shea, K. H., & To, A. W. L. (2017). From boat to bowl: Patterns and dynamics of shark fin trade in Hong Kong – Implications for monitoring and management. Marine Policy, 81, 330–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.028
Clarke, S. C. (2004). Understanding pressures on fishery resources through trade statistics: A pilot study of four products in the Chinese dried seafood market. Fish and Fisheries, 5(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2679.2004.00138.x
Forrest, R., Jabado, R. W., & Macdonald, C. (2020). What's in a name? Mislabeling of shark and ray products in seafood markets. Marine Policy, 113, 103801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103801
Shark Allies. (2020). Shark-free products: Squalene in cosmetics. https://www.sharkallies.com/shark-free
NOAA Fisheries. (2024). Shark conservation and management. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/shark-conservation
Sea Shepherd Global. (2023). Shark fin campaign: Ending the trade. https://www.seashepherdglobal.org/latest-news/shark-fin-campaign/
WildAid. (2021). Shark fin demand in decline, but illegal trade persists. https://wildaid.org/resources/shark-fin-demand/
Greenpeace. (2020). Shark meat: The next big conservation problem. https://www.greenpeace.org/international/publication/30562/shark-meat-report/
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2020). Out of the shadows: The global shark and ray trade. UNEP-WCMC. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-shark-trade
These include major companies like Virgin Atlantic, Etihad Airways, Air New Zealand, Qantas, Korean Air, EVA Air, Aeroméxico, LATAM Airlines Group, Qatar Airways, Lufthansa, KLM, Emirates, Thai Airways, Air France, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Air China, and American Airlines.
As outlined in Airbnb's Animal Welfare Guidelines, the platform does not allow services or experiences that involve the purchase or consumption of wild animal products. This includes, but is not limited to, souvenirs and products such as tortoiseshells, skins, horns, scales, and ivory. Food products like shark fin soup, turtle soup, whale meat, bear bile, civet coffee, bush meat, snake blood, and tiger wine are also prohibited.