Aside from the fact that sustainably sourced squalene is readily available to fill the global demand for a COVID-19 vaccine, another glaring reason that we see using shark-derived squalene as an issue is its insecure supply chain. Simply put, relying on a wild animal population, a finite resource, to meet the demand of billions of doses is simply not a great strategy. The problems don’t end there. 

From our research, the majority of squalene seems to be imported from Asian countries, even though the actual sharks are likely fished somewhere else. If one of the COVID-19 vaccines that uses shark squalene makes it into mass production, then a supply from Asia could become limited because each country may need the oil for their own production of vaccines. If fishing efforts don’t produce a constant flow of squalene, prices could also suddenly increase due to scarcity. The market could become bottlenecked at the suppliers end.

Source transparency is by and large nonexistent in the squalene trade, much like the shark fin trade. International squalene codes are inconsistent, making it impossible to know what species the product comes from. Sharks fished for their fins are labelled as ‘seafood’ once they enter the market, so there is no way that sharks targeted for vaccines will be labelled as such, or even squalene for that matter. Shark squalene manufacturers and vaccine producers alike claim that they source their oil from sustainably caught sharks, but we know that is not even close to the whole truth, because there is no real way for them to track and monitor the species. Once the liver of a shark is extracted and manufactured into squalene, there is no process to decipher the species. The chemical structure of squalene is squalene, animal or not. The industry operates under the assumption that they can control what species is contained in the oil or squalene, when in reality, it is nearly impossible to trace. 

Sourcing squalene from sustainably caught sharks is a tough proposition. As previously stated, MF59 is a well-known patented shark liver oil adjuvant. In a paper on the history of MF59, we found that “commercially, squalene is obtained from the spiny dog fish (Squalus acanthias), which is the most abundant species of shark and is not an endangered species.” (O’Hagan, 2013). Unfortunately, spiny dogfish are not doing that well anymore. According to the IUCN’s Red List, spiny dogfish is listed as Vulnerable globally, Endangered in Europe and the Mediterranean, all with decreasing population trends. To further complicate matters, these stocks have not been assessed since 2014 or 2016, so it likely that the population density is even lower today. What is considered “sustainable” can change very quickly. After all, using only a single species to meet the global demand for squalene would be impossible. And we know that it’s pretty tough to throw a line in the water and always catch exactly the one animal that you were intending to catch.  other animals are likely to be killed along the way whether you are targeting one species or not.

The most preferred sharks are the ones with the largest livers, the deep-water sharks, which also happen to be the species’ we know the least. Their life history and populations numbers are largely unknown and considering how rare some of these shark species are, it can be assumed that they could not withstand commercial exploitation. 

As shown in a previous blog, some of the most charismatic megafauna of the shark world show up in the squalene trade, including IUCN Red Listed species with “Critically Endangered” to “Data Deficient” statuses. These are not sharks that are targeted for their meat. Perhaps they are targeted for their fins, but that is a terrible justification in and of itself. The vaccine and cosmetic industries point fingers at the fin and meat industry saying they kill more sharks, who points to commercial fishermen and by-catch as the worst offenders. Each industry claims innocence by blaming the other. Does taking ivory from elephants excuse extracting their livers and hearts as well? We’ll let you answer that one. Adding products to the list of items that can be taken from an animal doesn’t make the hunting or fishing more sustainable. It just helps make it more profitable. 

Let’s talk about CITES, too. It is hard to predict where and when the overfishing of a particular shark species will hit that critical level. What’s legal in one country could be illegal in another. The target list for liver oil includes CITES listed species. Why would a protected species be on a target list? Bear in mind that official lists cover only the reported catches, not the unreported, unregulated and illegal fishing around the world. It’s quite possible that sharks that are caught in countries that are not members of the CITES agreement end up being processed and sold in countries that are. Therefore, entering CITES protected species into the shark oil and shark squalene manufacturing process. It’s a tangled web that limits monitoring and enforcement to the point that it just isn’t done.

*Please refer to our Science and Research page for all research backing these claims.