Are shark supplements contributing to sharks becoming an endangered species?

[krystof]

Q. Are shark supplements contributing to sharks becoming an endangered species?
A. I don't know. I am the webmaster for HolisticReview.com, which currently recommends some shark-based supplements. In an attempt to answer this question, I am posting some version of this message in various forums. The latest version of this message will be maintained at http://HolisticReview.com/i/sharks.php

My current findings.

• As many as 90% of shark populations have been destroyed. Many types of shark are an endangered species. Sharks as apex predators are critical to the health of the oceans which comprise 3/4 of the earth's ecosystem. For example, the disappearance of sharks in some areas has led to the disappearance of shellfish, because sharks eat rays which eat shellfish.
• Shark cartilage supplements are not effective anti-cancer remedies. What especially convinces me of this is the negative results of a 1995 shark cartilage vs. cancer survey by the pro-supplement Life Extension Foundation.
• In my opinion, the so-called anti-angiogenesis anti-cancer theory for shark cartilage has a better probability of being realized using herbal formulas such as Angioblock by Nutricology.
• However all cartilage does have anti-cancer properties. According to several sources including the pro-shark and anti-supplement Shark Foundation: "There are several not yet precisely defined active substances in cartilage (including shark cartilage) which have shown to inhibit the growth of certain tumors IN THE TEST-TUBE."
• All cartilage also is effective for joint support. Cartilage is high in chondroitin which separately is also well proven to be a primary material for joint support. In addition, recent research suggests slightly that pure chondroitin may increase the risk for prostate cancer. In view of the fact that cartilage contains a full range of synergists for rebuilding joint cartilage, including anti-cancer elements, therefore cartilage seems the best way to obtain supplemental chondroitin.
• In my opinion, most cartilage supplements are extremely indigestible, including the Benefin line produced by Dr. Lane. In particular with the high doses suggested by Dr. Lane, cartilage can be very stressful to the digestive system.
• In my opinion, the best cartilage supplement ever produced was Soluble Bovine Cartilage by Enzymatic Therapy. In their promotional literature, Enzymatic Therapy pointed out that the majority of research quoted by Dr. Lane was from bovine cartilage, and that Dr. Lane simply proclaimed shark cartilage to be more potent with no significant reason. Unfortunately, this product was discontinued due to plummeting sales in the wake of the BSE or "mad cow disease" debacle. Currently, the only equivalent product is "Advanced Shark Cartilage" by Twinlab, which similarly is standardized to reduce the indigestible nature of cartilage. I would prefer a standardized, strictly monitored non-shark source of cartilage but can not find any.
• To my knowledge, shark liver oil is the leading nutritional source for alkylglycerols, which are important for the production of white blood cells. However most so-called "squalene" supplements are questionable concerning impurity and strength. The only safe and reliable alkylglycerol supplement to my knowledge is Shark Liver Oil by Scandinavian Formulas.
• To my knowledge, all manufacturers of shark-based supplements claim that their sources are byproducts of the fishing industry. I.e., they claim that the sharks are killed primarily for shark meat and that no additional sharks are killed for cartilage or shark oil.
• Pro-shark advocates routinely denounce shark-based supplements. However I have never found any specific information to disprove the claims of these being "byproducts" by supplement manufacturers. Meanwhile I have found clear evidence of the attitude that natural supplements are generally worthless anyway. Therefore it seems acceptable to presume supplements guilty of any suspicions and to bypass all normal standards of investigative journalism.
• In my opinion, the primary juggarnaut behind all pollution and all extinctions is human overpopulation, and this cause is drastically under-emphasized by almost everyone including most environmental advocates. Instead of cutting the human population by half, the defacto emphasis appears to be to improve recycling, food production and energy efficiency, meanwhile leaving scant disincentive for the human population to double yet again. This obviously will result in the same net problems, plus an exponentially greater economic difficulty in solving them. Meanwhile the already critical problems of overfishing and habitat destruction are hardly entered into the equation. These receive mainly the vain hope of supposedly being kept surfing forever along the crest of disaster by game preserves or international laws. (This of course is not directly relevant to this disussion but I feel obliged to include this larger perspective.)
• Asian fishermen may kill sharks for the fins alone, often discarding the remainder of the shark, and this continues to be tolerated in Asia. I have 2008 photos of shark fins on display at the Jakarta Hatta airport. Shark fins should be boycotted. However, although some journalists imply otherwise, I have yet to find any facts linking the killing of sharks for fins vs. shark oil or shark cartilage supplements. There is nonetheless a clear connection between shark supplements and shark meat and this relationship needs to be clarified.
• Regardless of whether or not shark supplements are derived from "byproducts", we clearly need more research on sharks and consequent limits on shark fishing.

My current primary suggestions.

1. I suggest that any organization which is interested in shark preservation should produce a line of standardized non-shark alternatives to shark supplements, the profits for which can be dedicated to research for the benefit of sharks. I would help to promote and maintain such products regardless of sales. However I do not have the capability to do this alone.
2. I suggest that any retailer of shark supplements should not offer discount prices, and instead donate 20% of the purchase price to nonprofit organizations conducting research for sharks.
3. I suggest that any consumer of shark supplements should contact the manufacturer and enourage them also to donate to research for the benefit of sharks. For contacts for the products I have mentioned see:
   http://www.twinlab.com/contact.cfm
   http://scandinavianformulas.com/contactfull2.html

My current primary questions. (URL links wanted please if available.)

1. Is there any specific information proving that shark supplements promote the killing of sharks?
2. Is there an effective non-shark alternative to shark liver oil for alkylglycerol supplementation?
3. What are some easy and effective ways to donate online, with PayPal or a credit card, to nonprofit organizations for the benefit of sharks?
4. What is the relative economic incentive for supplying raw shark meat vs. raw shark cartilage or liver, both per shark and also on a global scale (or at least in the primary markets of the USA and Japan)? I.e., if the fishing company receives $60 per shark, and if only $5 of this value is in cartilage and liver, then it is reasonable to claim that a boycott on shark supplements will have no effect. However if $20 of this value is in cartilage and liver, that is a different matter, regardless of any technical claim of being "byproducts". Similarly, if something like $100 million annually is received by all Japanese fishing companies for sharks, then I would like to know whether the money received for supplement materials is something like $5 million or perhaps something like $50 million, and how much of this is likely to translate into incentives for the fishing companies?