A Troubling Pattern of Collusion
Recently, we reported on the feds handing 1,296 seized long-tailed macaques back to industry and quietly closing investigations into corporations investigated for trafficking endangered monkeys into U.S. laboratories. We also shared concerns raised by PETA about a troubling pattern of collusion between the animal research industry and its so-called regulators, including the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Now, the next chapter in this saga is unfolding—and it’s as concerning as it is predictable.
A Stunning Reversal by the CITES Secretariat
The CITES Secretariat has recommended removing Cambodia from the Review of Trade in Animal Specimens Reported as Produced in Captivity—a process that has subjected its captive-breeding claims to additional scrutiny. (Cambodia, of course, is one of the countries widely suspected of laundering wild-caught, endangered monkeys into the global primate trade.)
The Secretariat’s recommendation—put forth around the same time that CITES’ Standing Committee circulated an assessment de-emphasizing concerns and praising Cambodia’s cooperation—represents a flagrant about-face and flies in the face of the black-and-white evidence. As summarized by Action for Primates:
. . . within just a few months, the CITES Secretariat has gone from recommending that all trade in long-tailed macaques from Cambodia be suspended to recommending that Cambodia is now removed from an important CITES Review . . . that placed the trade and credibility of captive-bred claims under scrutiny.
In making this recommendation, the CITES Secretariat appears to have relied on claims made by the Cambodian government itself—even though its former claims have been roundly debunked.
Evidence Ignored
A blistering report by Sandy River Research described “‘Cambodia’s 2024 CITES response [as] a farce’”—exposing “‘biologically impossible’ birth rates at monkey-breeding facilities” and “contradictory claims made . . . about their capacities and use calculations.” The report also documented “how regulatory failures and a lack of due diligence has ensured that poachers, smugglers, breeding facilities and the biomedical research industry have found ways to profit at the expense of endangered long-tailed macaques.”
And, yet, the CITES Secretariat now wants the world to believe that business as usual in Cambodia is perfectly acceptable.
Despite long-tailed macaques being listed under CITES Appendix II—meaning their international trade is supposed to be regulated—this latest recommendation is poised to weaken oversight at a time when these animals need more protection, not less.
It’s an outrageous betrayal—of both the monkeys and CITES’ own mandate.
But, sadly, it’s also par for the course.
A Long-Standing Deference to Industry
CITES has displayed a long-standing pattern of deference to industry interests.
Just last year—and in the face of extensive evidence of “Cambodian government complicity in the poaching, laundering, and sale of long-tailed macaques to U.S. companies”—CITES’ Standing Committee denied a proposal to suspend Cambodia’s monkey exports.
That suspension proposal was said to have been “blocked, largely by CITES member states that buy monkeys from Cambodia for biomedical research”—including the U.S., Canada, and Japan, “the world’s largest importers of Cambodian monkeys.”
And, the “only observer party given time to speak” was, reportedly, the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR)—an animal research industry front group that has long flexed its influence in protection of the biomedical pipeline for nonhuman primates and whose board members include executives from the very companies federally investigated for illegal monkey imports. (One of them, Kevin McNelly, works as the “Corporate Vice President, Global Strategic Programs” for Charles River Laboratories; and another, John Sagartz, is “Chief Strategy Officer and Director” at Inotiv.)
Together, these pro-industry actors have “wield[ed] immense influence” over regulatory bodies and helped ensure the biomedical industry’s “resilien[ce] in the face of mounting scandals” over its sourcing of nonhuman primates.
The CITES Secretariat’s latest recommendation—which has nothing to do with the interests of the animals and has everything to do with the interests of their exploiters, and the protection of their profits—puts that influence on glaring display.
The U.S. Doesn’t Have to Follow CITES’ Lead
There’s still a way forward for those of us seeking to protect the monkeys—because, though CITES may have bowed to industry pressure, the U.S. doesn’t have to continue following suit.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides authority—independent of CITES—to restrict or prohibit the importation of long-tailed macaques.
We must continue to demand that the U.S. do what CITES will not.
And we must do it now.
Your Call to Action: Urge the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to add two particularly vulnerable species of macaques to the list of endangered species, affording them full protections under the Endangered Species Act.