Proceedings of the International Cyanide Detection Testing Workshop

Report from Working Group 3
The Participants in the Import Working Group discussed the possibility of implementing a
cyanide testing scheme at points of import, with an emphasis on the United States. Cyanide
testing for this sector of the live reef trade would primarily address imports of marine aquarium
fi sh (MAF), because the United States currently imports 50 to 60% of all MAF, whereas live
reef food fi sh (LRFF) represent a small component of U.S. imports. While the trade in LRFF
is substantial (up to 30,000 metric tons per year), most imports are destined for Hong Kong
and other Asian markets. Testing options could differ between these two types of trade as well,
as LRFF consist of much larger and differing, selective species than MAF. Hence, testing of
imports of LRFF could focus on detection of cyanide in blood, while MAF testing relies on
whole digested fi sh. The cytokinetics of cyanide may also differ among LRFF and MAF, in
terms of rates of breakdown and removal, as cyanide can be removed from the blood much
faster than from tissues. Larger, more active mobile predatory fi sh may have different rates
of metabolism. Most MAF are small, site-attached species, whereas larger groupers and other
species are likely to have a higher metabolism because they are faster swimmers. In addition,
the background levels may vary considerably among taxa, and could be higher in larger LRFF
as these are top predators that may be consuming smaller fi shes containing cyanide.
Goal 1: Outline what to include in a robust scheme for monitoring imports to determine
whether a fi sh was caught using cyanide.
The group suggested that implementation of cyanide testing at points of import would be
much more diffi cult, costly, and time-consuming than at points of export. They identifi ed
numerous challenges that need to be addressed before an effective import cyanide testing
scheme is possible. These include, but are not limited to, the following central issues:
Infrastructure and facilities
Defi ciencies in staffi ng, funding, equipment, and facility resources remain key issues in
developing a U.S. import cyanide monitoring system. At present, lead ports for fi sh shipments
include Los Angeles and Miami, with some support from non-designated ports such as
Charleston and Tampa. Hundreds of boxes of invertebrates, fi sh, and corals pass through
U.S. ports daily (Table 1, and Figures 1-2). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Law
Enforcement staff largely focus on species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), due to specifi c
legislative mandates for these taxa. In addition, there are no adequate facilities to maintain
large shipments of fi sh while testing is undertaken, and seizures of live fi sh imports would be
impractical and likely to result in high levels of mortality.
33