ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2020
Risky Business: Live Non-CITES Wildlife UK Imports and the Potential for Infectious Diseases.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing green recovery: Integrating one health in sustainable wildlife management in the Asia-Pacific Indigenous People and Local Communities.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Review
- Laying the groundwork for reptile welfare assessment in zoos and private keeping: A literature-based proposal.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2025Review
- Demography, commonly recorded disorders and mortality in chelonia under UK primary veterinary care: A VetCompass study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Assessment of Animal Welfare at an Exotic Animal Fair in Poland: A Focus on the Quality of Exhibition Containers for Reptiles and Amphibians.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Surveys on Pet-Reptile-Associated Multi-Drug-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Mobile Zoos and Other Itinerant Animal Handling Events: Current Status and Recommendations for Future Policies.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Review
- Ending Commercial Lion Farming in South Africa: A Gap Analysis Approach.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Amelioration of Pet Overpopulation and Abandonment Using Control of Breeding and Sale, and Compulsory Owner Liability Insurance.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Zoonotic potential and prevalence ofInfection ecology & epidemiology · 2021Review
- Turning Negatives into Positives for Pet Trading and Keeping: A Review of Positive Lists.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
- On the Record: An Analysis of Exotic Pet Licences in the UK.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
International wildlife trade is recognised as a major transmission pathway for the movement of pathogenic organisms around the world. The UK is an active consumer of non-native live wild animals and is therefore subject to the risks posed by pathogen pollution from imported wildlife. Here, we characterise a key yet overlooked portion of the UK wildlife import market. We evaluate the trade in live non-CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) wild terrestrial animals entering the UK over a 5-year period using data reported by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA). Between 2014 and 2018, over 48 million individual animals, across five taxonomic classes and 24 taxonomic orders, were imported into the UK from 90 countries across nine global regions. The largest volumes of wild animals were imported from North America and Asia, and most of the import records were from Europe and Africa. Excluding Columbiformes (pigeons) and Galliformes ('game birds'), amphibians were the most imported taxonomic class (73%), followed by reptiles (17%), mammals (4%), birds (3%), and arachnids (<1%). The records described herein provide insight into the scope and scale of non-CITES listed wildlife imported in to the UK. We describe the potential for pathogen pollution from these vast and varied wildlife imports and highlight the potential threats they pose to public health. We also draw attention to the lack of detail in the UK wildlife import records, which limits its ability to help prevent and manage introduced infectious diseases. We recommend that improved record keeping and reporting could prove beneficial in this regard.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.