Talk:Whaling in Japan

Well, how should we proceed? Best way is to provide facts first, that is to show the current Japanese whale hunt. Then mention/describe the issue/politics of research whaling.

After that, it can move to politics of whaling in Japan. Certainly, it is valid to mention accusation of vote buying. This should be well balanced by mention of U.S. and other green movement doing something similar way back. We could then deal with Japanese application for aboliginal subsistent whaling, japan's block for artic side in retaliation. This can be followed by stating that at least from japanese perspective, it is considered as "cultural war" and not environmental/conservation issue. You might want to mention some insensitive comment some japanese official made such as "sea cockroach" comments. Well, I have to say, this is pretty much identical to my format. And I have to say I listed most issues which is relevant from Japanese perspective. If you think some other relevant issues are missing, let me know. FWBOarticle 06:59, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I actually think we are quite close in terms of content. I forsee the problems are likely to be in terms of finding a phrasing and presentation and feel that we both find neutral. Pcb21| Pete 07:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to merge these two. FWBOarticle 03:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ah, since reseach whaling doesn't come into the category of commercial whaling, merging/confusing two category by putting reseach whaling within the periof of moratorium on "commercial whaling" is not fair description of the Japanese catch IMO.FWBOarticle 02:27, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is no consensus to call it research whaling. It is unambigious the whaling by Japan that has occured during the morartorium era. Pcb21| Pete 07:33, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you want to be so pedantic, "moratorium" is not strictly IWC term. That is why it always come with "" in IWC site. In Japan, it is translated as temoral suspencion. If you take off "research" then "moratorium" will come off as well. My suggestion is to described it as japanese whaling under "IWC research permit". And to pretend that "moratorium" means no whaling is grossly inaccuate because it was only applied for particular type of whaling. How about "Japanese Whaling under IWC Research permit since suspencion of commercial whaling in 1987" Gosh, it is boring title, isn't it.FWBOarticle

Alternative is "Japanese Whaling since 1987". The controversy over "scientific" research will fully discussed in the article anyway.

History of whaling in Antartic

I was reading through this, and noticed that the history section was particulaly small, and didn't mention when Japan started sending whaling ships to the Southern Ocean. Does anyone know when this started? It probably should be mentioned, as it is one of the most contentious parts of Japan's whaling program. --Apyule 02:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro is too long

Majority of intro content should be transfered. FWBOarticle

Feel free to split controversy section. There must be a lot to talk about for some people. :) FWBOarticle

Welcome back. Pcb21 Pete 01:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanx FWBOarticle 13:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

About Whale Meat and Environmental Toxins

In this section of the article I found some parts which don't meet my personal experience (I live in Tokyo). For instance, the article says "minke whale [...] is often available for free tasting to Tokyo lunchtime shoppers". It's a year and a half I live here and I've never seen any. My wife, who lives in Tokyo for 25 years, never seen any either. Whale meat does exist, but it's not common and surely not for free. So I think this section would need to cite its sources or need rephrasing.

Please note that personal experience is general not an acceptable source for information included in a Wikipedia article. Please read the guidelines. Whale meat is commonly available in supermarkets and certain types of restaurants. Most notably it is now being supplied at highly reduced cost to school boards in various parts of Japan. If you follow the link below (or google for other related articles on the same news item) you'll read that 1.6 tons of whale meat were supplied to Japanese school children in January 2006 alone. Knowing what we do about whale meat and environmental toxins, how would you feel if your child were being forced to eat whale? (BTW I've eaten whale and it is overated. I was brought to a whale meat restaurant during a job interview. I ate it without complaining but (fortunately) didn't get the job anyways.)

The same goes for the part where it says "The wisdom of the Japanese custom of supplying school children with whale meat in school lunches is therefore extremely questionable.". I never heard of anything like that and my wife never got fed any whale meat in her life as a student: I think this part should cite sources too and/or rephrase, because if japanese people do really feed whale meat to students, it's almost certainly not a custom.

I don't think it's a custom, I thought it was a ploy by a specific group/school who wanted to get people intrested in whale meat. raptor 04:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the schools that provide whale meat to their students are located in the whaling towns. The economic survival of those towns are strongly linked to the whaling industry, so its pretty easy to understand why those communities would be pro-active about supporting whaling. Mattopia 10:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, sources on this topic are in no shortage. Here for example is a recent news item reporting that whale meat lunchs for school children doubled over the previous year, and this does not refer to areas for which whaling is an important part of the economy. It's important to include a note about the school lunchs in this article because this is a fact which may have significant hegative social consequences, which are avoidable if the correct action is taken. The school lunches story is in the news quite often precisely because of this, as well as because it illustrates the extent to which the pro-whaling faction are willing to jeopardize the social health and welfare to push their views on the Japanese public.

I´ve modified the paragraph to reflect the toxin cocktail in the blubber of minke whales - whilst toothed whale meat has a high level of toxicity, minke whale meat is under acceptable limits. See the Whaling talk page for a discussion on this with Scientific cites. Feel free to present any opposing SC literature SammytheSeal 09:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the articles on the dangerous environmental toxins in whale products cite both the meat and blubber of many species. By basing your statement on a finding in a single species you obfuscate the more general danger for the consumer. If you feel that something more than a general statement that whale meat is often contaminated with mercury and organic toxins then the onus is upon you to find a source with more detail.

.....

Hi Mattopia,

Most of the mediaarticles, certainly. I find a distinct lack of refereed literature on the subject - those that I have found ( in english or languages I understand ) are specific to minke whale blubber - this is why I was careful to mention minke blubber ( obviously not careful enough ) If there are studies referencing toxic levels in minke whale meat, then by all means cite them - otherwise, it is a bit misleading not to name the species and we should make an effort to reword the paragraph to reflect this - and cite studies/ name the specific species ... SammytheSeal 19:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Sammy, I notice that you've removed the mention of the practice of serving whale meat to schoolchildren. Since this is often discussed in the media, including very reliable media sources such as the BBC, it is important to include this in the summary. Can you explain to us exactly why you have removed this from the article?.

Same again, lack of reliable sources - the BBC ( the very reliable source you mention ) for example, still mention Norway´s blubber mountain - which was destroyed years ago ... I could take a number of recent BBC articles on whaling apart if you like, to show you how unreliable ( parts ) they are / can be if you want .. by all means, if we can have reliable sources included ( non media - government sources / scientific papers preferred to be frank ) then I believe it should be refelected in the article - If the practice of serving toxic toothed whale meat to school children is reliably documented somewhere - then of course we should report it in the article - however, if the practice is to serve minke whale meat to school children - where the minke whale meat contaminant levels are under Japanese recommended limits, then we should reflect that also ... I do not believe that the article is specific enough on the subject...SammytheSeal 19:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There has been a fair bit of discussion on this topic, but there are also some inconsistencies in the information we have, and what is in the article. I find the article quite misleading in some sense because it links the "toxic-cocktail" Minkes (which were caught in the coastal waters of the whaling nations in the North Atlantic) with the Minke whales caught in Antarctic waters by Japan. It kind of seemed clear that whales caught in cleaner Southern Ocean water would be way cleaner than the whales in the Greenpeace article, so I did some research. First, here is the research for anyone who wants to incorporate it into the article.

Actually, the toxic minke with the " highest level of contaminants in the world " as mentioned via the media link was a minke caught in the southern ocean by Japan - not in the north atlantic - I´m trying to track down the actual paper to cite this..SammytheSeal 19:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to figures from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, which is charged with monitoring the Japanese food supply for toxic chemicals: [[1]]. Its all in Japanese, but the tables are mainly numbers. The first table is results from inspections of whale meat for various sources of whale meats. It shows PCB, total mercury, and methyl mercury concentrations in various meat of various whales. Blue cells exceed Japanese regulations. The 3 rows with no blue cells are Antarctic Minke whales (1st row = muscle meat, 2nd row = blubber, 3rd row = internal organs), and the three rows below that are for North Pacific Minke whales (shows same breakdown of body parts).

The second table is from random samples taken from retail shops. The specified were identified by DNA according to the article. In this case the first five rows are for Southern Ocean Minke (presumably the random samples found far more of this whale than the other species, which is why it rates a breakdown). The five rows are: red meat, bacon, salted blubber, tail, and internal organs. The next row down is the North Pacific population figures for read meat.

Exactly - which species?? for all I know as a non-japanese speaker, all the figures could refer to toothed whales - we need to find out these figures by species - I will make an increased effort to do this.... however, if you can read japanese and can provide the species listed in the article you quoted then by all means, go ahead - SammytheSeal 19:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, from the figures it is pretty clear that southern ocean Minke does not have contamination problems. For an NPOV for the article, well any kind of food can suffer from contamination problems. Organic tofu grown from organic soy beans can be contaminated if the beans are grown in contaminated soil. But it doesn't mean that eating organic tofu is a health risk that school children should avoid. Its the same with whales. The fact that North Atlantic countries discovered the high concentrations of PCB in the meat they were trying to export to Japan is noteworthy, but I don't see how it can be linked to Southern Ocean Minkes.

The studies I cited showed that toxic levels in the meat from north atlantic minkies was below maximum limits - the levels in the blubber they were trying to export were way above recommended levels - a crucial difference SammytheSeal 19:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think that the Greenpeace report is a little misleading, but don't have the scientific knowledge to know how much. It seems that there is some distinction between PCB and dioxin-like PCB. The WHO only recommends dioxin-like PCB safety levels (in terms of TEQ - toxic equivalent - values), and Japan pretty much follows suit. To summarize what I found on the issue, Japanese have a much higher average loading of PCB than European and USA people, but this seems attributable to the much higher levels of fish consumption in Japan (whale consumption is such a small fraction of food that even huge contamination of meat is unlikely to effect average toxic load values).

So anyway, I think it needs to be changed a bit but I don't have the energy to do it now, and thought that this would be good on the talk page anyway. Mattopia 17:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you that it has to / should be changed - I´m researching the relevant papers as and when I get the chance and will probably do a major rewrite of the section once I have accumulated the relevant cites and info - I know exactly what you mean about not having the energy - with me it´s time and energy ;)SammytheSeal 19:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

More info in English : A report from the Evironmental investigation agency ( EIA ) on whale meat tested in 1999 ( Not the refereed paper I am looking for but it serves it´s purpose [2] Note that where the species is known by genetic analysis,( table on page 9 or 11 I think ) none of the minke whale meat or blubber mercury levels exceed Japan's permitted levels for antartic minke - the toothed whale or dolphin levels are however a completely different story - which is what I was trying to reflect by changing the paragraph - I will add a bit more detail and hopefully better cites over the next few days and rewrite the paragraph to reflect this - it would be excellent if you can check it at your leisureSammytheSeal 21:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the most extensive study on the whale meat sold in Japan is the following joint study by Japanese and American university researchers and academics: [3]. I strongly recommend that anyone contemplating editing the relevant parts of the Wikipedia article on environmental toxins in whale meat first read this publication. One issue that we should be careful about is that the term "Whale meat" itself is not a very clearly defined term. the authors of the above article state:

Whale “meat” refers to a variety of human food products originating from various tissues of animals of the mammalian order Cetacea (i.e., whales, porpoises and dolphins). In Japan, which is the primary consumer of whale meat products worldwide, whale meat is primarily an exotic, luxury food item (Simmonds & Johnston, 1994). Production and consumption of whale meat in Japan increased with the expansion of the whaling industry, with peak production in 1962 at 20,000 tons. Whale meat was the main source of protein for the population during and immediately after World War II due to food shortages (47% total animal protein in 1947), and until the mid-1970s it constituted 30% of total meat eaten (Anonymous, 1987). Currently, restaurants and whale meat and fish shops in Japan, retail a wide variety of whale meat products, including red meat, whale bacon (fatty meat from the ventral throat grooves of the head), sarashi kujira (blubber adjacent to the dorsal fin), fins, liver, and other organs. These are sold fresh, frozen, dried, cooked, preserved, and canned (Simmonds & Johnston, 1994).

So - the term "Whale meat" in certain non-technical reports about environmental toxins in whale food products could in fact be referring to blubber. Other reports distinguish, to varying degrees, blubber from less fatty parts of the body. However, for a short blurb, it is probably best to stick to the term "Whale meat" as the generic description of whale food products. Using the term "blubber" as if to imply that only blubber is dangerous, while "meat" is relatively safe, could in fact mislead consumers. We should avoid that here. Note further, that the above study finds that not only "blubber" but other products widely distributed and consumed such as whale "bacon" have dangerous levels of PCB and other toxins, and that this holds both for toothed and baleen cetacean food products analyzed in the study. The overall conclusion of this careful study is that whale food products are, by and large, dangerous and that the consumer must beware. This must be the main tone of a short paragraph, if we are to be responsible to the unsuspecting reader.