Talk:Whaling in Japan/Archive 1

Proceeding

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.blah blah blah .

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.

Alternative is "Japanese Whaling since 1987". The controversy over "scientific" research will fully discussed in the article anyway.FWBOarticle 08:28, 25 August 2004

Anyone else think that FWBOarticle is from the Japanese whaling industry? Based on a cursory reading of his syntax and structure, I can't help but wonder how the Japanese PR folks are shaping this article with a heavy-handed spin. The section on Scientific Research mentions "sustainability" but only points to a vanilla PDF from the industry's front organization. Fhue (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese, yes, and that's not surprising at a Japan-related article. Whaling industry, probably not, based on the user's contribution history. Their last contributions (in 2006) were mostly related to Buddhism. (Were you aware that you responded to a 5-year-old thread?) --Hans Adler (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the history, his contributions here seem heavily biased [ie, pro whaling]. And not that it really matters one way or another, but I wasn't responding to the thread above in particular. Fhue (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 10:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"bias toward reality." Fhue (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

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 20:30, 18 February 2006

Feel free to split controversy section. There must be a lot to talk about for some people. :) FWBOarticle 20:37, 18 February 2006

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giulienk (talk • contribs) 14:04, 13 August 2006 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. -CAT 05:27, 18 August 2006 (220.47.183.33 (talk))

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.) -CAT 05:46, 18 August 2006 (220.47.183.33 (talk))

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)

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. -CAT 12:11, 23 August 2006 (220.47.183.33 (talk))

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?. -CAT

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)

Are you sure that minke whale meat contaminant levels are under the recommended limits? If you look at the definitive source on contaminants in Japanese whale meat [1] you'll see that, while indeed, pcb and mercury were generally lower in baleen species such as minke, other dangerous contaminants such as the organocloride pesticides HCH and HCB were found to be at similar levels in both toothed and baleen species. -CAT 06:06, 24 August 2006 (133.186.47.9 (talk))

Research on toxicity

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: [[2]]. 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)

The upshot of this table (I can read Japanese to a certain extent) is that of the species they studied, only the Antarctic minke had PCB and mercury levels which did not exceed recommended safety guidelines. However, several entries in the table are missing data, and also they did not test for other contaminants such as HCH and HCB, organochloride pesticides. In another study, which I've been citing at other points in this discussion, these have been found to be at similar levels in both toothed and baleen whales, including minke. -CAT 06:27, 24 August 2006 (133.186.47.9 (talk))

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)

You're line of argument has some problems. Yes PCBs and mercury seem to be lower for Antarctic minke whale meat. However, other contaminants such as HCH and HCB have been found at high levels in minke. Furthermore, there is currently no legislation to deal with mis-labelled whale meat products in Japan. Studies with DNA testing have shown that toothed whale is often mis-labelled, so the consumer may be getting a dangerous cocktail of mercury, PCBs, HCH, and HCB, and who knows what other contaminants even if they've read the Wikipedia article and tried to shop for only Antarctic minke whale muscle meat. -CAT 06:32, 24 August 2006 (133.186.47.9 (talk))

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 [3] 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)

Did you read the report you cite, Sammy? One of the main conclusions of this report is a recommendation not to consume any cetacean food product. Sure, the Antarctic minke samples in their tables had lower mercury contamination, however, overall, the majority of samples had dangerous levels of mercury. For a short paragraph on the dangers of whale meat (and, indeed, whale meat seems to be the term widely used as to designate generic whale food products, including blubber - see the article from the peer-reviewed scientific journal below), the clear message given should be "Whale meat should be treated as probably toxic, and treated with caution". Trying to split hairs about antarctic minke, or attempting to confuse the issue by making a distinction between "blubber" and "meat" may be irresponsible. - CAT 05:00, 24 August 2006 (133.186.47.9 (talk))

The most extensive peer-reviewed study on the whale meat sold in Japan is the following joint study by Japanese, British, and American researchers and academics: [4]. 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 refers to the edible flesh of the whale, which includes blubber, red meat, organs, fins etc.... That is precisely how the term "whale meat" is used by the world's foremost experts:

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" can be used to refer even to blubber products. In some contexts a distincition is made between "blubber" and red meat or muscle meat. However it is clear that whale meat is the generic term used to refer to food products made from whale flesh. Making the incorrect distinction between blubber and meat (the correct distincition woudl be between blubber and red or muscle meat) is an error which may lead the unsuspecting consumer. - CAT 04:26, 24 August 2006 (133.186.47.9) (talk)

Here's a list of some publications from peer-reviewed scientific journals that concern whale meat and environmental toxins:

• Mercury Contamination in the Red Meat of Whales and Dolphins Marketed for Human Consumption in Japan
• Total Mercury, Methyl Mercury, and Selenium Levels in the Red Meat of Small Cetaceans Sold for Human Consumption in Japan
• HUMAN HEALTH SIGNIFICANCE OF ORGANOCHLORINE AND MERCURY CONTAMINANTS IN JAPANESE WHALE MEAT

- CAT 07:05, 24 August 2006 (133.186.47.9 (talk))

thanks for the list - I will read through them SammytheSeal 07:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Check this site first, by a Japanese consumer group concerned about toxins in whale meat, which will give you the gist of the problem. Yes you may be correct that Antarctic minke red meat is not as contaminated as other products (though HCH and HCB are potentially problems, I cannot find reliable data on this) there is still the problem of mis-representation of whale meat products in Japanese markets and restaurants. If you're going to consume whale meat in Japan, and don't want to consume mercury, PCBs, and other toxins, bring your whale DNA testing kit with you! Or a toxin testing lab! - CAT 07:36, 24 August 2006 (133.186.47.9 (talk))

Terminology

To the person from Japan 133.186.47.9 who wrote the above unsigned entry.

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). That is a labelling problem that Japan must adress, it is not a toxicity problem - to use the term whale meat in a worldwide encyclopedia in the way you describe would be disambiguous. For example, In Norway, another major whaling nation, the only part of the minkie whale utilised is the meat - the blubber is dumped - and norway only hunts minkies. It has been my intention all along during the rewrites to date and in future to rewrite the articles in the whaling and whaling in Japan paragraphs to reflect the toxicity differences in the various whale products from various species. I will refer to "red" meat in order to keep you happy distinction wise. In reference to the report I cited, which one? the danish one, the greenpeace one or the EIA one? I read all three. Sure, the Antarctic minke samples in their tables had lower mercury contamination - my point entirely - as well as the North atlantic minke ( red meat ) samples in the greenpeace report. This is fact - and the article should and will reflect this.

Sorry, but, if you look at the scientific literature, the experts use the term "whale meat" to include all eaten parts of the whale flesh, including blubber, red meat, organ meat, and fins. They tend to use "red meat" to distinguish this type of meat from blubber. However, I'm not clear whether "red meat" would include whale "bacon" which also tends to store organic contaminants such as PCBs. And by the way, the English word "meat" is quite a general term which does not only refer to meat from the animal's muscles. Are you a non-native speaker, perchance? - CAT 08:12, 24 August 2006 (133.186.47.9 (talk))

The fact that Palumbi, baker and co use the term " whale meat" is immaterial - in fact, it is misleading in view of the culinary preferences of " whale meat " eaters worldwide. If we were to be pedantic, we should refer to cuts of meat - I hope we can avoid this. English is my mother tongue BTW, is it yours? SammytheSeal 08:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

They use the English word "meat" correctly. Please check a (good) dictionary. Also: are you sure about the culinary preferences of whale meat eaters around the world, that's certainly not what I gleaned from my readings, though, certainly, there seem to be indications that modern Norwegians prefer whale muscle meat. Moreover, it's not pedantic to consider cuts of whale meat because the toxicity varies considerably. I'm sure you've realized now that whale liver is particularly toxic. - CAT 08:37, 24 August 2006 (133.186.47.9 (talk))

"Whale meat should be treated as probably toxic, and treated with caution". Trying to split hairs about antarctic minke, or attempting to confuse the issue by making a distinction between "blubber" and "meat" may be irresponsible." is ridiculous, that´s like saying that cow meat is probably BSE infected and should be treated with caution... I am trying to make the section more factual, rather than confuse the issue - of course, if the object is to confuse the issue from an anti whaling viewpoint, we should just leave it as "Whale meat should be treated as probably toxic, and treated with caution" BTW, please sign your contibutions in future, it makes it much easier to know who has written what SammytheSeal 07:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not so concerned about who has written a comment, but more about its content. However since you ask, I'll label my comments "CAT" (concerned about (whale meat) toxins). -CAT 07:32, 24 August 2006 (133.186.47.9 (talk))

Not at all, no flustering here, it´s good manners on wikipedia - it helps sort the vandals from the genuine copyeditors - I will have a good look through the safetyfirst website, thanks for the link, I´ve been looking for such a source. BTW, I´ve rewritten the whaling section once more and will add to it / rewrite it as and when I pick up more specific info - it would be good if you could do the same ;) SammytheSeal 07:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at this site for a summary of the situation with regards to whale meat being sold at markets in Japan. This web site is based on the journal articles I have cited below. - CAT 07:25, 24 August 2006 (133.186.47.9 (talk))

It's quite different from the BSE situation as you will see when you read the peer-reviewed articles below. Again you seem to be trying to hide the threat of toxins in whale meat. Do you agree that most whale meat products on the market in Japan are contaminated? If not, then please read the articles below. Agreed, not all products have extremely high level contimination, however based on the '99 study of products on the market in Japan, it is concluded that you have a 50/50 chance of getting a toxic cocktail when you each whale meat in Japan. If you don't see this as a problem, which outweighs the (possible, but not certain) safey of Antartic minke red meat, then I really have to wonder whether you don't have some vested interest in trying to put a spin on the facts. -CAT 07:43, 24 August 2006 (133.186.47.9 (talk))

No "hiding" of any threat CAT - and to be frank, I resent the accusation ... I am trying to define which whale products are safe and what products are not in a worldwide encyclopedia via facts - however, you seem to be intent on claiming that all are unsafe - are you? Do you have a vested interest or alterior motive? I agree that some whale products on the Japanese market are unsafe and am trying to list these. If a whale product has a toxicity level under nation maximum levels, it is personal choice whether or not to purchase / eat that product - just as it is with all other foodstuffs. The fact that it is whale is immaterial - or do you disagree? I suggest that we all strive to have the article NPOV rather than biased - this is best done by giving the facts in detail if neccessary SammytheSeal 08:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well your BSE analogy sounded rather agressive to me, so it's like the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? My position, as a consumer on the Japanese market (and this article is on whaling in Japan, so take your arguments about Norway to the general whaling article, please) is that it is unsafe to eat any whale meat product. My reasoning has two components, which you should have grasped by now, however I will spell them out again:

(a) nearly all whale species have measurable levels of contamination. Even the north atlantic minke whales were found to have high levels of the organochlorides HCH and HCB (the studies you cite don't measure these: you have to look at the careful study done by experts which I cited).

(b) Perhaps a very few species, such as Antarctic minke are less signficantly contaminated, however these are often mis-represented on the Japanese market (this article is about Whaling in Japan isn't it?) A Japanese consumer group estimates that one has a 50/50 chance of eating contaminated meat when purchasing whale meat in Japan. Approximately 40% of the mis-labelled samples in the DNA study were mis-labelled as Antarctic minke. -CAT 08:29, 24 August 2006 (133.186.47.9 (talk))

CAT, Your position is irreleveant, you are promoting your point of view. Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral point of view based on facts - please note this. If the prevailing evidence indicates that some whale products are under national maximum permitted levels for toxicity then state so in the article - if other whale products are above national maximum permitted levels for toxicity then state those too - promoting a blanket " eating whale is unsafe " agenda is unwanted in a factual article. If products are mis-represented on the Japanese market, then state so in the article - it would make a good informative paragraph if you did just that - I would even go so far as to suggest that, as you seem to be well clued up on the subject, you rewrite the whole section factually using a NPOV style. SammytheSeal 08:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You misread me Sammy. I mean my position on what this article should contain not my position on whether or whale meat is contaminated. And I refer to the logic by which I arrive on my neutral judgement by which I arrived at this. We are discussing our positions of what the article should obtain, just as we are discussing our positions on what the neutral, unbiased, factual account should be. Of course I'm interested in presenting the facts. However, for a short paragraph (and I think a short paragraph is most important for this topic), the fact of the matter is that you stand a high probability of ingesting toxins if you consume whale meat in Japan. If you consume whale meat regularly then you will, in all likelihood, be consuming toxins, regardless of what you think you are consuming. There's no getting around that, except in the unlikely case that you are able to extensively test your sample of meat before eating it. - CAT 09:04, 24 August 2006 (133.186.47.9 (talk))

Apologies if I misread you CAT - I do not neccessarily agree that a short paragraph is what is the most important for the article. If the subject is of such major importance in Japan as you say, then it warrants an extensive rewrite don´t you think? SammytheSeal 09:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

CAT, I suggest you have a good read through this page [[5]] before making further edits SammytheSeal 08:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Second sign of flustering in a Wikipedia debate: refer your partner to the NPOV page. :-) May I suggest that you also consider your on neutrality before you try to obscure the larger picture with confusing and misleading distinctions between specifics and generalities (blubber & meat; Norway & the rest of the world; Antarctic minkes and other baleens)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.186.47.9 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 24 August 2006

Okay, enough´s enough, my neutrality can be checked from my previous edits over the last year or so CAT - can your neutrality be checked? By avoiding registering on wikipedia, no SammytheSeal 09:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right I should probably register. It would be a good way to conceal my IP address, wouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 09:34, 24 August 2006 (talk • contribs) 133.186.47.9

Correct SammytheSeal 10:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:Japan Assessment

I find it funny that someone commented that the intro was too long, because I think it is now too short... The overall depth and length of the article is great, but it seems a bit unbalanced to me. You have to scroll half-way down the page before you get to the meaty bits of the Controversy. By contrast, the intro and history are really quite short, and give the impression that the article's going to end right there... just reorganize a bit, expand on the history, add a sentence or two to the intro, and we can make this B-class. Thanks. LordAmeth 08:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is far too short. Also I believe the wording is very POV / weasely about the international backlash that whaling scores Japan as a nation. There's probably three or four nations left that actually condone their acts, I believe the term 'global condemnation' is applicable as far as the worlds opinion on whaling. It's as anachronistic as things come. Every kid out there in the western world goes through their whale and dolphin obsession stage and it's at that point it's slammed home that given the advanced intelligence of the genus, it's like harpooning a fat 8 year old human. 211.30.71.59 08:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, your reference to the 'western world' and what environmentalists have deceived children and adults alike into believing betrays a certain amount of bias on your own part. Nimmo 05:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is deception on both sides, apparently. This page looks like the Japanese PR folks have their hands all over it. Fhue (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sperm Whale Take

Beginning in 2000 Japan take ~5 Sperm whales every year. If IWC require that nothing goes to waste and sperm whales are not taken for meat (not eaten in Japan) then what use is the sperm whale to Japan? Then why take sperm whale? Ion Negru 05:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Research into population dynamics (age, reproductive status), as with all of Japan's research whaling. Nimmo 05:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Greenpeace Japan tries eating whale meat

Greenpeace Japan (GPJ) started くじラブ・キャンペーン (whale love campaign). The campaign broadcasts くじラブ・ワゴン (whale love wagon) on the internet using the youtube. In the episode 3, GPJ tried eating whale meat.

Asahi.com took up this topic here. In case of that page deleted, I am picking up some points. (1) GPJ has developed a softer approach where the supporters and opponents discuss whaling in a calm way since last fall. (2) Junichi Sato, GPJ Oceans Project Manager, says that GPJ has no intention of denying the Japanese tradition of food; in short, we can and should distinguish the Japanese food tradition from the poblem of excessive whaling. (3) He also insists that we should dispel a misunderstanding about the Japanese whaling; non-Japanese people believe that whale meat is a staple food for the Japanese, but actualy they seldom eat it.

However, the above is a summary for the English and this Japanese version. There are a little difference between the two version, reflected on my summarization.

True, I regard it not good to pick up this topic of GPJ scandalously, but it can be considered to be a symbol of the GPJ's switch of policy. --Shaxshan 11:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

GP International say that the subjects eating Whale meat are not GP members and independant of GP .."The Whale Love Wagon is produced for Greenpeace in Japan, but both Ivan and Yuki are independent of Greenpeace." From [6]SammytheSeal 11:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

citation needed for Controversy: whales depleting fish stocks

I have found the citation, it is :

'One poster showed a whale gobbling fish from an image of the earth with the top sliced off. The blurb, written by the Fisheries Agency, proclaimed that "whales eat five times more fish than humans" so they "must be caught within limits."'

• 'Japan ready to battle 'culinary imperialists' Global whaling debate set to turn very nasty' 30/05/06, THE ZEIT GIST, David McNeill
  • https://search.japantimes.co.jp/member/member.html?file=fl20060530zg.html

This article is only available to members of the The Japan Times. So if I add it as a reference it will be tagged as locked. Any thoughts? Akhampton 10:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not much use - it should be an open cite. Question is, do whales eat 5 times more fish than humans? ;) SammytheSeal 11:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

StS, Perhaps you would like to check out the following link which discusses this topic in more detail?..http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/marine_mammals_news/new_report_repudiates_japans_claim_that_whales_eat_too_many_fish.html Akhampton 12:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Akhampton,

Already know the link and subject in detail :). I´m not a great fan of using use media / NGO links unless neccessarary but by all means go ahead;) ... Various cetaceans do consume large amounts of fish in different areas worldwide, there´s no getting round that - the fact that the human race has depleted fish stocks, making competition more likely is of course, another matter. Proof either way is not going to stop Japan Whaling - it´s just another factoid in the war of words. SammytheSeal 15:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi StS, yes NGOs aren't the best source, but unfortunately many of the more substantial scientific sources are members' only sites (try http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4983.html)...also, my original citation was merely to show that it wasn't hearsay that the 'Japanese' claim that whales eat too many fish and need to be culled...which side are you fighting for, may I ask?Akhampton

Me? I´m fighting for the NPOV side myself ;)SammytheSeal 15:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy: whaling, scientific reasons

There is no mention of the non-lethal methods of testing whales in this section. I know of two articles that discuss the study of skin flakes and another of studying whale faeces. See below.

• 'Experts Think DNA technique May Save Whales', Associated Press, 04/08/06 ·http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11001
• 'Sniffing Out a Whale's Doo-doo', NewScientist, 23/12/06, Joe Roman .http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19225831.900&print=true

Any thoughts about adding a reference to lethal methods of testing? Akhampton 11:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead - note however, " "It would be bloody fantastic if it works " from the article you cite. There are various non lethal methods available, many of which are impractical for everyday worldwide use in different areas/conditions. Japan´s the only country whaling under scientific permit - which methods they choose are up to them in reality.SammytheSeal 12:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know what exactly is being "researched," why exactly must 50 or so creatures be killed every year to obtain new data, and how much more new data can possibly be known from killing the exact same species every year. Is there a time frame, or does this "study" go on indefinitely? Studying an endangered species by killing it appears to completely defeat the purpose. Kogejoe (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article & visit the IWC website & visit the Institute of Cetacean research Website. You ´ll find answers to most of your questions there SammytheSeal (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Whale bacon

Sorry for being to superficial, but this picture shows whale bacon, the meat is only the red parts. --Mkill 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)