national

Japan dumps Norwegian whale meat after finding pesticide

47 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2015 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

47 Comments
Login to comment

But Japan has no problem with selling mercury laden meat. Double standard, just another ruse to push for the whaling industry here to continue their "research".

16 ( +25 / -9 )

Haha. Even the whale meat is subject to discrimination.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

Japan has toms and tons of whale meat of their own stashed in warehouses due to low demand and they import more from Norway? Ridiculous how much influence the taxpayer money wasting, pro whaling lobby has in Tokyo. Stop this farce and import some more of the delicious Norwegian salmon instead.

16 ( +18 / -2 )

Willing to poison it's own citizens in the interest of a money losing, obsolete industry.

14 ( +18 / -4 )

No one wants to eat whale meat but the industry and the right wing LDP loons who support it due to goofy nationalism keep it going anyway. Billions are wasted by Japan in harvesting whales with mercury laded meat and buying whale meat from Norway that is also poisonous. The whole corporate welfare program to support the whaling industry should be gutted. WIthout this corporate welfare the industry would simply disappear, as it should.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

No one wants to eat whale meat

I do. It is delicious. I just don't. 'Cause its wrong.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

So Japan didn't care it was selling poisoned food until "Western environmentalists" exposed the issue. Go go food safety Japan!

9 ( +11 / -2 )

I'd be interested to know what kind of whale the meat is from. Generally, the meat from baleen whales is quite free of heavy metals and pesticides. It's the toothed whales (and dolphins) that contain high levels of contaminants. This must be the meat from a toothed whale or possibly even dolphin.

Part of the ruling from the IWC was a ban on import and export of whale meat. It seems that, all this spouting Japan has been doing about operating within the guidelines of the IWC charter is just malarky. You are busted lying again Japan!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Whale meat is indeed delicious (both cooked, or as bacon). Pesticides, on the other hand, are not... One must think how high the pollution in those waters is, to cause such a load on the wildlife... Mu rough guess is that pesticides come from agricultural processes, and get flushed into the ocean by the river systems.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

But it has never made a secret of the fact that the whale meat from these hunts often ends up on dining tables.

why does jt persist in regurgitating - verbatim - these tired worn out story snippets as in the above? Instead of dusting off cute-and-clever lines (which uses the word 'fact', but does, in fact, not contain any substantiated facts), why not offer a investigative follow through as to who, where, and exactly 'what dining tables'. As is, I do not know of anyone, place, or particular situation where consumption is being taken place - there is nothing in my circles that verifies this innuendo. I showed this to a colleague who shook his head and said (and I paraphrase), "irresponsible reporting ... makes Japanese people sound like a consortium of whale munchers". To which I asked, "so, most denizens do not keep a bottle of emergency shoyu in the back pocket and ohashi, in hand, at the ready?" "Not recently. No." he replied.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Maybe it's time to stop "researching" whales?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Maybe it's time to stop "researching" whales?

There is an easy way to go about that. When the moratorium on whaling was created, it was agreed that there would be a full review of the moratorium in 1990 (25 years ago). In order to do this review, research had to be conducted on whale populations to see if the moratorium was justified. However, non-whaling countries have prevented this review from happening, so that 25 years later, the moratorium is still in place, and the research is still happening.

Going through with the full review would move this issue forward. However it may also result in showing that the moratorium on whaling is in fact not justified, which is a scary thought for the nations who have vehemently opposed it for so many years.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Only corn-feed whale for me.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I wonder if they check the Norwegian salmon in a similar way. Obviously not.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The irony...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Wow, Scandinavia hasn't that much agriculture, but there is still enough poison flushed out to the ocean to create these problems?! And, Norwegian laws are less strict than Japanese? Also, what happens with the meat? My guess, it will be used in cat and dog food, labeled as "domestic fish meat"! Which itself wouldn't be against the law.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So basically whale meat worldwide is all chemical-laden?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Nice... they actually beat Japan at its own game. The used Japan's overly strict import rules.... one's actually designed to protect their domestic markets.... and slapped them in the face with them. Love it!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

dcog9065.

Let's look at it from a more optimistic perspective:

The chemicals are 97.6 percent 'whale - Zero'!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Shouldn't laugh, but what were they expecting? Whales by their very size sit atop of the food chain.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

ah first its high mercury and now pesticides, LOL gee that lovely whale bacon isnt sounding so good now is it. but hey there still be recalcitrant pro whalers thatll eat it! national pride will trump common sense and good health anyday.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Perhaps instead of dumping the meat, they should just raise the acceptable levels of radiation.... I'm sorry, I mean ... pesticides.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

But if it's full of mercury and potentially waste from Fukushima in the future, they'll be asking everyone to 'please understand' and 'cooperate'.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I sent my family out of Japan when I saw the news that Radioactive cesium was found in milk powder in Japan made by a Meiji Holdings Co. and my year old daughter already consume 1.5 box of milk powder.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan dumps Norwegian whale meat after finding pesticide

Oh dear. Japan's "whaling woes" continue

1 ( +3 / -2 )

HongoTAFEinmate: Shouldn't laugh, but what were they expecting? Whales by their very size sit atop of the food chain.

But THESE whales were taken from the pristine waters of Norway!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I do. It is delicious. I just don't. 'Cause its wrong.

Nothing wrong with it. It's meat. Also agreed about its tastiness. Super yummy.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

So they are claiming the catch of the Japanese whalers has no pesticide?? Hypocrits.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

We conduct strict checking because whales tend to collect contaminants in the environment such as pesticides and heavy metals

says the Ministry of Health, yet it took Western environmentalists to bring this to light? Yo, MoH: You have ONE JOB!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Whale taste like shoe leather. People in Japan ate it when they had nothing else to eat. Now no one really eats it as it tastes horrible, is poisonous and there are hundreds of other sources of protein that taste far better. If mercury was part of the basic food group then maybe eating whale would make sense.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

The more important issue here is what humans are doing to the oceans, the marine life and the whole planet. We are basically now living in a global garbage dump that keeps getting more polluted. We are a sad species not deserving of nature's beauty.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Part of the ruling from the IWC was a ban on import and export of whale meat. It seems that, all this spouting Japan has been doing about operating within the guidelines of the IWC charter is just malarky. You are busted lying again Japan!

The IWC has made no such ruling. In fact the IWC doesn't make 'rulings'. And Japan isn't lying. It is a fairly well known fact, not hidden by Japan, that they have been importing whale meat from Icelnd and Norway for years.

So they are claiming the catch of the Japanese whalers has no pesticide??

I didn't see where they were claiming this. Do you have a source for where they claim this?

Japan has used a legal loophole in the International Whaling Commission’s (IWC’s) 1986 whaling ban that allows it to continue slaughtering the animals ostensibly to gather scientific data.

But it has never made a secret of the fact that the whale meat from these hunts often ends up on dining tables.

Why are these statements repeated in every Article about whales? It isn't a 'loophole', it is an Article of the original charter from 1948 decades before the moratorium was even considered much less enacted. And that same Article requires that the meat of whales caught for research be processed.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

The supermarket near us always has yellow stickered unsold whale meat. Does any one eat it anymore? Why on earth is Japan importing it anyway, with so much surplus of their own? Call me cynical, but maybe it's to artificially keep the whale meat trade going.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Whales unite, whales shall fight Whales shall go on eating plankton. Whales are nice, whales full of spice, Whales do not like being eaten. They aren't fond of being pumped full of chemicals either.

OK, I know that isn't the original final line but that original line is hardly safe for work, now is it? ;)

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This was blubber (kawa) and whale tail fin (oba) from north atlantic minke whales. It was not whale meat (red meat). While it is unfortunate that there still are pesticides in seafood, the good thing is that the use of such pesticides have come to a stop long time ago. Generally the benefits are higher than the risks. The risk is first and foremost associated with the volumes consumed. If eaten daily for breakfast, lunch, dinner and supper, there could be a risk. If consumed in small quantities from time to time, the risk is probably negligible. The limit established by Japan seems to be a provisional limit that is not based on any scientific assessment. There are no limits on aldrin/diedrin and chlordane in Europe. It looks like the US has a limit of 0,3 ppm for both, in other words 3 times higher than Japan for aldrin/diedrin and 6 times higher for chlordane.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

We don't know how whales work yet?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

We don't know how whales work yet?

We know basically how they work. But a lot about their full life cycle, how environmental toxins affect them, how temperature changes affect them and a number of other factors about them are still relatively unknown.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Mike O - so we need to kill them in their hundreds every year until we know that - right?

And then we can get about the more serious task of eating them, knowing full well then, what we will then know.

And then we can then stop importing the contaminated stuff from the north atlantic for good.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

browny1 - so where did I say that?

until we know that - right?

Well that is up to the IWC doing their job. The moratorium required the IWC to reveiw the status of all whale species by 1990 to determine which ones needed to have continued protection under the moratorium and which ones could be sustainably hunted. They have yet to do ANY reviews and they refuse to make a claim either for or against protection for any species claiming they don't have the data they need.

So OBVIOUSLY if the IWC, the UN recognized experts on all things whale, don't know enough about whales yet then there must still be plenty that does need researching. That would be the same IWC that acknowledges that some data can only be obtained by lethal means and that the data Japan provides every year is useful to the IWC's mission.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

MikeO - that's right - you didn't say that. I did.

As I understand the goal, the end result, the raison d'etre of all of these decades of research is to justify sustainable hunting. So it's necessary to continue to kill hundreds of whales a year achieve thesaid goal.

And the reason for the successful future sustainable hunting, I assume isn't sport, but is to eventually supply a source of protein (meat) to the market, where consumers will buy and eat it. Please correct me if this is not the to be realized targeted purpose of whale hunting.

Or as you hinted, they may after all the years of lethal research, decide the numbers don't crunch, the hunt is not sustainable, and will decide to abandon further hunting practices to protect the species.

If I was a betting man, I'd have my money on the former outcome - but that wouldn't be scientific - you know like rolling the dice.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

MikeO - that's right - you didn't say that. I did.

Then why did you try and make it sound like I did?

Or as you hinted, they may after all the years of lethal research, decide the numbers don't crunch, the hunt is not sustainable, and will decide to abandon further hunting practices to protect the species.

Please stop trying to imply that I said things I never said.

In actuality the numbers DO crunch and clearly show that the hunt IS sustainable. During the time of the moratorium many whale species have shown significant population increases and some of them have even been removed from the endangered species list.

The IWC just refuses to acknowledge the facts for political reasons. THAT is what isn't scientific - you know ignoring facts.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Mike O - thank you.

Rhetorical questions to draw a lean.

And I'm glad you acknowledge the numbers crunch and the hunt is sustainable.

Which I take to mean (I take - not saying you said it) that the lethal research is essentially over, as enough data has been garnered - you know to prove sustainability.

So during the expected up-coming cessation of hunting activity, we should be able to witness an enthusiastic, assertive pro-whaling lobby try to convince the IWC & other non-believers of this fact - while keeping their weapons holstered of course.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So during the expected up-coming cessation of hunting activity, we should be able to witness an enthusiastic, assertive pro-whaling lobby try to convince the IWC & other non-believers of this fact

The pro-whaling lobby, as you call it, have been trying to convince the IWC of this fact for over 20 years. And outside of their effect on the IWC I don't think the pro-whaling lobby cares at all what 'other non-believers' think.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Message is loud and clear Stop Eating Whale Meat It's bad for you. Japan needs to find ways to stop whale hunting and save it's own "face". Lucky for Japan, the world knows how embarrassing this might be to admit you were wrong all this time and cut you some slack.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

MikeO - thank you.

Re, caring for the opinions of "other non-believers", I would have thought the pro-whaling lobby were concerned about the positions taken by opposing forces esp the Aust. & NZ govts.

But anyway, it's the challenge of convincing the "others" to come around, but frankly I think they have next to no chance of success - irregardless of the science. Time moves and with it political & social shifts, and international whaling in antartica has passed it's use by date. You may disagree with this, but analysis of the broader situation seems to confirm this trend ie the negative attention directed at the Japanese Antartic whaling by many.

Taking whales in local waters could easily satisfy the relatively low demand and be a matter for Japan itself to internalize. Arguing for the preservation of traditional coastal whaling & customs would be more likely to be acceptable to a wider international audience in the 21stC. But such an outcome would necessitate a certain amount of pride swallowing all round.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Arguing for the preservation of traditional coastal whaling & customs would be more likely to be acceptable to a wider international audience in the 21stC.

To bad your supposition is proven false by (as you put it) an analysis of the broader situation.

Anti-whaling sentiment is direct at Norway, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroes. All of whom have coastal whaling. Japan seems to get the most attention but the other whaling nations get their fair share too. And it is easy to see that if Japan ceased whaling in the Antarctic that the attention would just shift to coastal whaling. Fanatics will not stop, when one of their protests succeeds it just emboldens them to continue their jihad against other targets.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

MikeO - thank you.

Sorry I wasn't so clear in my utterances - by wider I meant wider than now - not wide as in world wide.

I'm not so sure about your idea that fanatics on an anti-whaling jihad would stop at nothing. Some may well follow that line, but my feeling is out of the millions of vocal / signatory protesters, very few have a fervent "religious" bent re whales. Most I suspect just like the big animals and think hunting shouldn't happen in one of the last true ocean wilderness preserves.

And I'd hazard a guess that most of the Antipodean protesters would take on a far greater lackadaisical interest if whaling ceased in what they view as their "neighbourhood". How many people who think the ivory trade is abhorrent actually do much about it? I think very few. Why? Because it's not in their backyard.

Coastal whaling in the North Atlantic will be opposed, but not aggressively by politicians, businesses and citizens like now. I roll the dice on that.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites