Some people worry about whether a particular food tastes good, others whether it is healthy, while some concern themselves with the ethics of food production and consumption.
There are two criteria that I consider valid when it comes to ethical food choice: 1. Is the harvest of the animal sustainable, and 2. Is the killing humane.
Whaling by the Japanese is undertaken in accordance with a strict quota system to ensure populations are not depleted and every effort is made to get a quick and painless kill including through the use of a grenade tipped harpoon.
So I had no problems with the ethics of eating whale when I visited a restaurant that specializes in whale in downtown Tokyo recently with well known blogger, David.
Furthermore, whale tastes good, at least when it is cooked.
Our meal started with a green salad containing crunchy whale blubber.
My favourite dish though comprised lightly peppered whale steaks.
But several of the dishes comprised elegantly presented raw whale meat including cold raw morsels of heart and tail.
I didn’t enjoy these at all.
Later in the meal we were provided with our own cooking pot which we filled with whale tongue and an assortment of vegetables.
Later David added some raw egg and noodles.
All in all it was a fun evening and I can recommend whale – but it’s definitely best cooked.
——————-
This is my second post on whales and whaling from Tokyo, the first is here.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer, surely one of the reasons we consider modern abattoirs humane is because they do ensure the animal is killed very quickly. You could never claim the same when the method is a grenade tipped harpoon necessarily shot at a moving target from a distance. As an industry, it is always going to be less humane than, say, Australian cattle farming.
Furthermore, it is completely unnecessary. You say it tastes like tender beef: well why not stick to actual tender beef killed by a guaranteed more humane method?
As I understand it, the Japanese only got into industrial whaling for meat in a big way after WW2 as a badly needed source of relatively cheap protein. (It was a common food in school canteens in that period.) That need has completely gone, and it is eaten now now by people bent on novelty, and a fishing industry which plays up this short lived tradition in order to help not set a precedent for being more reasonable about reducing their tuna and other fish take.
Sorry – meant to say in the last sentence “..and is encouraged by a fishing industry ..etc”
Jennifer,
I strongly dispute that whale is best served cooked 🙂
But I would conceed that it may be an acquired taste.
steve,
Australians may consider that “modern abattoirs” are “humane” based on the criteria that “they do ensure the animal is killed very quickly”. But is it not reasonable to ask whether that criteria alone is sufficient to declare whether something, e.g. Australian cattle farming is more “humane” than another, e.g. a whaling operation? A broader analysis of the relative humaneness of both operations would, in my humble view, reveal that whaling is actually more humane in various ways.
You also state that “it is completely unnecessary”. This of course is from the perspective of people who are used to eating beef. From the perspective of people who are used to eating whales, things go in the opposite direction: Beef tastes like tender whale. So why not stick to actual whale, which is also a more humane option?
I suggest that some humility and learning to be mutually respectful would be appropriate.
steve,
Part two. It’s true that whale consumption in Japan spiked and peaked after WWII (early 1960’s to be precise), but whale consumption was going on in Japan for years before that, and before the white man laid foot in Australia. During the Edo-era equivalents of today’s “rich lists” were published, and records reveal that some of Japan’s richest people during the period were whaling operators. Things only turned downhill after foreign whalers entered the seas near Japan and started hunting the whales that the Japanese had been enjoying for hundreds of years.
But anyway, “That need has completely gone”, you argue. This is not true. People need food. You also assert that “it is eaten now by people bent on novelty”, which doesn’t seem to have any basis in fact. Whale meat is delicious. If it tasted like crap, I wouldn’t eat it myself, although I would still defend the rights of others whose taste buds send different signals to mine.
Perhaps your misconception of “novelty” stems from the array of whale parts that are available to be eaten – heart for example is mentioned here. Heart is not consumed so much for the novelty value, it is consumed because it is perfectly good to eat, and throwing it away would in the view of a typical Japanese be considered wasteful. An Edo-era “whale cookbook” exists giving names to around 100 different parts of the whale. How much meat would a single whale’s heart amount to in comparison with the catch of an Edo-era fisherman?
Finally you suggest that Japan is fearful that conceeding on whaling would lead to what you would concessions in other areas of marine resource use. This is true, but when one considers that sustainable whaling is possible, there is certainly no reason from a conservation perspective to not opt to pursue such sustainable harvests. On the contrary, if all nations were to accept zero harvests of whales, why then should any nation object to zero harvests of any marine species? Is that a smart direction to start heading in? And absolutely lastly, what Japan hopes for with respect to sustainable harvests of whales is exceedingly conservative in comparison with other fisheries all around the world. Instead, people such as yourselves should be welcoming Japan’s willingness to accept highly conservative sustainable whale harvests, and then use those conservative standards as applied to whale resources to other fisheries.
If it it conservation that you are concerned with, this is certainly the rational approach to take, but I suspect that you are probably objecting more for reasons due to culture.
As long as the fishery is sustainable I have no problems with it.
As for the humanity of whaling… Well I’ll concern myself about the Humanity of Abortion, before I’ll worry about the hunting of an animal.
I think the murder of children is more important than the wild harvesting of Whales. The sad thing is, I’ll probably be in the minority of opinion.
I agree with J Hansford although I strongly support abortion rights but think abortion is really bad shit.
My bet is that almost everyone of these idiots kneeling in front of a stupid fat blubbering whale is pro-abortion.
Get your fucking intellectual compass point correctly before you all go telling people what fat blubbering mammal they should or shouldn’t eat.
Enjoy the whale meat, Jen. I’m going to tuck into a huge medium steak tonight to celebrate.
Whale is the ultimate green food
1 they turn sunlight into protein
2 Only use salt water
3 totally free range
I am glad it tastes good crunchy blubber yum
“surely one of the reasons we consider modern abattoirs humane is because they do ensure the animal is killed very quickly”
No, “we” use abattoirs because it is a cost effective method of supplying clean meat. “We” never “considered” the humanity aspect at all – in fact, many animals are in a stressed state as they are out of their normal environment.
David, you’re just being silly in the second part of the argument. You know that the average Japanese person very rarely eats whale; many have never eaten it at all. It is an absolutely unimportant source of protein for the country now. You would also know that at the times the whaling industry has had trouble “moving” what meat it has caught in a season. And it seems particularly strange of you to be arguing that “novelty” doesn’t account for some whale consumption when this thread is all started by a post by Jennifer which she would presumably not have made if it were Aussie Beef she was eating in Tokyo.
Yes, I know Japan had an older tradition of whaling. If it were still the case that, consistent with family traditions going back 500 years, fathers still rowed out and caught the occasional hapless passing whale near their village, and have the village eat all the meat for a month, I would actually have no big objection. But, when you are talking about the modern whaling industry, it’s got bugger all resemblance to traditional whaling for food. Especially when it is essentially a market that is artificially promoted by the government for cynical reasons.
I can’t follow your argument that it would somehow suit conservation principles better to let Japan sustainably harvest whale as somehow being better than not harvesting it at all. Bloody hell, I would have thought that it’s a more consistent conservation argument to say that countries should not encourage the eating of species that no one particularly needs, or (by and large) wants to eat anymore.
steve,
There is nothing “silly” about what I wrote, although it may seem that way to someone who stands in different shoes.
1) “You know that the average Japanese person very rarely eats whale”
Firstly, few Japanese people eat horse either. In your view, is such culinary diversity not to be tolerated? How would this concept be thought of by Australians?
Secondly, although less importantly, in the case of whales, the global moratorium on commercial whaling resulted in a significant decrease in supply. Under these circumstances a decrease in the number of consumers should not be unexpected. It would be a strange if you are asserting that because whale consumers have had unnecessary supply restrictions imposed upon them, that they should give up eating it altogether.
2) “It is an absolutely unimportant source of protein for the country now.”
The same can be said of any individual source of protein. US beef exports to Japan have dropped considerably in recent times due to BSE issues. Whale consumers don’t consider there is sufficient justification to strike it off their list of menu options, and I agree with them (although I technically am a whale consumer myself).
3) “the whaling industry has had trouble “moving” what meat it has caught in a season.”
Recent stockpile statistics indicate that an increase in incoming whale supply is invariably followed by a subsequent increase in outgoing whale supply, so I am not sure what basis you make that statement upon. It’s true that whale meat does not walk around and market itself and declare itself available, humans are required to do that. I wouldn’t classify this as “trouble”, it’s the same with any product.
4) Regarding my comments about “novelty”, they were made with respect to typical whale meat consumers, who are mainly permanent residents, and Japanese. As I mentioned above, in recent years when supply levels increased, outgoing stock volumes subsequently increased as well. I would assume that it was resident Japanese people who were consuming this extra whale meat, not foreigners here on temporary visits.
5) Your conception of “tradition” is quite typical of westerners, who despite technological advancements in their own culture and community, are for some reason unwilling to accept technological advancements in the cultures and communities of others. The reasons for the development of whaling methodologies to what they are are clear enough if you trace things back through history. Indeed the majority of current whaling methodologies had been developed already, prior to the advent of “whale loving” in the western developed nations with no culture of whale consumption.
6) “it is essentially a market that is artificially promoted by the government for cynical reasons”
There is nothing cynical about wanting to exploit natural resources for food.
7) “I can’t follow your argument that it would somehow suit conservation principles better to let Japan sustainably harvest whale as somehow being better than not harvesting it at all.”
OK, so let me explain.
“Not harvesting it at all” is not an option that the Japanese are going to accept. After 2 decades, and with whaling increasing in recent times, this should be evident. They are going to harvest whales, and they are either going to do it on the terms that are most suitable to them and nations with similar objectives, or if the IWC can get it’s house in order soon enough they will do it on the IWC’s terms. There is no “no whaling” option, unless Australia and USA decide to declare war over it. I don’t think sustainable whaling is exactly causing material troubles for citizens in those nations, so can’t see that happening. The bigger question for me is whether Australia will just “get over it” eventually, or whether they will maintain their vocal anti-whaling stance for the rest of my lifetime. I hope for the sake of Australians that it’s the former, not the latter.
Whaling is not humane.
David, I hadn’t gone to your blog before my previous posts, but I see now that you either
a. have an unusually intense personal interest in supporting the Japanese whaling industry (to the extent that you turn up in many sites where it is discussed, and follow stockpiles with great interest), or
b. you are paid to do the same thing.
I see that you have denied being a paid advocate before, but it’s a very suspicious output you have there.
I thought there was good evidence that Japanese public opinion is increasingly against whaling in recent years, although a very significant proportion just doesn’t care much. (I suspect you’ll have the figures at hand.) Yet there are PR exercises like giving tonnes of whale meat to primary schools to give to kids who haven’t had it in school for decades. Not to mention vote buying at the IWC. No, nothing cynical about the Japanese whaling industry at all….
Why stop at whaling.
Sea fish are killed by asphyxiation – slow death.
Prawns on modern trawlers are boiled and then frozen to death.
Ever had “real fresh Prawns” at a seafood restaurant – have you heard the squeals from the prawns as they are thrown live into a hot wok?
Ad infinitum.
Steve, Some people follow cricket stats for fun, David follows whaling including stockpile stats – its his hobby.
Oh, and he would have made a good fisheries biologist because he enjoys the technical papers.
steve,
a. I do have a strong interest in the whaling issue, but generally I support the principle of sustainable use.
You are welcome to think I’m paid to sit here at 0:02 on a Saturday morning and reply to you, if it’s easier to avoid properly considering what I said in my previous comment.
You are welcome to think what you like about Japanese public opinion on the matter.
“there are PR exercises like giving tonnes of whale meat to primary schools to give to kids”
You are welcome to interpret the allocation of publicly obtained meat for use in schools as a “PR exercise”, if you wish to do so.
“Not to mention vote buying at the IWC.”
Ditto…
jennifer,
If only I had a deeper interest in this stuff back when I was studying stats and maths in uni things might have turned out differently 🙂
When considering the ethics of eating large animals we should also consider the process of natural death. Most large animals tend to die from predation, disease and starvation, none of which is quick and painless. If you consider the life of a cow to the life of a large herbivore in the africa then the cows life and death seem pretty rosy!
The only other consideration is whether or not a sentient species should eat another. A strong case could be made for not eating other intelligent life forms (since we don’t eat other humans), although that might mean a ban on the squid family!
Surely if eating whale meat was typical in Japan at least one of the 19 Japanese restaurants in Jennifer’s hotel would have served it.
“Steve, Some people follow cricket stats for fun, David follows whaling including stockpile stats – its his hobby.”
So we can confirm then. He is not being paid to shill for this industry?
What’s David’s surname BTW?
CK, give it a break.
Bored now.
Janama,
Eating whale meat in Japan was typical but these days there is a commercial whaling moratorium which limits supply quite severely.
On the subject of cultural food preference and humane killing, I have neighbours whose cultural preference is very different from mine. They have the right to hunt their traditional food. Their right to hunt takes precedence over the method used. Good thing too. A bullet behind the ear is far more humane than a spear in the guts.
To hunt is normal…. To consider hunting abnormal, is abnormal.
To ban it on the question of relevance, is to ideologically oppress the freedom of those who do hunt.
The question of sustainability is valid. I have no qualms about maintaining healthy numbers of any animal so as to ensure good hunting or fishing.
To Vegetarians and Environmentalists this may be an offensive behaviour. however the last time I looked, the Western world embraced the idea that the ideology of one group could not oppress another.
Those who would seek to ban hunting of any animal because of a religious or ideological doctrine, seek to oppress and restrict the freedom of the others.
As for excesseve cruelty. I agree with killing an animal as quickly as is possible. However this must also be looked at reasonably too.
Killer whales take a day or more to chase down, exhaust, seperate and kill a Blue whale calf…. it dies slowly by drowning and trauma…
This is much slower than a grenade tipped harpoon.
Jennifer,
This is very interesting. I had earlier heard that whale had an overpowering fishy odor, and in texture was repellently greasy.
Having such a repellent culinary description to work with invites the conclusion that whale hunting is either gratuitous slaughter, or some inscrutable gustatory preference easily blamed on Japanese culture.
Your descriptions of the meals completely dispel these erroneous conclusions.
As for whether or not animals are killed cruelly, or otherwise, that is entirely up to the skill of the hunter. Here in the US we ‘harvest’ a good number of deer annually for the supper table, and other animals as well.
Those concerned about the level of cruelty involved in harvesting wild animals for food should consider–seriously–demanding laws which require an appropriate level of marksmanship.
David – if I were to describe beef it would very much depend on what CUT of the animal I was referring to – is there a preferred cut of whale?
Janama,
It seems that the most sought after cut is the meat from the tail – “onomi”, it is called.
We were lucky and got some for free (I’ve been to this shop enough times for the friendly staff to remember me)
Thank you David – sounds interesting.
I’m a keen cook. 😉
I think the question of whether David is paid by the whaling industry is pretty important if you’re going to be citing him as an authority on the industry Jennifer.
Particularly when he’s going round your blog questioning where others are getting their information.
“FDB” – Jennifer didn’t claim anywhere that I am an “authority” on the industry, nor do I claim to be. I read information in Japanese, translate it to English, and make graphs of the figures. Is this THAT impressive that you think I’m paid to do it?
My asking people, who say things that seem wrong, for supporting information is surely not unreasonable, unless opinions are supposd to be based on faith rather than fact.
For readers who are interested in the Japanese government’s official whale meat stock statistics, an update for July 2008 is now on my blog:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2008/09/whale-meat-stockpile-update-july-2008.html
David, you seem quite concerned with the perception you are being payed, and keen to counter it. Why is that?
It’s disingenuous to suggest that I suspect you are being payed because the work is “impressive”. As anyone should be able to tell, it’s because you seem to be pushing a particular barrow. Jennifer has called this a “hobby” – the clear implication being that you aren’t getting paid for it.
Of course, the best way to end speculation would be to tell us whether you are being paid or not.
As for this:
“My asking people, who say things that seem wrong, for supporting information is surely not unreasonable, unless opinions are supposd to be based on faith rather than fact.”
It demonstrates that you are sympathetic to the notion that sources are important. I agree. Given that you’ve only referenced your own blog and the information (from various sources) therein, questions about the financial arrangements behind your blog are quite in accord with your concern about authoritative and unbiased sources.
There is this huge load of complete tripe being dished up by assorted Attenbogans to the effect that mankind should not eat “sentient beings”, namely whales.
But the only way one can actually eat a sentient being is to eat the body while the brain is still alive. To my knowledge this feat is usually only achieved by parasites and, for brief periods before death, by pack animals like Hyena, Dingos, Sharks and Orcas.
So lets spell this out for the cognitively challenged, shall we? The whales that are eaten by the Japanese, Norwegians, Icelanders, Greenlanders, Koreans, and the various “First Nations” are all DEAD. Therefore they cannot, possibly be classed as being “sentient”, you witless pack of [fill in the blank]. They were once sentient but are sentient no longer. And in their lack of sentientness (?) they are no different to other forms of life that are no longer alive, such as dead fish, dead sheep, dead vegetables and dead fruit.
All the rest of the crap resides entirely between your ears where it bounces from side to side, gaining neither meaning nor value.
FDB says: “As anyone should be able to tell, it’s because you seem to be pushing a particular barrow.”
Umm, you suspect that anyone with a strongly held point of view on an issue is paid? It’s either a sad apathetic world, or a world full of conspiracy theories you must be living in.
“the clear implication being that you aren’t getting paid for it”
Well done, Sherlock!
“Of course, the best way to end speculation would be to tell us whether you are being paid or not.”
The fact that you are speculating along such lines at all, indicates that even if I did give a simple “yes/no” answer, you have no reason to believe whatever answer I give you anyway.
So let’s try this for fun: Yes I am being paid, 10,000,000,000 yen a year. No. No not “no I’m not being paid”, I mean let’s make it 10,000,000,000 yen for EVERY blog post I do. That sounds better. The money comes from… you guessed it! The evil Japanese Government!
(I seem to remember George Mc and myself having fun like this once before, now that I think about it…)
“Given that you’ve only referenced your own blog and the information (from various sources) therein, questions about the financial arrangements behind your blog are quite in accord with your concern about authoritative and unbiased sources.”
I accept that this may be true, in your mind. Sweet dreams.
FDB gives us anothe unique insight ionto the mind of an eco-plodder. If he can’t sidestep or refute an argument then the person making that opposing argument must be paid. And it then follows, in the turgid soup of his own imagination, that a paid argument is not a valid argument. Bugger the facts presented, the passage of funds renders facts irrelevant.
In fact, in poor old FDBs mind, the mere suspicion of being paid, or an accusation of same, is all it takes for him to blot whole reems of relevant fact from his sloppy grey matter.
It is quite clear, David, that he is not seeking facts or truth. All he wants is an excuse to ignore information that does not agree with his prevailing cognitive algal bloom. Why are we not surprised?
David, I find it offensive that you suggest I wouldn’t believe your answer. You have no basis for asserting that at all. Your unwillingness to answer seriously suggests that you, unlike me, are in the habit of being casual with the truth.
If you don’t want to answer, you leave others suspecting what they will. That’s fine – of course you’re under no obligation to tell me anything at all.
Ian, once more I’ve had views wrongly attributed to me purely and simply because I’m not playing my sheepish part in this echo chamber. For the record, I have absolutely no objection to the sustainable killing of whales for food. Some where near the middle of my long list of reasons to visit Japan is to try whale meat.
Perhaps it would be best to simply read what I actually write, and keep the wild extrapolations in check.
FDB, why are you offended?
I don’t know why you should be inclined to take my answer at face value. Two scenarios in which case you might – 1) you are stupid, or 2) you have a credible reason as to why you would believe me. I don’t think you are stupid. And you haven’t given me a reasonable explanation as to why you would believe my answer, should I give it to you. And that’s why you haven’t gotten my yes/no answer.
On the contrary, in these conditions I am offended because you ask a question that I would be stupid to answer. Either apologise or explain why you trust me 🙂 Or come to Tokyo and I’ll take you out for a meal of whale as well!
Pretty lightly offended, perhaps I should have said. Presuming to know what I would think of your answer, when you don’t know me from Adam, and presuming that I would effectively call you a liar if you denied being paid, are both a bit… well… presumptuous, no?
As it happens, I’m usually inclined to take what people say at face value, unless (as it would seem in this case) I have reason to think they’re being evasive, disingenuous or outright mendacious.
I don’t know why you think it would be stupid to answer the question, and you haven’t really explained why it’s stupid to ask. Knowing the level of someone’s personal vested interest in a topic is important in evaluating what they say – surely I don’t need to explain this.
There are two possible scenarios:
1) You are being paid. In this scenario, your unwillingness to say so is quite understandable. You don’t like lying, which is admirable, but you also want to be seen as an independent and trustworthy commentator on whales and whaling. So you stay mum, and pretend there’s something wrong with the question. You make up “crazy joke” answers. You suggest that I wouldn’t believe you anyway. See above.
2) You are not being paid. In this scenario, your refusal to answer the question is utterly perverse, because to most casual observers it will feel like scenario 1. Why wouldn’t you remove the possible blight on your credibility (and as a bonus shut me the hell up) by simply telling the truth?
Oh, and re: “explain why you trust me”.
I trust you to answer the question truthfully because to claim a false independence would be silly, and you don’t strike me as a silly person. You’d surely be found out sooner or later.
What I really want is someone I can trust with regard to information on the whaling industry. Most of it seems to come only from those paid by those with a financial or ideological stake in the matter. Hence my interest in whether or not you are just another of these.
“Why wouldn’t you remove the possible blight on your credibility (and as a bonus shut me the hell up) by simply telling the truth?”
You can’t know the truth, unless you stalk me and snoop into my bank records (even then I could be paid in cash!). So giving a “Yes/No” answer over the Internet is pointless. I’d rather make you shut up by pointing this out repeatedly than answer a silly question with a serious answer.
On the other hand, arguments are arguments, official records are official records, and Ministry statistics are Ministry statistics. Regardless of a “Yes” or “No” answer, this would not change.
“What I really want is someone I can trust with regard to information on the whaling industry.”
No one. Use your own head if you want the information that much. Unfortunately a lot of people don’t, and end up trusting theives and liars such as Greenpeace. When the substance of what Greenpeace says is examined, many recognise that a lot of what they say is utter crap. That’s why I started presenting the Ministry stockpile statistics at my blog, because the original Japanese-only source information was grossly manipulated with seemingly malicious intent to mislead. Up to you to look at the info I have presented and think about whether or not it seems to be on the level or not. Some people do, others don’t, you can choose which to be without answers to dumb questions.
David, it’s not a silly question. Continually saying it is won’t make it so. It is a reasonable question that you are refusing to answer.
“You can’t know the truth”
Correct! Unless you tell me the truth – and you’re the only person who can help me with that – I will never know if you are being paid by people or organisations who profit from whaling.
Good day to you.
Congratulations on a successful filibuster, by the way. You have avoided answering the question, and systematically bored me into giving up asking it.
The result is that I will not trust you as an authority on whaling, and continue my search for independent information elsewhere. As will any reasonable, uncommitted, enquiring person who’s been following.
lol, now you’re telling others what to do 🙂 chump!
Just stating the facts and you know it.
I’ve never had whale, but I’m not sure I’d want every dish on the menu to be made from it. Did they server whale ice cream at the end? My wife likes an all tofu restaurant in Tokyo, and it’s good, but for every course to be tofu-based is ridiculous!
i dont think you should recommend whale as a food. leave stuff alone, and dont eat everything.
Killed humanely? Are you serious? Have you seen Whale Wars? You must have been to busy eating crunchy whale fat on your salad to have missed the episode where the Japanese whalers chased 2 whales swimming for their lives, doing 16 knots! These animals were relentlessly pursued so they couldn’t take a deep breath and dive…after chasing the beautiful animals to the point of exhaustion one was harpooned, nearly through the head, pulled backwards, fighting, to the boat, it is still trying to dive and get away…after 25 MINUTES this “HUMANELY KILLED “whale is shot through the head with a rifle 6 times, before it finally bleeds out and dies……the next time you eat whale I hope you choke…you disgust me, you have no knowledge about what you write about. These whales you are eating are protected and living in a sanctuary…these whalers have no regard for the lives of animals, the laws they are breaking, and people like you with your ignorant musings bring us all one step closer to completely ruining the planet we all share….all that is cared for here is money..
I would try whale meat if it were presented to me. It has to be a whole lot more healthy for you than our current meats that we consume. The controversy over the Japanese whalers vs the Anti-whalers is getting to be a really boring topic. It boils down to: The Japanese whalers are collecting scientific data from the whales to prove that certain species of stock whales are not endangered, have a abundant food source and that the eco system can sustain them. The anti whalers are operating on other peoples emotions to try and convince them this is wrong, without giving any data to back it up. Drink the kool-aid!
Whatever side of the argument you are on, slaughtering hundreds of whales every year just so people can have a tasty meal is pointless, there is no need for whaling, just eat some other kind of meat that comes from animals that come from factories, its a delicacy whether you want to admit it or not, it isn’t just some ordinary protein like beef or chicken..and the whole “whaling for scientific research” probably has a lot of BS behind it, you’d really expect the Japanese to be completely truthful by everything they say? don’t be so naive. its mostly about making money, that’s all they care about. Also, in one of the biggest fish markets in Japan, in Tokyo, selling whale is illegal.
I dnt know the full details about this but i am moraly against whaling and cant help but notice that those supporting have an answer for everything and CHOOSE to ignore the simple facts, you DO NOT need the meat for any reason. Also remember it used to be traditon to do alot of barbaric things, the rest of the world woke up. And id just like to add, eventualy a true psycho will make it into greenpeace…