Whale Blubber: Food or Toxic Waste?

At the beginning of the year, the American Cetacean Society warned that because of ice movements in West Greenland, a hundred orcas (killer whales) had been trapped and were shot by local fishermen and hunters. At the time of the alert, 24 of the helpless animals had already been killed and their blubber (the fatty outer layer called “mattak”) sold for human consumption and dog-food. Had the housewives known what a few months later would be reported about the flesh of another killer whale - they might not have served such dangerous meals to their children after all!

In April 2002, an orca which had been found dead in January, on the Olympic Peninsula in western Washington State, made international headlines. The concentration of toxins in the body of the animal was found to be so high that Gina Ylitalo, a researcher for the National Marine Fisheries Service, stated: “She basically knocked our instruments off. We had no idea we’d see these levels.”

Even scientists, although only too familiar with killer whales’ infamously high PCB burdens, were taken aback: Their equipment could not cope with the readings and had to be recalibrated in order to get correct results. It was then disclosed that the PCB level in the orca was about 1,000 parts PCB per million parts of fat - the highest measured in marine mammals anywhere. By comparison, results from two years ago showed 58 parts per million in females and 251 in males. It was found that the animal also carried a number of toxins other than PCB, some of which were completely unexpected.

Even if these results are considered to be the exception, rather than the rule, they indicate the scale of marine pollution, and highlight the need to address the problem as a matter of urgency. An ever faster spinning vicious circle emerges: dangerous materials originating from cattle farming, agriculture, industry or polluted areas leak into the ground and into rivers, are carried out to the seas, make their way up through the food chain - and end up on the plates of those who insist in consuming animals. Since whales range at the top of the chain, they consequently show the highest concentration of toxins in their fatty outer layers. The International Whaling Commission is so concerned about this situation that it has initiated a scientific research programme to evaluate the dangers of whale meat consumption.

Evidently no warnings impress some Japanese officials and business people who are trying everything to restore the failing consumer interest in whale meat. Young Japanese are not tempted by this national “delicacy” and are increasingly concerned about the cruelty involved in whaling. They have the dubious honour of being targeted by slick publicity campaigns involving offers of whaleburgers (whale meat in a sauce between two slices of pressed rice), fried whale cutlet sandwiches or whale hot dogs. There has not been any noticeably success in these efforts, leading to a paradox situation whereby the consumption of whale meat has fallen (last year two hundred metric tonnes of unsold whale meat and blubber were stored in Japan), whilst “harvesting” is continuing and even meant to increase.

There just seems to be nothing preventing the Norwegian and Japanese brethren-in-harpoons from continuing their bloody business and that in spite of international outcries, health considerations, and the fact that the demand for this kind of meat is clearly sliding.

The Norwegian situation is slightly different in that Norwegians eat only whale steaks, and store the blubber. In Japan, the blubber is considered to be a delicacy. Thus an important business potential becomes apparent. Again and again deals are discussed, but the average PCB levels in Norwegian minke whale blubber exceed the maximum levels allowed for marine food products in Japan. According to a report by independent Germany scientists, whale meat and blubber is unfit for human consumption; they stated that the samples analysed are contaminated by PCBs, DDT, etc.

Furthermore the export of whale products violates a ban imposed by the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). So the way to easy money is littered with stumbling blocks which gets Norwegian whalers wailing. Instead of filling their pockets, they are uneasily sitting on an ever growing blubber mountain. To make things worse for them, in April 2002, Pierce Brosnan, star of the James Bond movies, addressed this not very appetizing, greasy export-issue when he launched his anti-whaling campaign by asking more than a million people to send protest letters to Norwegian Ambassadors.

So what are the Norwegians going to do with the unwanted remains of so many killed animals? It seems like a no-win situation: They are eager to get rid of the fatty burden (1000 metric tonnes) the storage of which is very costly. Legally they can’t sell it. The Japanese consumer organisations won’t have it. Because of high contamination it can’t even be dumped in the sea …

If one considers that the body of a five-tonne minke whale consists of an outer fatty layer of almost one ton, and that whaling shows no signs of ceasing, the blubber mountain will grow even higher. Will the Norwegians continue their efforts to sell the blubber? Or get rid of the unwanted material by treating it as toxic waste? It seems that for the moment they are stuck with it – whilst the horrifying killing of whales goes on unabated.

Herma Caelen
(Sources: ENS, Seattle Post, Dolphin & Whale/Japan, Dyrevernalliansen/ Norway, ECBC/UK, Greenpeace)

Proposal to resume whaling defeated amid bitter feuding

Japan and Norway were defeated last night in their attempt to restart commercial whale hunting, at the end of another day of bitter feuding among members of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) that has seriously shaken the authority of the international body. […]

This year’s IWC meeting, in the port of Shimonoseki, Japan, has been the most bad tempered for years. Many observers fear the bitter divisions between pro and anti-whaling countries have undermined the credibility of the IWC and the 16-year-old moratorium on commercial whaling. The proposal to resume whaling was defeated by 25 votes to 16. It was opposed by Britain, Australia and New Zealand, as well as by the US. But the pro-whaling bloc got its revenge by stopping an American and Russian request to allow limited hunting by indigenous people. [...]

(The Independent, UK – 24 May 2002)