H$(D??(Bvid A. Falch <decoy@tele2.no> wrote:

> "Jan Bojer Vindheim" <jan.vindheim@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> > Whalemeat is heavily contaminated, by heavy metals and other industrial
> > pollutants. The ecological argument is a shoddy construction.
> 
> The way I see it, that is a question of "healthy" rather than "ecological".
> That we pollute the oceans, contaminating arctic wildlife like polar bears
> and whales is one example of the negative ecological impact we have on
> nature. Hunting and eating whales however, is a good and ecological way to
> produce food. If we catch the plague or grow green antennas because of
> eating contaminated whale meat, that is what I would call a health problem.
> And whale meat is not where the biggest concentration of toxins can be
> found, that would be the blubber. And the high levels of pollutants in the
> blubber is one of the reasons export to Japan is highly unlikely to catch
> on.
 
You are right that ecological and health concerns can be separated, and
that the contamination of the meat is a  health issue for the consumer.
But then claiming that whales are better food because they live in the
wild oceans  would also be a health argument.

So what is the ecological argument?
The one I have heard is that population balance is maintained by keeping
whale stocks down. Which is of course begging the question: why are fish
stocks so low that the whale population cannot be fed ?