ISARIBI NO.48

ISSN1346-2512

Japan
Fisheries
Association

NO.48 Feb. 2006
Sankaido Bldg.,
9-13 Akasaka 1, Minato-ku,
Tokyo, Japan 107-0052
tel: 81-3-3585-6683
http//www.suisankai.or.jp

Views and Opinions of Japan’s Fisheries IndustrySA
Y NO TO GREENPEACE TERR
ORISM
SAY
GREENPEACETERRORISM
THE GREENPEACE MOVEMENT AS A TYPICAL EXAMPLE
OF A COERCIVE MOVEMENT FOR CULTURAL DOMINATIONDESCRIBED IN THE 2004 UNDP REPORTT

he Greenpeace activist vessel Arctic Sunrise
deliberately rammed the Nisshin-maru, aJapanese vessel conducting research whaling,on Sunday 8 January. In relation to this militant action
by Greenpeace, Isaribi draws particular attention of
our readers to the Human Development Report
2004 Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World
published by the United Nations Development Program,
15 July 2004. The report sends a message that cultural
freedoms should be embraced as basic human rights
and as necessities for the development of increasingly
diverse societies.
The report highlights the danger of coercive
movements for cultural domination as follows: ”Thereport argues that people should be free to be whothey are, to choose their identities and to live
accordingly. It further argues that the recognition ofmultiple and complementary identities - with individuals
identifying themselves as citizens of a state as well as
members of ethnic, religious and other cultural groups- is the cornerstone of cultural liberty. But movements
hostile to these principles seek to eliminate diversity inthe name of cultural superiority. Such movements, andtheir underlying sources of support, must be
confronted.” The report further argues, “Movements
for cultural domination share some key elements. They
distinguish themselves by their cultural identitywhether ethnic, racial or religious- and they attempt toimpose their ideology by coercion, evenextermination…Often, though not always, (they) resort
to violence to achieve their aims.”
The militant action that Greenpeace has taken
against the Nisshin-maru is a typical example of
COERCIVE MOVEMENTS FOR CULTURALDOMINATION and poses a serious threat to theestablishment of a peaceful multicultural world. Isaribi

demands Greenpeace to stop its supremacist andmilitant campaign in the name of environmentalism.
FACTS
ABOUT THE RESEARCH WHALING
Despite the claims by Greenpeace,
1. Research whaling is legal.
In Article VIII of the International Convention
for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), theContracting Parties have an unrestricted rightto take whales for scientific research. Japan isa signatory to this Convention.
2. Research whaling is necessary.
When the commercial whaling moratorium wasintroduced in 1982, the main reason the antiwhaling nations gave for its introduction was theuncertainty surrounding the scientific data thenavailable. In other words, they argued that safe
management of whales was not possible because
knowledge of the number of whales, age
composition, sex ratio, and natural mortality rate
was ambiguous. The research catch by Japanwas launched to answer such questions andresolve the uncertainties.
3. Research whaling has no impact on thewhale population.
The scientific evidence researched by the IWC’s
Scientific Committee demonstrated that up to
2,000 minke whales could be taken each year
without any impact on their population.
Additional information can be obtained at thefollowing website: Japan Whaling Association
http://www.whaling.jp/english/qa.html

ISARIBI: First published by the Japan Fisheries Association in October 1992.
JFA President: Isao Nakasu; Editor: Masashi Nishimura

ISARIBI NO.48

FEB. 2006LEADING FISHERIES SCIENTISTSREFUTE NA
TURE AR
TICLE CLAIMSNATUREARTICLE- Unfounded alarmist claims do not assist
in appropriate conservation -A

recent article in a January issue (Vol. 439) of the journal Nature claims that five deep water species in the North
Atlantic qualify as “critically endangered.” The International Coalition of Fisheries Associations (ICFA)
reviewed the article with Canadian, Japanese, and Spanish scientists who have studied these species for years.
The conclusion is that there is no evidence that these species are endangered. All agree that outdated data was used
and the conclusions, therefore, are not scientifically sound.
The authors of the Nature article relied on research surveys that ended 12 years ago. These surveys focused on
groundfish species that inhabit Canada’s continental shelf, whereas large portions of the deep water species analyzed
by the article’s authors occur outside the surveyed area. The surveys used would have surveyed only a small fraction of
the populations - perhaps as low as 10%. Surveys were adjusted in 1995 in order to capture more of the distribution ofdeep water species. These surveys show increasing population trends for 3 of the 5 species.
Sustainable fisheries are paramount. Errors such as these can lead to serious implications for fisheries. There may be
a need for specific conservation measures for these species. However, unfounded alarmist claims of “endangered” do
not assist in a rational, scientific discussion concerning the appropriate conservation measures.

ICFA DOUBTS THE NATURE ARTICLE WILL SURVIVE
THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
What follows is the full text of the letter of Patrick McGuinness, chairman of the International
Coalition of Fisheries Associations (ICFA), sent to Nature’s editor in rebuttal to its Vol 439 article:
Re: Deep Sea Fishes Qualify as Endangered; Vol 439,
January 2006

W

e have reviewed the article entitled “Deep-sea
fishes qualify as endangered” in your January 5
edition with scientists from Canada, Spain, andJapan. The authors, J. A. Devine et al, claim that theiranalysis of survey data demonstrates that five deep water
species in the Northwest Atlantic qualify as “criticallyendangered.” We believe that thisconclusion is wrong, mainly because of
the limited coverage of the surveys theauthors analyzed and the apparent limited
use by the authors of published scientificreports, particularly the reports of Messrs
Murua, Gonzalez, Power, Kulka andSimpson published by the Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries Organization and the
Journal of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Science.
In general, these deep water species are widely distributedon both sides of the North Atlantic. Their highest density
occurs at depths between 800 to 1,500 metres. However,they inhabit depths as low as 2,200metres. Prior to 1996,
the research surveys in the Northwest Atlantic wereconducted at depths and latitudes which would have
surveyed only a small fraction of the populations - perhaps

as low as 10%. The surveys targeted groundfish species
that inhabit the continental shelf, whereas large portions of
the species analyzed by Devine et al. occur outside thesurveyed area. In 1995, adjustments were made so that the
research surveys would capture more of the main latitudinaland bathymetric distribution of the deep water species in
the Northwest Atlantic, but even with these adjustments,
the survey coverage of deepwater species with boreal
distribution is incomplete.
However, the article in Nature reports that
all the data analyzed for three of thespecies was only from surveys over the
1978-94 periods and most of the data
analyzed for the other two species weresimilarly from the 1978-94 surveys.
Consequently, the Devine et al report may
be identifying a trend present only at thefringe distributions of the populations andany conclusions based on this analysis regarding the statusof the populations as a whole are speculative or inferred not scientifically sound. For example, the distribution ofMacrourus berlax shifted towards deeper waters in the late1980s. The report of Gonzales and Murua adopted at the2005 meeting of the Scientific Council of the Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) state that the total
biomass of one of the grenadier species, (Macrourus
berglax), indicated a “general increasing trend from 1995

Page 2

ISARIBI NO.48

FEB. 2006

onwards.” The more recent adjusted surveys that cover
more of the distributions of these species after 1994 show
increasing biomass trends for 3 of the 5 species
I understand that the authors have submitted their report
to Canada’s endangered species scientific body, COSEWIC.
I doubt it will survive the peer review process. There may
be a need for specific conservation measures for these
species. However, unfounded alarmist claims of“endangered” do not assist in a rational, scientificdiscussion concerning the appropriate conservation
measures.

Contact:Patrick McGuinness, Chair, International Coalitionof Fisheries Associations
Tel: - 613-727-7450; Fax: - 613 -727-7450;
E-Mail: pmcguinness@fisheriescouncil.org.
ICFA is a coalition of national fisheries associations
from major fishing nations. Members include
associations from North America, Asia, Europe,
Scandinavia, South Pacific, South America, andEastern Europe

SEAFOOD BENEFITS RECONFIRMEDWITH OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
Seafood & Health ’05, Washington DC, December 5-7

T

he U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) hosted Seafood & Health’05 in Washington DC, December 5-7. The
governments of Norway, Canada, and Iceland also joined in
the effort. During the Conference scientists, dietitians,
medical professionals, food writers, health writers, andgovernment officials participated in a dialogue about
seafood and health.
The two main themes of the Conference were the healthbenefits of eating seafood and the difficulties ofcommunicating these important health benefits to
consumers when this news is often overshadowed by media
stories that focus only on the risks. These scare campaigns
are used by organizations that often have hidden motives.
Two recent examples of media scare stories are mercury inlarge fish, like tuna and swordfish, and unacceptable toxin
levels in farmed salmon.
Research presenters included scientists from the National
Academies of Science, the American Dietetic Association,
American Institute for Cancer Research and the American
Heart Association. Academics from universities throughout
the world in rheumatology, brain chemistry, nutrition,
toxicology, biochemistry, women’s health, medicine, risk
governance, epidemiology, and molecular bioscience
presented their findings and discussed the significant healthbenefits derived from eating seafood.
Presenters at the Conference introduced studies thatshowed that eating seafood lowers blood pressure and heart
rates, increases speed of information processing andattention span in children, reduces inflammation, increases
the body’s healing abilities, corrects heart arrhythmia,
prevents stroke and diabetes, prevents weight gain, andprevents heart failure. There is a consensus that eating
more seafood reduces the risk of heart disease significantly,
by 50% to 60% or even more.
Scientists also reported on research showing that omega3 fatty acid consumption by pregnant women and infants either through supplemented formula or breast milk - leads

to higher intelligence in toddlers and young children.
Pregnant women and nursing mothers should increase
consumption of seafood that is high in omega-3 fatty acids.
One interesting study was the relationship between methyl
mercury and selenium, an important nutrient that helps
thyroid function and is crucial for fetal brain development.
It was reported by one research scientist that studies haveshown selenium to neutralize mercury toxicity in the body.
Commercial ocean fish are uniformly rich in selenium andtherefore protect humans from mercury toxicity. Also,
selenium intake can reduce the risk of certain cancers, suchas prostate cancer, by up to 50 percent. Sixteen of the top
25 sources of selenium come from ocean fish.
It is clear that there is a need for continuing education of
consumers on nutrition issues and the benefits of seafood.
There is the need for more research and data. Some felt
there may be the need for a new organization and/or Expert
Panel, similar to the Panel of the American Institute forCancer Research, to address these issues.
Nutrition guidance varies from country to country. Some
believe there should be an international effort to standardize
this worldwide.
To continue the work of this Conference, the Governmentof Norway announced it would hold a similar conference in
2 to 3 years in Norway.
At the conclusion, Thomas Billy, the Steering Committee
Chair of the Conference and an International Food Safety
Consultant, stated that the time has come to do risk/benefit
analyses of seafood and other foods. There is now a wealthof information on this, and the methods to go forward withsuch analyses are available. Billy felt that the key point of
this Conference was to recognize that there should be aworldwide change in considering seafood health issues,
towards conducting risk/benefit analyses. This new
approach would provide consumers with an analysis of therisks and benefits of choosing certain foods, so they are
not faced with only a small amount of information, which
is often presented to scare them.

Page 3

ISARIBI NO.48

FEB. 2006

JFA To Hold 8th Int’l Seafood & Technology Expoin Tokyo, July 19-21, 2006
The Japan Fisheries Association will hold the
8th International Seafood & Technology Expo at
the Tokyo International Exhibition Center(Tokyo Big Sight), July 19-21, 2006. JFA expects
the coming show will be successful as thepreceding ones.
Given below is Exhibitors’ Analysis of the 7thJapan International Seafood & Technology
Expo, July 13-15, 2005
Total:317 exhibitors, 553 booths(Overseas countries that attended the
Expo: 8 countries and 1 area not including
Japan)
Booths attended by:
17.7 sales persons for each company on
average.
202 sales people at the maximum.

Exhibit results

Business categories of visitors with whom
contracts were concluded

Invitation tickets delivered:
1,014 tickets for each company on
average.
8,750 tickets maximum

Are you satisfied with the number ofregistered visitors?

Are you satisfied with the kinds ofregistered visitors?

The readers are cordially invited to send their comments on articles in this issue to mnishimu@suisankai.or.jp--Editor