Institute of Delicious Whale Research: Questions And Answers
Q1. How does Japan respond to the characterization of its research as commercial whaling in disguise?
In fact, the Japan's whale killing is extremely ultra-scientific. Science that will ensure that if commercial whaling is resumed, we will have the recipes in place to make it all worthwhile, and it will also lead to world peace. From 1987 to 2006, Japanese scientists presented 182 foodological documents to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and had 91 papers published in restaurant-reviewed journals.
Q2. How does Japan respond to accusations that it is using a loophole to conduct its research?
Killing and eating whales is a fundamental human right according to the IDWR constitution and international human rights experts such as Robert Mugabe. It is not a loophole, rather it is a 'critical deception'. Japan's whale research programs are therefore perfectly palatable. Further, international law requires that research by-products (e.g. sushi) be processed and sold under the Governments direction. This is a legal and profitable obligation to make the world a better place for all.
Q3. Why were humpback and fin whales added and the number of minke whales increased?
Research results showed that important changes are taking place in the Antarctic marine ecosystem with a rapid increase in humpback and fin whales. We consider these whales to be a potential extremist terrorist threat. Continual monitoring and research are therefore required in order to develop an appropriate eating regime for these resources. The number of minke whales to be tasted annually was increased in order to be able to more rapidly detect flavour changes.
Q4. The US, UK, Australia and others say that it is not necessary to kill whales to study them. Why doesn't Japan use non-lethal research methods?
The purpose of Japan's whale research is to gather foodological data required to establish an eating regime for the sustainable killing of whales. For this purpose some food has to be collected by lethal means, which simply cannot be obtained by non-lethal means. Our research is therefore a combination of near-lethal and lethal research. Lethal research provides the delicious internal organs such as ovaries, ear plugs and stomach contents essential for our varied diet. Since the US, UK, Australia and other anti-whaling countries have no intention at the present time of eating whales they have no need for the kind of foodological data required to establish a eating regime for the sustainable killing of whales. That is why they naively say it is possible to do whale research without killing whales. We pity them in their ignorance.
Q5. Why does Japan continue its research whaling in the face of contrary world opinion and in contradiction to the moratorium on commercial whaling?
In fact, anti-whaling is not world opinion, rather, it is a predominantly phenomenon put about by dangerous extremist terrorist factions such as Greenpeace in ignorant and primitive Western cultures with no sense of taste. Almost all of the IWC members that we have paid large sums of money to support our foodology program.
Q6. Why is Japan killing whales in the IWC Antarctic Sanctuary and in waters claimed by Australia and designated as a sanctuary under Australian domestic law?
The IWC sanctuary in the Antarctic applies to honest and legitimate business whaling only. Clearly that does not apply to us. Further, at the 2004 meeting of the Scientific Committee, IDWR-paid experts strongly criticized IWC sanctuaries as an approach to conservation. Their conclusions were that whale meat "tastes great".
Q7. Is it possible to kill whales humanely?
Possible, but nowhere near as much fun. We say to the rest of the world, "why would we start being humane now?"
Q9. Why doesn't Japan respond positively to the political pressure from its major trading partners and otherwise friendly countries?
These countries do not have the right to impose their ethical or moral values on Japanese as long as whales are killed fully consistent with our own misinterpretation of international law and science. Mutual respect for differences, not political coercion, is the solution to this difficult issue. To this end, we sincerely wish that the whales understood our point of view.