At the end of my previous paper (see previous post) in which I discussed the myriad international criticisms of Faroese whaling and local responses to these criticisms, I suggested that, although foreign protests seem set to continue exerting pressure on Faroese whalers, the most likely threat to the continuation of the practice comes from the dangerous pollutants concentrated in the pilot whale meat.
Although the two most recent English-language accounts of pilot whaling in the Faroes (Joensen 2009 and Kerins 2011) do make some mention of the potential gravity of the human consequences of consumption of contaminant-loaded whale meat, as I concluded in that previous paper, there has not yet been an English-language source that has attempted to produce a synthesis or summary in plain, non-technical language of the most significant medical research on the health risks of consuming pilot whale meat. As such, in this paper I will address attempt to address three related questions: What are the known and suspected risks of consuming the whale meat? What are the responses (governmental and local) to these risks? and What are the social and economic implications for Faroese people if they were to stop eating whale meat?
Before discussing some of the definite and probable risks associated with the consumption of pilot whales, it is first necessary to establish that whales do, in fact, still constitute a significant portion of the modern Faroese diet. Although the most recent decade (2001-2010, the most recent period accounted for in Faroese government records) has seen the lowest total number of whales caught, as well as the lowest number of drives undertaken, in any decade of at least the previous 60 years, the sole fact that as many as 5,158 whales were taken in this period suggests the continued (even if somewhat diminished) importance of pilot whales as a source of food (Statistics Faroe Islands 2010:29). Further regarding the contemporary significance of whales as a food source, as one recent Faroese prime minister's office publication explains, "whale meat and blubber account for 30 percent of all meat produced on the Faroes" (Løgmansskrivstovan 2006, cited in Kerins 2011:159). It can be seen, then, how, aside from the other two major local sources of meat in the islands (domesticated sheep and wild seafowl), whales remain central to the Faroese diet.
J.P. Joensen's 2009 book, Pilot Whaling in the Faroe Islands features several recent photographs that show massive lines of people in the Faroese capital, Tórshavn, with plastic tubs, wheelbarrows, or trash bags and bins waiting (sometimes for the better part of a day) to receive their share of the catch of whales. Considering this, it seems that the desire for pilot whale meat is not at all absent among city-dwellers, even when they are no longer able to take part in the hunt themselves. Joensen also provides a number of examples of how whale meat consumption and preparation has been influenced by the more cosmopolitan atmosphere (or ethos) in Tórshavn. Specifically, he explains that many restaurants in the capital feature their own variations on whale steak as part of their summer menus, that whale meat and blubber has been included in recent Faroese cookbooks (with traditional as well as modern preparation methods), as well as that the traditional snack food of dried whale meat and blubber has become a fixture of Tórshavn buffets and major hotel restaurants (Joensen 2009:23). In other words, despite reduced catches, consumption of whale meat has not become viewed as a relic of an outdated, rural lifestyle. Rather, as Joensen suggests, an ongoing attachment to and reinvention of whale meat in the capital seems to suggest its continued popularity across all sectors of Faroese society.
All of this modern enthusiasm for whale meat preparation and consumption might come as something of a surprise, however, when one considers that Faroese people have been hearing increasingly serious health warnings regarding the safety of whale meat consumption for over 30 years.The earliest scientific studies (in 1977) were first designed to examine pilot whale meat, blubber, liver, and kidneys in light of the knowledge that mercury levels in pilot whales was likely to be as a result of their position near the top of the food chain (Joensen 2009:24). The startling results revealed that "the mercury content in the actual meat was high, and was about 100 times higher in the liver in [sic] and kidney than in the meat...[and] [a]s a consequence of this the health authorities decided to recommend that people only consume pilot whale meat and blubber once a week and should not eat the liver and kidneys at all" (ibid.). This initial research, as well as the resultant pronouncement from the Faroese government, spurred further, more in-depth research on the Faroese situation. This work, in turn, became part of a growing body of international scientific literature that sought to elucidate the links between seafood consumption, elevated mercury levels in humans, and the suspected concomitant health risks.
Before moving on to consider some of the scientific literature (and especially the research that relates to the most troubling whale meat contaminant, mercury), it is important first to establish the source of these dangerous contaminants. According to the Faroese Ministry of Fisheries' and Ministry of Foreign Affairs' joint website, whaling.fo:
[t]he seas around the Faroese are among the cleanest in the world.The pollutants in pilot whales are transported over long distances and accumulate up through the marine food chain to toothed whales such as pilot whales. These contaminants derive mainly from heavy industries and industrialised agricultural processes in large urbanised countries far from the waters around the Faroes. This is a matter of considerable concern to the Faroes, which are so dependent on the sea and its resources for their livelihood (whaling.fo).
In other words, it is argued that the Faroes themselves are not to blame for the contamination of their traditionally important food source, the pilot whales. As such, it seems apt that the Faroese government website should conclude its short section on the origin of whale contaminants with an apparent criticism of those foreign organizations that seek to end the whale drive on the basis of animal rights (or other, non-health-related) arguments, writing that "[t]he elimination of these pollutants at their source should be the major focus of concerted action today by governments, industries and serious environmental organisations everywhere" (ibid.).
Returning to the actual problems arising from contaminant loading in pilot whales, from out of some of this more recent literature it is possible to delineate a sort of general consensus regarding the potential dangers of elevated levels of mercury, or more specifically, methylmercury (MeHg, the form of mercury commonly found in seafood), in humans. One US FDA report, for instance, asserts that "MeHg exposure can cause neurological symptoms such as paresthesia [numbness], ataxia [forms of incoordination], dysarthyria [speech complications], hearing defects, and death, and has also been associated with developmental delays in children whose mothers were exposed during pregnancy" (WHO 1990, cited in Carrington & Bolger 2002:3). Additionally, although not highlighted in the above-mentioned FDA study, other recent research has investigated the apparent causal links between MeHg exposure (from fish consumption) and heart attacks (as well as other forms of heart disease).
Specifically, in 1995, a group of Finnish researchers published the results of their research on a number of men in eastern Finland who had heightened mercury levels as a result of their high fish intake which suggested that this fish-derived MeHg was associated "with an excess risk of AMI [acute myocardial infarction, a.k.a. heart attacks] as well as death from CHD [coronary heart disease], CVD [cardiovascular disease]" (Salonen et. al. 1995:645). These findings represent a particularly disturbing indication of the adverse health effects of mercury as, previously, high fish intake had "been associated with a reduced mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) in several prospective population studies" (ibid., my emphasis). In other words, this case suggested that "even though men in Eastern Finland consume a lot of fish, their mortality from CHD is one of the highest in the world" (ibid.), a finding that was "in controversy with the concept that a high fish intake would uniformly be healthy for the cardiovascular system" (ibid.).
Apparently, then, in some cases, the risks of MeHg exposure actually outweighs the generally accepted myriad benefits of seafood consumption. This necessitates a delicate balancing act for anyone who wishes to take advantage of the unique nutritional benefits (e.g. omega-3 fatty acids) of fish, shellfish, and other seafood, while avoiding the associated MeHg exposure risks. This difficult balance is attested to be the recent (very specific) reccomendations for seafood consumption by potential and expectant mothers and young children given by the US FDA and EPA (FDA & EPA 2004).
It should be evident even from this very brief survey of the main threads of the broad international scientific literature that MeHg exposure from seafood consumption constitutes a serious (and scientifically substantiated) health concern. Returning to the case of mercury-contaminated whale meat in the Faroes, specifically, it can be seen how the Faroese represent an unfortunate special case of a people who are liable to be at particular risk to the dangers of MeHg exposure. And in turning to a discussion of some of specific research done in the Faroes on the subject of pilot whale contaminants, it should become understandable as to why Faroese health authorities would suggest the fact "[t]hat research in the Faroes has contributed to the current focus on contamination is a bitter irony" (Joensen 2009:26).
Following the initial (aforementioned) 1977 mercury research in the Faroes, the islands have become something of a long-term case study of the adverse health effects of exposure to MeHg and various types of persistent organic pollutants found in whale meat. In particular, a number of research projects carried out in the Faroes by P. Grandjean, P. Weihe, and others between 1986 and 2009 have gone a long way towards helping to establish more or less definitive proof of some of the specific dangers that arise from elevated MeHg levels as a result of the consumption of particularly mercury-loaded types of seafood (with pilot whale meat being chief among them). The significance of pilot whale meat consumption as a principal causative factor of elevated Faroese MeHg levels was attested to by Grandjean relatively early on in his studies in the islands when he observed that "[t]his Nordic fishing community exhibits a wide range of MeHg exposure that primarily originates from consumption of pilot whale meat; other types of seafood contain lower MeHg concentrations" (Grandjean et al. 1992, cited in Choi et. al. 2009:367).
In a study that was published in 1998, Grandjean et. al. compared the performance of a group of 112 young Faroese children (in a series of neuropsychological tests) whose mothers' MeHg concentration levels prior to the child's birth were just within the supposedly safe limits with the performance of another group of Faroese children whose mothers' MeHg levels were significantly below this upper limit of safety (Grandjean et. al. 1998:165). The results of that study suggested that "[o]n six neuropsychological test measures, the case group showed mild decrements, relative to controls, especially in the domains of motor function, language, and memory...[and that] [s]ubtle effects on brain function therefore seem to be detectable at prenatal methylmercury exposure levels currently considered to be safe" (ibid.). This research both called attention to the apparently erroneous prior conception of what constituted a "safe" level of MeHg in humans, as well as having the effect of making the explicit (and disturbing) connection between mercury exposure in expecting mothers and adverse effects on the neurological development of their children.
The long-term nature of the projects Grandjean has been carrying out in the Faroes with other researchers has also drawn out evidence of the lasting effects of mercury exposure in the womb. Specifically, their research has suggested that "[a]t seven and fourteen years of age, slowing of brain stem functions, such as auditory reaction times to a stimuli, correlated with methylmercury exposure that occurred in utero...[and] [s]ome of these effects appear to be permanent, as they continued at age fourteen" (Murata 2004 and Sorensen 1999, cited in Hightower 2009:198).
Much of Grandjean's research has attempted to determine the minimum-effect level of MeHg exposure (i.e. the minimum threshold above which MeHg exposure produces adverse health effects). As Jane Hightower has observed in her book on the effects of (and politics involved with) mercury exposure around the world, Diagnosis Mercury, "[t]he importance of determining the minimum-effect level rose even more when it was discovered that newborns can have a level of mercury two to three times higher than their mothers, since the infant cannot rid itself of it until after birth" (Hightower 2009:198). As a result of this and related research, the Faroes were fast becoming a veritable laboratory for international research on the health risks of seafood contaminants.
There are elements of Grandjean's studies that some would argue make it difficult to isolate which observed adverse health effects where solely the result of mercury exposure. The presence of the potential confounding factor of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds (PCBs) in some Faroese subjects being the main contentious issue. According to Hightower, PCBs are "mixtures of 209 manmade chlorinated compounds that were used to make substances such as coolants, lubricants, capacitors, and electrical insulation" (Hightower 2009:198), and they have been banned in the U.S. and elsewhere "because of evidence that they cause cancer, disrupt the endocrine system, and may damage the developing brain" (ibid.).
Despite these criticisms of Grandjean's research by some fishing industry researchers on the basis of the fact that some people in his Faroese study "ate some whale meat and farmed salmon, which would expose them to polychlorinated biphenyl compounds (PCBs) and that could make difficult the analysis of their symptoms" (Hightower 2009:198), according to Hightower, in more recent work "Grandjean and his team concluded that omega-3 fatty acid concentrations, considered beneficial, and the PCB concentrations, considered harmful, when analyzed together may have caused them to underestimate the toxic effects of mercury" (Budtz-Jørgensen et. al. 2007, cited in Hightower 2009:198, my emphasis). Considering this, Grandjean's continuing research seems set to offer increasingly irrefutable evidence of the negative health effects of MeHg exposure from whale meat and other seafood in the Faroes.
As a final example drawn for the large body of Faroe-specific seafood contaminant literature that spans over three decades, it is instructive to consider one of the most recent studies. This research was carried out during a time in which, as suggested earlier by the recently decreased , Faroese people are, at least ostensibly, eating less pilot whale meat than they have at any time in the past 60 years.
Moving away from examinations of the much-studied group of Faroese mothers and the neurological and developmental effects of MeHg exposure of their children, Grandjean has lately been involved with a group of researchers who have been investigating the adverse cardiovascular effects of methylmercury exposure in a group of Faroese whaling men who consume considerable amounts of pilot whale meat. In this 2009 study, Grandjean and his team "used mercury analyses of hair, blood, and toenail samples to ascertain the individual exposure levels and also included the result of a hair analysis conducted 7 years earlier" (Choi et. al. 2009:367). After taking into account a variety of other factors that are seen as relating to a person's cardiovascular health (age, whether or not they smoke, drink alcohol often, etc.), and after factoring in the known health benefits of frequent seafood consumption, the researchers' results revealed that "[m]ercury exposure was significantly associated with increased BP [blood pressure] and IMT [carotid intima-mediathickness]" (Choi et. al. 2009:367); the latter measurement, IMT, is significant because a higher IMT thickness is associated increased risk of heart attacks (Goldstein 2008). Consequently, as Grandjean's team concluded, "[t]he results support the notion that increased MeHg exposure promotes the development of cardiovascular disease" (Choi et. al., 2009:367).
The results of this Faroese study seem to strengthen the conclusions drawn by Salonen's research team (Salonen et. al. 1995), mentioned above, which suggested that the high mercury levels of a group of eastern Finnish men (whose mercury exposure was a result of their high fish intake) was connected to their higher risk of heart attacks and death from heart disease (Salonen et. al. 1995:645). Considering this, there can be little remaining doubt that MeHg exposure in the Faroes (especially as it results from consumption of heavily MeHg-contaminated pilot whale meat) constitutes a real and considerable health risk.
In light of all of this research, it is instructive to turn now to the series of increasingly strong pronouncements from Faroese health authorities about the dangers of whale meat consumption that have been made in response to mounting evidence of the risks associated with whale meat contaminants.
There have been a number of subsequent warnings from the Faroese Food and Veterinary Agency (Heilsufrøðiliga starvsstova) in addition to the Faroese government's response to the aforementioned earliest research on the composition of pilot whale meat, blubber, and organs in 1977 that entailed the recommendation against consuming the particularly mercury-heavy whale livers and kidneys. One of the most significant developments came in 1998, when "revised dietary recommendations for maximum levels of consumption of meat and blubber were issued, based on more recent research into the health effects of pilot whale meat and blubber in the diet" (Joensen 2009:23). It is important to note that because these recommendations advised specific limits for the consumption of pilot whale meat and blubber (the two principle edible portions of the animals), they both represented a significant challenge to traditional Faroese notions of the nutritiousness of pilot whales, as well as signalling a continued willingness of the Faroese government to actively respond to ongoing scientific research.
In addition to acknowledging the growing concern with the risks of mercury in the meat, these 1998 recommendations also commented on the dangers of the level of PCBs in whale blubber and suggested that, not only should "adults eat pilot whale meat and blubber as part of their meal no more than once or twice a month" (Joensen 2009:24), but also that "the best way to protect foetuses against the harmful effects of PCBs is for girls and women to refrain from eating any blubber until they have given birth" (ibid.). Responding specifically to concerns about the mercury level in whale meat, the 1998 recommendations also explicitly stated that "women who intend to become pregnant within three months, pregnant women and women who are nursing an infnant should abstain from eating pilot whale meat" (ibid.:25).
The 1998 advisories also included an exhaustive list of the known adverse health effects related to whale meat and blubber contaminants. Most of the effects were described above (as most of them relate to dangers associated with mercury exposure), but among those not already discussed, the 1998 recommendations listed that: mercury from the maternal diet affects the blood pressure of children (Joensen 2009:25); that contaminants in blubber "have an adverse effect on the immune system such that children respond poorly to immunisation" (ibid.); that "[c]ontaminants in pilot whales appear to increase the risk of developing Parkinson's disease" (ibid.); and that (at the time) studies were under way to determine whether or not the "reproductive functions may be decreased because of contaminants in pilot whale meat in blubber" (ibid.).
Although these earlier recommendations stopped short of advising against consuming pilot whales altogether in spite of the disturbing list of known health concerns, as Faroese scholar J.P. Joensen commented, "the growing body of scientific documentation has given rise to anticipation that the time was approaching when it would be appropriate to recommend against any human consumption of pilot whale meat and blubber" (Joensen 2009:26). This time did, in fact, finally come on the 26th of November in 2008 when the Chief Medical Officer of the Faroes, Dr. Høgni Debes Joensen, issued a lengthy recommendation jointly with Dr Pál Weihe of the Department of Public and Occupational Health which concluded, definitively, that "[i]t is recommended that pilot whale no longer be used for human consumption" (Joensen 2009:26). And even though the government announced that it was "with great regret" (ibid.) that the recommendation was issued, the announcement asserted that it was "necessary from a human health perspective" (ibid.).
While these recommendations seem to suggest a clear, uniform message in the governmental response to the evidence regarding the adverse health effects of consumption of pilot whale meat and blubber, other sectors of the Faroese government hold differing opinions about the authoritativeness of the 2008 claim. In 2009, for instance, the Faroese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Uttanríkisráðið) issued a short release that suggested that "the Government of the Faroes has noted these [2008] conclusions and research findings with concern and is of the view that a broad and independent evaluation of these findings is required" (Uttanríkisráðið 2009:2). Further, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained that "[t]he Faroese Food and Veterinary Agency has therefore been requested to evaluate the basis for the Chief Medical Officer’s recommendation, also drawing on appropriate external expertise" (ibid.) and that "[i]n the meantime, Faroese consumers are advised to continue to be guided by the existing dietary recommendations from 1998 on precautionary limitations for the consumption of pilot whale meat and blubber" (ibid.). Concluding this 2009 advisory response document, the authors reiterate their conviction that it should be the primary concern of governments and environmental organizations everywhere to "to safeguard the rights of coastal nations such as the Faroes to the sustainable use of their marine resources by adopting effective measures to reduce and eliminate global pollution of the marine environment at its source" (ibid.).
In light of the contradictory advice given by two branches of their own government on such a serious issue in the short span of a single year (from 2008 to 2009), it is instructive now to turn to a discussion of the evidence of what the response of the Faroese people has been to the situation following the 2008 advisory and the subsequent 2009 cautiously refutative response.
Although, as noted above, it is true that the most recent decade (2001-2010) has seen the lowest number of total whales taken when compared against the catch numbers from every decade since 1960 (Statistics Faroe Islands 2010:29), as the most recent single-year (2010) catch statistics reveal, this relatively low 2001-2010 decadal total does not necessarily imply a definite pattern of decline in whaling activity. Perhaps surprisingly considering the 2008 health advisory, the 2010 year's catch statistics reveal that the total number of pilot whales taken (1,106 animals) represents a ten-year high (Faroese Museum of Natural History Catch Data 2010). This figure alone, therefore, could well be taken as indication of the Faroese people's willingness to continue whaling and consuming whale meat and blubber in spite of their government's warning that whales are no longer considered fit for human consumption. The particularly high 2010 catch numbers could also be an indication that many islanders have chosen to more or less ignore the 2008 Chief Medical Officer's advisory in light of the 2009 governmental response that suggested people continue to follow the 1998 guidelines for meat and blubber consumption limits.
Aside from the 2010 catch figures, information on the Faroese people's response to the 2008 advisory is difficult to obtain. However, the following two examples of Faroese dietary choices and opinions on whale meat and blubber consumption taken from post-1998 sources does suggest the complexity and diversity of Faroese reactions to years of governmental and scientific assessments of the health risks associated with eating whales.
In October of 2007, the Austrialian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) aired a short documentary they had produced on the Faroe Islands. In one segment, the ABC interviewer sits done for a meat of pilot whale meat and blubber in the home of the Patursson family, with Jóannes, his wife, Guðríð, and their many children. Before the meal, the camera focuses on Guðríð boiling blubber, saying, "I used to eat a lot of blubber when I was a little girl, uh, and I'm not so fond of it anymore, I probably ate too much" (ABC Foreign Correspondent 2007). The real evidence of the effects of the health warnings on Guðríð's food choices, however, comes after they have eaten the meal of whale with the ABC correspondent. In response to a question about the dangers of the meat, Guðríð says:
Guðríð: I'm a bit worried, yeah, I am. Um, but I eat it as well, although I'm pregnant.
Uh, I eat it about four times a year.
ABC: Did you think about not eating whale at all?
G: [Sigh] Mm, no.
ABC: Did you consider stopping to...
G: No...no, no I'm gonna...I'm gonna keep on eating...
ABC: Just because you like it or because it's part of the...
G: Yeah, yeah and it's, it's also, it's good for you, it's, yeah...it's food from the sea.
Yeah, it's good. (ABC Foreign Correspondent 2007)
Although it might seem surprising that any pregnant mother would continue to eat whale meat nearly a decade after the 1998 advisory which suggested that pregnant, nursing, or soon-to-be pregnant women should not consume any whale products, Guðríð's responses seem to indicate that she is struggling to navigate a course between traditional and contemporary views of the health value of whale meat and blubber.
While Guðríð Patursson's cautious stance, which attempts to balance the perceived benefits of whale consumption with the known risks, could arguably be said to be representative of a more rural approach to this health issue (the Paturssons live on a farm), another source of post-1998 whale-related dietary choices suggests a similarly decreased whale intake, at least among one segment of the Faroese population. Specifically, as Joensen notes (relating comments from the Faroese Chief Medical Officer's 2008 advisory), "the most recent studies have shown that pregnant women are eating much less pilot whale meat and blubber than in the past...[and that] [t]his change has resulted in a decrease in the mercury concentration in the blood of pregnant women, although the level of PCBs remains unchanged, probably because PCBs degrade only slowly" (Joensen 2009:25). From what little English-language evidence there is available, then, it would seem that pregnant women are taking the health warnings most seriously and that they are adjusting their eating habits accordingly. This is perhaps in part because they have been specifically targeted as a group by the 1998 advisory warning, but also, of course, because they are responsible for more than just their own wellbeing when they make dietary choices.
While the main focus of this paper has been the discussion of the known and suspected health risks associated with eating pilot whale meat and blubber and some of the resultant governmental and local (or individual) responses to these risks, a great deal of the significance of whaling in the Faroes stems from the fact that whale drives have been a central social, cultural, and economic institution in traditional and contemporary Faroese society. From an outsiders' perspective, the obvious question in light of the plethora of scientific evidence attesting to the danger of eating pilot whales is, why do Faroese people simply stop eating whales, just to be safe? In the following brief concluding section I will address a few of the key social and economic ramifications that would likely accompany the probable eventual cessation of Faroese whaling.
Firstly, despite the 2009 advisory response document which recommended people continue consuming whale (while adhering to the 1998 guidelines) and the 2010 catch data, it is still very much conceivable that there will come a time in the near future when whaling will be permanently discontinued. The most likely catalyst for an end of whaling scenario would be if the Faroese Food and Veterinary Agency (Heilsufrøðiliga starvsstovan), in complying with the request from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2009, were to come back with an external review of the Chief Medical Officer's 2008 advisory claims that supported the 2008 conclusions. It is conceivable that, if this sort of governmental "last stand" by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were to confirm, rather than deny, the 2008 advisory warnings, then no branch of the Faroese government would be likely to continue to offer resistance to the idea that pilot whale meat and blubber can no longer be considered fit for human consumption. As a result of this rather likely outcome, there would be two probable paths for Faroese people to take, both leading eventually to the complete discontinuation of whaling.
In the first case, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, if not supported in their defense of whale consumption by the Faroese Food and Veterinary Agency's impending external review of the health risks, would likely be forced to comply that pilot whales are not fit for human consumption, and this would result in a consensus across all relevant branches of the Faroese government. As such, the government could, justifiably, attempt to outlaw whaling altogether, making the practice illegal (and, consequently, making the consumption of pilot whales nearly impossible). However, outlawing whaling is highly unlikely considering the communally managed nature of the hunting and meat sharing institution of the grindadráp (see Kerins 2011). What is more likely is that the government will eventually unilaterally declare whales unfit for human consumption, and that the practice will slowly decline in light of growing acceptance of the proven health risks of whale meat and blubber consumption. In either of these cases, however, the question remains as to the real consequences of the end of whaling in the Faroes.
Though there is some disagreement as to the actual age of Faroese whaling, even the most conservative estimates accept that the drives have happened almost continuously since the 16th century (see discussion in Joensen 2009), while others maintain that the practice is contemporaneous with the initial Faroese settlement in the 9th century (Kerins 2011:1). In either case, Faroese whaling undeniably has at least half of a millenium of history in the islands. Over this period, whaling has undergone a transformation from a more individualistic, selfish, solely economic and subsistence pursuit (Svabo 1959:257, cited in Joensen 2009:136), to a highly organized, communally managed institution that has the primary function of providing an abundance of free meat to the residents of this small nation on the European periphery where domestic food is scarce, and imported foods are costly (Kerins 2011:1). The indispensable importance of the whale meat solely in terms of its subsistence value is attested to by the fact that at many difficult points in Faroese history (e.g. during the sometimes oppressive Danish trade monopoly from the 16th to 19th centuries), pilot whales have played a huge role in the Faroese diet (ibid.). Similarly, even in modern times, with the Faroese economy being almost entirely dependent on a single export (seafood) and thus being prone to sudden, sharp declines (as was the case during the 1992 Faroese economic collapse), pilot whales have remained a reliable source of cheap, if not free, meat (ibid.). Further, the recent aforementioned statement from the Faroese prime minister's office which asserts that whale meat still amounts to 30% of the meat produces locally in the islands (Løgmansskrivstovan 2006, cited in Kerins 2011:159) is only the most recent example of the essential economic (and subsistence) importance of whale meat in the Faroes. The end of whaling would result in a greatly increased economic burden for individual Faroe islanders, as well as increased financial uncertainty as Faroese people would become more vulnerable than ever to the fluctuations of the Faroes' essentially monoculture economy.
The social and cultural impacts would also be serious and far-reaching. During the 19th century when Faroese people became more aware of the distinctly Faroese nature of their communal whaling practice as a result of their increased interaction with foreigners and growing awareness of foreign intellectual trends (especially emergent ideas of nationalism), whaling underwent a transformation in meaning into an essential symbol of the Faroese nation (Nauerby 1996:148). The strongly held notions of the inherent Faroeseness of the pilot whaling institution have been attested to by a number of Faroese and foreign authors in the past century, including Kate Sanderson of the Faroese Ministry of Foreign Affairs who has written that "[p]ilot whaling goes to the very bone of what it means to be Farpese; it's your food, what you eat, your national diet, your culinary uniqueness...[a]n activity that goes back for generations and generations" (Sanderson quoted in Kerins 2011:1). Even the Chief Medical Officer in his 2008 advisory against eating whale meat and blubber delivered his pronouncement with apparent regret as he acknowledged the central role pilot whales have played in Faroese history for hundreds of years (Joensen 2009:26).
In sum, then, just as subsistence value of the whales has been shown to be essential in the Faroes, the social, cultural, and historical significance of whales and whaling in the islands also cannot be underestimated. As such, there can be little doubt that, even if whaling passes only slowly over the next several years from the realm of real, lived culture into the remembered past as an aspect of what might be called "memory culture", Faroese people will lose a potent and long-lasting symbol of their nation, as well as a key institution that engendered social cohesion and resource sharing that existed outside the dominant mode of capitalist production. Despite the myriad known health risks posed by consumption of whale meat and blubber, it remains to be seen what choices will be made by the Faroese government and by the Faroese people regarding the fate of their centuries-old whaling practice.
Works Cited
ABC Foreign Correspondent. 2007. Faroe Islands. Originally broadcast 9 October 2007. Video files available to stream at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Zjyxb5vj-A (retrieved 14 April 2011).
PBS FRONTLINE/WORLD. 2007. Faroe Islands:Message From the Sea. Originally broadcast 26 June 2007. Transcript available at http://www.pbs.org/ frontlineworld/about/episodes/605_transcript.html (retrieved 27 February 2011
Carrington, Clark and Bolger, Michael. 2002. “An Exposure Assessment for Methylmercury from Seafood for Consumers in the United States”. United States Food and Drug Administration Website. Available pdf at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/ FoodSafety/ProductSpecificInformation/Seafood/FoodbornePathogensContaminants /Methylmercury/UCM114740.pdf (retrieved 14 April 2011).
Choi, Anna, Weihe, Pal, Jørgensen, Poul J., Salonen, Jukka T., Tuomainen, Tomi-Pekka, Murata, Katsuyuki, Nielsen, Hans Petur, Petersen, Maria Skaalum, Askham, Jórun, and Granjean, Phillippe. 2009. “Methylmercury Exposure and Adverse Cardiovascular Effects in Faroese Whaling Men”. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117 (3):367-372.
Faroese Museum of Natural History Catch Data. 2010. “Whales and whaling in The Faroe islands catch Data 2000 – 2010”. Whaling.fo website. Available http at http://whaling.fo/Default.aspx?ID=7125 (retrieved 14 April 2011).
FDA & EPA. 2004. “What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish and Shellfish. 2004 EPA and FDA Advice For: Women Who Might Become Pregnant Women Who are Pregnant Nursing MothersYoung Children”. United States Food and Drug Administration Website. Available http at http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation /Seafood/FoodbornePathogensContaminants/Methylmercury /ucm115662.htm (retrieved 14 April 2011).
Goldstein, Jacob. 2008. “Vytorin Recap: What the Heck is ‘IMT’?”. Wall Street Journal Health Blog. Available http at http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/01/15/vytorin-recap-what-the- heck-is-imt/ (retrieved 14 April 2011).
Grandjean, Philippe, Weihe, Pal, White Roberta F.and Debes, Frodi. 1998. “Cognitive Performance of Children Prenatally Exposed to “Safe” Levels of Methylmercury”. Environmental Research, 77 (2):165-172.
Hightower, Jane M. 2009. Diagnosis mercury: Money, politics, & poison. Washington D.C.:Island Press
Joensen, Jóan Pauli. 2009. Pilot Whaling in the Faroe Islands: History, Ethnography, Symbol. Tórshavn: Faroe University Press.
Kerins, Seán. 2011. A Thousand Years of Whaling: A Faroese Common Property Regime.
Edmonton, AB:Canadian Circumpolar Institute Press.
Nauerby, Tom. 1996. No Nation is an Island: Language, Culture, and National Identity in the Faroe Islands. Århus:SNAI - North Atlantic Publications.
Salonen JT, Seppänen K, Nyyssönen K, Korpela H, Kauhanen J, Kantola M, Tuomilehto J, Esterbauer H, Tatzber F, and Salonen R. 1995. “Intake of mercury from fish, lipid peroxidation, and the risk of myocardial infarction and coronary, cardiovascular, and any death in eastern Finnish men.”. Circulation, 92(8):2355-6.
Statistics Faroe Islands (Hagstova Føroya). 2010. “Faroe Islands in Figures 2010”. Available http at http://www.hagstova.fo/portal/page/portal/HAGSTOVAN/Statistics_%20 Faroe_Islands/Faroe%20Islands% 20in%20figures %202010.pdf (retrieved 14 April 2011).
Uttanríkisráðið (Faroese Ministry of Foreign Affairs). 2009. “The consumption of pilot whale meat and blubber in the Faroes”. Available http at http://whaling.fo/Admin/Public/DW SDownload.aspx?File=%2fFiles%2fFiler%2fwhaling%2fpilot_whale_meat_and _blubber_-_info_note_(2)%5b1%5d.pdf (retrieved 14 April 2011).
Whaling.fo, the Faroese Ministry of Fisheries' (Fiski og tilfeingismálaráðið) and Ministry of Foreign Affairs' (Uttanríkisráðið) joint website. N.d. “Whales & the marine environment”. Available http at http://whaling.fo/Default.aspx?ID=6771 (retrieved 14 April 2011).
