|
Theodore
C. Bestor is Professor of Anthropology and Japanese Studies at Harvard
University, and is past president of the American Anthropological
Association’s East Asian Studies Section and the Society for Urban
Anthropology. His many publications include: “Neighborhood Tokyo” (1989),” Doing
Fieldwork in Japan” (co-editor, 2003), and his most recent, “Tsukiji:
The Fish Market at the Center of the World” (2004). His current research
looks at the development of Japanese food culture and his ongoing project
on “Global Sushi” examines the “global reach” of
Japanese seafood markets, their impact on markets and fish industries,
and the popularity of sushi and other types of Japanese foods..
1.
Background
2.
Neighborhood Tokyo: Miyamoto-cho
3.
Tokyo's Tsukiji: The Fish Market and the Center of
the World
4.
Japanese Food Culture: Looking at Sushi as
a Japanese Food and Icon
5.
Issues of Food Safety and Hygiene
6.
Lessons to be Learned from the Field: Linking Kansas
with Japan
7. Concluding
Thoughts
Issues
of Safety and Hygiene
L: I wanted to ask you a few questions
about food safety. I thought this
was a good segue to talking about
food safety with its historical
connections with Godzilla. You had
described in your book about the “Number
5 Lucky Dragon” incident.
What were the ramifications of that
day, after the American nuclear
bomb testing at Bikini Atoll in
terms of food safety in Japan?
B: In the immediate aftermath
of that awful accident, there
was a
panic in Japan about eating fish.
I have a photograph of public health
officials using Geiger counters
to check fish in the Tokyo marketplace.
So there was a panic—
L: It was a tuna boat that was
near the bomb-testing site, right?
B: Yes, it was a tuna boat.
There was a panic over fish in
general
and whether nuclear testing had
made the entire parts of the Pacific
Ocean radioactive. Therefore, it
made the food suspect. But with
all such panic, in and of itself,
it didn’t last very long.
It was only a few weeks or months
before fish consumption was pretty
much back to normal.
What I think is interesting
about Japan is the frequency with
which
these kinds of panic and concern—something
happens every few year that sparks
it. And each time it creates enormous
dislocations in people’s eating
habits--sometimes permanent, more
often, not so permanent.
About ten years ago, there
was an outbreak of E.Coli in the
Osaka
area. And across the country, people
stopped eating fresh, uncooked food
of any kind. So sales of sushi plummeted,
even though that kind of E.Coli
doesn’t exist in fish. You
don’t have to worry about
eating tuna and getting E.Coli.
L: What about presently—as
you see from the ground level in
Japan—in terms of the U.S.-Japan
beef negotiations and U.S. beef—do
you think that the average consumer
is concerned about food safety?
B: I don’t think the average
consumer is that concerned. I think
the Japanese media often seizes
on issues like this. And things
become the center of media attention
in Japan, and then consumers pay
attention. I don’t think the
average Japanese consumer is any
better informed about conditions
of food safety than an American
consumer—which is to say—not
very much at all. But I think it’s
one of those hot button issues that
when something happens, when it
gets picked up by the mass media,
the impact of the mass media in
Japan on public opinion is much
stronger than in the U.S.
There is a pre-disposition
on the part of many Japanese—if it’s
pointed out to them—to say, “ Well,
probably foreign foods aren’t
as safe and as good for us as Japanese
foods.” One can understand
that argument if one is putting
paramount attention on freshness
and place of origin. It’s
only natural that you are going
to have more confidence in places
closer at hand. Places that you
know.
L: So, domestically produced food
is going to feel safer to the Japanese?
B: Yes, it’s going to feel
safer even if it’s not. So,
I think there is this pre-disposition
to be skeptical about foreign imported
foods. And when there is a case
and when the mass media points it
out, then people get in a dither
and go, “My god!” And
there is usually an overreaction.
L: You also mentioned the importance
of kata [form]. Idealized form—how
is that connected with issues of
food safety, appearance, especially
with seafood?
B: We were talking about
it earlier—appearance
is so important—there is this
aesthetic sense of proper appearance
for foodstuffs. And proper handling
of foodstuffs. And there is a kind
of assumption that if something
doesn’t look right, if it’s
not properly handled and not properly
shaped, then there might be something
wrong with it. Not just the external
appearance. But that it indicates
somebody hasn’t been taking
care of it [the foodstuff] properly
along the way. So, it may not actually
have any nutritional or food safety
issue at all. But it becomes a kind
of marker that it doesn’t
look right. And somebody along the
line wasn’t paying proper
attention to the shape—so
what else weren’t they paying
proper attention to?
L: So, that could even be a slight
blemish on the outside of something,
or the length of something—
B: Right. If you have ten
mackerel laid out in a row and
one of them
is considerably different in size,
you are going to look at it and
assume something is wrong. Somebody
didn’t sort these fish properly.
They should all be arranged by size.
If there is a bruise or a cut, then
you assume somebody wasn’t
handling this [foodstuff] properly.
And if they weren’t handling
it properly, why should we trust
that is was well refrigerated or
well washed, and so forth.
L: I don’t think the average
American realizes how important
the appearance of food is to the
Japanese. For example, produce in
a supermarket is carefully laid
out.
B: I think you are absolutely
right. You can walk into a Japanese
food
store and think you are in a jewelry
store. It’s amazing. And a
lot of it is aesthetics—aesthetic
judgment of what’s important—those
aesthetic judgments become symbols
of other possibilities—both
positive and negative.
L: Japanese refer to foods that
are “domestic and foreign” and “pure
and impure.” You brought up
an interesting point in your book
about fish that is “wild and
natural,” as opposed to “cultivated
and cultured.” How is that
important in terms of foodstuffs?
B: I think--again to use
an American comparison--organic,
free-range
chicken and chickens sitting in
a coop. The average consumer doesn’t
really know much one way or the
other. The advantages and the disadvantages,
the merits and demerits of either
kind. But there is a kind of romantic
assumption that the free-range,
wild, organically fed whatever is
going to be naturally better—and
it’s going to taste better.
And there may be some truth to that.
But, like the question of appearance,
it can become sort of a fetish where
people are so concerned about the
farm-raised version—the feedlot
tuna or salmon—that it becomes
a real marker in the marketplace—in
terms of prices. It also becomes
an issue of prestige and status.
And this is where is the arrogance
comes in.
“
I’m enough of a connoisseur
that I can tell the difference between
natural and wild.”
L: I wonder if they really can
tell the difference.
B: In almost all cases, probably
not.
L: Have you become a connoisseur
of fish, at least of tuna?
B: Well, let me put it
this way. When my wife and I go
shopping at
the supermarket, she now has me
pick out the fish. I don’t
think I’m a connoisseur but
I certainly have a much more practiced
eye for looking at fish than I did
say ten years ago. I grew up as
a kid in central Illinois. I don’t
think that we had fish. The only
kind of fish I remember eating as
a child was breaded, frozen, and
already cut into blocks, into fish
sticks. Certainly, I didn’t
grow up evaluating fresh fish.
Next: Lessons
to be Learned from the Field:
Linking Kansas with Japan
|
