(from "ISANA" No. 13, 1995)
Ryuichi Tanabe
Executive Managing Director, Japan Marine Products Importers Association
What one chooses to eat or not to eat is one of the important elements of food culture, together with other habits such as what kind cooking method or utensils to use.
What then is culture? My definition of the term is "proper pattern of behavior" which a group of people who live in a certain country, region or community have fostered over a long span of years based on geographical, climatic and other diverse environment factors (which I believe can be called "climate" in a broad sense). Here the pattern of behavior is interpreted broadly, also incorporating the thinking pattern.
In understanding "proper pattern of behavior", we have to take into account the fact that different cultures influence each other through contacts among different groups. At times one culture absorbs another culture willingly, but at other times, is forced to accept it as in the case of conquest and war. In a wider context, this can be understood as an environmental change, through which a culture is transformed into a new pattern.
Organisms have constantly changed their forms and modes of life to adapt themselves to the changes in the environment. This is what is commonly known as evolution. However, human beings have adapted themselves to those changes not only through evolution (indeed, there has been a certain degree of evolution for humans) but through their efforts to build up culture. Animals living in cold regions adapted to local weather by developing thick subcutaneous fat or bushy hair. But humans solved the problem of overcoming the cold weather by inventing clothing or using fire.
It is said that giraffe came to have a long neck through the effort to reach food at high places (I do not discuss the plausibility of this hypothesis here), but humans devised the ladder to reach things that are above them. Similarly, birds evolved wings to fly in the air, but humans learned how to fly in the air by inventing airplanes. This is what we call culture.
In the contemporary world, there seems to be a consensus among anthropologists that every indigenous culture is a necessary pattern of behavior for the people in the region to adapt to the environment and there should be no degrees of superiority or inferiority among cultures.
Let's go back to food. Many people in the world find eating insects horrible. But there are some regions in the Southeast Asia where insects constitute an important source of protein. In Japan as well, locusts and bee larvae used to be eaten. (I myself ate them when I was a child, and will do so even now if they are made available.) There are people who find beef and pork tasty while others do not eat them because of religious reasons. There are people who feel eating insects is disgusting. For me also, the idea of eating a green caterpillar is hair-raising.
But I think that people who do not eat worms and insects refrain from doing so not because these creatures are horrible. Rather they came to be perceived as horrible because they are not eaten by those people. We know that some peoples choose not to eat pork because of religious inhibition. But it has become a religious taboo just because they have not eaten them. If we find eating insects appalling, the same thing may be said about crabs. It does not seem reasonable why we find eels palatable while we detest snakes.
In explaining about man's choice of what to eat and what not to eat, Harris introduces what he calls the "optimal foraging theory". It assumes that man (and other animals) tend to choose food so as to achieve the maximum rate of profit (nutrition and calorie) vis-a-vis the cost for harvesting food (including energy costs). Suppose there exist only large-size animals and a large number of insects in a certain region. More energy is required to catch large animals than to collect insects but, as nutrition gained from large animals is higher than that provided by insects, man does not turn to insects for food.
Further, suppose there is a region where there are no large animals but only insects and bats. Bats provide more nutrition than insects but energy required to catch them is by far larger than that for insects. In this case, not bats but insects are used for food. As the habitats of food species differ from region to region, different groups naturally eat different kinds of food. This is the very nature of what we call culture.
At present anti-whaling campaign is rampant throughout the world. Commercial whaling has been banned and the Southern Ocean was designated as a whale sanctuary where commercial catch of whales is prohibited. The status quo is obviously not in favor of the group who think that whales can be used for human food. But what is the logic behind such a movement? In advancing their cause, anti-whaling camp had placed greatest emphasis on what they called the adverse stock situation of whales. However, their assertion is now about to lose ground to the findings of scientific research which proved abundance of certain whale species, such as minke whales. So they have shifted their tactics to resort to their emotional stance that whales are intelligent or lovable or what may sound like religious reasons, quoting the Bible, that whales should not be used as food.
The judgment whether a certain animal is lovable or not is purely subjective. If one asserts that whales should not be eaten because they are lovable, then why Westerners eat lovable rabbits or lambs? What is the ground for asserting that certain animals with high intelligence should not be eaten? In the above-mentioned book, Harris quotes the words of French philosopher Montaigne that to negate cannibalism is self-centered arrogance of the Western people. To say that higher-grade animals should not be used for human consumption is similar to that position. I do not affirm cannibalism - not because humans are higher grade beings but because admitting cannibalism may result in a disorder in the human society. It is the same reason as those for prohibiting theft and murder.
In the world, there exist a number of groups that have different cultures and value systems. It is a commonly accepted notion nowadays that there is no superiority or inferiority among the ethnic groups. The age of oppression or elimination of other culture through conquest is already past. Then what should we do when we encounter conflicts between cultures? One group of people should in no way force other to follow their belief. The conflicts should be resolved through compromise and approaches from both sides.
The concept that the whale should not be used as human food but should be enjoyed through contact with them in the form of whale-watching, etc. is one of values that should be duly respected. Similarly, to use whale as one of the important food sources is another excellent value. A possible compromise in face of those conflicting views is an approach to manage the whale population properly and use them while ensuring to prevent their depletion.
On the other hand, the profit gained from the whaling industry has become minimal for the whole of the Japanese economy. There are views that Japan should not stick to such a minor issue as whaling and risk suffering a bad image in the international community. Such an assertion is understandable, but the issue here is not limited only to the whaling industry or availability of whale meat - although they are important. There are aspects of more serious consequences.
What the anti-whaling groups are pursuing is to stifle the value system different from theirs. If we step back at this stage, there is a concern that unilateral imposition of value systems will mount in various scenes. It seems that some environmentalists are trying to eradicate fishing activities which supply valuable protein sources to mankind. This is the very reason why I strongly support the course now taken by Japan in the whaling controversy. I believe we have to avoid an even worse situation that may emerge after we defeat in the battle over whaling.
_