Japanese Rice
4 Responses | Leave a Comment »
I saw this interesting article in the Washington Post on Japanese rice. A few years back, I remember reading Francis Fukuyama, who argued that Japanese capitalism was different from American capitalism because nationalism played a much larger role in certain parts of the country’s spending habits. According to Fukuyama, the Japanese didn’t mind spending twice the price for Japanese rice because it was part of the national character. The Washington Post agrees:
As in much of Asia, rice is much more than a food to the Japanese and it is not really intended for export. It is a traditional symbol of plenty and a cultural touchstone.
It’s an interesting phenomenon: Japanese rice is sitting unsold in warehouses while people around the world are starving and rioting, and yet the Japanese farmers are also in financial straights. The price of Japanese rice, along with the cost of production, is so high that even if they slashed prices drastically, it’s unlikely that they would be able to sell their rice to the rest of the world that needs it.
Americans have the opposite problem in terms of culture. We love the idea of American products, but most American people won’t take a more expensive American brand over a foreign brand unless there is a noticeable difference in quality. It’s only been in the last couple of years that “buy local” and “buy [more expensive] organic” has caught on in the U.S. Most of the time we just go for whatever is cheapest, which explains why we remain a net-import country, and which may also explain why America has fallen behind in the whole movement to stem global warming and reduce carbon emissions.
Both systems have problems. On the one hand, you have the American system that McDonalidizes the entire cultural landscape and (some argue) sustains poverty in the developing world. On the other, you have a farming system that protects small farmers but keeps them small and inefficient and prevents them from growing affordable food for a world that could use it.
Comments?
Leave a Comment »
Share
Entries (RSS)
nightshade
4:08 pm | May 04, 2008I think you’d be interested in Michael Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, which explores food and farming, and what it means for eaters, consumers, producers, and the health of the planet.
The issue isn’t really small farms–that’s something the American government wants everyone to think so that we support industrialized farming. Efficiency isn’t necessary in the best interests of the land that rice is grown on, or for farmers and consumers. The government SHOULD be protecting small farms–if the American government did this, there wouldn’t be a farm system in the US that’s pinned to petroleum, rather than to the sun.
The problem here lies in overproduction of rice, which hasn’t been altered with the changing Japanese diet. The US has the same problem with corn, except that corn is farmed on a huge scale, and we end up eating it in everything.
Also, Japanese rice may be richer in nutrients because of the way it is grown–which means it should be more expensive. Food should have value in the way it nourishes us.
But yeah, it is messed up that there’s a world rice shortage and Japan can’t help. (There’s also the question of why food should be sent thousands of miles–we should be helping countries with their farming, not exporting food to them if we want everything to be sustainable. Otherwise, if war broke out a country could starve because no one is willing to trade food.)
Yet, if farmers were supported by their governments to grow staples, like Japan has, then fields meant for rice production wouldn’t get switched to more lucrative crops like wine grapes.
jaehwan
12:35 am | May 05, 2008I’m reading this huge book on Abraham Lincoln, but I’ll definitely check out that omnivore book when I have a chance.
I’ve got many questions about local vs. imported and good-for-society vs. cheap. It’s a big deal because everyone wants to be environmentally friendly and eat organic, local foods, but only the upper middle class and above can afford to. Green buildings are better for the environment and do great things for society long term, but only a handful of developers can afford the extra expense. This makes it somewhat difficult.
I remember reading somewhere that corn was always heavily subsidized by the U.S. government, which is why junk food with “high fructose corn syrup” is so much cheaper than good, wholesome foods. This is another reason why so many poor people in the U.S. are fat.
Abe hasn’t even won the nomination for the Republicans yet, and it may be a while before I get to the book, but what would Pollan say about prices in a more local world? Sure, industrialized farming is bad for the land and not as healthy, but if it weren’t industrialized, wouldn’t prices also go through the roof? People in third world countries around the world are rioting, but wouldn’t things be worse if the industrialization of farming stopped and everyone had to pay Japanese prices?
nightshade
11:16 pm | May 13, 2008China was able to feed 300+ million people on its own soil for hundreds of years.
Also, “organic” was how all food was grown–until U.S. industrial framing practices fucked everything up.
jaehwan
6:02 pm | May 14, 2008The non-industrialization of food may have also caused China to have less leisure time, thereby limiting the leisure class to only those who were really rich. In other words, there was a much smaller middle class. Most people who produced the food were poor, as were most people who ate it. I’m just playing devils advocate. I need to read the book eventually.
What do you think about tampering with genetics? They had an article today here.