Does travel influence what's good to eat and bad to eat? Every
culture has food taboos. Some, of course, have more
than others. Asian
countries such as China, Japan, and Thailand, for example, tend to have
a more diverse cultural diet than do European countries. I conducted a
survey to see how a country's food taboos correlate with the personal
eating habits of those who have
traveled there. I found that people who
have traveled to Asian countries tend to have less food taboos than do
those who have traveled to Europe. In fact, people who have traveled to
Asia often could not cite one food that they refuse to eat. Everyone
who has been to Europe on the other hand, could name at least one food
that they personally consider to be inedible. I believe that the reason
for this disparity can be found in the economic differences between the
East and the West, and also, in the personal reasons people have for
traveling to either Europe or Asia. Southeast Asians lack specific
food types they refuse to eat. Besides the more conventional meats,
i.e., beef, pork, poultry, they also eat dogs, cats, dingoes, and
insects. An explanation for this can be traced to historical,
ecological, and economical aspects of Southeast Asia. Marvin Harris,
anthropologist and author of Good to Eat explores this specific field,
and says the following about one of the unconventional meat eating
trends in Southeast Asia. "Dog-eating cultures generally lack an
abundance of alternative sources of animal foods, and the services
which dogs can render alive far outweigh the value of their flesh and
carcass. In China, where perennial shortages of meat and the absence of
dairying have produced a long-standing pattern of involuntary
vegetarianism, dogflesh eating is the rule, not the exception."
(Harris, 179). Basically, types of meat people in the West have
stereotypes against are good to eat in other cultures depending on "how
it fits within a culture's overall system for producing food and other
goods and services." (Harris, 179) Because the benefits of eating
dogflesh and other pet meat outweigh the costs, the inhabitants of
Southeast Asia eat this type of meat. However, in regions like the
United States, where beef and chicken are the ruling meat industries,
one rarely goes to a supermarket to ask for dog meat. Insect
eating can also be traced to economic factors. "Europeans never
acquired a taste for locusts." (Harris, 171) By analyzing the costs and
benefits of eating insects, it can be shown that although insects are
abundant, "they are nonetheless inherently among the least efficient
and least reliable sources of these nutrients
in the
entire animal kingdom." (Harris, 165) Consequently, one must understand
this cost benefit relationship (from a time and energy costs
per-harvested unit standpoint) in order to fully comprehend why
"insects are sometimes avoided and sometimes preferred…" (Harris, 165)
On the other hand, "since locusts are responsible for devouring crops
and natural pasture, they alter the availability of higher-ranked
items-crops and domesticated animal products-and assure themselves a
place in the optimal diet." (Harris, 170) Basically they follow the
"eating the eaters" principle. This is precisely what has happened in
Southeast Asia, which has caused many people to eat insects. Because of
this vast availability, utilization, and consumption of insects in
Southeast Asia over history, people who travel there, may have to eat
insects in order to survive. Moreover, one may have to eat insects,
dogflesh, and other forms of meat that are taboos in the West (as
described earlier as also an accepted good to eat food), in order to
fit into Asian culture. Most of the subjects who had traveled to
Southeast Asia didn't refuse to eat these unconventional types of meat,
while subjects who had traveled to Europe had more occurrences where
they refused to eat insects, dogflesh, oother type of food. The
duration of travel was not mentioned in the survey, however it is not
of importance here.The second factor that needs to be taken into
consideration when examining a correlation between travel and food
choice is reasons for travel. Because of experimental limitations, the
personal reasons for travel were not known, however a plausible schema
could be drawn out. Europe is known to be more of a "cultured," and
perhaps a safer place to travel. Americans can go to Europe without
leaving the comforts of Western society. Travelers looking for a more
exotic trip, on the other hand, may choose to go to Asia. These people
may be more adventurous by nature, and thus more inclined to try new
things, such as eating insects or dog meat. Such travelers, once they
have gotten over the taboo, may have acquired a taste for insects. Of
course, it is difficult to show data that could examine the validity of
this statement. However, the idea of what type of person the traveler
is greatly depends upon where that person will travel, and what he/she
will eat. Furthermore, it's important to note that 65% of the
subjects, who had traveled to countries in Southeast Asia, said they
ate to survive. On the other hand, only 29% of subjects who traveled to
somewhere in Europe said they eat to survive. In this category of
travelers, almost all of the other subjects said they ate because they
love food.