“How Sushi Went Global“ A popular academic research article by Theordore Bestor published in the Foreign Policy journal. Image of paper journal printout embedded above. Click image to access the .pdf version here. Click here to read the online version (which includes only the article’s text).
If you want the best bluefin tuna for your sushi, it has to be graded in the Tsukiji fish market in Tokyo. But the fish are farmed and caught in the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and elsewhere. And the restaurants where you can eat it are all over the world. So whose lives are connected through this intricate global trade? How did it develop? And what can sushi tell us about globalisation? That’s what an American anthropologist Ted Bestor wants to find out. He travels to different places in this tuna supply chain – a fish dock in Maine, USA; a Mediterranean fishing town in Spain; and Tokyo’s Tsukiji fish market. He sees tuna caught and off the US and Spanish coasts being graded in Tokyo to sell in the fanciest sushi restaurants around the world. They travel, iced, in containers called ‘tuna coffins’ in the bellies of Boeing 747 jets. Years ago, except in Japan, these fish were only suitable for sports fishers or cat food manufacturers. But what’s developed as sushi has gone global is a sophisticated international trade feeding the popularisation of Japanese cuisine. These fish cross cultures and following their movements helps Bestor to vividly explain the concept of globalisation. Commenters say his article provides a view of globalisation that’s embedded in and between social relations in specific places. It’s a well old story, a gem of a ‘follow the thing’ study that’s widely used in classrooms around the world.
Page reference: Olivia Hoffman and Erin Teich (2012) How Sushi Went Global. followthethings.com/how-sushi-went-global.shtml (last accessed <insert date here>)
“Blood, Sweat & Takeaways“ A four-episode reality TV series produced directed & produced by James Christie-Miller for Ricochet Films for television broadcast on BBC3. All episodes embedded above. Also available on Box of Broadcasts (with institutional login) here.
Lauren, 21, and loves luxury food. Jess, 19, is a fussy eater. Manos, 20, loves fast food. Josh, 20, loves to cook. Stacey, 20, is an ethical shopper. Olu, 25, is a fitness fanatic. But this group of multicultural Brits who don’t seem to care where their food comes from. Until they are approached by a TV company which challenges them to travel to Indonesia and Thailand and to step into the shoes of the farm, factory and trawler workers who source and process it for export. Over four episodes – on Tuna, Prawns, Rice and Chicken – they’re filmed working alongside supply chain workers, earning and spending the same 40p an hour wages, and living in the same places. They relentlessly gut, behead and loin tuna fish in a factory. They work in waist-deep mud farming prawns and up to their ankles in water in a rice paddy field. It’s hot. All they have to eat each day is a banana and a slice of bread. This is a shock to their systems. This is car crash reality TV. They crack under the pressure, retch, cry, faint, fall out, fight, refuse to work, slow down the production line, get sick, feel guilty, insult and patronise their co-workers and escape to a comfortable hotel, eat at McDonalds and get first class medical care. Olu is sent home after a fight with Manos. He’s replaced by James, a young farmer. At least he knows where food comes from. But, as they get over the shock, episode by episode, they are humbled by the experience and become more appreciative consumers. This is the second ‘Blood, sweat and…’ series broadcast by the BBC. And it’s equally successful, attracting big audiences, winning awards and being shown around the world. Its aim is to encourage young people to think about who makes their stuff, and to find their own solutions like the cast members do. Because this is reality TV, much of the discussion focuses on the cast and how ‘spoilt’ they seem to be, how terrible they are as British ‘ambassadors’ in Thailand and Indonesia, how distastasteful it is for them to ogle at squalour, and how easy it is for them – unlike the people they’re working alongside – to leave. Critics say that its reality TV format encourages an enjoyment of the casts’ meltdowns more than their thoughtful reflections. Others quibble the facts and argue that the series’ narrative arc is a work of fiction. Others say that it places too much emphasis on consumer awareness, without provinding any ideas about what viewers should do next. And there’s nothing in this series about other responsible actors in these supply chains (for a comparison, see our page on the BBC’s ‘Mangetout’ documentary here) and nothing about the need for structural change (e.g. living wage legislation). But the BBC sets up a web forum for people to discuss these issues and one cast member ends up on a late night BBC news show challenging some glib trade arguments made by a represenative of the British Retail Consortium. So, what does this TV series do for its British cast? Its Thai and Indonesian participants? The production company? The last one is easy. The success of this second ‘Blood sweat and…’ series is followed by the making of the next series. ‘Blood, sweat & luxuries’. Then, years later, TV production executives in Holland and the Czech Republic reported that it has inspired new reality TV series. The whole series was uploaded to YouTube in full in 2022, where a whole new generation of viewers – around the world – could engage with the series, its characters and its message.
Page reference: Harriet Clarke, Ben Thomson, Victoria Bartley, Katie Ibbetson-Price, Emma Christie-Miller & Harry Schofield (2025) Blood, Sweat & Takeaways. followthethings.com/blood-sweat-takeaways.shtml (last accessed <insert date here>)
“£20 Banknote“ Undergraduate coursework written by Oli Busk.
The students’ first task in the ‘Geographies of Material Culture’ module at the University of Exeter is to make a personal connection between their lives and the lives of others elsewhere in the world who made the things they buy. These are the people who help you to be you, followthethings.com CEO Ian tells them. So choose a commodity that matters to you, that’s an important part of your identity, that you couldn’t do without. Think about its component parts, its materials, and the properties they give to that commodity and your experience of ‘consuming it’. And write a 500 word first person account that connects your lives. One student – Oli Busk – has just got a £100 parking fine. He goes to the ATM to withdraw some cash, and then starts to think about what money is made from, its materials, its manufacture. Sure, there’s ways that it can be invested ethically and sustainability, but what about how its paper form is produced. The Royal Mint – which manufactures physical cash for the Bank of England – doesn’t say much about what it procures to make that cash. That would probably make it easier to make counterfeit money. So he indulges in some educated guesswork. There’s cotton in those notes, sooo … whose lives – apart from Queen Elizabeth – are in them? To his surprise, the hidden labour he finds is undertaken by students like him. And children.
Page reference: Oli Busk (2009) £20 Banknote. followthethings.com/£20-banknote.shtml (last accessed <insert date here>)
“The Pill (a.k.a. A Female Issue)“ Undergraduate coursework created by Kate Ross.
The students’ first task in the ‘Geographies of Material Culture’ module at the University of Exeter is to make a personal connection between their lives and the lives of others elsewhere in the world who made the things they buy. These are the people who help you to be you, followthethings.com CEO Ian tells them. Because you’re a cyborg, your body cannot function without the people, animals, technologies, networks that makes its inputs like food and medicine. So choose a commodity that matters to you, that’s an important part of your identity, that you couldn’t do without. Think about its component parts, its materials, and the properties they give to that commodity and your experience of ‘consuming it’. See what you can find online and write a 500 word first person account that connects your lives. One student – Kate Ross – chooses a prescription drug that she takes every day called Co-cyprindiol. It’s a contraceptive pill that’s also prescribed for skin and other conditions. When searches online to find out more about it, she discovers women in China, Brazil and Taiwan who are forced to take contraceptive pills in order to work in the factories and on the farms which make the stuff she buys. Her argument is that her connection with them is not only through the goods they might produce than she might buy. Their connection is through their consumption – as women – of the same medicine, voluntarily or not. They have something in common. Their bodies. Their fertility. Their medication. Once she learns about their relationships with the drug she takes, she thinks about how she’s feeling every time she pops one out of the foil pack… and then I see that face. To make her coursework more visceral, she takes an empty Co-cyprindiol foil, sticks it to a piece of paper, and handwrites these thoughts around it, day by day. These are the same foils that the supply chain workers she’s read about will pop their pills out of every day. She writes her thoughts and footnotes these with academic and detective work readings that have helped her to think this way.
Page reference: Kate Ross (2004) The Pill (A.K.A. A Female Issue). followthethings.com/the-pill-leaflet-thyroxine-a-k-a-a-female-issue.shtml (last accessed <insert date here>)
“Mirror“ Undergraduate coursework written by Lucinda Lawrence.
The students’ first task in the ‘Geographies of Material Culture’ module at the University of Exeter is to make a personal connection between their lives and the lives of others elsewhere in the world who made the things they buy. These are the people who help you to be you, followthethings.com CEO Ian tells them. So choose a commodity that matters to you, that’s an important part of your identity, that you couldn’t do without. Think about its component parts, its materials, and the properties they give to that commodity and your experience of ‘consuming it’. And write a 500 word first person account that connects your lives. One student – Lucinda Lawrence – creates the most ‘meta’ example we have ever seen. It’s about a mirror that she bought in a market. It’s about the science and ingredients of mirrors. It’s about the people who mine its ingredients. Like tin. It’s about who you see when you look in the mirror, who helps you to be you. And – aaaand – she submits two things. A piece of paper with some typed writing on it. And a mirror. The writing has been reversed, so it can only be read in the mirror. And the mirror has a message written in red lipstick on its surface. ”If you fall, no one’s gonna carry you out (Rubin Age 13)’ (Cook 2007, p,2).’ It’s a fantastic piece of work. But you’ll need a mirror to read it. It’s worth the effort! When we showed this at an academic conference, one member of the audience called it ‘conceptual art’.
[If you want more ‘who I see in the mirror’ trade justice activism, see our page on a short film called Handprinthere]
Page reference: Lucinda Lawrence (2009) Mirror. followthethings.com/mirror.shtml (last accessed <insert date here>)
“Crude: The Real Price Of Oil“ A documentary film directed & produced by Joe Berlinger for First Run Features. Trailer & pay per view stream embedded above. Search online for other streaming options here. Watch clips on the film’s YouTube channel here. Check its website here.
30,000 people living in Ecuador’s remote Amazon rainforest are taking out a US$27 billion class action suit against oil giant Chevron in the US over the dumping of toxic waste that has (allegedly) ruined their environment, livelihoods and health. Filmmaker Joe Berlinger hears about the case from the plaintiff’s US attorney and visits Ecuador to see what’s happening. He sees a gathering of indigenous people preparing a meal from canned tuna – unable to fish in their own water because its toxicity has killed or diseased any fish they might catch. The US oil giant Texaco had been drilling for oil here since the 1960s, and had allegedly dumped 18 billion gallon of toxic wastewater in the environment. Chevron had bought Texaco many years later so bought this responsibility too. Berlinger can’t imagine what his documentary will look like, or how it will appeal to audiences, until he meets an Ecuadorian oilfield labourer-turned-lawyer called Pablo Farjado who is working on the case. He’s the hero Berlinger needs, and he films without funding for a year (another two follow, after funding is secured). To join the dots in this case, he visits multiple places and talks to people who speak multiple languages. He films the trial, giving equal credence to the prosecution and the defence. He wants the audience to act as the jury, making up their own minds about the case. The film has fascinating twists, like the celebrities who get involved – most notably Trudie Styler and Sting – who help to turn what could have been a local news story into an international ’cause célèbre’. Once the film is released nationwide in the USA – even though the case is not resolved – it’s described as tragic, light, and comedic thriller because of its characters and unexpected twists and turns. One reviewer describes the film as ‘one of the most extraordinary legal dramas of our time’. Chevron’s lawyers and scientists have their say on screens, but audiences don’t warm to them. It’s a PR nightmare for Chevron. So the company attacks the film, filmmaker and prosecution team. Crude is one-sided, propaganda. And Chevron alleges corruption in the prosecution team which they say is shown in the film. A US court agrees that Berlinger should hand over all 600+ hours of footage so that Chevron’s complaint can be investigated, despite his First Amendments rights as a journalist. More celebrities (as well as filmmakers, journalists and professional organisations) come to his defence. But defending such a case is expensive when you’re up against an adversary with bottomless pockets. This is another excellent example of the ‘Streisand Effect’ – can attempts to intimidate trade justice activists (even when they’re trying to be even-handed!) discredit them and their work? Or can it create free publicity that makes it yet another unmissable film that a corporation ‘didn’t want you to see’? And, finally, can this type of manufactured scandal wither way, because less and less emphasis gets placed on the lives and environments of Ecuador’s indigenous people whose lives have been ruined by the oil industry?
Page reference: Jesse Fratkin, Judy Hwang and Shay O’Brien (2011) Crude: The Real Price Of Oil. followthethings.com/crude-the-real-price-of-oil.shtml (last accessed <insert date here>)
“B’eau Pal Water“ A spoof commodity-based activist campaign created by the Yes Men and the Bhopal Medical Appeal. Video playlist embedded above posted on YouTube by the Bhopal Medical Appeal.
It’s the 25th anniversary of the Union Carbide chemical factory explosion in Bhopal, India. It’s the worst industrial accident in history. 3,700 people died immediately. Between 8,000 and 25,000 people had died since. And up to 200,000 were permanently injured and countless more continued to be affected by the leaching of toxic chemicals into the water table. Still, the factory’s owners (Dow Chemical, who bought Union Carbide) refuse to pay compensation. So the Bhopal Medical Appeal get together with pranksters the Yes Men to design a new brand of bottled water. It’s a mineral water. B’eau Pal Water. A taste of Bhopal. “Bottled at source”, they say. Presented in a beautifully designed bottle. The Yes Men travel to Dow’s UK HQ to challenge its executives to drink it, just as Bhopal residents have for the past 25 years. When they arrive, the building is empty. Why won’t they drink this? When they offer it to passing members of the public , everyone understandably refuses once they know what’s in it. So is this campaign a success? Does it draw renewed attention to this long-running scandal? Is it OK that what they’re doing is ridiculous, funny, and that people are disgusted but also laughing about this prank? The Bhopal explosion wasn’t funny. So is this prank in poor taste? Is it offensive? Or can its humour embarrass Dow and bring the Bhopal factory explosion back into the news cycle? Can offering people a fancy bottle of toxic mineral water that they would never drink bring them closer to the people living in Bhopal who have no choice but to drink it? What’s the logical response to this? What has to happen to make this situation right? This bottled water later becomes a potent symbol of the compensation campaign at the 2012 London Olympics – where Dow is a corporate sponsor and a Bhopal survivor challenges the chair of its organising committee to drink it – and in Bhopal itself, when the victims and their families invite the Indian politicians and scientific advisors who had dismissed their complaints about contamination to a buffet of toxic delicacies including bottled B’eau Pal Water.
Page reference: Jack Parkin (2018) B’eau Pal Water. followthethings.com/beau-pal-water.shtml (last accessed <insert date here>)
“Bananas!*“ A documentary film directed by Fredrik Gertten for WG Film AG, Sweden Free trailer and on demand stream embedded above. Search online for other streaming options here. The first of two films on this topic. The second is “Big Boys Gone Bananas!*”. See our page in this here.
Swedish Filmmaker Fredrik Gertten tracks a ‘class action’ legal case in which lawyers working on behalf of a group of Nicaraguan banana workers sue the American fruit multinational Dole in a Califiornia court for exposing them to a banned pesticide known to cause impotency in men. Gertten follows a flamboyant Cuban-heritage, Los-Angeles based lawyer called Juan ‘Accidentes’ Domingiuez as he and his team gather evidence from affected workers and present it in court. Grainy court-TV footage is cut into the film, and the scenes are remarkable. Dominguez’ attourney Dwane Miller encourages Alberto Rosales and other plaintiffs to explain how their lives were ruined by these chemicals robbing them of their fertility. And when Dole CEO David Delorenzo is in the dock, Miller gets him to admit that Dole used these banned pesticides knowing the risk. Dole attorney Rick McKnight cross examines the plaintiffs, aiming to show they are drunks and liars. When the verdict comes in, Dole is largely found guilty and ordered to pay compensation to the plaintiffs. Dominguez conveys the good news to the farming communities, phoning in to a radio show, and visiting to talk to a packed hall of workers. He’s a hero. But this is a test-case. If it’s successful, thousands of other victims would be able to claim compensation from Dole too. So, as the film is being readied for its premiere at the Los Angeles Film Festival, Dole launches a sophisticated smear campaign against Dominguez (accusing him of fraud – a charge later discmissed) and the film (which they claim is based on fraudulent content). Suspiciously, damning reviews appear in newspapers and film trade publications before teh film has its premiere (i.e. before anyone had seen it). Dole forces it to be taken out of competition and the festival organiser reads a disclaimer to the audience before its only screening. Fredrik Gertten, the director, doesn’t know it at the time but this is be the first of two films he will make on this topic. The second will be about Dole’s attempts to silence the first. He films everything as the chaos unfolds. [See our page on the sequel – ‘Big Boys Gone Bananas!*’ – here] But this scandal means Bananas!* picks up priceless free publicity, and diverse allies, worldwide. When it’s finally distributed, it’s marketed as ‘the film Dole doesn’t want you to see.’ Maybe if Dole had left it alone, Bananas!* wouldn’t have become a ‘must see’ example of trade justice fillmmaking, then and now. If their corporate public relations team had decided to just keep quiet, they wouldn’t have amplified Dole’s corporate misbehaviour that Bananas!* tracked so diligently. Amplifying a critique by trying to silence it is called the ‘Streisand Effect’, by the way, and this isn’t the only example on our site. So much happened in and around this film that this is an epic followthethings.com page. There are so many comments to read. But does the scandal about the silencing of the film distract from the scandal of Dole’s banned pesticide use, and its effects on so many thousands of banana workers in Nicaragua? As you will see, the answer is yes and no.
Page reference: Ian Cook et al (2020) Bananas!*. followthethings.com/bananas.shtml (last accessed <insert date here>)
“Ahava Stolen Beauty“ An activist campaign organised by CODEPINK Women For Peace. 12 video YouTube playlist compiled by the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights embedded above shows protests taking place at multiple sites selling Ahava products in Canada, USA, The Netherlands, Israel & France. Click here for more footage of campaign protests and explainer videos. Click here for Code Pink’s ‘Ahava Stolen Beauty’ campaign website.
After the aftermath of Israel’s invasion of Gaza in 2008-9, members of the American women-led grassroots peace and human rights organisation CODEPINK visit a factory on the bank of the Dead Sea which makes cosmetic products from its salts and minerals on occupied Palestinian land. According to the Geneva Convention, occupying forces cannot take or profit from the natural resources of an occupied territory. Sold in department stores, spas and Ahava stores around the world, Ahava products are stamped as ‘Made in Israel’. Critics say that the company’s profits support the illegal settlement where the factory is based. So CODEPINK encourage women are concerned about beauty and disgusted by the occupation to use their consumer power to boycott Ahava products, and to use their citizen power to protest at their sites of sale (in bikinis and bathrobes to attract attention). When the US arm of Ahava later launches an #ahavareborn rebrand campaign on twitter and asks for suggestions, critics pile in with sarcastic slogans about aspects of the occupation that Ahava products can help to conceal or wash away. As the boycott gathers momentum, supporters of Israel criticise it – and the wider Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) movement that it became part of – as antisemitic, and pro-Israel consumers start counter-campaigns, buycotts, encouraging people to buy as many Ahava products as they can from targeted stores. But, despite this, Ahava stores shut, retailers refuse to stock Ahava goods, governments pass legislation forbidding ‘Made in Israel’ to be printed on goods produced in occupied Palestinian territories and, eventually, Ahava moves its factory to an unoccupied site. To add to this mix, laws forbidding the boycotting of ‘Made in Israel’ goods are passed around the world. This is an epic, controversial example of effective trade justice activism. The message was simple: there was no beauty in occupation. The repercussions of this actvism are with us today
NB this page is a taster. There’s much more to add after out new site is launched. Please check back.
Page reference: Ian Cook et al (2024) Ahava Stolen Beauty (taster). followthethings.com/ahava-stolen-beauty.shtml (last accessed <insert date here>)
