Shared by.
Nobuhiro Suzuki : Professor, Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo
Author Follow
Aug. 27, 2021 13:00
Share 1803
List
Share by Email
AA
(Photo: Daniel Balakov/iStock)
While the size of food-related markets has grown 1.5 times in the last 30 years due to thorough deregulation, food self-sufficiency has fallen to 38 percent.
As food demand increases due to global population growth and production declines due to climate change, food prices soar and there are concerns about export restrictions, will Japan be able to establish "food security"? A new book, "The Disappearance of Agriculture," tells us what kind of crisis Japan's agriculture is currently facing.
This article is an excerpted and edited version of the book.
What the People Don't Eat" is Being Sent to Japan
U.S. grain farmers are spraying the wheat they send to Japan with glyphosate, which is not only carcinogenic but has been linked to a variety of diseases by killing intestinal bacteria. If it rains during harvest, the wheat will germinate, so the herbicide is used to kill the wheat before harvesting. When the wheat is harvested and transported, it is sprayed with fungicide such as imazalil, a pesticide that is banned in Japan after harvest.
Several Japanese farmers who went to the U.S. for training have testified that U.S. grain farmers said, "It's OK because this is for the Japs to eat.
Some may criticize the use of glyphosate by Japanese farmers. However, Japanese farmers apply it to weeds.
But the problem now is that Japanese people consume more glyphosate residues in imported grains from the U.S. than any other people in the world.
Glyphosate is detected in most of the bread in Japan.
Moreover, because of its increasing use in the U.S., the Japanese were asked to loosen the intake limit for glyphosate in wheat by six times, and the Japanese government did so on December 25, 2017, as a "Christmas present. Unfortunately, the standard value for Japanese lives is probably calculated from the required US usage?
According to tests conducted by the Food Analysis Center of the Federation of Agricultural Cooperatives, glyphosate has been detected in most breads sold in Japan, but not in breads labeled as domestically produced or produced in Tokachi, of course.
Also detected in soy sauce
In soy products, Rubio and others analyzed glyphosate in soy sauce purchased in Philadelphia and found that 36 percent of the soy sauce tested had more glyphosate than the lower limit of quantification. No glyphosate was detected in organic soy sauce (note by Kazuo Watanabe, 2015).
Testing of soy sauce in Japan is also considered essential. The detection rate of glyphosate from imported grains in Japanese hair samples is also high (19 out of 28 samples, 68 percent detection rate).
While consumer concerns about glyphosate are growing worldwide and regulations are being tightened, Japan is on the contrary relaxing its regulations, which will raise expectations of making money in Japan.
At the end of March 2018, the Consumer Affairs Agency indicated a direction for stricter labeling of GM (genetically modified) foods, saying it was responding to consumer calls for stricter GM labeling.
While there were concerns that the U.S. would intensify its pressure on Japan not to allow GM labeling, I had doubts from the moment I heard the announcement that the Agency would consider stricter GM labeling, whether it was really possible to make a decision that would go against the U.S. request.
The US is particularly concerned about the voluntary labeling of "non-GM". In other words, "Japan's mandatory labeling of GM foods is okay because it covers only a few items and the contamination rate is low. The problem is that they allow non-GM labeling," said one of the experts on GM research in Japan.
The problem is that they allow non-GM labeling. If you want to continue, show us scientific evidence that GM is not safe.
GM labeling requirements were lax to begin with.
Japan's labeling requirements for GM foods (1) impose a labeling obligation (Note 1) for contamination rates of 5% or more of the main ingredients (top three by weight, 5% or more of the ingredients by weight), and (2) are limited to low-processed, near-raw ingredients (Note 2). (2) Targeted items are limited to less-processed, near-raw products (Note 2), and highly-processed products (i.e., products with no residual DNA) such as oil, soy sauce, and many other processed foods (Note 3), as well as livestock products made from genetically modified feed are excluded.
(Note 1): GM raw materials are regarded as not being segregated and labeling such as "GMO-free" is mandatory.
(Note 2): Corn, soybeans, potatoes, alfalfa, papaya, corn snacks, popcorn, corn starch, miso, tofu, soy milk, natto, potato snacks, etc.
(Note 3): Salad oil, vegetable oil, margarine, shortening, mayonnaise, soy sauce, sweeteners (corn syrup, liquid sugar, isomerized sugar, fructose, glucose, syrup, mirin-like seasoning, etc.), corn flakes, vinegar, brewing alcohol, dextrin (polysaccharide used as an adhesive, etc.), etc.
Compared to the EU, which requires GM labeling of all foods containing 0.9 percent or more of GMOs, this is extremely loose in terms of both the contamination rate and the items subject to GM labeling.
What was surprising about the decision to tighten the labeling requirements was that (1) and (2) remained exactly the same.
It is only the voluntary labeling of "non-GM" that has been made stricter. (The company name will also be made public in case of violation.)
It becomes difficult to sort out non-GMO foods.
If this stricter labeling requirement is enforced from April 2023, it will reduce the incentives for efforts to segregate GM and non-GM foods, which have been made to provide consumers with non-GM foods by pursuing non-GM ingredients as much as possible and labeling them as "not genetically modified," even though there are so many foods that are not subject to the labeling requirement. The incentive to make efforts to segregate GM and non-GM foods will be removed. The incentives for efforts to segregate GM and non-GM foods that have been trying to provide non-GM foods to consumers will be reduced, and foods labeled as "non-GM" may be wiped out from retail outlets.
(Click on the image to go to Amazon.com)
For example, tofu is often labeled as "soybeans (non-genetically modified)" in the ingredients section, but as long as it is made from domestic soybeans, it is not GM and can be labeled as "non-genetically modified" in the future, but since many distributors also handle imported soybeans, the possibility of trace amounts of contamination cannot be eliminated.
In fact, according to the analysis by the Food Analysis Center of the Federation of Agricultural Cooperatives, 11 out of 26 "non-GMO" soybean products were "non-detectable," but 15 products had contamination of 0.17% to 0.01%, and these products will no longer be able to be labeled as "non-GMO.
However, 15 products have been found to contain between 0.17% and 0.01% GMOs, and these products will no longer be able to be labeled as "non-GMO." The law allows for voluntary labeling, such as "We use segregated soybeans to prevent contamination with GM materials, but GM materials may be present," but this is difficult to understand and difficult to label effectively for consumers. Therefore, many vendors may stop labeling due to concerns about violations. Many companies have already started to withdraw from tofu and other products with non-GM labeling.
Consumers will be the ones to suffer
If the scope of GM labeling is not expanded, and if the contamination rate of GM labeling is kept loose, but only non-GM labeling is made extremely strict, consumers will not be able to recognize foods that are making efforts to be non-GM, and what will they be able to choose from among all the GM foods? Consumers will be forced to buy whatever GM food they want because they do not know.
This is the "GM non-labeling law". This is a "GM-free labeling law.
Receive Nobuhiro Suzuki's latest articles by email (Follow Author)
(Follow this author)
0 コメント:
コメントを投稿