Category Archives: Environment

Glyphosate on Soybeans in Hokkaido?

Consumers Union of Japan got this very brief reply from conventional soybean growers in Hokkaido, represented by Hokuren Federation of Agricultural Cooperatives, founded in 1919 in Sapporo, Japan:

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions.

All of the agricultural products handled by the Federation are produced in compliance with the Pesticide Control Law and are used in an appropriate manner.

Thank you very much for your understanding.

 

This was in response to our request to cease pre-harvest glyphosate use in soybeans as well as an open questionnaire on its use (March 17, 2020)

///

From Consumers Union of Japan                        March 17, 2020.

To:

Hokuren Federation of Agricultural Cooperative
Mr. Kazuyuki Uchida, Chairman of the Board

From:

No! GMO Campaign
Keisuke Amagasa
Consumers Union of Japan (CUJ)
Keisuke Amagasa, Co-Chairman
Kazuki Ono, Co-Chairman

Request to stop using pre-harvest glyphosate in soybeans as well as a questionnaire on its use

We are a consumer organization that is committed to food safety. We have taken a variety of initiatives to oppose genetically modified and genome-edited foods. We call for prudence in the use of pesticides associated with GMOs. In particular, in recent years, the toxicity of glyphosate herbicides has become apparent, and as regulations have progressed worldwide, the monitoring of these herbicides has been intensified.

The No! GMO Campaign sent you a questionnaire on October 7, 2019 regarding the application of the harvest herbicide glyphosate on soybeans, and we received an email response on the 29th of the same month. Subsequently, when our campaign conducted a residue survey of glyphosate in soybeans, glyphosate was detected in your Federation’s Hokkaido-grown soybeans.

There is widespread concern among consumers about glyphosate residues. We would like to request that you, as a Federation, instruct your member farmers to stop the use of glyphosate in soybeans before harvest.

We also ask the following questions. We apologize for the inconvenience, but please send us your response in writing by March 31. The responses will be published on the website of CUJ.

1. In your response on October 29 2019, you stated that you “will continue to raise awareness of the proper use of glyphosate in compliance with the contents of the government’s registration”, and you recommend the spraying of glyphosate before harvesting soybeans.

2, In the wake of the results in 2015 showing a direct causal link between glyphosate and cancer by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), there has been a spate of lawsuits by victims in the United States, with agrochemical company Bayer losing one case after another. Are you aware of this fact?

3. Following the lawsuits in the United States, lawsuits were filed by victims in Canada and Australia, and their use has been banned or regulated in many countries and municipalities, including EU countries. Considering such a situation, we do not think that the logic that just because the Japanese government approves of it makes much sense.

4, We, the consumers, have come to believe that domestic non-GMO soybeans are safe because many imported soybeans are genetically modified, and genome-edited soybeans are appearing in the United States. However, with the detection of glyphosate in soybeans grown in Hokkaido, there is a concern that they will no longer be safe because just because they are grown in Japan. Could you provide guidance to stop using glyphosate before harvesting? When, if at all, do you plan to give guidance on termination of the use of glyphosate as a pre-harvest herbicide? If you do not do it, please tell us why.

WHO: IARC Monograph on Glyphosate

 

 

 

CUJ: Concerns Regarding Genome Editing of Fish

An article appeared in Tokyo Shimbun on January 24, 2020 that reported on the use of genome editing to exterminate invasive fish. The research is being pushed forward as a study by the National Research Institute of Aquaculture.

The article noted that Bluegill was introduced from North America to Japan in around 1960. It fed on everything from crustaceans and insects to young fish and aquatic plants, and had a major impact on the ecosystem, including the disappearance of native species. There was a huge influence in particular in Lake Biwa in Shiga prefecture, where the damage was enormous. The National Research Institute of Aquaculture succeeded in analyzing the genome of the Bluegill and succeeded in cutting the corresponding genes for infertility in males. In the future, they will create a near-natural environment in a controlled quarantine area and collect data for three to five years. The goal is to raise them in an outdoor reservoir and eventually release them into Lake Biwa, according to Tokyo Shimbun.

Consequently, Consumers Union of Japan wrote to the research center on January 29 to express our concern and to ask a number of questions. We consider that this type of genome editing can have a large impact on related species, the natural environment, as well as the entire ecosystem. This impact due to the release of genome-edited fish must be analysed very carefully. On February 17 we received a reply from the research center. Here follows the questions and answers:

Question 1: Please explain briefly how the sterilization will be made using genome editing, in order to exterminate invasive fish (Bluegill) and how you intend to assess the environmental impact as a result of releasing such fish.

(Answer) We are at the advanced stage of creating infertile fish that will be released. The research institute is going to carefully assess the impact on the environment after the release of the sterlizied fish and the influence on the biota in the water as well as the predation and the multiplication.

Question 2: Although the fish will be made infertile, is there a possibility that the genes for sterilization can spread to other related species including native fish and its offspring through cross breeding?

(Answer) There are no native fish of the same species as Bluegill (Sunfish family) in Japan. Because of this, we think the possibility that the sterilization genes will spread through cross breeding is zero. Also, Largemouth bass belongs to the Sunfish family but there are no reports of Largemouth bass cross breeding with Bluegill in the natural environment. Even so, we are consulting with related public administration and experts to get their opinion on wether such cross breeding is possible or not.

Question 3: Regarding sterilization, are you considering what may happen if offspring from such fish spread for example through artificial causes to water areas where they are a native species, such as North America?

The possibility that offspring of such fish will move to other water areas in Japan is being considered. It is also not impossible to imagine that eggs etc. from such fish will be transported by someone and discharged in North America. However, the sterilized populations we plan to develop will not reduce Bluegill populations in such waters unless we continue to release significant numbers into the same waters for decades. Therefore, we believe that the impact on Bluegill populations in a given body of water will be temporary, even if they move or are released. We expect to cover this point in the environmental impact assessment. Indeed, if infertile individuals are deliberately released in large numbers to their place of origin or elsewhere on an ongoing basis, this may lead to a decline in Bluegill populations in their original habitat. We plan to ask for the opinion from related public administrations and experts in order to get a clear picture of what may or may not happen and what measures need to be taken.

Question 4: Gene drive technology can be used to create sterilization. Are you considering the possibility of using gene drive technology?

(Answer) It would be very dangerous if offspring of such fish with sterilization from gene drive technology were to spread to the place where they are a native species as it can lead to extermination. Therefore we are thinking that it would be improper to use gene drive technology to extermine invasive fish in Japan. We are not planning to use it in the future either, even if there are technical developments in that field.

Question 5: If such fish and their offspring with infertility genes were to be caught, there is a possibility that they would be eaten by humans. Have you considered the food safety issue or do you plan to do such assessment?

(Answer) We are considering the possibility that such infertile fish or their offspring could be eaten. We cannot say that it would not happen. We are planning to ask related public administration and experts for their assessment of the food safety issue, once we are at that stage of development of sterilization.

International Film Festival On Organic Farming 2019

The 13th International Film Festival On Organic Farming will be held on 8 December, 2019 (Sun) from 9:30 AM at the Ekoda Campus of Musashino University in Tokyo. Films from Senegal, Burkina Faso, France, and Japan will be screened (original languages/Japanese subtitles).

IFOF: PARC, Japan Organic Agriculture Association, Consumers Union of Japan

For more information, please see www.yuki-eiga.com

G20: Ban Microcapsules in Home and Personal Care Products

May 10, 2019

Consumers Union of Japan (CUJ)

Japan Endocrine-disruptor Preventive Action (JEPA)

Toxic Watch Network Japan

Chemical Sensitivity Support Center

Association for Voluntary Ban on Fragrance

Consumers Union of Japan Kansai group

Mr. SEKO Hiroshige, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry

Mr. HARADA Yoshiaki, Minister of Environment

Mr. NEMOTO Takumi, Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare

Urgent Proposal
To Ban Microcapsules in Home and Personal Care Products

We urge the Japanese government to lead the world in regulating microplastics at G20 in Osaka.

We are a coalition of six Japanese citizen groups acting against unacceptable fragrance attack called “KOGAI” (香害=scent damage) in Japan. Recently, many of home and personal care products contain more and more synthetic fragrance substances. Of note, fabric softeners have caused unprecedented adverse health effects to Japanese people including children. When CUJ opened a telephone consultation “KOGAI 110” for two days in 2017 to collect voices from KOGAI victims, it received more than two hundreds phone calls from all over the country.

Meanwhile, microplastic marine pollution is getting more serious worldwide and drastic measures are required. Although the efforts to reduce microbeads in cosmetics and toothpastes have been started voluntarily by the manufacturers, it seems that the microcapsule problems have not been clearly recognized in Japan and no measures have been taken. Since the major purpose of fragrance encapsulation technology used in home and personal care products is to last the fragrance long, we believe that the technology is one of the main causes of KOGAI.

The microcapsules used in fabric softeners and synthetic detergents are supposed to be broken into smaller pieces in the environment and the debris could cause plastic pollution in the soil and the ocean. Moreover, micro-size particles, including air pollutant PM2.5, may reach deep into the lungs when inhaled. Consequently, the microcapsule debris could be very harmful to humans.

Therefore, we urge G20 governments to ban microcapsules in home and personal care products. We hope the Japanese government to lead the world in regulating microplastics at G20 in Osaka.

Proposals

1. The microcapsules in home and personal care products should be banned. In addition, the reduction plans for microcapsules should be explicitly included in “The Plastic Resources Recycling Strategy” proposed at G20 in Osaka.

2. It should be explicitly stated that microcapsules are included in microplastics in “The Law concerning Adequate Disposal of Marine Debris in the Way of Good Scenes and Environments on Beaches and Sea Surroundings to Protect Beautiful and Rich Nature” and “the Plastic Resource Recycling Strategy”.

Reasons for the Proposals

  1. Microplastics are fine plastics with a size of 5mm or less. There are two types of microplastics: “primary microplastic” which is intentionally manufactured in micro size such as microbeads and microcapsules, and “secondary microplastic” which is manufactured in larger sizes and be broken down to micro size in the environment.
  2. It is unclear whether microcapsules are included in the microplastics category in “The Plastic Resources Recycling Strategy” and “The Law Concerning Adequate Disposal of Marine Debris in the Way of Good Scenes and Environments on Beaches and Sea Surroundings to Protect Beautiful and Rich Nature” revised in June 2018. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) submitted to the European Commission a proposal report on a regulation of “intentionally added microplastics” in January 2019. In the proposal, ECHA recommended that microcapsules contained in home and personal care products should be banned in the European region within five years.
  3. Many fabric softeners, synthetic detergents, and other home and personal care products contain microcapsules made of plastics (synthetic resins) to encapsulate fragrance substances. The fragrance encapsulation technology is used in 10 to 20% of synthetic detergents and about 60% of fabric softeners (including scented beads) worldwide. Therefore, numerous pieces of microcapsules could be emitted in the air, the ocean, and the soil from the laundry and the waste water. In any cases some of the microcapsules could be transported in human bodies and cause adverse health effects. The microcapsule wall materials are melamine resins, polyurethanes, polyureas, and polyacrylates. When microcapsule wall materials are polyurethane, an extremely dangerous substance called isocyanate could be released into the environment. We believe that the microcapsules in home and personal care products should be banned immediately, since it could exacerbate plastic pollution of the soil, the ocean, the air, and human bodies.

Contact Information:

Consumers Union of Japan (CUJ)

Nishi Waseda 1-9-19-207

Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo

Japan 169-0051

Please Join Our One Million Signature Petition Campaign: “Regulate All Gene-edited Food!”

Dear Friends and Fellow Anti-GMO Campaigners,

Please Join Our One Million Signature Petition Campaign:
“Regulate All Gene-edited Food!”

In March 2019, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan
concluded that no regulation is needed for most of gene-edited food to
be sold in Japan. The Ministry of the Environment also announced its
decision to require regulation only for limited gene-edited food using
created with specific processes. Consequently, some sources expect
gene-edited food to be available as early as this summer of 2019 in
Japan.

We, Consumers Union of Japan, together with concerned grassroots
organizations and Co-ops across Japan, have been advocating the
strictest possible regulation at a level that is at least equal to GMO
regulations over the last few years, but our voice has not been
reflected in the government’s decision making as of now. Our demand is
fully in accordance with our consumers’ rights stipulated in the Basic
Act on Consumers Policies.

We are highly concerned about this situation. No regulation means
basically no enforced safety tests, no transparency and no labelling.
Due in part to the fact that Japan is a country with less than 40% of
food self-sufficiency, consumers can only expect a marketplace that is a
virtual hell filled with uncontrolled gene-edited food produced possibly
both domestically and globally, unless we take action.

We have decided that now is the time to scale up our campaign. As we
launch this One Million Signature Petition Campaign throughout Japan, we
have a request to our global friends and colleagues.

1. If you share our concerns and support our petition (below) addressed to the Japanese government, then please email (nogeneediting@nishoren.org) your name and title or the full name of your organization, the country which you are based and also the contact person name. The collected signatures will be submitted to the Government of Japan in September 2019 when we will hand over our signatures to it.

[Organization]
Name of organization:
Contact person:
Country:
Email:

[Individual]
Your name:
Title:
Country:
Email:

2. We are collecting pictures with the banner indicating “Regulate All
Gene-edited Food!” We welcome your pictures with the banner attached in
this email, or any banner you have. It will be great to see the key
message in your language, together with English message.
Please send us the picture to the email address (nogeneediting@nishoren.org). We greatly appreciate your solidarity and collaboration.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at the office
of Consumers Union of Japan.

Sincerely,
Keisuke Amagasa, Michiyo Koketsu, Kaori Hirouchi and Martin J. Frid
The Anti-GMO Campaign International Coordinators, Consumers Union of Japan

To:
Mr. Nemoto Takumi, Minister of Health, Labor, and Welfare
Mr. Yoshikawa Takamori, Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Mr. Harada Yoshiaki, Minister of the Environment
Mr. Okamura Kazumi, Commissioner of Consumer Affairs Agency

We strongly demand proper regulations for gene-edited food
As we learn that unpredicted results could occur by a gene-editing
method, including “off-target” effects, our concern over the
technology and its impact on our food has not been cleared. However,
both Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Health, Labor and
Welfare decided that gene-edited organisms are not regulated by law
unless external genes remain in the organism.  The food with voluntary
registration with no enforced labelling system and no environmental
assessment could soon on our table.
Our right to know, our right to choose and our right to live a healthy
life are now at risk. We strongly demand that environmental assessment,
food safety inspection and labelling on all gene-edited food without
exception.

We demand:
1. Mandatory environmental impact assessment for all gene-edited food
including crops and other produces, livestock and fish.

2. Mandatory food safety assessment for all gene-edited crops and other
produces, livestock and fish.

3. Mandatory labeling for all gene-edited crops, other produces, and
processed food that contain gene-edited ingredients.
———————————————————————-