Consumers Union of Japan – Page 56 – Sound and Healthy Future for Our Children

11,500 Participants In Yokohama Want Japan To Change Its Thinking About Nuclear Power

Change is needed for Japan to stop relying on nuclear power

The large Yokohama conference on January 14-15 for a nuclear power free world was a very well organized two day event with hundreds of lectures by speakers from Japan and abroad. I was impressed by the number of different groups and NPOs that came together to share information and experiences, 10 month after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, and the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant.

Held at the Pacifico Yokohama by the harbour, the event was an opportunity to think about energy issues. German MEP Rebecca Harms noted that Japan is now running its huge cities and industries on only 6 nuclear reactors out of 54. She pointed out that Germany decided to phase out nuclear power after the conservative government lost an important local election directly after March 11, 2011. Clearly angry after having just visited Fukushima, she said, “With the majority of public opinion in Japan now standing solidly against nuclear power, why the hell would Japan ever consider promoting it again?”

At one of the workshops, Swedish expert Goran Bryntse, PhD, who has led the anti-nuclear movement for a long time, talked about how citizens can change the energy policy. First of all, he noted, energy efficiency is the best and cheapest alternative to nuclear power. For example, a country can save up to one third of its energy consumption through heatpumps, more efficient engines, LED lights, and new whitegoods such as the latest refrigerators.

In the case of Sweden, these measures would be able to replace 4 nuclear reactors, according to Dr Bryntse. Additionally, 6 more nuclear reactors can be replaced by wind power (3), biomass and co-generation (2), and solar energy (1). Thus, all of Sweden’s current 10 nuclear reactors can easily be phased out. Of course this is a lesson that Japan should also take note of.

At another talk session there was a panel discussion about creating a “New Japan.” There is now a debate about whether to stop nuclear power immediately, or to phase it out gradually, but all of the panelists agreed that what Japan needs is clean and sustainable energy. For this shift to happen, mass media needs to change and become more accountable. The lack of democratic policies is also regrettable. There is some hope that Japan’s new Green Party can put forward its first candidates in 2013. I was also impressed that people are now collecting signatures for a referendum on nuclear power.

I talked to Mr. Hideyuki Ban from Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center who was deeply moved by the large turnout. He was also glad so many foreign guests were able to attend. There were many peace groups and groups representing the hibakusha from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and many old-timers who have campaigned even back when campaigning was not very popular in Japan. There were new groups of people who have been forced to deal with the unthinkable: mothers in Fukushima, worried about their kids, and lawyers trying to do the right thing to support the citizens – and shareholders – of TEPCO.

The Yokohama Declaration (pdf) that was adopted sounds like something a lot of people may want to read and sign. The declaration asked for support for the people in Fukushima, and said Japanese nuclear power plants that are currently idled should not be restarted.

Peace Boat and the other NGOs that made this event happen should all be applauded for their organizing skills. I met a lot of young people who attended both days. The friendly staff and genki volunteers made every effort to guide everyone to the right venue, offering simultaneous interpretation to anyone who asked for it. The organizers had hoped for a nice round 10,000 to attend, so this event was a huge success.

Martin Frid, Consumers Union of Japan

By fridfrid | 25/01/2012 | Energy, Energy Efficiency, Nuclear, Renewable Energy |

Japan Resources No 154

CUJ JR 154 (pdf) Japan Resources No 154

Thank you for visiting the English web site of Consumers Union of Japan. We have recently renewed our Japanese web site to better reflect all our campaigns both domestically and internationally.

Consumers Union of Japan (NPO Nihon Shohisha Renmei)

As we prepare to celebrate the bonenkai to end 2011, we also look forward to 2012, the year of the dragon!

Feel free to download the pdf file of Japan Resources No 154 and print it for your library.

– Editors

Contents:

GMO Free Zone Registration Status Report (2001)
Organic Farming in Japan: Lessons for the World
Consumers Against TPP Negotiations
Genetically Modified Papaya: Consumer Reaction
BSE: Keep Strict Rules to Eradicate Mad Cow Disease
Protest Letter: Withdraw Plans to Reexamine Japan’s Strict BSE Measures!
Don’t forget the people who survived the tsunami in Tohoku

By fridfrid | 20/12/2011 | Japan Resources |

BSE: Keep Strict Rules To Eradicate Mad Cow Disease

Withdraw Plans to Reexamine Japan’s Strict Measures against Mad Cow Disease

December 9, 2011

Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) decided on December 9, 2011 to consider reexamining the legal measures against Mad Cow Disease and to ask the BSE committee of the Food Safety Commission to deal with the issue by the end of the year.

We regard the easing of the present BSE inspection standards to have only one purpose, namely to make it possible to resume beef imports from the United States.

Food Safety Citizens’ Watch and Consumers Union of Japan have sent the following letter of protest on December 9, 2011, demanding that the Japanese government should withdraw its reexamination plans and instead continue to protect consumers against BSE.

Protest Letter: Withdraw Plans to Reexamine Japan’s Strict BSE Measures!

On October 31, 2011, Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) raised the issue of reexamining the countermeasures against BSE, and submitted this request to the Food Safety Commission on December 9, 2011.

We regard this as a politically motivated decision that only serves to accept expanded imports of beef products from the United States. We find this to be premature and strongly urge the Japanese government to withdraw its reexamination process, for the following reasons:

1) Japan introduced countermeasures against BSE in 2001, implementing a strict system to safeguard against this terrible disease.

Japan’s domestic system includes the testing of all cattle and a traceability system that identifies each cow, as well as the removal of Specified Risk Material (SRM) after slaughter, in addition to feed regulation. This is a system that serves as a global model for countermeasures against BSE and its importance has not been diminished.

However, during the time of the reelection campaign of president George W. Bush in 2005, Japan agreed to change its strict rules so that beef products from cattle aged 20 months or younger could be imported from the US based on a simplified BSE countermeasure system. This concession followed intense US pressure on Japan’s government.

Even so, careful testing of each and every cow has continued domestically here in Japan in order to protect consumers.

2) As part of the proposed new countermeasures against BSE, the age limit will be raised to 30 months, and it will thus become unnecessary to test any cows that are younger than 30 months. However, there is no scientific basis for changing the age limit for BSE inspection from 20 months to 30 months.

In fact, we regard this as a purely political decision as Japan attempts to join the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade negotiations. It is simply a concession to US domestic standards that has set the age limit arbitrarily at 30 months for its own cattle testing program. It would mean that 90% of US beef products, rather than 20% today, will become eligible for export to Japan.

Japan made this concession to remove what trade negotiators call a “non-tariff barrier” to US president Obama as he tries to get reelected for a second term, and needs the support of and contribution for his electoral campaign from the powerful US beef industry. This also helped Japan get the US to accept that it would be allowed to participate in the TPP negotiations.

3) While BSE infection rates have decreased around the world, there is no evidence that the US system to combat the disease has had any such effect.

Moreover, questions have still not been answered regarding the spreading of the disease, the cause of development of symptoms of BSE, and the issue of prions inside the bodies of cows.

In order to completely eradicate BSE from the world, it is indispensable that research based on Japan’s system that tests all cows should be implemented in all countries, and that data collection should be further expanded.

Since there have been 15 confirmed cases of US beef product export program violations with regards to Japan, it is also necessary to strictly verify the US compliance with countermeasures against BSE.

4) We are concerned that if non-tariff barriers are further deliberated in the TPP negotiation process, we will end up with a similar situation that South Korea is now facing as part of its free trade agreement with the US. This system explicitly makes it impossible for a country to stop imports of beef products from a country even if BSE should occur in the exporting country (This is also known as the “ratchet effect” and implies that any new liberalization measures would be “locked in” so they cannot be rescinded or nullified over time, for example by improved consumer protection legislation). Such deregulation is unacceptable to consumers in Japan.

Additionally, we are strongly opposed to having the rules and standards of OIE (Office International des Epizooties) as mandatory provisions that override Japan’s food safety measures that are based on the precautionary principle. We regard this as a serious and unacceptable affront to Japan’s sovereignty.

Food Safety Citizen’s Watch

Kamiyama Michiko

Consumers Union of Japan

Amagasa Keisuke, Koga Mako, Mashimo Toshi & Yamaura Yasuaki

By fridfrid | 20/12/2011 | BSE, Food, FTA, TPP, Trade |

Genetically Modified Papaya: Consumer Reaction

Genetically modified papaya to be marketed in Japan for the first time but the labeling issue is not solved

By Yamaura Yasuaki, CUJ

The safety assessment of the genetically modified papaya was completed by the Food Safety Committee in 2009. In April, 2011 there was a deliberation about its labeling in the Consumer Committee of the Consumers Affairs Agency. There has also been an opportunity for the general public to comment on the case. Following this, a deliberation was held on July 27, 2011 to decide about the way such GM papaya should be labeled. This GM papaya could be the first case of marketing of a transgenic fruit in Japan.

The Consumers Affairs Agency suggests that based on the Food Sanitation Law, the manufacturer should attach a printed label on each fruit. The text “Genetically Modified” should also be added to the ingredient list on papaya jam, papaya juice and other processed foods, together with the country of origin.

CUJ is concerned what will happen if the seal (sticker) is accidentally removed or falls off.

First of all, we regard the cultivation and import of GM papaya as problematic. Japanese consumers who do not want to eat GM foods expect the GM label to be distinct and clear if GM papaya is to appear on the market. CUJ would like to point out the following problems with the approach taken by the Consumer Affairs Agency:

According to the suggestions, “The sticker could possibly be re-attached on the fruit, when the operator in charge deals with GM papaya only”, if the GM sticker is removed or falls off. If the manufacturer handles both GM papaya and non-GM papaya, all products from that manufacturer should be labeled as “may contain GM papaya” due to the possibility that mixing appears.

The Consumer Affairs Agency recognizes that there may be cases when the GM papaya is sold without a label because it has been removed or falls off, but takes a relaxed attitude to this possibility. This should be regarded as a serious violation.

CUJ regards the act of selling GM papaya without correct GM labeling as a violation that should be severely punished by the law.

The Consumers Affairs Agency decided to reflect such points that were pointed out at the Food Labeling Committee meeting regarding the labeling rules.

By fridfrid | 20/12/2011 | Biotechnology, Food |

Consumers Against TPP Negotiations

TPP: Rural Japan Under Serious Threat By “Operation Enemy”

November 02, 2011

The TPP negotiations seem to be hi-jacked by American rice growers and large grain exporting corporations. This is in spite of the fact that liberalization of the rice sector would have devastating effects on rural Japan. We cannot understand why the Japanese government should allow one small group of American producers to effectively make it impossible for Japan as a whole to maintain its food sovereignty. Consumers Union of Japan strongly rejects such approach to trade liberalization, and we, the consumers, have concluded that we have every reason to oppose the TPP negotiations. We think this will create a world where the law of the jungle prevails.

Half a year ago, American soldiers came to Tohoku to help the people there recover from the massive earthquake and tsunami. This was called “Operation Tomodachi” and while the word “tomodachi” means “friend” it seems the US Trade Representative represents the “enemy” of the same farmers and fishermen in rural Japan that appreciated the support for Tohoku!

Farming is the backbone of all activities in rural areas, from Okinawa in the south to Hokkaido in the north. Most rice farmers grow rice in the summer and wheat in winter. Both crops would be competing with cheap imports if tariffs are eliminated through “Operation Enemy.” Also, Japanese farmers are properly covered by health insurance and pension systems. This cannot be compared to areas in the United States with a large influx of illegal immigrants that work for large landowners at minimum wage conditions.

To abruptly engage in TPP negotiations is not acceptable for consumers. TPP is not only going to harm Japan’s agricultural sector, but ruin the entire economy in rural areas. This also leads to destruction of the natural environment and food safety concerns. In particular, Consumers Union of Japan is concerned about pressure to change the rules to combat BSE and the mandatory labelling of genetically modified organisms (GMO).

Structural reform of agriculture, allowing large-scale corporations to run farms, will be the end of small-scale farming. Such policies are now promoted by the Democratic Party of Japan, in spite of their 2009 election manifest, in which they promised to attach special importance to farmers. Instead, small-scale farming should be seen as the model for others around the world to follow, as it requires less reliance on fossil fuels and promotes biological diversity.

We cannot help but ask if it really is the intention of a small lobby group, the US rice farmers, to cause such terrible distress to millions of people in rural Japan.

Yasuaki Yamaura, CUJ

By fridfrid | 09/11/2011 | Food, FTA, TPP, Trade |