Regulatory Developments Japan seriously lags behind its main trading partners in the development of its food market. People in Japan have less choice and must pay considerably higher prices for European food than possibly in any other developed economy in the world. This is due to overly restrictive and cumbersome regulations as well as punitive duty rates. With its rich traditions and well-developed food market, Europe has much to offer curious and quality-conscious Japanese consumers. More choice through access to the world's leading products and ingredients would benefit not only consumers, but also the food industry since Japanese food manufacturers rely on both locally sourced and imported ingredients to realise their maximum creative potential. A major factor preventing access of high-quality food to the Japanese market is Japan's approved food additives list, which remains out of step with the rest of the industrialised world. Of the 786 food additives authorised in Japan, only 294 are accepted by the Food & Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and the World Health Organisation (FAO/WHO). In contrast, over 600 substances accepted as safe by FAO/WHO and widely used worldwide are not allowed in Japan. In recognition of this problem, on December 19, 2002, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) submitted a list of 46 priority substances for review. Initial optimism rapidly faded as it became evident that progress remained slow and the system was non-transparent. MHLW took steps in 2005 to improve transparency and speed. The former has improved with the publishing of regular updates. However, only 7 out of 46 substances have been approved, 5 years after launching this initiative. Several reasons are given for this slow rate of progress, including lack of resources in the Food Safety Council (FSC) and outdated data. Understandably, the EBC remains disappointed. Moreover, the EBC is concerned that standards and restrictions applied to European food products are not always consistent with standards applied to domestic products and imports from other trading partners. Whilst outbreaks of BSE and classical Swine Fever in Europe triggered immediate strict restrictions on imports, domestic outbreaks of BSE and influenza A (H5N1), also known as "avian flu" or "bird flu", along with a number of domestic scandals involving improper labelling of products, the use of illegal food additives and poor quality control, have not resulted in correspondingly strict measures. Moreover, whilst the ban on American beef imports was lifted in 2003, discussions on lifting the ban on European beef did not begin until 2006. An EU-Japan Economic Integration Agreement should abolish all tariffs, quotas, minimum prices and state trade in food products, and enable mutual acceptance of standards on safety of food and food ingredients, and regulations including testing procedures for food imports. Such an agreement would serve as an example of promoting free trade of quality food as well as assuring consumer safety. Prospects for EU-Japan Economic Integration More than 60% of Japan's food supply is dependent on imports. In 2006, this equated to about 35 billion Euros in value. Considering the limited capacity for domestic food production, further undermined by the ageing and declining population, a reduction in trade restrictions on trade in food is long overdue. Tariffs, quotas, minimum prices and state-supported trade disrupt the free market mechanism and result in less choice and higher prices for consumers. The difficulty in importing perfectly safe high-quality food into Japan is further exacerbated by differences in food safety standards between Japan and Europe. Unconditionally opening up the markets and establishing mutual acceptance of food-related regulations through an EU-Japan Economic Integration Agreement, would bring more affordable high-quality food to both regions, without compromising consumer protection. As a result, Japan and Europe would strengthen their global positions as leading food and culinary markets. Priorities
Key Issues and Recommendations ■ Tariffs Yearly status report: no progress. The import duty rates on many foods and food ingredients remain far too high; for example, chocolate for professional use (29.8%), confectionery (25%), and dairy products (over 30%). Tariffs make European packed foods and semi-finished food products unnecessarily expensive for Japanese consumers. Recommendation:
■ Food additives Yearly status report: limited progress. Since December 2002, only 7 out of the 46 additives on the Government's own "priority list" have been approved. Another 19 additives have been evaluated by the Food Service Commission (FSC), of which 6 have been notified to the MHLW and have been discussed by the subcommittee (Polysorbates 20, 60, 65, 80, Calcium Silicate, Calcium L-Ascorbate). An additional 6 are under consideration, whilst 4 have been requested for evaluation. This leaves 10 as having had no progress at all. Also, current standards restrict the usage of already accepted commonly used preservatives such as Sorbic Acid, Potassium Sorbate and Sulphur Dioxide to certain pre-defined food categories which works especially against imported foods that tend not to fit these categories. Recommendation:
■ Testing of food in the market place Yearly status report: no progress. Under the current system, local authorities inspect food in market circulation. When products not fulfilling prescribed standards are found, the retailer, rather than the manufacturers and importers, are notified. This notification practice often causes the retailer to overreact and withdraw the tested product and related products even if the deviation from the standard is minor and does not pose a health risk. Recommendation:
■ European beef Yearly status report: no progress. In May 2005, the Food Safety Commission recommended that meat from animals younger than 20 months should be considered safe for import, a recommendation that was also endorsed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). The European beef industry is capable of tracing and guaranteeing the age of individual animals, but Japanese authorities have only recently started to discuss the terms and conditions for lifting the ban on European beef. In addition, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) has set internationally accepted scientific standards as to what can be considered safe beef. Japan however, though member of the organization, disregards the findings of the international scientific community in its own domestic safety assessments. Recommendation:
■ Organic Products Yearly status report: no progress. The organic market in Japan remains one of the smallest in the world despite increased consumer interest. The revision of Organic Japan Agricultural Standards (JAS) in 2006 made market entry even more difficult for European organic food producers. Third party certifying organisations are now empowered to apply various inconsistent and non-transparent rules and charging systems that create unnecessary complexities and costs for importers. The current system also involves wasteful bureaucracy where, for example, organically certified products in Europe require supplementary organic certificates to be issued by the respective embassies in Japan every time the products are imported. Furthermore, minor differences in organic standards between Europe and Japan mean that many important European organic products cannot be called organic in Japan. The present system results in limited choice and higher prices for organic products, which are desired by Japanese consumers. Europe is a leader in the organic market and is well-placed to help meet demand for such products in Japan, demand which cannot be met by locally sourced products alone. Recommendation:
■ Maximum residue levels Yearly status report: limited progress. The Positive List System introduced in 2006 sets strict standards for agriculture chemical residues in food. Foods imported from China have, on several occasions, been withdrawn from the market after extremely high levels of residues have been traced. The EBC endorses such action where a clear health risk exists, but fears overreaction if a certain chemical amongst the potential 1,000 or so chemicals is found to be just over the specified limit. Most importers and manufacturers are struggling to comply with the regulations and will need more time and resources to ensure full compliance as the whole production chain must be controlled. Recommendation:
■ Listeria Yearly status report: new issue. The difference between EU and Japanese regulations on Listeria monocytogenes curbs the exports of many products from EU to Japan such as charcuterie. EU regulations prescribe that up to 100 cfu/g of L. monocytogenes may be present during the whole consumption period as such a minimal level is perfectly safe for human consumption. Japan, however, bans all products containing L. monocytogenes, though tests are presently not undertaken. Recommendation:
|
