| Issue # 1, BSE, food additives July 2005 |
Food Safety Citizens'Watch was established
in April 2003 as a network of experts to
monitor developments and make proposals to
the government regarding food safety issues
from the citizen's point of view.
Each year, an annual assembly of Food Safety
Citizens' Watch is held. At the third annual
assembly on April 16, 2005, the following
appeal with regards to the BSE issue was
adopted, directed to the Japanese government's
Food Safety Commission:
|
| BSE appeal |
Appeal requesting thorough anti-BSE measures
and opposing the reopening of American beef
imports
1. Concerning BSE there are still many unknown
issues. In spite of a legal ban on feed containing
meat bone meal, several cases of cows infected
with BSE have been discovered in Japan. The
cause is not properly known, and further
cases are still being discovered.
2. There is a pressing demand for a scientific
investigation and thorough expansion of the
appropriate preventive measures. Until that
is done, it is not in the public's best interest
to abolish the blanket testing of all Japanese
cattle, or to reopen the import of U.S. beef.
3. The decision to use visual inspections
to determine the age and safety of U.S. beef
cannot be deemed satisfactory, and imports
should not be allowed. In our opinion, scientific
appraisal and strict surveillance is required.
There are also whistle-blowing reports and
other expert evaluations that point out that
the U.S. is not implementing sufficient BSE
measures.
4. To blindly follow the strong demands of
the sellers, is contradicting the government's
duty to listen to the demands of the Japanese
consumers.
|
| Trading away food safety: 20 BSE cases in
Japan and only two in the US?* |
On May 6, 2005, Japan's Food Safety Commission
indicated that blanket BSE testing rules
in Japan may be eased. Currently all cows
must be tested, but the new rules propose
that only cows 21 months or older will be
included in the government's mandatory testing
regime. However, public comments from consumers
strongly urge the government to maintain
the blanket testing regime for at least another
three years. It is obvious that changing
the domestic testing rules is a way to re-open
the Japanese market, so that American beef
can be imported again.
One serious issue is the removal of specified
risk material (SRM) such as spinal cord from
the carcasses of the young cows. This domestic
rule has been discussed in depth this spring.
However, we have to point out that the consequences
of the deliberations are not limited to domestic
beef. Are the rules really effective? Can
the beef industry really be trusted to follow
the rules? Consumers who demand safe food
feel that the Japanese government should
take into consideration other issues, such
as strict surveillance of the SRM rules as
well as effective feed controls, not only
in Japan but in the U.S. as well, before
domestic rules are changed. Under global
trade rules, a country is not allowed to
impose stricter rules on imported products,
as that would be considered a barrier to
trade. By easing the domestic rules, the
Japanese government is actually making it
impossible to continue to restrict imports.
To protect consumers, the strict Japanese
BSE blanket testing standard should become
the global standard.@Japan has found 20
cases of cows infected with BSE, while the
U.S. has only found two such cases. By not
testing all cows, the U.S. has been hiding
the extent of its BSE problem. They have
simply been waiting until older cows with
a higher BSE risk have died, without testing
them. While national governments struggle
with surveillance and testing for BSE in
national herds, they cannot make sure that
imported meet is safe.
What is worse is that the exporting countries
are also attempting to win the battle by
a very clever strategy that makes stricter
domestic rules virtually impossible. This
was achieved by manipulating international
standards in an obscure international group
called World Organisation for Animal Health
(OIE). During its May 22-27, 2005 meeting,
OIE, the intergovernmental standard-setting
organisation for animal health and zoonoses,
has made important changes to its BSE rules.
OIE is heavily influenced by beef- exporting
countries such as the U.S. and Canada.
OIE standards are not strictly binding, but
under the World Trade Organization Agreement
on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures, only domestic legislation that
is in line with international standards will
be considered compatible with WTO rules.
This means that if a country wishes to adopt
more stringent measures, then it must prove
that they are scientifically justifiable.
The OIE standards are thus virtually binding,
as an exporting country would immediately
argue that other rules are trade barriers.
The new OIE rules will allow trade of boneless
beef and so-called "deboned skeletal
muscle meat". This is a type of red
meat that can be used in sausages and hamburgers.
It is also called mechanically deboned meat,
as the meat is removed from the bone with
high pressure, but it has been shown to also
include nerve tissue, spinal cord and bone
marrow. Some food companies actually have
policies stating that they do not use deboned
meat, but such policies are not binding,
and cannot be controlled. In addition, the
new OIE rules will allow trade of blood products
from cattle of all ages.
Previously, OIE recognized five categories
of BSE risk, but at the controversial meeting,
rules were simplified and streamlined into
a three-category system. The new OIE risk
classification system has the following categories
for beef-producing countries:
1) negligible risk
2) controlled risk
3) undetermined risk
These OIE rules that were adopted at the
May 2005 meeting will make it easier for
countries with BSE cases to resume trade
of its beef. The new OIE rules are cleverly
designed so that importing countries should
not inspect imported beef. If the exporting
country demonstrates that it meets certain
requirements so that it can be considered
a "controlled-risk" country, then
its beef should not be restricted by domestic
rules in the importing country. The new OIE
rules are vague and ambiguous, and do not
demand blanket testing of all cows, but rather
a surveillance system designed to make international
trade easier. In spite of consumer concerns
about food safety, the profit-driven globalization
of food trade is threatening our food security
and lives.
|
| Approval of new antibiotics as food additive |
At its May 6, 2005 meeting, the Food Safety
Commission approved Natamycin, an antibiotic,
as a food additive. Natamycin is a macrolide
type antibiotic used for certain diseases,
especially fungal infections. Because it
obstructs growth of mold and yeast, it is
used in Europe to preserve hard, semi-hard,
and semi-soft cheeses. With this controversial
approval, Japan might be heading for problems
with the medical use of this or related macrolide
antibiotics, although the risk is said to
be extremely small.
In fact, the trend today is on reducing antibiotics
in food production. The general issue of
antibiotic resistant bacteria is recognized
as a very serious matter. The approval of
yet another antibiotic in food production
ignores this trend. It indicates that trade
concerns outweigh food safety issues, and
that consumers' safety concerns have been
sacrificed.
(Copyright FSCW August 2005)
Address:
Food Safety Citizens' Watch
c/o Consumers Union of Japan
Nikken Bldg.
75 Waseda-machi, Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 162-0042, Japan
URL: http://www1.jca.org/foodsafety
|
Food Safety Citizens' Watch Newsletter
Back number opening article (Japanese language
only): |
No.1"Protecting our safety"
No.2"Making our voice heard at the Food
Safety Commission"
No.3"Health food problems"
No.4"Is this really OK?"
No.5"Understanding the food safety concept"
No.6"Central government bureaucrats
are not doing anything"
No.7"Illegal use of the food additive
Nycin 2" |
|
