TRADE-JAPAN: Genetically Modified Food Puts Tokyo in a Fix

By Suvendrini Kakuchi Reprint | | Print |

Suvendrini Kakuchi

TOKYO, Nov 24 1999 (IPS) - Strong consumer resentment of imports of genetically modified food products has put Japan in an awkward position at next week’s World Trade Organization (WTO) talks in the United States.

Thus far, the Japanese government has expressed support for a new ‘millennium round’ of trade talks for further liberalisation beyond agriculture and services.

“In Seattle, Japan cannot step back from its position as a free-trade champion,” Mitsuhiro Kagami, an economist at the Institute of Developing Economies here, said of Tokyo’s stand at the negotiations among the world’s trade ministers that start on Nov 29.

“But at the same time, the government realises it cannot ignore the growing demand from local consumers to clamp down on agricultural imports, a situation that will not help Japan at the meeting,” he explained.

Like consumers in Europe as well neighbouring South Korea, Japanese consumers are increasingly worried by the amount of food products that contain genetically modified material, especially corn and soybeans, and the potential effects on the environment and human health.

Heavily dependent on food imports, Japan imports almost all of its corn and buys most of its soybean from the United States. Corn and soybean are among the most common food items that contain genetically modified material, especially those grown in the US.

Yet the Tokyo government is loathe to take measures that will add to the already common criticism of Japan’s trade policies as being too defensive of its local markets. Likewise, steps to restrict the entry of food with genetically modified components have been seen as trade barriers by major agricultural producers.

In a bid to deal with the complexities it faces, the Japanese government is lobbying hard for negotiations on the regulations in the agricultural trade to cover “multifunctionality”.

The concept links the trade in farm products with environmental concerns, and the role played by the farming communities in the producing countries. The adoption of multifunctionality is in reply to growing concern about Japan’s food security, says an official at the Foreign Ministry.

He says agriculture after all has a variety of roles other than producing food, such as forming natural landscapes, preserving rural land and maintaining ecosystems. In other words, agriculture is more than a trade issue, Tokyo argues.

To appease the growing movement against the entry of genetically modified food products, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has decided to require the labeling of genetically modified foods from 2001.

Labels will be required when genetically modified ingredients are one of the main three in a product, and when they contribute to 5 percent of its weight.

But United States and Australia, two major exporters of farm produce, vehemently oppose labeling. They point out that talks on the liberalisation of the agricultural market must also be included in the overall negotiations on free trade, and that agriculture should not be treated separately.

Last week, local farmers joined South Korean farmers and presented a joint statement urging trade ministers in the Seattle negotiations to respect the farm policies of the two countries.

The Food Safety and Farmers Union, a consumer organisation, says the free trade principle in the WTO needs to pursue liberalisation but with a deeper respect for the ideas and concerns of the ordinary people.

“There is the opinion in Japan that the WTO is a conservative organisation run by stiff government officials who are lobbied intensely by rich corporations. Many people are very disappointed with the way things are going on and have no trust in the organisation,” says Natsuko Kumasawa, spokeswoman.

Still, insists Kumasawa, the debate over genetically modified food has shown that consumers can still get their message through by turning away from products they do not want and “forcing short-sighted officials” to rethink their policies.

As it is, US officials are not happy with the thought of Japanese imports of its products with genetically modified material waning due to consumer opposition.

Last week, US Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman told a press conference in Geneva that while protecting farmers “is a

legitimate aim for every country, what is not legitimate is to use that aim to maintain programmes which are trade distorting.”

Japanese consumer unions, which have played a leading role in trying to ban imports of genetically modified food, say the government has taken the correct position on agricultural liberalisation.

“It’s a step forward in our campaign to get the WTO to install environmental and cultural preservation conditions into the free trade debate,” explained Tomoko Sakuma of the Citizen’s Forum 2000, a non-governmental group that will be in Seattle.

“But we would like Japan to be sincere in its agricultural negotiations by not trying to separate the issue but include environmental and concerns in the overall free trade debate,” she added.

By this activists mean that Tokyo should not invoke environmental or health concerns only when it suits its own economic or consumer interests.

Sakuma and many activists are calling for the WTO to also include community preservation, protection of labour rights and cultural rights in negotiations dealing with the service and industrial trades as well.

Such, however, would be a tall order for the Japanese government, which, as economists point out, is already desperately trying to explain Japan’s trade surpluses with trading partners that are accusing it of putting up barriers.

“The government is weak when it comes to cutting a better deal for local farmers in many countries because of the country’s industrial exports that remain so high,” one activist said, adding that Tokyo would not want to see its industrial exports hurt if other countries cut purchases out of pique.

By June 1999, Japan’s trade surplus with the US increased by 18.2 percent to 655 billion yen (6.33 billion dollars). Likewise, Japan is facing an anti-dumping suit from Washington over its steel exports. A US trade official, David Aaron, called Japan “the world’s largest dumper”.

Indeed the Japanese government, while pushing for tighter requirements on the food trade, are balking at too strict a labeling system for fear of being named protectionist or drawing hostile trade action.

The other major factor that restrains Japan from clamping down on genetically modified food material is its companies’ own interest in joining the billion dollar biotechnology industry, a move supported by government funds.

In a bid to keep up with American competition in the biotechnology business, the Japanese government has earmarked 20 billion dollars in the next five years for this effort.