From: davidg@aegis.or.jp (Dave McLane)
Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan
Subject: Re: Japan, rice and related stories (Again!) (In English)
Date: 24 Dec 92 09:46:38 GMT

ishikawa@personal-media.co.jp (Chiaki Ishikawa) writes:

>In article <3500@aegis.or.jp> davidg@aegis.or.jp (Dave McLane) writes:

>   According to an article in a recent Daily Yomiuri, there is
>   confusion over what the limits are for rice/grain imported into
>   Japan. That is, the regulations for domestic rice/grain and imported
>   rice/grain are different. 

>   IMHO the relevant question is why there is this difference in
>   regulations rather than why the U.S.A. has different limits than
>   Japan.

>I should have known better.
>For my information, could you explain if it is either

>	(1) - the regulation for domestic rice/grain is stiffer, or

>	(2) - the regulation for imported rice/grain is stiffer?

>Given the tone, I suspect what you read in Daily Yomiuri suggested
>(2).  I have no idea why, myself.

One would think so but the article said that it was the other way
around. The regulations concernning domestic were clearer/stiffer.

>BTW, I might point out that domestic rice/grain usually require much
>smaller amount of post-harvest chemicals because the produce is
>shipped for a shorter distance and is consumed much quicker and
>presumably the storage is better controlled than during its trip
>across the ocean. 

Seems reasonable.

> It is indeed a sight to see those big cargo boats
>(grain carriers) travell and dump the produce at the destination
>harbour. My home town has a big grain oil plant of Honen Oil, and I
>once saw the operation from the bridge of a big grain carrier. Just
>magnificent.  The coditions in the cargo bay can be pretty nasty even
>though the shipping companies try to modernize the equipment. So, I do
>understand the need for post-harvest for across-the-ocean shipping.

>Like Dave, I wonder why there are TWO different regulations. Doesn't
>make sense to me.

It kind of makes sense to have two regulations, one for grain
shipped long distance and/or across national borders, but I wonder
if all countries have this setup?

And it makes another kind of sense as well: if there were clear
regulations then whether or not the imported grains were OK would be
the responsibility of the Japan-side government. As it is, they can
compare the amount of post-harvest-chemicals allowed on domestic
products (which aren't shipped long distances) to that which are
allow by other countries (for products that are shipped long
distances) and complain. 

This was how the discussion in one of the groups I lead got started:
somebody complaining that "imported grain have more chemicals". I
brought in the article from the Yomiuri to show that the
responsibility for what is safe/unsafe lies with the government in
Tokyo which hasn't set clear limits. 

For example, in another article (don't have the date but do have
a copy) it says:

  About 60 percent of fish and shellfish in Japanese waters that
  were analyzed in a recent survey have been found to contain
  PCBs (polychlorinated biphenl), Environmental Agency officals
  said Friday.
  ...
  The pollution is nationwide, with PCBs found in sea bass taken
  from Tokyo Bay, Osaka Bay, the Sanin costal sea and near 
  Shugenjima island in Nagasaki; in chub found in Lake Biwa;
  and in shellfish found near the Miura Peninsula, in Ise Bay
  and near the Shimane Peninsula.

  But even the most polluted fish, the sea bass in Tokyo Bay,
  had a PCB density of 0.77 ppm, far lower than the regulation
  3 ppm, and therefore did not constitute a health problem,
  the officials said.

  ...

Nice to know we are getting a daily dose of PCBs :-)

Dave

--
Dave McLane 
JUNET: davidg@aegis.or.jp (ONLY within Japan: post otherwise)
Nagaokakyoshi, Kyoto Japan Tel: +81-75-951-1168 Fax: +81-75-957-1087








Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan