Japan started its "Positive List System for Agricultural Chemicals Residues on Foods" on May 29, a set of much tougher rules on chemical residues in agricultural product and food that are to be imported.

The new standard will greatly affect China's agricultural exports to Japan, said Mei Xinyu, professor with the Research Institute of the Ministry of Commerce, in an article on People's Daily Overseas Edition, June 1.

The new system is considered among the strictest in the world. Authorities will test 302 food products for 799 agricultural chemicals, enforcing 54,782 maximum residue limits. Included in the screening list are 448 pesticides.

In the first place, through a substantial increase in the number of chemical residue limits indicators and a raise of the standards, the new criteria will not only significantly increase the production and testing cost of agricultural products that China exports to Japan, but will also hamper China's seasonal products exports to the country. In terms of the number of indicators under the limits, only the "provisional standards" alone involve 823 species of agricultural chemicals, 54,785 limited standards, and 249 types of food and farm produce, equivalent to approximately three and five times of the original numbers in total.

Secondly, the new criteria impose a discrimination against China in certain items. For instance, the Japanese side provides that only microbiological testing is needed for local eel, but eel and related products imported from China are subject to imperative testing for nitrofurans metabolite and antibiotics.

China and Japan have a close relationship in farm produce trade. China is Japan's second largest source of agricultural imports; and Japan is China's largest export market for agricultural products and foodstuffs.

In 2005, the value of Chinese agricultural exports to Japan hit $7.93 billion, accounting for 29.2% of total agricultural exports of China and 30.7% of total food exports. China's agricultural exports to Japan are bound up with the vital interests of 6,300 Chinese enterprises and 16 million Chinese farmers.

For this reason, the "Positive List System" will have a remarkable impact on China's agricultural product and food exports. Agriculture is one of the weak industries in China. Farmers belong to vulnerable groups. As a developing country that has a serious Sannong problem (Chinese abbreviation of three issues: agricultural development, rural development and farmers' benefits), the Chinese side stands to reason to express its strong concern for the new criteria, not to mention that all the WTO official documents recognize that the WTO members have the responsibility to promote the agricultural development of developing country members.

Undoubtedly, China should look upon the Japanese new rules in an all-round way. First, the regulation itself has a rational point, which reflects the higher requirements of the residents towards food safety requirements in step with the economic and social development. Secondly, Japan is in the lead in terms of agricultural products and food safety.

However, Japan is also well known for its agricultural trade barriers. The new regulation is driven by the motives in introducing protectionism. Its additional burden to normal agricultural trade is obvious to all. The Chinese government and enterprises are willing to join hands with their trading partners to safeguard food safety and foster the healthy growth of this market. But the market growth, in the first place, requires a stable and predictable policy environment.

In fact, whether the new system can last for a long-term is not for sure. Raising the requirement on food safety is justified, but things will develop in the opposite direction when they become extreme. Even without taking into account trade protection motive, the Japanese department may also have gone too far. Too harsh standards will significantly increase the cost of food and agricultural products which will push the prices of food in Japan to an even higher level. Just like the "Slovakia-Oxley Act," whose original tendency to strengthen the capital market regulation is correct, but having set up too harsh provisions, it simply increasingly revealed the side effects some time after the implementation and received rising criticism day by day.

Japan's over-protecting their agriculture is not necessarily a good thing. Although Japan seems to have its reasons in putting forward several theories such as agriculture multiple functions, agriculture and food safety, agricultural trade balance, and public participation, too severe agricultural protection will do no good to help it break away from its current growth model based on excessive dependence on external demand.

By People's Daily Online