If Japan enters the Trans-Pacific Partnership, will domestic labeling of genetically modified products disappear? It is indeed possible.

Japan can prevent this, but if labeling does disappear, what will happen? [...] In a recent meeting of the House of Representative Budget Committee, Japanese Communist Party member Akira Kasai suggested that Japan could come under pressure to remove labeling of genetically modified foods if it entered the free trade accord. Foreign Minister Koichiro Genba responded, “It’s possible, but we will not accept that.”

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda postponed the announcement of his decision Thursday that Japan would join negotiations on a US-backed trade deal as a cross-party group of Japanese parliamentarians submitted a resolution, protesting his expected move. [...] The chairman of the Japan Business Federation, Hiromasa Yonekura, said Monday that Japan had to join the negotiations as it is lagging behind other countries in forming economic alliances.

Critics have pointed out that Yonekura is chairman of Sumitomo Chemical Co, which could stand to gain from the pact, as it would facilitate the company’s strategic partnership with US agrochemicals supplier Monsanto Co.

Hawaiian biotech papaya is the first direct to consumer biotech product approved by Japan. Other biotech products have been approved for years, but they were all either used for further processing, an ingredient, or for animal feeds. USDA/FAS Tokyo estimates that in the medium term, Hawaii papaya exports could once again reach its potential of $20 million per year.

The question remains, even after the approval is granted: will the Japanese consumer accept GMO labeled fresh papaya from Hawaii? It is too early to say. But if biotech fresh produce can “make it” in Japan, it can make it anywhere.

Hawaiian biotech papaya is the first direct to consumer biotech product approved by Japan. Other biotech products have been approved for years, but they were all either used for further processing, an ingredient, or for animal feeds. USDA/FAS Tokyo estimates that in the medium term, Hawaii papaya exports could once again reach its potential of $20 million per year.

The question remains, even after the approval is granted: will the Japanese consumer accept GMO labeled fresh papaya from Hawaii? It is too early to say. But if biotech fresh produce can “make it” in Japan, it can make it anywhere.

A group of Japanese researchers plans to apply later this year for approval to sell a drug made from genetically modified strawberries to cure gum disease in dogs. The use of genetically modified farm products in the development of drugs could cut total costs by a thousandth, the developers from three entities including the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology said recently.

Japan’s National Federation of Agricultural Cooperative Associations said Tuesday it has tied up with U.S. chemical firm DuPont Co.’s seed division to secure stable supplies of non-genetically modified corn. Under a five-year contract, the federation, known as JA Zen-Noh, will commission Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. to develop non-genetically modified corn seeds and will provide the seeds to U.S. farmers in a bid to import non-genetically modified feed corn into Japan.

A NUMBER of Japanese firms plan to invest in a plantation in the Philippines, with the produce to be exported to Japan, the chief of the Agriculture department said yesterday. [...] He declined to name the firms nor the crop and investment involved, saying only that the companies do not want any genetically modified variety of the crop.

P.E.I. is growing more canola than ever before, fulfilling a demand for oilseed that is not contaminated with genetically modified crops. There is so much interest in the product in Japan, a Japanese buyer now calls P.E.I. home for part of the year. [...] Genetically modified canola is not grown on P.E.I., and this attracted Kosaku Morita of the Japanese company Marumo to the Island, where he has been living for several months.

The new supplementary protocol provides international rules and procedure on liability and redress that countries can seek for environmental damage to biodiversity resulting from the importation of living modified organisms. "This is a very historic occasion ... We are very glad that the world has recognised there is the need for liability and redress," said Gurdial Singh Nijar, director of the Centre of Excellence for Biodiversity Law at the University of Malaya. He pointed to the protocol’s Asia-Pacific roots, saying "Malaysia started this whole process".

One conference participant from India said, "we're making regulatory decisions by the seat of our pants." Delegates from other developing countries echoed him (usually in less frank terms), and said lack of money is a major obstacle in many countries. According to Erie Tamale, with the Convention on Biological Diversity's Biosafety Unit, "resources are very limited" and 90 countries are currently waiting for funds to implement their biosafety frameworks.