Japan is test case for Pac Rim free trade zone

“If the country as a whole will win because of the FTA, that means it can compensate the losers and still there will be something for the winners.”

makes sense but Japanese farmers have a right to be paranoid. they will most likely be left to wallow in poverty like so many of Japans other forgotten workhorses who were promised life time employment and a pension.

Japan is not a "test case" in the Pacific Rim free trade region. It is very late in considering free trade integration.

This deal will help America. After this deal that will pass regardless of public outcry, japanese farmers will eventually go extinct. Japan will rely on importing all food.

Japan will rely on importing all food.

This is one of the biggest lies put forward by farm groups. By allowing competitive imports, Japanese farming will also improve its competivity, and will even be able to export more of its products. Japan's comparative advantage will be in producing quality products, which will gradually occupy more and more of the food market in the industrializing Asian contries. The only issue is how to manage the transition, which will hurt vested interests in the short and medium term. A golden age of Japanese agricultural products lies ahead - just as happened with industrial products in the 20th century.

“You cannot guide your integration policy on only one sector,” said Chilean President Sebastian Pinera, noting that agriculture represented less than 2 percent of Japan’s economy.

Exactly. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. I, for one, can't wait for rice priced about 80% lower than now.

Ayesha:"Japanese farming will also improve its competivity, and will even be able to export more of its products."

My uncle back home has more acreage then several Japanese farms put together and he is retired and his farm is just more or less a hobby for a little bit of extra income the only way he makes any money is to go to Farmers markets and sell directly their is no way of competing with the 100s to 1000s of acres corporate farms, wake up Japan exporting fresh produce not now not ever in any real commercial way.

herefornow:" I, for one, can't wait for rice priced about 80% lower than now."

I think many here forget that we are in Japan and that most foreign fresh imports that you all think as normal vegetable and fruit are not staples on the Japanese diet so even if the markets are opened hot much will change unless these foreign countries are planing on starting to grow things like "daikon", Japanese "horenso", etc.. most broccoli is already imported as are a few other non traditional vegetables, take a step outside the "gaijin" zones and look at what the Japanese actually buy and then tell us what other countries actually grow them commercially.

What we will get is the same results as in the past no demand and therefore complaints for other countries and accusations of protectionism followed by the Japanese government purchasing crap that the Japanese don't want and trying to sell it al a lose and still not succeeding.

It is interesting to note that those complaining of the high prices in Japan do not realize how expensive certain Japanese staples are elsewhere, just one example, I asked my mother back home to find a "daikon" and it took her some time and when she did it was 1/2 for around ￥350 in comparison the most I can ever remember spending on a whole "daikon" was ￥300.

herefornow:" I, for one, can't wait for rice priced about 80% lower than now."

Just to give you an idea of how things are in Japan, you as a foreigner may not taste the difference but on the weekend I was at a market and the rice store there had Chiba "koshihikari" on sale for ￥1200 and Nigata "Koshihikari" for ￥1750 for 5 Kg bags take a guess at which one was soled out by noon, I remember USA rice several years back at around ￥800 per 5 Kg and no one would buy it it ended up at ￥500 the government of Japan had to make up the lose to the importers.

I remember USA rice several years back at around ￥800 per 5 Kg and no one would buy it it ended up at ￥500 the government of Japan had to make up the lose to the importers.

Then those non-buyers were being silly. California mainly produces medium grain Japonica rice which does not taste different in general to rice grown in Japan. Those people saw the word California or US on the bag and made their decision ignorantly and their wallets paid for it.

yeah, good luck with that.

thetruthhurts:"Then those non-buyers were being silly. California mainly produces medium grain Japonica rice which does not taste different in general to rice grown in Japan."

Spoken like a true "gaijin" (western) rice is rice it all taste the same and there lies the problem, if you even bothered to read what I wrote at the start and not just jumped to the end you would know that even in the Japonica there are now several different strains.

Your view on the taste of rice is that of an uneducated drinker all wines taste the same and all whiskies taste the same.

In Japan different strains of rice are used for different things, you would rarely use Nigata "koshihikari" in a Japanese curry restaurant or for Sushi the former being almost criminal and overpowering the rice and the later just is not suited for sushi for sushi you use a different strain of rice.

Again all these discussions and the comments made by the foreign community here only goes to show that they know little or nothing about how the general Japanese consumer buy and eat, you could flood the market with ￥10 zucchini, cauliflower, Belgium endive, etc.. and it would make no difference in their purchase they would not know or care what to do with them just like if back home "daikon" was ￥10 no one would buy it because they have no idea what to do with it except on the odd occasion they may try a Japanese recipe that might call for it.

When my "Yaoya" has zucchini at a very low 4 for ￥100 and I buy a lot of them they always ask me what I am going to do with them, get the same question when I buy Belgium Endives.

Again I would recommend you get out of the "gaijin" zone you live in and actually look at what the Japanese eat unless what you are suggesting it that the Japanese need to change their eating habits to please you and the western farming industry.

thetruthhurts:"Then those non-buyers were being silly. California mainly produces medium grain Japonica rice which does not taste different in general to rice grown in Japan."

The best Cali Japonica tastes as good as average Japanese Japonica and is cheaper. The top Japanese Japonica outclasses both.

Imported rice, for example, is subject to a 778 percent tariff.

Absolute madness. Stop protecting these inefficient, poor farming practices. Tear down those tariffs, APEC!

limboinjapan,

Spoken like a true "gaijin" (western) rice is rice it all taste the same and there lies the problem, if you even bothered to read what I wrote at the start and not just jumped to the end you would know that even in the Japonica there are now several different strains.

I never said all rice tasted the same. It was you that claim the reason that the reason customers were not buying rice was that it was from the US.

I stand by my statement: Those buyers saw the label and made their choice based on that and not taste or quality. When a Japanese tastes US rice, the invariably say the same thing, 'Hey, this tastes just like Japanese rice!" "I'm so surprised!"

I am quite aware of the differenct varieties of rice available in Japan and have little need of a henna gaijin's point of view and in fact, for the average consumer your examples were not quite true. The average consumer buys the rice that will fit most easily with their average meal plans overall. They do not buy different bags of rice for different kinds of cooking. If you are talking about restaurant owners that is a different matter.

Bottom line, what Nessie wrote above is true. California Japonica rice tastes the same as Japanese Japonica rice. In fact, there are also high quality varieties, such as koshihikari, that are grown in California that also appeal to Japanese tastes. It is just that many Japanese are still not aware of this even today. It seems some henna gaijin aren't either.

thetruthhurts:"When a Japanese tastes US rice, the invariably say the same thing, 'Hey, this tastes just like Japanese rice"

My family and friends have had USA California rice on more than a few occasions and I did not tell any one where it was from and the universal conclusion was it tasted like the rice my Ex-in-laws grow on there land in Shizuoka ken that is so bad the only thing they can do with it is give it away to family and friends they only grow this rice so the old man has something to do in his retirement, to even come close to edible as plain white rice we need to add sake and "conbu".

Sorry but your" Taste the same" just wouldn't fly in my house my children know when for budgetary reasons I buy Chiba "koshihikari" instead of Nigata "koshihikari" and I even hide the bag when I do that and they still find it tastes different.

Sorry maybe for commercial use in "bento" it will fly but for the homes people will know and care about the difference, they may try it once but that will be the extents of it.

Another example of this are "matsutake" Canada produces some top quality "Matsutake" but even at twice the price the Japanese ones will out sell the imports and out class them in taste, in this case the imports sell but only because the demand is greater than the local supply so in the end their isn't any choice but to purchase the imports or just go without.

What I find interesting here is that everyone has this crazy idea that Japan has some sort of all encompassing bad or tariff system but the fact are very much to the contrary Japan imports the vast majority of its wheat, and Soy as well as almost 90% of the broccoli and iceberg lettuce you will find in the supermarkets (California) where Japan has restrictions is on what the Japanese consider staple foods and that should remain that way if just for Japan's own protection.

And again no one seems to want to explain how the vegetable and fruit prices will fall by this magic 80% often quoted here when no one can tell me who or where are/is going to supply the types of vegetables and fruits the Japanese actually eat. like I said go to any supermarket in NA or the EU or even South America and you will be hard pressed to find even one of the staple vegetables the Japanese buy on a daily basses with perhaps the exception of broccoli of which I have already pointed out is mostly imported from the USA.

limboinjapan,

My family and friends have had USA California rice on more than a few occasions and I did not tell any one where it was from and the universal conclusion was it tasted like the rice my Ex-in-laws grow on there land in Shizuoka ken that is so bad the only thing they can do with it is give it away to family and friends they only grow this rice so the old man has something to do in his retirement, to even come close to edible as plain white rice we need to add sake and "conbu".

I don't know which rice you or your family ate. However, there are different grades of rice in California as well. Yes, there is extremely high quality rice in Japan. I know because that is pretty much all I eat. I don't care what would or would not 'fly in your house'. While it is interesting to hear of your experiment, I am talking about the average Japanese person and what they buy and eat on a regular basis. As you mentioned, there is crappy rice here and there is crappy rice in the US. I am not only talking about the crappy rice. I am also talking about the high quality rice. I have met too many people who agree there is not great difference between Japanese japonica and US japonica rice. Are you saying you have never met any? Try your experiment again. This time, don't ask anyone what they think of the rice. See if they complain it is so much different than average Japanese rice. I don't think they will.

BTW, I am for protection of the Japanese agricultural industry. I do not believe any country should be completely beholded to other countries for the food they eat. However, that does not change the fact that it is the label that says US that makes most Japanese think it won't taste good.

OK I get your point now here is mine, I have seen how the USA in particular works in the agricultural/Chemical business seeing my country has a free trade agreement at first thing go fine but then the USA starts to dictate how and what the other country must do and must accept, as an example my country will not allow most USA poultry in because of the use of certain banded chemical, hormones and medications used in USA farms but the USA government tell my country that THEIR research shows is all to be safe so my country must accept the USA's standards, the same fights are going on regarding pesticides, herbicides, and milk additives.

And this is the real problem of the FTZ if it does not have clear stipulation that define that no country can challenge the other countries import regulation concerning the use of banded chemicals, hormones, etc.. then you will be seeing a lot of challenges by the countries with industrial farming attacking Japan's food regulations as a violation of the agreement and attempting to impose their standards over those of Japan's.

And if anyone even thinks that USA standards are acceptable all I can say is look at the news for just the passed year in Japan and the USA and tell me which country has had all the food recalls for everything from e-coli to botulism and listeria.

limboinjapan,

We understand each other well. You have a lot of excellent points in your post above. The continuation of regulations regarding banned chemicals etc is definitely something that each country should be allowed to decide for themselves. Of course, there is nothing wrong with communication about such issues between countries. However, the ultimate decision should be up to the importing country.

thetruthhurts:"We understand each other well" "The continuation of regulations regarding banned chemicals etc is definitely something that each country should be allowed to decide for themselves."

Yes we do understand each other but unfortunately in all these free trade agreements big business always and I do mean Always hijack the good intentions of the original purpose of the agreement to suit their on greedy needs and like with NAFTA and with the EU the big agricultural corporations will launch legal attacks on banded processes and chemicals before the ink on such an agreement is even dry.

“You cannot guide your integration policy on only one sector,” said Chilean President Sebastian Pinera, noting that agriculture represented less than 2 percent of Japan’s economy. “If the country as a whole will win because of the FTA, that means it can compensate the losers and still there will be something for the winners.”

Will PINERA and the PERUVIANS rescue the Japanese I wonder when the loan sharks start targeting desperate farmers, and as farming subsidies become more difficult to manuevre for the GoJ....

AND AS THE CHINESE, much like the farm takeovers they did in the PHILIPPINES and AUSTRALIA, begin their JAPANESE land grab-- will this Pacific Rim FTA provide compassion and help to your farmers when they need it the most?

Yes we do understand each other but unfortunately in all these free trade agreements big business always and I do mean Always hijack the good intentions of the original purpose of the agreement to suit their on greedy needs and like with NAFTA and with the EU the big agricultural corporations will launch legal attacks on banded processes and chemicals before the ink on such an agreement is even dry.

AGREE, completely. Here's an interesting survey on F R E E T R A D E recently. Survey was done by Pew Research beginning of Nov 2010:

(There) is increased skepticism about the impact of trade agreements such as NAFTA and the policies of the World Trade Organization. Roughly a third (35%) say that free trade agreements have been good for the United States, while 44% say they have been bad for the U.S.

Support for free trade agreements is now at one of its lowest points in 13 years of Pew Research Center surveys. In 2008, an identical percentage (35%) said free trade agreements were good for the U.S. Support for free trade agreements had increased last year, to 44% in April and 43% in November, despite the struggling economy.

As in past surveys on trade, many more Americans say free trade agreements have a negative rather than a positive impact on jobs in the U.S., wages for U.S. workers, and economic growth in this country. And more say their personal finances have been hurt (46%) rather than helped (26%) by free trade agreements.

The public continues to be skeptical about the benefits of free trade agreements to the United States, especially when it comes to jobs, wages and economic growth. Opinions about the impact of free trade agreements have changed little since last year, although they are somewhat less negative than in April 2008.

More than half (55%) say that free trade agreements lead to job losses in the United States, compared with just 8% who say these agreements create jobs; 24% say they make no difference. And while 45% say free trade agreements make wages lower, far fewer (8%) say they make wages higher. Similarly, the public does not see much benefit from free trade agreements for the overall economy – 43% say they slow the economy down while fewer than half as many (19%) say they make the economy grow.

AND (FINALLY!) a survey on Tea Party Republicans and free trade. A must read to all you free traders, and trade liberalization folks in the US.

(From the same survey)

There also are differences among Republicans over the impact of free trade agreements on economic growth, and wages and jobs in the U.S. Fully 62% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party say free trade agreements lead to slower growth in the U.S. That compares with 40% of Republicans and Republican leaners who either have no opinion of the Tea Party or disagree with the Tea Party.

More than half (54%) of Republicans who agree with the Tea Party say free trade agreements make wages lower, compared with 38% who have no opinion of the Tea Party or disagree with the movement. The differences among Republicans and Republican leaners are nearly as large about whether free trade agreements lead to job losses in the U.S. (67% of Tea Party vs. 55% of non-Tea Party).

“You cannot guide your integration policy on only one sector,” said Chilean President Sebastian Pinera, noting that agriculture represented less than 2 percent of Japan’s economy. “If the country as a whole will win because of the FTA, that means it can compensate the losers and still there will be something for the winners.”

It is exactly this kind of quote that makes me suspicious of this whole thing!

If all we are talking about is a measly 2% why is it so important to include it in the FTA why not just leave that measly 2% to the Japanese farmers.

I could say the reverse to the Chilean president it would be foolish to hold up the supposed benefit of the FTA just to get access to a small portion of the measly 2% of the Japanese economy based on agriculture! Why is it so important to get that as he seemed to suggest an insignificant 2%? Something just doesn't smell right!

Why is it so important to get that as he seemed to suggest an insignificant 2%? Something just doesn't smell right!

Interesting! I think PINERA was quite eager to appear like a champion of liberalization (much like FUJIMORI) that he'd pretty much say anything that obviously makes no sense at all. Sigh!

thetruthhurts and limboinjapan

The points you were both sharing on, regarding the Japanese Consumer preferences on certain food quality, and their seeming readiness to spend for it; in one way or the other, illustrates, that there is an edge that the local Japanese farm producers, will and do have, over the foreign farm producers and their products. Of course, in a Free Trade environment, that advantage, will tend to be for the really serious Japanese farmers, and farm produce processors, who stay involved in farm sector, because of the high subsidies that the former conservative administration of LDP and bureaucrats had put in place for their political interests. And thus led to the current situation, where the Japanese Farm sector, with all its modernity, is instead becoming a fiscal burden, to the wider economy of the country.

On the point that iruaustralia, mentioned, regarding Chile and Pinera. The wider context of Pinera's statement, focusing on the Japanese farm sector, is that, in such a Trade relation, Chile, which does not have a well developed technology sector, would tend to offer in a trade relation with Japan, its mineral raw materials as well as its lower priced agricultural products. Thus his comment. As the implication will be, that Japan, in a Free Trade relation with Chile, would surely gain new markets for its technology sector. But in order to also reciprocate the trade relations with Chile, beyond the raw and semi-processed mine minerals, could as well open up its farm products sector, for the Chilean agricultural sector, to provide certain products, that they see they can offer to the Japanese consumers. This situation in effect, will have a significant impact on the 2 percent of Japanese population, involved in the agricultural sector.

As the implication will be, that Japan, in a Free Trade relation with Chile, would surely gain new markets for its technology sector. But in order to also reciprocate the trade relations with Chile, beyond the raw and semi-processed mine minerals, could as well open up its farm products sector, for the Chilean agricultural sector, to provide certain products, that they see they can offer to the Japanese consumers.

@oohiu, welcome to the conversation!

If you'll read my previous posts on the issue of TPP then you should (I hope) get an idea that I don't believe FTAs are morally wrong. I believe however that trade liberalization should complement liberalization happening (about to occur) domestically. It should be reciprocal and sensible. And this is the reason I don't support the Trans-Pacific FTA.

As for limboinjapan, I think you've summarized his position albeit slanted. He has elaborated on his views, as a Japanese, in other threads as well. I urge you to read it if you're more than interested with this Pac Rim free trade.

JAPAN already have numerous FTA arrangements with several Sth American partners including Chile (a TPP member), Peru and Mexico. BUT, I THINK, IF ONE'S idea of signing FTA arrangements' to ensure that we're bolstering food export economy, globally-- and for that sake alone-- then it's wise to also mull the consequences for our own industries. Also, I'm not quite sure how an APEC member with a typical third-world economy and quality of life can have a comparative advantage against Japanese subsidies; sure labor's cheap... but these poor economies, under the TPP arrangement, are also getting rid of much-needed tariffs just to gain access to lucrative Western markets. It's a trade off that would deplete their sources of income, and force them to quickly throw themselves off the liberalization cliff.