Traceability Systems in Japan

Japan's experience has the potential to provide lessons for other countries because Japan (i) has high standards and strict market requirements, (ii) imports a large volume of food, (iii) has a public that is responsive to food safety issues, (iv) has a production system based on small farms, and (v) uses a high technology traceability system.

Japan's food market is notoriously hard to penetrate, due primarily to the high quality standards required by importers and consumers. Exporters who are able to meet the requirements of the Japanese market are well prepared to compete in other lucrative markets. Moreover, Japan is the biggest food importer in the world, importing more than 60% of its food, increasingly from developing countries. Compliance with Japan's food safety standards and traceability requirements opens the door to increased business opportunities.

However, in the last few years, Japan has faced numerous food safety crises, from avian flu outbreaks to dumplings contaminated with insecticide. To protect consumers, the public sector moved relatively quickly to support food safety systems. As such, the experiences in Japan can effectively provide lessons for developing countries searching for possible models. Moreover, unlike other developed countries where food production is often done on large-scale farms, Japanese farms are generally small, providing experiences that are more applicable to farms in developing countries.

The high rate of IT adoption in Japan provides a wide range of examples of ICT support in traceability systems. These examples are more relevant to developing countries than might be expected: despite Japan's high-tech image, food producers there tend to be members of a generation that is less familiar with technology. Introduction of ICT in Japanese food traceability systems has had to take into consideration the level of IT skills among the smallscale rural producers—a challenge also faced by developing countries. The public and private sectors have collaborated in addressing the food safety issues through food traceability systems using ICT. In this regard, Japan provides examples of a possible division of labor between the public and the private sectors.

The next sections will discuss the traceability requirements and the food traceability standards in effect in Japan.

4.1 The Evolution of Japanese Regulations on Food Traceability

Japanese regulations: Despite being a market known for strict food requirements, Japanese law requires a full traceability system only for domestic beef.⁵ For other foods, Article 3 of Japan's Food Sanitation Law⁶ requests that each operator keep records to identify all their suppliers and customers—a “one-step-back” and “one-step-forward” record. This request is similar to Article 18 of the European Union's EC Regulation 178/2002. However, in Japan this type of record keeping is only recommended and is not compulsory. On the other hand, Japanese regulations do require labeling of the place of origin for fresh food and minimally processed food, not only at retail level but also at wholesale level. However, while origin labeling itself is required, a record-keeping system to verify origin area by providing documentation such as delivery slips and/or invoices is only recommended, not legally required, per Article 3 of the Food Sanitation Law.

Japanese Agricultural Standards (JAS): The JAS system was established in 1950 and is overseen by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF).⁷ One of the main components of the JAS system is its compliance certification systems. Products passing inspection in accordance with the JAS requirements are allowed to display the JAS logo. These standards are voluntary.⁸

Originally, the JAS standards were intended to assure general product quality and standardized labeling. However, in the 1990s, MAFF expanded the JAS system to cover specific methods of production. These expanded standards, called Specific JAS, cover: (i) processed meat products (aged ham, sausage, and bacon); (ii) free-range chicken (Jidoriniku); (iii) organic foods; and (iv) other products disclosing production history and methods.⁹

The producers and packers who wish to be certified under the Specific JAS are required to maintain records to verify production methods and segregation management. While this is not a full traceability system, it makes for a certain degree of traceability. These standards were created to differentiate high-quality products from common products and are not expected to expand to encompass the entire food market.

4.2 Improving Food Chain Traceability

Government organizations and support services: The government has taken steps to support the development of traceability systems in Japan and in 2003, the Food Safety and Consumer Affairs Bureau was established within the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). Although traceability systems are not legally required except for domestic beef, MAFF policy is to encourage food business operators to voluntarily establish traceability systems (MAFF 2004, 2007).

To support this policy, MAFF has provided funding for projects such as developing traceability systems utilizing advanced ICT and formulating a handbook to guide the establishment of traceability systems. This Handbook for the Introduction of Food Traceability Systems was created for food business operators and aims to facilitate cooperation between the various operators throughout the food chain (Revision Committee on the Handbook for Introduction of Food Traceability Systems 2007). The handbook covers definitions, basic objectives of traceability, the role each operator should play to establish traceability, and how to proceed with the introduction of a traceability system. It outlines examples of general traceability systems as well as guidelines for specific food items. An English translation has been produced for overseas suppliers.

Audit and certification system: In 2005, a committee was formed by the Food Marketing Research & Information Center (FMRIC) at the request of MAFF to discuss the establishment of national certification systems and auditing standards in order to enhance the effectiveness of Japanese traceability systems. The committee released a proposed standard for food traceability systems in 2006 but in the end a national certification system was not approved. Nevertheless, some local governments have set up their own food safety certification systems that include a traceability requirement. The motivations for creating these local certification systems were diverse. Some were created to help establish a local brand while others were meant to ensure food safety or enhance the reliability of labeling. These systems give a variety of examples of systems in which traceability is a key element (FMRIC 2008).

Pilot projects of ICT-based traceability systems: Since 2001, MAFF had been subsidizing the development and introduction of traceability systems utilizing ICT that can be used throughout the food chain (FMRIC, 2006). From 2005 to 2007, MAFF spent one to two billion yen (about 10–20 million US dollars) annually on various pilot projects and studies. Examples of these experiments include (i) integrated circuit (IC) tags to reduce the cost of reading and recording the unique ID code of food products at each stage of the food chain, (ii) handheld devices to record electric data on farm inputs, processing, and distribution without paper documentation, and (iii) web-based service technology to keep and transfer data between server computers through the Internet (MAFF 2006).

Despite the large investment in the creation of these pilot systems, only a few were adopted as viable for commercial use throughout the supply chain, as opposed to adoption by a single operator in the supply chain. One of the biggest challenges to more widespread adoption of the pilot systems is the difficulty in reaching a consensus among operators along the supply chain on what type of system to adopt. One main lesson from the pilot projects is that insufficient time and budget was allocated for consultation among stakeholders in order to form a consensus before they designed the experimental information system. As a result, the experimental pilot projects did not fit the needs of all stakeholders in the chain. While there is no doubt that ICT will be increasingly used in the long term, in the short term, MAFF appears to be focusing on ensuring traceability through conventional paper documents and paper-based systems.

4.3 Diversity of Food Traceability Systems

Traceability systems can be broadly classified into two types: systems implemented by individual operators or businesses, and systems that cover operators at several stages in the supply chain.

In Japan, many types of operators have implemented traceability systems within their enterprises. When an individual enterprise implements an internal traceability system, it is usually not a stand-alone system. Rather, operators commonly consider traceability as the basis of a specific or integrated management system. This integrated system may include a quality management system, safety management system, inventory management system, or production history information disclosure system.

However, in order to establish a secure food chain traceability system, it is necessary to ensure consistent standards not only within individual organizations, but also between food business operators along the supply chain, from upstream to downstream. For traceability with wide-ranging application, it is also desirable to ensure consistency across food business operators who are at the same stage of the food supply chain, such as processors or packers. To do this, experience has shown that it is often most efficient for several food business operators to form an organization and work together to create a consistent traceability system.

It is easier to ensure traceability in cases where big purchasing operators deal exclusively and continuously with the same small-scale producers. However, the norms of open market situations are such that supply chains are fragmented with ever-changing relationships between suppliers and buyers. This reality makes it even more critical to create a consistent traceability system able to cover various, changing business relationships within the chain.

Creators of traceability systems in Japan find themselves facing common challenges worldwide: (i) reaching a consensus on a traceability system that will fit the needs of all operators in the chain; (ii) creating a system that is consistent between and across operators, and not only within an individual operator; and (iii) creating a system that addresses the fragmented nature of supply chains with many small producers and operators as well as the ever-changing relationships within the supply chains.

The two traceability systems profiled in the next sections were introduced as responses to these challenges. The first case study on dried shiitake mushrooms in Oita Prefecture evolved in response to the discovery of fraud in place-of-origin labeling, while the second case study on chicken meat in Kyoto Prefecture was a response to an avian flu outbreak. We will use these case studies to look at how these common challenges in traceability system creation were addressed as well as how ICT was utilized for efficiency.

Download this Paper [ PDF 180.5KB| 23 pages ].

Post a Comment

We welcome your feedback on this publication. Post a comment. ADBI is not obliged to acknowledge or publish comments and may abridge or edit them before web posting.

Comment(s)

There are [1] comment(s) for this entry. Post a comment.

1. Prof. J. George
   (posted 10 June 2009 / 06:30:36 PM)
   
   A good study indeed to keep one updated with the new developments in the area of food safety. The authors have in a short and concise WP givena concise lessons fron the study. They need to be complimented on the effort. The authors must be encouraged to develop this WP into a full blown research paper. However, some comments that must find placein the full paper are as follows: (1) Can these lessons be generalised over different developing countries and production landscape where issues of livelihood and food security are paramount? (2) The public sector certainly needs to play a dominant role and hence the funding quantum and pattern needs a different exclusive treatment to make it more localised. Who will do it? (3) How do we get this traceability into a major concern as in Japan itself only 20% are following/participating in the ITES initiative for traceability.
   (4) Two case study products have certain limitations in other developing countries as they have a different definition of smallholder producer and these two products are not produced on an industrial scale dimensions. What adjustements are required or needs to incorported to the study to make it acceptable/practicable on wider spectrum of developing countries?