Is MAFF telling the truth accurately?

On 2020/12/21, it was reported that the former Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Takamori Yoshikawa announced that he would resign as a member of the Diet, and on the 22nd, he submitted a resignation request to the chairman of the House of Representatives, Tadamori Oshima, which was accepted. As the chairman Oshima was also a representative who was named to have been involved with Akita Foods in Bunshun press, this act makes one feel that there may be no clean politics.

While the politician who received fraudulent money is denounced, it’s a strange society where the corporation to which the representative who gave the fraudulent money belonged can escape because it was done by an individual. Preventing the improvement of animal welfare is an issue related to the sustainability of our society and an issue that affects people’s lives. It will also affect the Japanese economy. Of course, it is also related to the future of producers themselves. With only direct and short-term views, the viciousness of what they were trying to thwart would be overlooked.

How about the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF)? MAFF employees are at the mercy of the pursuit of opposition politicians. Perhaps the trust in the MAFF staff has been lost in the last few weeks, even more so than the politics having moved away from the trust of the citizens.

But even so, MAFF’s excuses have been made to some extent in the midst of animal welfare, whose abyss most people don’t know. From our point of view, it seems that unjust things have been carelessly dodged. In such an area and position, even small lies or mistakes shouldn’t be ok.

One lie bothers us.

It’s a lie that direct stakeholders have previously been temporary members

Japan’s OIE Liaison Council has standing members and temporary members. When considering the second draft of the laying hen animal welfare code, there were representatives from two poultry farms and one poultry consulting company. They were members who were not present when discussing the first draft.

None of them were known to be familiar with animal welfare, but were status quo proponents who spoke with a stance to suppress animal welfare. If they were familiar with animal welfare, they would know that some improvements must be made, so it’s unthinkable to take a position that is in direct opposition to the science-based proposals of the OIE.

MAFF explained that Akita Foods was included “at the recommendation of the Japan Poultry Association”. If that were true, then the Japan Poultry Association is in a position must be so backward about animal welfare and denying cage-free rearing so as to have Mr. Akita represent.

MAFF had said that “the president of the broiler company” was a temporary member when considering past broiler animal welfare. However, the president of Ishii Co., Ltd. is a leader in animal welfare in Japan, and in the past, has even observed animal welfare overseas with the MAFF staff. He is someone who often gives lectures on animal welfare. In addition, it was inaccurate to call it a broiler company as it was a “broiler chick production and sales” company handling not broiler chickens, but breeding chickens and incubation. Anyone living in Japan who is familiar with animal welfare knows that they are in a different position from the direct stakeholders who come in to maintain the status quo like Akita Foods. Animal Rights Center Japan feels no discomfort in the Ishii president being a temporary committee member. One can tell from his long-standing blog that he is someone who knows the significance of animal welfare. It seems to raise some chickens for meat as well, but that is probably not its main business. It is a company with a high awareness of animal welfare, stating on its website “no animal testing conducted” for the sake of animal welfare.

There were twice when the Ishii president was present in which broiler animal welfare was not on the agenda. On the other hand, he has been absent when broiler animal welfare was on the agenda.

MAFF’s response was cowardly, knowing that the Diet members weren’t aware about this Ishii, making him look like a stakeholder like Akita.

This may be a minor discrepancy, but they should recognize that each of these is damaging the trust of the government.

Please understand animal welfare correctly…

Akita Foods is participating in the debate with the aim of allowing the world to tolerate Japan’s low animal welfare livestock. It’s not a mistake to state that Japan can’t handle it (although it’s unnecessary as everyone knows it), but one must understand that the OIE is trying to raise animal welfare in the world.
For one health. For epidemic prevention. For human health and safety, for sustainability.

Japan’s animal agriculture is lagging behind, and Japan is in a position to be taught from other countries about animal welfare. The research itself has been behind, and there has been no cases of large-scale cage-free poultry that can be scientifically studied. In addition, many poultry farms that have begun their work, even with consultants, are still in the stage of trial and error while training and gaining knowledge, and most poultry farms are at stages where they do not have enough knowledge to give opinions.

On the other hand, small-scale cage-free poultry is merely known with phrases like “natural poultry”.

Animal welfare is science and science does not change from region to region. Chickens who are mainly being reared in Japan are mostly foreign birds, and they are the same animal species even with different strains added slightly. The habits and required behaviors, let alone the need for sunlight and exercise, will not change, nor that fact that chickens need the ground and perches instead of cages.
The West has diligently proven such obvious and natural things one by one. That cannot be overturned.

The government should have an accurate understanding of these actual situations in Japan and about animal welfare.

And it should appoint individuals who can speak fairly as committee members.