抄録
Hosted by the Japanese Society of Food Chemistry, the 18th symposium of the Japanese Society of Food Chemistry, “Response to the Positive List System Regarding Pesticide Residue in Foods” was held on April 21, 2006 with approximately 270 people participating at Osaka Yakugyo Nenkin Kaikan. This symposium’s theme was revision of the positive list system for pesticide residues, an issue which greatly affects the food industry as well as government administration. Features of the symposium were lectures from leading experts in various areas related to Japanese agricultural chemistry. (1) First, Dr. Maitani, the leader of a group currently drafting pesticide residue analysis methods at the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, discussed the issue. (2) Then, Mr. Umezu, current chairman of the Pesticide Science Society of Japan and himself a developer of safe agricultural chemicals, gave a lecture. (3) Mr. Kimura, the third speaker, talking about standard brand issues that are very important to those who analyze agricultural chemicals. (4) The fourth speaker was Mr. Tsumura, for years a leading figure in pesticide residue analysis, who discussed how both domestic and imported foods are viewed at the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan. (5) The fifth speaker was a new generation leader in the field of pesticide residue analysis in imported foods, Mr. Hirahara. (6) Then Mr. Nagayama, a leader of pesticide residue analysis in all fields, including domestic, exported and imported foods, spoke. (7) The last speaker was Mr. Takeda, sometimes called Japan’s living dictionary on pesticide residue, who has spent his career in agricultural chemistry. He’s currently a member of the Food Safety Commission. Regarding the revision of the system, I would like to explain four points that I noticed. First, there’s the issue of subjected foods and detection sensibility. Conventional agricultural chemistry analysis has been mainly conducted on grains and fresh foods, including vegetables and fruits. In the future, it will include farm stock and fishery products as well as general processed foods. Therefore, it was noted that most people don’t have experience in analyzing farm stock, fishery products or processed foods. The second point is that the interim standard value will be 0.01 ppm. I would like you to understand this is a very difficult and minute amount. The third point is that designated examination organizations will become a major point, and time and cost will be required to analyze one material. This greatly changes depending on the type of food. Furthermore, different types of agricultural chemicals that are required to be measured have very different analysis times and costs. Please note this fact. The last point is the issue of imported food. If data shows a food is unsafe, it will cause a 100 million yen unit loss per specimen. These four points should tell us that we must firmly handle data, get definite results and send out reports based on those results.
