Japan to set up Minister-level meeting to address rice supplies
TOKYO: Japan will set up a minister-level meeting as early as this week to address the supply of rice, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said in parliament on Monday (June 2), as the government seeks to stabilise the price of the nation's staple grain and quell public anger ahead of a summer election.
The government released a further 300,000 metric tonnes of stockpiled rice last week in a bid to bring down prices, which have doubled in the past year. The move came as households struggle with inflation less than two months before an upper house election that could punish a minority government already on the back foot after an underwhelming performance in last year's general vote.
"With rice costing twice as much - even 2.5 times as much in some regions - as last year, it's very important to steady that and stabilise the market,' Agriculture Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said in the same parliamentary session on Monday.
Retailers including Aeon Co Ltd. and Pan Pacific International Holdings Corp., the parent company of popular discount store Don Quijote, started selling the stockpiled rice over the weekend, according to statements from both companies.
Aeon priced its five kilogramme bag at just under ¥2,000 (US$13.97) before tax, well below the ¥4,200 per bag average consumers are seeing at storefronts.
The government auctioned off batches of stockpiled rice starting in February, but prices have continued to hit record highs.
Koizumi announced last week that the most recent release would be sold at a fixed price instead of auctioned, and bypass the usual supply chain, which includes rice collection agencies and wholesalers. - Bloomberg
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
18 minutes ago
- The Sun
Armenians divided over peace accord with Azerbaijan in Yerevan
YEREVAN: The streets of Yerevan remained quiet under the summer heat as residents gathered in shaded parks to discuss the implications of the newly signed peace accord with Azerbaijan. The agreement, brokered by US President Donald Trump, aims to resolve decades of territorial disputes between the two Caucasian nations. Asatur Srapyan, an 81-year-old retiree, cautiously welcomed the deal, stating Armenia had little choice but to accept it. He acknowledged the country's limited military strength and lack of strong allies compared to Azerbaijan. Maro Huneyan, a 31-year-old aspiring diplomat, called the pact acceptable but remained skeptical about Azerbaijan's commitment to honoring its terms. She stressed the importance of ensuring the agreement aligns with Armenia's constitutional principles. However, Anahit Eylasyan, 69, strongly opposed the deal, particularly the proposed transit zone linking Nakhchivan to Azerbaijan through Armenian territory. She likened the arrangement to losing control over her own home. Eylasyan also expressed concern over Armenia's strained relations with Russia, a traditional ally. She accused Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan of making unilateral decisions and offering excessive concessions to Azerbaijan. Shavarsh Hovhannisyan, a 68-year-old engineer, dismissed the agreement as meaningless for Armenia, calling it a surrender rather than a peace treaty. He criticized Pashinyan for distancing Armenia from Russia and Iran while placing trust in unreliable negotiations. President Trump hailed the accord as a commitment to permanent peace, open borders, and mutual sovereignty. Olesya Vartanyan, a Caucasus researcher, noted the deal could bring short-term stability but warned against long-term optimism given historical tensions. She emphasized the need for cautious planning in the fragile geopolitical landscape. - AFP
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
European leaders push for pressure on Russia before Trump-Putin summit
KYIV: European leaders called for more pressure on Russia ahead of a planned summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The meeting, set for Alaska this Friday, aims to resolve the Ukraine war but has raised concerns over potential territorial concessions. Trump hinted at possible land swaps but provided no details, sparking unease among Kyiv and its allies. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky firmly rejected surrendering land, stating, 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.' He stressed that any peace deal excluding Ukraine would undermine stability. In a joint statement, European leaders emphasised diplomacy, support for Ukraine, and pressure on Russia as essential for peace. The statement was signed by leaders from France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Britain, Finland, and EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen. They insisted negotiations must begin from the current frontline and safeguard Ukraine's security interests. National security advisors from key allies, including the US and EU, met in Britain to align strategies before the summit. French President Emmanuel Macron reiterated that Ukraine's future must involve Ukrainians and European participation. Zelensky, in his address, demanded an 'honest end' to the war, placing responsibility on Russia to cease hostilities. Previous talks between Russia and Ukraine have failed, prolonging a conflict that has claimed tens of thousands of lives. Putin has refused direct talks with Zelensky, complicating peace efforts. The Alaska summit marks the first meeting between sitting US and Russian presidents since 2021. Zelensky noted the location's distance from the war, calling it symbolic yet detached from Ukraine's suffering. The Kremlin defended the choice, citing shared economic interests in the Arctic region. Russia has invited Trump for a reciprocal visit, signalling potential further engagement. Meanwhile, fighting continues, with drone strikes and civilian casualties reported in Kherson. Russian forces claimed advances in Donetsk, a region Moscow illegally annexed in 2022. Kyiv remains firm in rejecting Russian territorial claims but acknowledges diplomacy as the path to reclaim lost land. - AFP
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
US tariffs a wake-up call for smarter trade for India
STARTING this month, American consumers shopping for Indian goods and Indian exporters shipping to the United States will feel the sting of a new 25% tariff slapped by the Trump administration, on top of an earlier 25%. In a move framed as protecting domestic manufacturing, Washington's latest trade salvo imposes up to 50% duties on a range of Indian exports – including on certain textiles, auto components and categories like generic pharmaceuticals and machinery parts. But while headlines focus on diplomatic retaliation and political posturing, the real story here is about consumers, on both sides of the trade wall. Whether it is a small apparel brand in Gujarat, a turmeric exporter in Erode, or a US importer sourcing affordable generics from Hyderabad, this tariff hike doesn't just punish trade, it punishes choice. Instead of a knee-jerk reaction, India should treat this moment as a strategic wake-up call. The global trading order is shifting fast. Protectionism is making a comeback under the 'national interest' banner, but everyday people bear its actual cost. Consumers pay more, get less, and lose access to innovation. Take the example of Indian pharma. The US relies on India for 40% of its affordable and high-quality generic medicines, a lifeline that keeps drug prices affordable for millions. With tariffs, those prices could spike, leaving American consumers and insurers to pay significantly more for basic medicines. That's bad business for both sides. Or consider Indian textile SMEs that export cotton garments to US retailers. These businesses already operate on razor-thin profit margins. Tariffs could render them uncompetitive overnight, leading to lost orders, layoffs, and reduced production. And American retailers won't absorb the shock; they'll pass it down to consumers through higher prices. This is the domino effect of protectionism: fewer options, higher prices, and stalled innovation. That's bad news for anyone who cares about affordability and variety, whether buying shoes in Chicago or selling saris in Surat. Rather than retaliating with blanket duties on US imports, India should seize the moment to make its economy more open, competitive, and consumer-friendly. — AFP The solution, however, is not to mirror America's tariff war with one of our own. Rather than retaliating with blanket duties on US imports, India should seize the moment to make its economy more open, competitive, and consumer-friendly. That means lowering our import tariffs, especially on consumer goods where global competition drives better quality and prices. It means signing trade deals that aren't just about political alliances but about securing cheaper medicines, cutting-edge tech, and better value for Indian consumers. It means slashing red tape at customs so Indian exporters can survive, not just US tariffs, but future global disruptions. Most importantly, it means putting consumer welfare at the heart of our trade policy – not treating it as a side effect. If the cost of a trade war is higher prices, fewer choices, and shrinking markets, the goal of trade reform must be the opposite: greater access, lower prices, and more freedom to choose. India has long spoken about becoming a global manufacturing hub. However, that ambition will remain half-baked unless we build an economy where producers and consumers benefit from openness, not protectionism. Trump's tariff bombshell is a challenge, but also an opportunity. Instead of playing defence, it is time India went on offence, with policies that protect not just producers, but also the millions of consumers who stand to gain from a freer, fairer global marketplace. Shrey Madaan is an Indian Policy Fellow with the Consumer Choice Center.
