Consumer trust depends on a consistent policy.

A recent flurry of moves suggests that U.S. beef, banned since some cows were found to be infected with mad cow disease in the Untied States a little over a year ago, could soon return to Japanese dinner tables.

That U.S. beef is popular was evident by the way bowls of gyudon, rice topped with beef, sold like hot cakes when the dish was featured on the menu of Yoshinoya D&C Co. outlets for a single day last Friday. Even outgoing U.S. Ambassador Howard Baker remarked that ``the Japanese consumer enjoys and still wants to eat U.S. beef.'' Clearly, the U.S. government is eager to resume beef exports to Japan.

After more than a year of negotiations, Japan's welfare and agriculture ministries have decided to conditionally accept the U.S. method to verify the age of beef cattle by the conditions of meat and bones.

With a mind to resume imports, the Japanese government is considering a new standard, under which imports of U.S. beef would be from cattle aged 20 months or younger since they are deemed to be virtually free of risk from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease.

While one hurdle has been cleared in the process to lift the ban on U.S. beef imports, many obstacles still remain before American beef returns to Japanese plates.

Because cattle are raised in herds and U.S. ranches rarely document individual animals, officials decided as a last resort to judge the age of some beef cattle by the quality of their meat. A grading method for representing the quality of beef in the United States is thus used for judging the age of cows.

Since the quality of beef differs according to the kind of cattle and the breeding way of cattle as well as their age, there will be unavoidable margins of error in judging the age of animals slaughtered for human consumption. But a decision was made suddenly to accept such an age verification method. One of the conditions of adopting this method is that it should continue to be tested for accuracy. Without doubt, Japanese government officials took into consideration heavy pressure from the United States to lift the ban on beef imports.

Still, the fact remains that the age verification method seems risky. Certainly, even some government officials were initially skeptical.

Now that the government has decided to accept this system, the focus of attention will shift to discussions held by the Cabinet Office's Food Safety Commission. Last fall, the commission compiled a report that accepts easing of rules used to examine all the cattle to be slaughtered. It is also studying the government's draft plan to exempt cattle aged 20 months or less from examination. Some commission members, however, are skeptical of the new standard.

If the new standard is formally adopted, the safety of American beef will be examined afresh from many angles. If the commission endorses its safety, U.S. beef imports will resume. We urge the commission members not to be hasty in reaching a conclusion.

Even if the new standard is authorized by the Food Safety Commission, problems will still remain. Even though examination of all carcasses will no longer be a requisite condition for putting beef on the market, the screening of all domestic beef will continue for practical purposes. That is because the government decided to subsidize-for three years-the costs to conduct blanket examinations.

The funds would go to local governments, which are under pressure partly from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party to conduct such testing.

Thus, domestic beef that has undergone blanket examinations authorized by the government will be turn up on store shelves alongside American beef that is exempt from examination. Consumers may be bewildered by this ``double standard.''

The government cannot complain if it is blamed for taking an ambiguous attitude toward the screening of carcasses. Admittedly, the matter might be different if the subsidies were to be paid by the prefectural governments of the region where cattle are raised rather than the central government.

Still, allowing consumers to choose what they eat is not a bad thing-and given the safety issue, this is paramount. But consumer trust in public administration by the central government will evaporate if the authorities are inconsistent.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Feb. 13(IHT/Asahi: February 15,2005)