NIHS Publishes Info as 'Information on Causative Substance'; MHLW States 'No Official Announcement of Puberulic Acid as Causative Substance' - Open Letter Sent to NIHS Regarding the Positioning of the Puberulic Acid Announcement -
Kunsei Club Co., Ltd. has sent an open letter to the National Institute of Health Sciences (NIHS) regarding discrepancies between the NIHS's announcements and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's (MHLW) stance on 'Puberulic Acid' as a causative agent in the Benikoji case.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: May 25, 2026 at 18:30
- 🔍 Collected: May 25, 2026 at 10:01
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: May 25, 2026 at 10:03 (1 min after Collected)
Kunsei Club Co., Ltd. has sent an open letter to the National Institute of Health Sciences (NIHS) due to identified discrepancies between the NIHS's announcements and administrative documents from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) regarding the status of 'Puberulic Acid' in the Benikoji-related case. The deadline for a response is June 4, 2026.
■ Questions for Public Inquiry
■ Question 1: Location of Responsibility
The NIHS has published papers and reports implying that Puberulic Acid is the causative substance in this case, whereas the MHLW has stated that it has never officially announced it as the causative substance.
Based on whose decision or instructions were these NIHS announcements made?
■ Question 2: Traceability of Samples
We request the disclosure of the following information for all samples used by the NIHS for identification and analysis:
- Source (provider or collection site)
- Acquisition date
- Sample management history (lot number, storage conditions, transfer records, etc.)
[Deadline for Response] Thursday, June 4, 2026
We request that the response to this inquiry be submitted in writing by Thursday, June 4, 2026. If a response is not received by the deadline, we will consider necessary actions, including making the situation public.
■ Our Perspective
This is a critical social issue affecting product recalls, company name disclosures, and consumer perception. Clarifying the entity responsible for scientific judgment is essential for preventing recurrence and ensuring transparency in food administration.
This issue goes beyond academic debate and directly impacts social aspects such as decisions on product recalls, the disclosure of company names, and consumer safety perceptions. Currently, there is a structural gap where:
- The government denies official certification of the causative substance.
- The research institution has released content that can be interpreted as identifying a causative substance.
As a result, many food businesses are suffering serious damages while the responsibility for scientific judgment remains unclear.
We believe it is essential to clarify the source of scientific evidence and the location of responsibility to properly resolve this case and restore the culinary value of Benikoji. We will continue to verify the facts.
■ Questions for Public Inquiry
■ Question 1: Location of Responsibility
The NIHS has published papers and reports implying that Puberulic Acid is the causative substance in this case, whereas the MHLW has stated that it has never officially announced it as the causative substance.
Based on whose decision or instructions were these NIHS announcements made?
■ Question 2: Traceability of Samples
We request the disclosure of the following information for all samples used by the NIHS for identification and analysis:
- Source (provider or collection site)
- Acquisition date
- Sample management history (lot number, storage conditions, transfer records, etc.)
[Deadline for Response] Thursday, June 4, 2026
We request that the response to this inquiry be submitted in writing by Thursday, June 4, 2026. If a response is not received by the deadline, we will consider necessary actions, including making the situation public.
■ Our Perspective
This is a critical social issue affecting product recalls, company name disclosures, and consumer perception. Clarifying the entity responsible for scientific judgment is essential for preventing recurrence and ensuring transparency in food administration.
This issue goes beyond academic debate and directly impacts social aspects such as decisions on product recalls, the disclosure of company names, and consumer safety perceptions. Currently, there is a structural gap where:
- The government denies official certification of the causative substance.
- The research institution has released content that can be interpreted as identifying a causative substance.
As a result, many food businesses are suffering serious damages while the responsibility for scientific judgment remains unclear.
We believe it is essential to clarify the source of scientific evidence and the location of responsibility to properly resolve this case and restore the culinary value of Benikoji. We will continue to verify the facts.
FAQ
株式会社薫製倶楽部が公開質問状を送付した相手はどこですか?
国立医薬品食品衛生研究所です。
質問状の回答期限はいつですか?
2026年6月4日(木)です。
質問状で問われている主な内容は?
プベルル酸を原因物質と判断した根拠(責任の所在)および、分析に用いた試料のトレーサビリティについてです。
厚生労働省のプベルル酸に関する見解は?
原因物質として公式に発表した事実はないと回答しています。
なぜ薫製倶楽部は本件を重要視しているのですか?
科学的判断の責任主体が不明確なまま企業名公表や製品回収が行われ、多数の食品事業者が被害を受けているためです。