|
| Author |
Message |
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18244
Location: Nebraska
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:36 pm Post subject: Another question for SH |
 |
|
I've seen a few people ask this question and I've never seen an answer;
If the USDA bases their trade decisions on "sound science" or "the best science available", or whatever..... why is the age of animals that we will take beef from Canada set at under 30 months, but the age requirement they negotiated with Japan at under 20 months?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Mike
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 16951
Location: Montgomery, Al
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18244
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| reader (the Second) wrote: |
| what's the name of that book by Chris Matthews - Hardball - they read it in AP Government here in senior year in high school and learn the various political techniques. being a country girl, i never heard of such things until my daughter took AP Government. Ahh, but since my husband died and I started dealing with Congress, FDA, state legislatures, and so on I have had my eyes opened. Best of all (this is sarcasm so you Canadians don't think I'm making light of your plight) have been the political lessons to be gleaned from the behavior of USDA, the administration, the Canadian Government, R-CALF, etc. in this border fiasco. |
Did you read the book? If so, is it a good read?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
~SH~
Rancher
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 5426
Location: South Western SD
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sandhusker: "If the USDA bases their trade decisions on "sound science" or "the best science available", or whatever..... why is the age of animals that we will take beef from Canada set at under 30 months, but the age requirement they negotiated with Japan at under 20 months?"
Let me once again start out by saying that I never did buy the old cliche' about "no such thing as a stupid question". You are proof of that.
We don't make Japan's decisions for them. Japan set their own age threshold.
Japan is obviously "overly cautious" due the amount of BSE that has been found in their country.
You pick the most trivial things to split hairs over.
~SH~
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Soapweed
Rancher
Joined: 11 Feb 2005
Posts: 12096
Location: northern Nebraska Sandhills
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sandhusker: "I've seen a few people ask this question and I've never seen an answer; If the USDA bases their trade decisions on "sound science" or "the best science available", or whatever..... why is the age of animals that we will take beef from Canada set at under 30 months, but the age requirement they negotiated with Japan at under 20 months?"
Did hear on Agri-Talk a couple days ago, the term "International Science". This should be enlarged upon, universal standards that all countries recognize and adhere to.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18244
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ~SH~ wrote: |
Sandhusker: "If the USDA bases their trade decisions on "sound science" or "the best science available", or whatever..... why is the age of animals that we will take beef from Canada set at under 30 months, but the age requirement they negotiated with Japan at under 20 months?"
Let me once again start out by saying that I never did buy the old cliche' about "no such thing as a stupid question". You are proof of that.
We don't make Japan's decisions for them. Japan set their own age threshold.
Japan is obviously "overly cautious" due the amount of BSE that has been found in their country.
You pick the most trivial things to split hairs over.
~SH~ |
A few months ago your line was that the Japanese "caved" into our demands - now Japan set their own age threshold? How can they do both? A few months ago we were to reject Japan's request for testing because was not based on "sound science", now we don't make their decisions for them?
SH,"Japan is obviously "overly cautious" due the amount of BSE that has been found in their country."
Wow, we agree on something.  How many times did I say exactly that, but you scoffed at those words because bring overly cautious was not following "sound science"?
There is till a problem here that you skirted. The USDA claims to use "sound science" as their guide. If "sound science" states the magic age to be 30 months, 20 months, whatever, it should apply universally. All other things being equal (cattle used for human consumption), there can be only one age if science is being strictly adhered to. My original question to you, and I directed this question to you solely because you seem to back the USDA regardless (that and I enjoy squabbling with you) remains unanswered.
These inconsistancies and double standards are part of what Judge Cebull is seeing from the USDA.
Last edited by Sandhusker on Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:39 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18244
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Soapweed wrote: |
Sandhusker: "I've seen a few people ask this question and I've never seen an answer; If the USDA bases their trade decisions on "sound science" or "the best science available", or whatever..... why is the age of animals that we will take beef from Canada set at under 30 months, but the age requirement they negotiated with Japan at under 20 months?"
Did hear on Agri-Talk a couple days ago, the term "International Science". This should be enlarged upon, universal standards that all countries recognize and adhere to. |
You're right, Soapman, we should have something we can agree on and be able to hang our hats on. Seems like that is easier said than done. I reference the OIE standards on BSE. Japan is clearly not following them in regards to trade with us, but what do you do then? There is no final word and enforcement authority such as the relationship between states and the Federal Government - and I certainly don't want the UN to have any power over us. It seems that in international trade, agreements between countries are akin to gentlemen's agreements between thieves!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
don
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1574
Location: saskatchewan
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
"If the USDA bases their trade decisions on "sound science" or "the best science available", or whatever..... why is the age of animals that we will take beef from Canada set at under 30 months, but the age requirement they negotiated with Japan at under 20 months?"
Maybe usda is doing what you've been adivising: giving the consumer what they are asking for. Are you still eating beef? If you are that is an expression of confidence in the american beef supply and food safety system so they are meeting your requirements. usda is doing what it has to do to maintain your confidence. If they meet the requirements to hold the confidence of Japanese consumers, is that a bad thing? If you are concerned that the offer to the Japanese gives them a margin of safety you need then demand it by not buying beef until all over twenty month animals are tested for domestic consumption. You are doing the two-faced thing by saying the Japanese are getting a safer product but you don't reflect your safety requirements in your buying decisions. Kind of an r-calf thing I guess. Put your money where your mouth is or quit the yipping.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18244
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| don wrote: |
"If the USDA bases their trade decisions on "sound science" or "the best science available", or whatever..... why is the age of animals that we will take beef from Canada set at under 30 months, but the age requirement they negotiated with Japan at under 20 months?"
Maybe usda is doing what you've been adivising: giving the consumer what they are asking for. Are you still eating beef? If you are that is an expression of confidence in the american beef supply and food safety system so they are meeting your requirements. usda is doing what it has to do to maintain your confidence. If they meet the requirements to hold the confidence of Japanese consumers, is that a bad thing? If you are concerned that the offer to the Japanese gives them a margin of safety you need then demand it by not buying beef until all over twenty month animals are tested for domestic consumption. You are doing the two-faced thing by saying the Japanese are getting a safer product but you don't reflect your safety requirements in your buying decisions. Kind of an r-calf thing I guess. Put your money where your mouth is or quit the yipping. |
Don,
I'm all for giving the customer what they want. That's how you run a business. My problem with the USDA is that they say one thing, then do another. They've made a stand on using "sound science" as if it is an absolute, but then in their actions, they treat as if it is negotiable. How can you claim that you are using "sound science" when you set the age limit at 30 months for Canada and also say you are using the same "sound science" when you set the age for Japan at 20 months? I ask that the USDA either be consistant or straightforward. Is that asking too much? It's been a long time since they've been either.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
don
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1574
Location: saskatchewan
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don,
I'm all for giving the customer what they want. That's how you run a business. My problem with the USDA is that they say one thing, then do another
but, in effect, they are giving the customer what they want. if the japanese want under twenty month, usda is saying here it is. whether or not that is good enough is still up for debate. the japanese will decide but that is what usda has negotiated. the american consumer hasn't indicated that the health of the american herd is an issue to them, yet. to that extent they are getting what they are asking for. my point is that if the japanese market is satisfied and the american market is satisfied why stir the crap. if health is an issue to r-calf, demand all domestic slaughter over twenty months be tested but don't complain just because the threshold is different between customers. if both customers are satisfied and usda is satisfied both parties are being provided with a safe product, the discrepancy shouldn't be an issue. if someone proves that the difference puts americans' health at risk then usda should take the steps to ensure food safety. until then, r-calf is merely raising he** and proving nothing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mrj
Rancher
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 3363
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sandhusker, is USDA the only govt. agency involved in the trade negotiations with Japan?
Isn't the word NEGOTIATION indicative of what probably happened there?
We got the UTM we wanted, and they set the point at the 20 month level to show that they really "did not cave" to our point.
What was the usual age of cattle we were selling to them prior to BSE?
I have not heard that, and am wondering if the under 20 months is any different than what was customary prior to BSE.
MRJ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Mike
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 16951
Location: Montgomery, Al
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
MRJ:"We got the UTM we wanted"
We got nothing yet. The Food Safety Admin in Japan has not even written a report yet. In the event they approve, the Parliament will have to change the law on their testing protocol, then the Parliament would have to vote on acceptability of the our plan.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
