• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

A Korean Tells US to "Stick It"!!!

A

Anonymous

Guest
[Editorial]No more American beef without a change in American attitudes


The very day after Korea found a banned, partial vertebral column in a shipment of American beef and decided to ban all imports, the United States once again asked that Korea revise its meat quarantine guidelines. The right thing to do would be for the United States to apologize for failing to maintain guidelines that represent a commitment between the two countries, and to take action to prevent further cases. It is a one-sided attitude to demand further talks without first following through on that, [[[but is to be expected]]] since the United States gives no thought to opposing positions and attempts to achieve only its own interests. It will lead to a considerable ill-feeling among the Korean people, if you think of how Korea will be unable to reject the request because of the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement.

The U.S. demand, based on the World Organization for Animal Health’s (OIE) assessment that the country has its mad cow threat under control, is that Korea import its beef regardless of the age of its beef cows and whether or not the beef contains bone fragments and specified risk materials that can cause bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease. It is a demonstration of America’s arrogant approach to beef negotiations when in response to the discovery of a vertebral column it says there is no safety problem, except for the fact the cow was younger than 30 months old.

Whatever happens with the negotiations, the current quarantine guidelines should be strictly maintained. In other words, when it comes to this vertebral column episode, the first thing that needs to happen is for the United States to take some persuasive action. If the U.S. government thinks why Korea is going to implement in such a strict way guidelines that are going to be changed anyway soon, or that it might as well take this opportunity to get all the problematic beef parts included in the list of imports, then it needs to reexamine the very approach it takes on the issue at hand.



The Korean government, for its part, needs to take this opportunity to adopt a firm stance on specified risk materials. OIE standards are just recommendations, and Korea is not obligated to adopt them all. We Koreans cook and eat bones, too, so it is only a matter of course that we need far more stringent guidelines, and our government has the authority to decide what the quarantine guidelines are going to be. The U.S. attitude, in which it pushes demands that it justifies with OIE standards, is an inappropriate one even when it comes to international practices.


Considering the problems that have become apparent in the U.S. quarantine system and how hard it is to weed out specified risk materials once you permit bone fragments, the conclusion is relatively clear. At the very least, the standard for “boneless lean meat under 30 months of age” must be maintained. Naturally Korea should not allow the importation of risk materials without regard to age. The country cannot guarantee the safety of imported beef by looking through a few related sites in the United States and going over a few documents given to us by American exporters.

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_editorial/228580.html
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker, as usual, you support whatever you believe will discredit NCBA and others, even when it is harmful to US beef producers, and regardless of the facts.

Obviously that Korean editorial writer is spreading ill will toward the USA in order to support his own agenda......and ignores the facts, quite like you do.

This is NOT a SAFETY PROBLEM. It is a trade problem.

It is a REGULATION which was carelessly or foolishly or intentionally, broken.

We do NOT know if it was deliberate, nor if it was, by whom it was done.

Reasonable customers would be expected to reject the box of unapproved material, not stop all trade, making this reek of trade trickery, IMO. Trade with the USA, especially our beef products, is extremely controversial with the politicians there. However, we hear reports that the PEOPLE of Korea want it, like it, and are eating as much of it as they can get!

So Korea does not have to accept the OIE recommendations......nor does the USA have to kowtow to Korea and accept whatever they wish to send to us if they continue to put artifically stringent blocks to importing our beef, IMO.

Unlike some R-CALF members, I believe we DO need to export our beef and participate in world marketing. Isolationism didn't work in the past and will not work in the future.

I know that NCBA has called on USDA to lean harder on those exporting beef to clean up their act. What have you done to improve the situation, beyond your attempts to trash those to entities???

mrj
 

Mike

Well-known member
08-13-2007 17:27

Korea Times
Dispute on US Beef

Washington Needs to Better Understand Local Market

The dispute surrounding the safety and imports of U.S. beef shows no signs of abating with the United States poised to budge not an inch from its original stance. The United States has been excessive in asking South Korea for renegotiation on sanitary requirements on U.S. beef imports without any efforts to rectify problems apparently attributed to either the meatpackers and exporters or U.S. government officials in charge of inspection of related products.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s decision to suspend quarantine inspections of U.S. beef over fears of specified risk material (SRM) was made in due course after a 20kg box of beef was found to contain banned backbones. The U.S. should have apologized first for its careless dealing and lack of efforts to meet the import requirement.

In a sense, the ministry’s decision came in recognition of the U.S. as an ally and major trade partner, with which it recently signed the historical KorUS Free Trade Agreement. But the U.S. neglected the government’s goodwill gesture, with its demand for the new agreement.

The U.S. has said there is no reason for South Korea to ban the imports the U.S. beef, citing the ruling made by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) which says bones from animals under 30 months of age are acceptable. But it is very arrogant for the U.S. to ask for the imports of its beef even after the spinal bones were detected.

Before trying to sell more on the Korean market, the U.S. is asked to understand the Korean culture of eating beef and cattle parts. The cow has always been regarded as very precious for its use in plowing fields in Korea’s traditional agriculture. And Koreans rarely ate beef until recently when mass production began.

Against this backdrop, the price of Korean beef, called ``hanwoo,’’ has been very high, denying many people easy access. That is the reason why the U.S. beef has attracted growing popularity among Korean ordinary consumers due to its relatively high quality and reasonable prices despite lingering suspicions over safety.

But when it comes to the discovery of banned parts, the situation becomes different. The Korean consumers will change their hitherto favorable attitudes toward the U.S. beef should Washington continue its ``haughty’’ manner in forcing the Korean government to import its beef notwithstanding the problematic points.

Further excessive demand is feared to trigger anti-American sentiment and even a campaign to boycott U.S. beef. Koreans are accustomed to collective motives rather than individual ones. And such trends become more apparent when related to international issues involving surrounding nations such as the U.S., in particular.

The OIE standard is not automatically accepted by all member countries and each nation has its own sovereignty to determine the standard of its own in accordance with the specific dietary culture. The U.S. government needs to learn the lesson from the failure of Wall-Mart and U.S. major automobile companies due mainly to a lack of understanding of Korea’s local market.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
The issue is Korea sees that this isn't the first time US beef shipped to asia that had pieces of bone in. They see a pattern. Where is the old adige "the consumer is always right" ? It seems the people shipping the beef want the consumer (Korea) to take what they are given. And that is not what they want. All i can say is HEY KOREA tell canada what you want we will supply exactly that. :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
QUESTION said:
Where is the old adige "the consumer is always right" ? It seems the people shipping the beef want the consumer (Korea) to take what they are given. And that is not what they want. All i can say is HEY KOREA tell canada what you want we will supply exactly that. :D

Kind of like the 92% of the US consumers saying they want Country of Origin Labeling-- and want to know whatever country that animal/food product spent time in-- but the ARROGANT Canucks now say that they shouldn't be given that info- and that they should be lied and deceived to again because Canucks have NO Confidence in their product..... :roll: :wink: :lol:
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
BLA BLA BLA ,same old thing, BLA BLA BLA, rhetoric, BLA BLA BLA arrogant candians :???: :? BLA BLA BLA Fear mongering, BLA BLA BLA GARL
 

mrj

Well-known member
Zogby poll of over 4,000 people shows more of them want MORE than country of origin, at least state, in reality, and if asked, it looks to be a pretty safe bet they would say they want FARM or RANCH of origin, plus a trail of where the food has been and what has been done to it. Quite a label that will take!!!!

mrj
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Are you kidding, then liability would be attached to food safety and US producers all along the chain would be accountable financially for their product while that would be good for consumers and lawyers, but groups like r-calf would fight it tooth and nail under property rights and privacy rights. It seems r-calf believes that eveyone should be equal but they should be made to be more equal than others. :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
Are you kidding, then liability would be attached to food safety and US producers all along the chain would be accountable financially for their product while that would be good for consumers and lawyers, but groups like r-calf would fight it tooth and nail under property rights and privacy rights. It seems r-calf believes that eveyone should be equal but they should be made to be more equal than others. :roll:

:shock: Whaaaaaaaa?
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
what Sand H don't you think a label an animal that carries all the travel records and changes of ownership is a good idea, it is what the consumer wants "to know where their food comes from".
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
what Sand H don't you think a label an animal that carries all the travel records and changes of ownership is a good idea, it is what the consumer wants "to know where their food comes from".

Weren't you one of the folks talking about all the expenses of just identifying what country an animal was from?
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Zogby poll of over 4,000 people shows more of them want MORE than country of origin, at least state, in reality, and if asked, it looks to be a pretty safe bet they would say they want FARM or RANCH of origin, plus a trail of where the food has been and what has been done to it. Quite a label that will take!!!!

MRJ ,ScoringAg does that with ONE CODE Number!
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
So sand are you saying you want you customer to know where their produce come from just not what ranch. What are US producers trying to hide? I know it opens up producers to lawsuits when someone gets sick from eating tainted beef. It would also force the packers to be accountable and show the comsumer what meat comes from vertically intergrated programs. Think about it it would make US producers carry a part of the cost of the for a labeling program thus COOL would not be a non-tariff trade barrier. This is a simple solution to more than one problem within the US beef industry. But it seems you would rather complain than come up with solutions.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Q, "So sand are you saying you want you customer to know where their produce come from just not what ranch."

I'm saying I want consumers to know what country the food they eat comes from. I don't think they really care what ranch it came from. Why would they? They don't know the ranches, but they do know the countries. We can provide COOL easily and inexpensively. Providing ranch of origin would be a lot different.

If somebody wants to know what ranch it comes from and they are willing to pay for it, I won't stand in the way. Producers and consumers can form a relationship and I say good for both.

And COOL is not a trade barrier. "Trade Barrier" gets used as loosely as "Protectionist".
 
Top