Another one bites the dust

[Mike]

Hong Kong Blocks Harris Beef
Imports are suspended as a mad cow disease precaution after a bone fragment is found.
By Michelle Keller, Times Staff Writer
May 17, 2006

Hong Kong authorities suspended beef imports from Harris Ranch Beef Co. on Tuesday after a bone fragment was found in a shipment from the California company, a violation of local mad cow disease precautions.

Harris Ranch, California's largest beef producer, is the third U.S. meat processor to be hit with a sales suspension by Hong Kong since an import ban was lifted in January. Hong Kong officials also blocked beef shipments from Cargill Meat Solutions Inc. and Swift Beef Co. because of bone fragments.

Hong Kong, along with several other U.S. trade partners in Asia, has imposed strict import restrictions to prevent the transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, known as mad cow disease. Beef imported into Hong Kong must be boneless, come from cattle less than 30 months old and have spinal and brain matter removed, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The import constraints replaced a two-year ban on U.S. beef to Hong Kong, which had been the fifth-largest export market for U.S. beef, accounting for about $82 million in annual sales, according to the U.S. trade representative's office.

Three cases of mad cow disease have been identified in the U.S., said Ed Lyod, a USDA spokesman.

Exports to Hong Kong were a small part of Harris Ranch's $260 million in annual sales, but with the market set to grow, the company expressed concern over the suspension.

"It's a minor part of what we do, but I don't want to minimize its importance," said Bruce Berven, marketing vice president at Harris Ranch. "We will have to use due diligence to put additional practices in place and do everything in our power to eliminate or minimize the possibility of this type of occurrence."

The company's main processing plant in Selma, Calif., produces about 200 million pounds of beef a year, making it the state's largest beef processor, the company said. Exports to Hong Kong since the ban was lifted totaled about 20,000 pounds.

Berven said the company wasn't sure when the suspension would be lifted.

As Asian countries lift bans on American beef, companies are preparing for what they believe could be a lucrative business.

"Japan, Korea, China — these are prime markets," said Dean Cliver, professor of food safety at UC Davis. "We get extra high prices if we get the right kind of beef to sell there."

Government officials and industry executives have expressed frustration over the stringent import policies.

"It's not a safety issue," Berven said. "Bones are not dangerous from a BSE standpoint. We agreed to ship a boneless product … but it's very difficult to ensure that there can't be one little fragment somewhere."

Consuming beef contaminated with mad cow disease is linked to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, a degenerative and fatal brain disorder in humans. But the risk of contracting the disease is extremely low, Cliver said.

"The money and the resources that are being devoted to this by the U.S. are coming at the expense of other food-safety things that are more urgent and more real," he said.

 

[TimH]

Mike wrote-

Consuming beef contaminated with mad cow disease is linked to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, a degenerative and fatal brain disorder in humans. But the risk of contracting the disease is extremely low, Cliver said.

"The money and the resources that are being devoted to this by the U.S. are coming at the expense of other food-safety things that are more urgent and more real," he said.

Circumstancial link, not proven scientificly. Where is the evidence to back this "link" up??
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Murgen]

Is this one of those "big 5" that Econ is always trying to tell us has no regard for regulations, cause they have the USDA in their back pocket?

 

[ranch hand]

where were the usda inspectors?

 

[Murgen]

I doubt they are going through every box with a fine toothed comb, like the Japanese. As it has been mentioned on Ranchers before, the Japanese do not trust the US right now. They are looking for anything they can use as a reason.

And I don't think you can blame this on just the USDA, when you have American Beef organizations more or less saying "our regulations are not strong enough, and the USDA is incompetent"

 

[Econ101]

Careful, Murgen, don't put words in my mouth and then claim they came from me.

If you want to be conspiriatorial, do it all yourself. I don't know about Harris Ranch so I am not making the deductions you suggest.

Besides, why would the USDA allow this faux paux to happen to their "golden boy"?

 

[Econ101]

I doubt they are going through every box with a fine toothed comb, like the Japanese. As it has been mentioned on Ranchers before, the Japanese do not trust the US right now. They are looking for anything they can use as a reason.

And I don't think you can blame this on just the USDA, when you have American Beef organizations more or less saying "our regulations are not strong enough, and the USDA is incompetent"

Your solution is to stop the organization from saying what it is saying.

I would suggest a better solution is for the USDA to change its ways.

The USDA has complete control over their policy, Murgen. Why blame the results of that policy on the critics?

Would you have everyone be a cheerleader and ignore the the problems in the industry?

 

[rkaiser]

Econo -

Would you have everyone be a cheerleader and ignore the the problems in the industry?

Probably the most important statement on ranchers.net that I have ever read.

BSE has shown all of us, especially Canadians, what happens when you cheer lead rather than speak up. The producers of both of our countries are the only true losers in this whole BSE fiasco and yet our Major producer groups have simply become cheerleaders. Cheerleaders for a situation that has and will see nothing but advantage taken by everyone except the helpless producer. Helpless because his producer groups see the solutions adopted by government and suggested by industry as the only way.

There could have been other things done. And if I am not mistaken, Murgen himself had some suggestions in past posts. We could all simply sit back and watch as BSEconomics chips away at any potential grass roots profits or we could stop the cheer leading and look for other solutions. We are ranchers are we not, and BSEconomics is hurting each of our ledgers?

 

[Sandhusker]

Murgen, "And I don't think you can blame this on just the USDA, when you have American Beef organizations more or less saying "our regulations are not strong enough, and the USDA is incompetent"

It doesn't do any good to hide from the truth. When our standards are lower than third world backward countries like Egypt, I think it is safe to say our regulations are not strong enough.

What have you seen that would lead you to believe the USDA is competent? :lol: I think that when the regulatory body that oversees your industry is continually dropping the ball, the trade orginazations have a duty to call them out.

 

[Murgen]

Like I've said before, I don't disagree with different orgs. using their influence to point out improvements to regulatory agencies. I do have a problem with them running to the media as soon as they feel those improvements are not implemented within their timeline. And in certain situations, they have run to the media, before they have even attempted to approach said agencies.

 

[Econ101]

Like I've said before, I don't disagree with different orgs. using their influence to point out improvements to regulatory agencies. I do have a problem with them running to the media as soon as they feel those improvements are not implemented within their timeline. And in certain situations, they have run to the media, before they have even attempted to approach said agencies.

Murgen, do you think that rcalf or other organizations did not go approach "said agencies" before they went to the media?

Did Canada implement effective bse firewalls before it became a problem?

Tell the truth, now, Murgen.

Where were you for the winter, Florida?

 

[Murgen]

Not sure if said groups did or did not, are you?

What is obvious now, is that they run to the media every chance they get.

If RCALF is right, that the USDA is not regulating food safety to the extent that they should be, (and that firewalls are not effective) then tell me why RCALF members continue to endanger the US public and their export customers with beef.

Should they really be selling an unsafe product as they believe it is. If they really wanted to stand up for safety and the regulations that they are advocating, then they should really take a stand and refuse to sell.

See the hypocricy? Do they really believe in what they are saying, then I say "back it up"

 

[Mike]

Pretty drastic measures to prove a point there Turden!

Lose everything thing you have because the USDA is incompetent and bought and paid for?


You can't be serious.

 

[Murgen]

Real intelligent Mike.

Whatever you guys want to do, you'll do anyway. It just doesn't make sense that the producer of a product would tell their customers that the product is unsafe, due to government regulations, but hey "we're still producing it, and we need to make money, so buy our unsafe product anyway"

I'm just wondering how many salespeople you've ever run across that tell you their product is unsafe?

I've never heard fruit producers promote the fact that they use insecticides, and that the USDA/FDA, don't effectively enforce the limits, but here "have an apple"

 

[Econ101]

Not sure if said groups did or did not, are you?

What is obvious now, is that they run to the media every chance they get.

If RCALF is right, that the USDA is not regulating food safety to the extent that they should be, (and that firewalls are not effective) then tell me why RCALF members continue to endanger the US public and their export customers with beef.

Should they really be selling an unsafe product as they believe it is. If they really wanted to stand up for safety and the regulations that they are advocating, then they should really take a stand and refuse to sell.

See the hypocricy? Do they really believe in what they are saying, then I say "back it up"

Murgen, the risk for bse is still very low in both our countries. Since both our countries have had bse positives, the risk is not zero. It benefits the entire industry to have it at zero. What is wrong with rcalf making sure that some companies can achieve that goal even if the USDA can not especially if they are paying for it (Creekstone for example)?

BSE policy in both of our countries has been disasterous for producers in both countries. To blame the producers who are speaking out against the policies that put us in that position is a little short sighted, even if it does fulfill your self serving rcalf blaming needs.

Since bse may have even originated from your country on this continent (I am not blaming Canadian producers for this--- it is govt. and packer policies that are to blame here) why do you think you have a right to critisize a producer organization that wants to do what your country could not do?

Stop playing into the hand of packer plays. You are smarter than that.

 

[Mike]

I'm really having a hard time understanding your logic.

When the product leaves the producer and is safe, (as far as ANYONE can possibly know) and the agency that is in charge of "Food Safety" allows mishaps to slip through the cracks and screws up time and time again, thereby reducing consumer confidence, then................. the producer is supposed to punish himself for those mistakes?

You're out there Murgen, farther than I want to go!

 

[Murgen]

Since bse may have even originated from your country on this continent (I am not blaming Canadian producers for this--- it is govt. and packer policies that are to blame here) why do you think you have a right to critisize a producer organization that wants to do what your country could not do?

Pretty bold statement! Where has the oldest BSE positive been found thus far on this continent? Oh wise one?

Which producer group was it in the UK, that blamed their government/packers?

Once again, if the safeguards are not in place, as you say, due to our governments/packers chasing the dollar, is it a responsible decision to maintain sales of the product? Is it not shortsighted to sell a product that you deem to be unsafe, no matter who is responsible for that unsafety?

And I'm not blaming any producer or packer or government. We've been saddled with an unfortunate situation, fixing the problem will take working together as an industry, not pointing fingers for past mistakes.

 

[Murgen]

When the product leaves the producer and is safe, (as far as ANYONE can possibly know) and the agency that is in charge of "Food Safety" allows mishaps to slip through the cracks and screws up time and time again, thereby reducing consumer confidence, then................. the producer is supposed to punish himself for those mistakes?

As far as I know, every BSE positive was found right after it left the farm/ranch, so was it safe when it left? Why is RCALF not lobbying the government for every animal to be tested and paid for by the producer?

It's not safe unless it's tested Mike, isn't that the argument? So if the government is not going to test it, should it be sold, by some groups logic?

Be careful what you wish for. One day RCALF may be fighting the packers on their requirement of the producer to purchase a test for every animal, before it is killed.

One more question? Seeing as most animals that contract BSE are dairy animals, due to the off-farm protein that is fed, which Dairy organization is asking these same questions of the packers/government and saying the product is unsafe?

 

[Econ101]

Since bse may have even originated from your country on this continent (I am not blaming Canadian producers for this--- it is govt. and packer policies that are to blame here) why do you think you have a right to critisize a producer organization that wants to do what your country could not do?

Pretty bold statement! Where has the oldest BSE positive been found thus far on this continent? Oh wise one?

Which producer group was it in the UK, that blamed their government/packers?

Once again, if the safeguards are not in place, as you say, due to our governments/packers chasing the dollar, is it a responsible decision to maintain sales of the product? Is it not shortsighted to sell a product that you deem to be unsafe, no matter who is responsible for that unsafety?

And I'm not blaming any producer or packer or government. We've been saddled with an unfortunate situation, fixing the problem will take working together as an industry, not pointing fingers for past mistakes.

So your solution is to ignore it? At least rcalf has come out for testing to be out of the hands of the govt. only. You advocate hiding your head in the sand and goading everyone else to do the same. What a joke.

The people in charge of food safety should be on the hook for this one. That includes the U.S. and Canadian govts. and the packers who have persuaded them into these short sighted policies. You seem to want them to accept no responsibility or change in policy. Ignore it and it will go away. Is that how you handle all of life's challenges? Remember the analogy I gave to MRJ on child abuse. The parallels to your arguments seem to be the same. Neither one solves or addresses the problem.

 

[Mike]

It's not safe unless it's tested Mike, isn't that the argument? So if the government is not going to test it, should it be sold, by some groups logic?

First of all, it's not JUST the testing that got the USDA in trouble.........but the experimentation of and the unwillingness to employ newer testing methods, i.e. rapid screening tests (that allowed more testing to be done from resources and time constraints) and the antiquated IHC. Canada got onboard the rapid tests well in advance of the USDA!

Second, you can't expect someone to punish himself when the argument with the USDA is TO ALLOW them private testing with the oversight of the USDA.