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

Back Off On Testing

Mike

Well-known member
USDA Should Back Off On Private Testing
One issue arising from the discovery of BSE in the U.S. that I've had trouble reconciling is USDA's stance on private testing. The issue has become even less clear as U.S. negotiators continue to grant concessions to different markets in order to regain access for U.S. beef.

Creekstone Farms® Premium Beef, LLC, of Arkansas City, KS, petitioned USDA in spring 2004 to allow it to conduct its own BSE testing program, with USDA oversight.

Creekstone Farms produces Natural Black Angus Beef™ and Premium Black Angus Beef™, branded products it readily admits -- due to their price -- aren't products for everyone. The firm, which harvests 1,050 head/day, strives to add value to every piece of meat. It was the first U.S. beef processor to receive USDA's Process Verification for Tender Beef.

Creekstone's hope, though Japan officially has never backed it, was that its "product enhancement" of voluntary testing would allow it a chance to get back into the lucrative Japanese market. The Japan market made up a good chunk of Creekstone's business before BSE was discovered in the U.S. in late 2003.

At that time, Japan had in place a policy of testing all its domestic cattle at harvest. It's a step Japan's government was forced to take in its panic to salvage consumer confidence following its bungling of Japan's domestic BSE crisis, which hit in the fall of 2001 and has thus far churned up 26 cases.

Japan's government overplayed its hand, however, telling consumers BSE-tested beef was safe to eat, and non-tested beef was suspect. Of course, that flies in the face of all the science and internationally accepted standards.

USDA, however, turned down Creekstone's testing request, claiming only it has the legal authority to control access to, and use of, BSE testing kits. Voluntary testing, the agency contends, would undermine its official position, which is that U.S. beef is safe. In March 2006, Creekstone responded by filing a civil suit.

But why can't Creekstone's desire to test for BSE be interpreted as just free-market entrepreneurship -- simple product differentiation? If BSE testing is a feature Creekstone's customers want, free enterprise should allow it. How does this type of product differentiation differ from specified regimes for animal handling, portion control, tenderness, etc.?

About 20 years ago, the U.S. beef industry was in an uproar over what an upstart called Coleman Natural Beef was trying to do. Of course, Coleman was billing its beef as the product of "chemical-free cattle," which industry leaders thought would taint conventional cattle raised with the use of antibiotics and growth promotants.

By the way, Creekstone has never tried to draw such a food-safety distinction between tested and non-tested beef, publicly professing that all U.S. beef as safe.

As potentially injurious as some in the industry felt Coleman Natural's promotion program would be, its advent didn't destroy the conventional market. And, while that segment has since grown considerably, with every major packer now offering a "natural" line, it never will overtake conventional beef. What it has done, however, is attract folks who wouldn't otherwise be eating beef.

Of course, those opposed to private testing would say private companies shouldn't undermine U.S. trade positions. And though the U.S. has stood fast in its resolve that countries adhere to international standards for BSE, as set by the OIE, very few seem to actually do it.

In fact, of the countries that restarted beef trade with the U.S. since its suspension in 2003, just about all of them are doing so under a unique package of rules negotiated specifically to get that market reopened.

Further, 17 years after the European Union (EU) banned U.S. beef due to the use of growth promotants -- something all the science says is safe -- that ban is still in place. And it remains in place despite the fact the U.S. complaint succeeded before the World Trade Organization. Today, USDA even provides non-hormone certification for U.S. firms wishing to ship such beef to EU-approved plants. Creekstone is among them.

With all that's transpired on this trade issue, it really is high time USDA rethink its position on private testing and allow free enterprise and entrepreneurship to work.
-- Joe Roybal

Beef Cow Calf Weekly
 

Econ101

Well-known member
We have a set of jokers in D.C. that are slowly ruining our country by their inability to identify and correct problems before and after they emerge. They are politicians, not statesmen.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Creekstone's hope, though Japan officially has never backed it, was that its "product enhancement" of voluntary testing would allow it a chance to get back into the lucrative Japanese market.

Maybe this puts to rest the claims that Japan requested tested beef.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
Creekstone's hope, though Japan officially has never backed it, was that its "product enhancement" of voluntary testing would allow it a chance to get back into the lucrative Japanese market.

Maybe this puts to rest the claims that Japan requested tested beef.

If that is what you want to believe, Jason. I am sure that somehow they will get one of the Japanese to say just that so you can win your little argument over this.

Even if the Japanese refused to take tested U.S. beef at this point, the damage that the USDA has done to its own reputation and credibility at the expense of producers is there.

The idea of stopping bse testing other than that done by the government is one of the most telling signs that the USDA is incompetent or corrupt. Phillis Fong proved both are true.
 

Jason

Well-known member
What part of Japan never officially backed it isn't clear?

Anyone who sees conspiracy in this is one brick short of a load.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
What part of Japan never officially backed it isn't clear?

Anyone who sees conspiracy in this is one brick short of a load.

And do you see a conspiracy in it?

When you treat a good customer the way the USDA has, you should be fired. Hey, that is exactly the result for the producers.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
Isn't that the logical extrapolation of what I sense in this article -- the beef industry is a throwback to monopoly and oligarchy where powerful interests hold all the cards and don't let innovators or entrepreneurs in, using government laws to keep people out. When you believe you hold all the cards and it's your game, you are arrogant about your customers.

Very well said-- You're learning how the cattle and beef industrys are being run... :wink:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Isn't that the logical extrapolation of what I sense in this article -- the beef industry is a throwback to monopoly and oligarchy where powerful interests hold all the cards and don't let innovators or entrepreneurs in, using government laws to keep people out. When you believe you hold all the cards and it's your game, you are arrogant about your customers.

Bingo.
 

Jason

Well-known member
The "good customer" (Japan) has never officially asked for BSE tested beef from the US or Canada. They have used this as a trade barrier the same as R-calf has.

Japan is taking untested beef from Canada and would still be taking it from the US if that neck plate hadn't been included in a shipment.

That mistake looks more like the arrogance of the American worker's mentality-- that 'the union will protect my job no matter what kind of a screwup I am'.

Japanese products have the reputation of being better built than US products. That mistake feeds that thinking in Japan.

The major packers have been on a path toward more customer satisfaction, case ready meals, innovative new cuts of beef to add value to the carcass. If that is seen as not caring about who pays their bills, I don't know what is.
 

don

Well-known member
r2: this is an entrepreneurial, capitalist country and a democracy, not a state-run dictatorship or socialist state. The tone of the article makes it sound like the beef industry in cahoots with the government regulators can prevent people from entering their market if they are threatened by them. Sounds like a state-run, socialist or communist country to me.

i think the american economy has passed through the commonly cherished ideal of capitalism and is now in the hands of relatively few powerful people who figured out that owning the government was their biggest asset. look at big oil, big banking, big packers or big car companies (that one tells you how it will all end up). economies evolve just like everything else (although evolution is a dirty word to some here) and natural selection sorts out the big guys. barriers to entry into the market destroy the capitalism which built america.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
The "good customer" (Japan) has never officially asked for BSE tested beef from the US or Canada. They have used this as a trade barrier the same as R-calf has.

Japan is taking untested beef from Canada and would still be taking it from the US if that neck plate hadn't been included in a shipment.

That mistake looks more like the arrogance of the American worker's mentality-- that 'the union will protect my job no matter what kind of a screwup I am'.

Japanese products have the reputation of being better built than US products. That mistake feeds that thinking in Japan.

The major packers have been on a path toward more customer satisfaction, case ready meals, innovative new cuts of beef to add value to the carcass. If that is seen as not caring about who pays their bills, I don't know what is.

Jason, you will never believe what you don't want to no matter what evidence is presented. You are more interested in your self interest (why that is allied with the packers, I do not know) than in the independent truth.

Does every one of your customers have to say they want a "good bull" that can breed to get one? If they don't come out and say it, does that mean that you can sell them a good looking bull that can not breed?

The idea that the Japanese have to come out and say what you are proposing in an official manner with all the ceremony and pompt you seem to require is ridiculous. Why you would go along with this silly reasoning and to such extremes is puzzeling to me.

The piece of bone in the shipment was certainly an excuse. They didn't want that bone in there because of the mistaken theory that the possibility of bse can be eliminated with proper SRM removal. It is a mistaken theory. If you believe it is not, why don't you volunteer to eat the next bse positive meat cut out as long as it is boneless. The Japanese may see you as a niche market for their bse positives. You could open up Canada with trade deals like that----Jason in Canada buys bse positives in exchange for Canadian sales.

The major packers have eliminated competition from providing what the Japanese want through an obviously flawed policy that puts their own economics before food safety. A foriegn buyer has had to point that fact out. Where is this policy caring about what their customer wants? You have really lost me on that reasoning.

Whoever buys bulls from you better watch out for the bull-s..... you put out.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Jason said:
Creekstone's hope, though Japan officially has never backed it, was that its "product enhancement" of voluntary testing would allow it a chance to get back into the lucrative Japanese market.

Maybe this puts to rest the claims that Japan requested tested beef.

Jason, Mike provided a letter from Veneman to the Japanese that asked the Japanese to stop asking for tested beef. He posted it more than once and I doubt you missed it. If they never asked for it, why the heck was Veneman wanting them to stop asking for it? THEY REQUESTED TESTED BEEF. As negotiations went on for two years, you can bet they asked for it more than once.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Jason said:
Creekstone's hope, though Japan officially has never backed it, was that its "product enhancement" of voluntary testing would allow it a chance to get back into the lucrative Japanese market.

Maybe this puts to rest the claims that Japan requested tested beef.

Jason, Mike provided a letter from Veneman to the Japanese that asked the Japanese to stop asking for tested beef. He posted it more than once and I doubt you missed it. If they never asked for it, why the heck was Veneman wanting them to stop asking for it? THEY REQUESTED TESTED BEEF. As negotiations went on for two years, you can bet they asked for it more than once.

And the Japanese also had problems with Canadian beef and the US slaughtering Canadian beef in the same plants as US--- same as Korea has now announced... But the USDA was bound and determined to tie Canada in the negotiations ( riding our shirtails again), which held up negotiations for sometime... The negotiators kept saying this in private- but just like the testing question, the USDA would not announce it publicly.....So much for being open and transparent :wink: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Japan's government overplayed its hand, however, telling consumers BSE-tested beef was safe to eat, and non-tested beef was suspect. Of course, that flies in the face of all the science and internationally accepted standards.

But hell, WHEN DID SCIENCE HOLD MORE WEIGHT THAN EMOTIONS????


Reader,

I'm amazed at you. You're whole stance from day one BSE was that the USDA has not gone far enough to assure the safety of beef and now you condone a private company duping consumers into believing that "bse tested" means "bse free" with a bse test that will not even reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age.

There is no consistancy in your position. You, of all people, should be disgusted with the notion of any company placing money ahead of principle.

Free enterprise has restrictions when it comes to consumer fraud. BSE testing beef from cattle under 24 months of age with bse tests that will not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age is just that, CONSUMER FRAUD.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Japan's government overplayed its hand, however, telling consumers BSE-tested beef was safe to eat, and non-tested beef was suspect. Of course, that flies in the face of all the science and internationally accepted standards.

But hell, WHEN DID SCIENCE HOLD MORE WEIGHT THAN EMOTIONS????


Reader,

I'm amazed at you. You're whole stance from day one BSE was that the USDA has not gone far enough to assure the safety of beef and now you condone a private company duping consumers into believing that "bse tested" means "bse free" with a bse test that will not even reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age.

There is no consistancy in your position. You, of all people, should be disgusted with the notion of any company placing money ahead of principle.

Free enterprise has restrictions when it comes to consumer fraud. BSE testing beef from cattle under 24 months of age with bse tests that will not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age is just that, CONSUMER FRAUD.



~SH~

SH, please don't lecture us on principle.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "Free enterprise has restrictions when it comes to consumer fraud. BSE testing beef from cattle under 24 months of age with bse tests that will not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age is just that, CONSUMER FRAUD."

Fraud would mean that the customer is not getting what they want. You don't know that the Japanese aren't completely aware of what they are asking for.

By your flawed reasoning, anybody selling organic product is also guilty of fraud.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Japan is importing untested beef.

Actions speak louder than words.

Move on Sandhusker. You've wore this stupid argument of yours out worse than most.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Japan is importing untested beef.

Actions speak louder than words.

Move on Sandhusker. You've wore this stupid argument of yours out worse than most.



~SH~

Actions do speak louder than words, SH. Japan is NOT taking untested beef from us. If they really wanted it, do you think a little piece of bone from one of several suppliers would completely shut off all trade again?

You need to use you head for something other than a seat cushion for Agman.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Japan is NOT taking untested beef from us."

Which has nothing to do with the fact that we are not testing and has everything to do with the fact that we sent them bone in product.

CANADA is sending them UNTESTED beef and they had BSE. How do you explain that? You can't because your argument is as empty as your head.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "Japan is NOT taking untested beef from us."

Which has nothing to do with the fact that we are not testing and has everything to do with the fact that we sent them bone in product.

CANADA is sending them UNTESTED beef and they had BSE. How do you explain that? You can't because your argument is as empty as your head.


~SH~

I don't remember Canada threatening any trade sanctions if they didn't change their laws exclusively for Canada. Canada used a little bit of tact and respect, the US did nothing of the sort.

If Japan is so hip on the latest agreement, why are they closing to a small infraction by a little player? Figure it out, SH.
 
Top