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

Beef from Canadian cattle cannot be imported under U.S. FTA:

flounder

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
2,631
Location
TEXAS
2007/04/05 17:45 KST

Beef from Canadian cattle cannot be imported under U.S. FTA: official
SEOUL, April 5 (Yonhap) -- Beef from Canadian cattle cannot be imported under the free trade pact with the United States, an Agriculture Ministry official said Thursday.

Bae Jong-ha, the top negotiator for farm issues in the free trade agreement (FTA) talks. said that while alarm bells have been sounded about the risk of Canadian beef coming through the U.S., Seoul can block such shipments.

"The FTA agreed upon Monday only touches on tariffs and not about our import guidelines," Bae said. He said that since South Korea does not permit Canadian beef into the country, if such a shipment is found it can be blocked.

Bae, head of the international agriculture bureau, said such a discovery can cause Seoul to look more carefully at import rules for American beef. He did did not elaborate, but hinted tighter inspections could be implemented if Canadian beef was intentionally mislabeled and exported as American beef.

In the FTA, Seoul said it would consider all meat from cattle raised in the U.S. for 100 days as being a product of the country.

The comments come as civic groups argued that there is a possibility of Canadian cattle herded over the border to the U.S., where they could be slaughtered and processed as American beef. Washington has allowed cross-border movement of live Canadian cattle under 30 months old since mid-2005.

Seoul banned Canadian beef in mid-2003 after mad cow disease was reported in Canada. The country took similar actions against American beef in the same year, but decided to allow the import of boneless beef from cattle under 30 months old from the U.S. in January 2006.

South Korea, however, has not moved to import Canadian beef, where more than 10 cases of the mad cow disease have been reported since 2003. The U.S. has reported three cases.

After 14 months of negotiations, South Korea said it will lower its 40 percent tariff on American beef over 15 years to protect local cattle ranchers.

[email protected]
(END)

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/Engnews/20070405/650000000020070405174559E0.html



10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. MBM IN COMMERCE USA 2007



Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried, Recall # V-024-2007
CODE
Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
42,090 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
WI

___________________________________
PRODUCT
Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL Prot-Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal, TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI – 8# SPECIAL DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J – PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY, A-BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007
CODE
The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with commodity and weights identified.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
9,997,976 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
ID and NV

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html



TSS
 
Kinda throws water on the "honesty and competence will get you further ahead than lying and incompetence" argument doesn't it?
 
flounder said:
2007/04/05 17:45 KST

Beef from Canadian cattle cannot be imported under U.S. FTA: official
SEOUL, April 5 (Yonhap) -- Beef from Canadian cattle cannot be imported under the free trade pact with the United States, an Agriculture Ministry official said Thursday.

Bae Jong-ha, the top negotiator for farm issues in the free trade agreement (FTA) talks. said that while alarm bells have been sounded about the risk of Canadian beef coming through the U.S., Seoul can block such shipments.

"The FTA agreed upon Monday only touches on tariffs and not about our import guidelines," Bae said. He said that since South Korea does not permit Canadian beef into the country, if such a shipment is found it can be blocked.

Bae, head of the international agriculture bureau, said such a discovery can cause Seoul to look more carefully at import rules for American beef. He did did not elaborate, but hinted tighter inspections could be implemented if Canadian beef was intentionally mislabeled and exported as American beef.

In the FTA, Seoul said it would consider all meat from cattle raised in the U.S. for 100 days as being a product of the country.

The comments come as civic groups argued that there is a possibility of Canadian cattle herded over the border to the U.S., where they could be slaughtered and processed as American beef. Washington has allowed cross-border movement of live Canadian cattle under 30 months old since mid-2005.

Seoul banned Canadian beef in mid-2003 after mad cow disease was reported in Canada. The country took similar actions against American beef in the same year, but decided to allow the import of boneless beef from cattle under 30 months old from the U.S. in January 2006.

South Korea, however, has not moved to import Canadian beef, where more than 10 cases of the mad cow disease have been reported since 2003. The U.S. has reported three cases.

After 14 months of negotiations, South Korea said it will lower its 40 percent tariff on American beef over 15 years to protect local cattle ranchers.

[email protected]
(END)

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/Engnews/20070405/650000000020070405174559E0.html



10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. MBM IN COMMERCE USA 2007



Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried, Recall # V-024-2007
CODE
Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
42,090 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
WI

___________________________________
PRODUCT
Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL Prot-Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal, TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI – 8# SPECIAL DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J – PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY, A-BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007
CODE
The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with commodity and weights identified.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
9,997,976 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
ID and NV

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html



TSS


Cattle being herded over the border? Geez they better get OT on that . :shock:
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
Cattle being herded over the border? Geez they better get OT on that . :shock:

Actually the info I'm getting lately from some of my old sources is that there is quite an investigation going on right now involving that exact thing- but instead of herding them across their are some immigration folk from both sides of the border that are on the take- and it is not only cattle coming across....

Back a couple years ago when Homeland Security quickly expanded their immigration/custom forces on the border- I questioned some of the folks they were hiring :roll: - and now it seems like I was right to do that.....
 
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Cattle being herded over the border? Geez they better get OT on that . :shock:

Actually the info I'm getting lately from some of my old sources is that there is quite an investigation going on right now involving that exact thing- but instead of herding them across their are some immigration folk from both sides of the border that are on the take- and it is not only cattle coming across....

Back a couple years ago when Homeland Security quickly expanded their immigration/custom forces on the border- I questioned some of the folks they were hiring :roll: - and now it seems like I was right to do that.....




Guess your just going to have to strap on the old pistol and get back to work making Valley County safe from the Outlaws of the Big Muddy.
 
Sandhusker said:
Kinda throws water on the "Everybody sees the US and Canada as the same risk" arguement, doesn't it?

Sandhusker, if you're trying to say that this means Canada has a higher risk, don't forget that Japan opened to Canadian beef before it opened to US beef and there are currently other countries open to Canadian beef that aren't open to US beef.

Its all politics.

Rod
 
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
Kinda throws water on the "Everybody sees the US and Canada as the same risk" arguement, doesn't it?

Sandhusker, if you're trying to say that this means Canada has a higher risk, don't forget that Japan opened to Canadian beef before it opened to US beef and there are currently other countries open to Canadian beef that aren't open to US beef.

Its all politics.

Rod

I would humbly suggest that the grassroots support the Canadian equivalent of Creekstone with the ability to test for bse. They might find they can better market more beef to a lucrative market like Korea or Japan. At least you would find out if they were non tariff trade barriers if this were not the case.
 
Econ101 said:
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
Kinda throws water on the "Everybody sees the US and Canada as the same risk" arguement, doesn't it?

Sandhusker, if you're trying to say that this means Canada has a higher risk, don't forget that Japan opened to Canadian beef before it opened to US beef and there are currently other countries open to Canadian beef that aren't open to US beef.

Its all politics.

Rod

I would humbly suggest that the grassroots support the Canadian equivalent of Creekstone with the ability to test for bse. They might find they can better market more beef to a lucrative market like Korea or Japan. At least you would find out if they were non tariff trade barriers if this were not the case.

Back in 2003 when all this nonsense started I got up at the regional cattlemens meeting and suggested that we'd better start testing all animals over 24 months or at least have the right test any cattle as a marketing tool at the very least I was told that the gov't policy was to "not raise the bar too high for the americans". I'm still irate about that. :mad:
 
Econ101 said:
I would humbly suggest that the grassroots support the Canadian equivalent of Creekstone with the ability to test for bse.

We do have a couple outfits who wish to test, unfortunately they lack the financial resources that Creekstone had available to take the CCIA to court over it. And with the CCA/ABP's refusal to support independent testing, it appears to the government that the grassroots doesn't want it, even though the average cattle producer does.

As Silver said, early on in the BSE crisis, the CCIA was bound and determined to echo the USDA. What I'm now hoping is that the CCIA will change their tune, once they see that a court case is indeed winnable by the testing side. Perhaps then smaller budget guys like Ranchers may be able to afford to take the CCIA to court, especially if it meant a win.

Rod
 
So you see, you Canadians are not a lot different from U.S. producers when it comes to the govt., corporate interests, and the cattlemen (producers) being pawns in their game.

Thanks for the comments. I hope bse tester comes up with a good and inexpensive test for ANYONE to use. I would also give financial support to him if we could come up with a good test to determine if our politicians are honest and telling the truth.

I know, I know, the test about if their lips are moving. Makes perfect sense to me.
 
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Econ101 said:
I would humbly suggest that the grassroots support the Canadian equivalent of Creekstone with the ability to test for bse.

We do have a couple outfits who wish to test, unfortunately they lack the financial resources that Creekstone had available to take the CCIA to court over it. And with the CCA/ABP's refusal to support independent testing, it appears to the government that the grassroots doesn't want it, even though the average cattle producer does.

As Silver said, early on in the BSE crisis, the CCIA was bound and determined to echo the USDA. What I'm now hoping is that the CCIA will change their tune, once they see that a court case is indeed winnable by the testing side. Perhaps then smaller budget guys like Ranchers may be able to afford to take the CCIA to court, especially if it meant a win.

Rod

It's a damn pathetic shame when you have to take your own government to court to get them to do their job right. Every cattleman in the US owes Creekstone a big "Thank you" for pushing aside the heavy hand and ponying up the cash to take them on. They're entitled to damages as well, as far as I'm concerned. Heck, we all are.

I wish you guys up North good luck.
 
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Econ101 said:
I would humbly suggest that the grassroots support the Canadian equivalent of Creekstone with the ability to test for bse.

We do have a couple outfits who wish to test, unfortunately they lack the financial resources that Creekstone had available to take the CCIA to court over it. And with the CCA/ABP's refusal to support independent testing, it appears to the government that the grassroots doesn't want it, even though the average cattle producer does.

As Silver said, early on in the BSE crisis, the CCIA was bound and determined to echo the USDA. What I'm now hoping is that the CCIA will change their tune, once they see that a court case is indeed winnable by the testing side. Perhaps then smaller budget guys like Ranchers may be able to afford to take the CCIA to court, especially if it meant a win.

Rod


Rod could you explain what the CCIA has to do with this.
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Econ101 said:
I would humbly suggest that the grassroots support the Canadian equivalent of Creekstone with the ability to test for bse.

We do have a couple outfits who wish to test, unfortunately they lack the financial resources that Creekstone had available to take the CCIA to court over it. And with the CCA/ABP's refusal to support independent testing, it appears to the government that the grassroots doesn't want it, even though the average cattle producer does.

As Silver said, early on in the BSE crisis, the CCIA was bound and determined to echo the USDA. What I'm now hoping is that the CCIA will change their tune, once they see that a court case is indeed winnable by the testing side. Perhaps then smaller budget guys like Ranchers may be able to afford to take the CCIA to court, especially if it meant a win.

Rod


Rod could you explain what the CCIA has to do with this.


Its the double CIA. Kinda like M5.

Top Secret.

Have a good Easter!
 
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Econ101 said:
I would humbly suggest that the grassroots support the Canadian equivalent of Creekstone with the ability to test for bse.

We do have a couple outfits who wish to test, unfortunately they lack the financial resources that Creekstone had available to take the CCIA to court over it. And with the CCA/ABP's refusal to support independent testing, it appears to the government that the grassroots doesn't want it, even though the average cattle producer does.

As Silver said, early on in the BSE crisis, the CCIA was bound and determined to echo the USDA. What I'm now hoping is that the CCIA will change their tune, once they see that a court case is indeed winnable by the testing side. Perhaps then smaller budget guys like Ranchers may be able to afford to take the CCIA to court, especially if it meant a win.

Rod
Hey Rod, you may have been wrong on the CFIA (CCIA) thing but you are pretty close on the rest of it.

Many Canadian producers have supported the concept of testing for export since the summer of 2003. If free enterprise wants to test for market access then that should be allowed.

We have been given a multitude of excuses as to why that can't (be allowed to) happen, not many of which hold water with the biggest one being that our domestic consumers will immediately ask for tested product. This theory is difficult to support when one considers that they don't now all ask for hormone free, or natural beef now although it has been available for some time.

Llimiting export markets access through domestic policy is ridiculous for any country dependent on trade. This is certainly one area where many producers feel the CCA and its provincial affiliates have let us down and bought the big boys line of not "not picking winners" to support in the quest for competition within the Canadian beef industry.

By not supporting testing that is exactly what they have done.
 
Rod wrote: We do have a couple outfits who wish to test, unfortunately they lack the financial resources that Creekstone had available to take the CCIA to court over it.

A little "Birdy" tells me some Jap beef importers may have pitched in a few bucks toward the legal fees to help Creekstone through these hard times the past three years.
 
Sandhusker said:
Bill, you and I don't agree on a whole lot, but I'm with you 100% on this.

Even a busted clock is right twice a day! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top