Brazilian Beef Has No Records, Thus Foot and Mouth

[PORKER]

Brazilian envoy blasts IFA over 'hate campaign'
Ambassador Amarante accuses farmers' group of scaremongering in bid to ban meat
By Deirdre Reynolds
Sunday November 25 2007


The Brazilian Ambassador to Ireland has accused the Irish Farmers' Association (IFA) of spearheading a hate-campaign against the country's meat industry.


Ambassador Stelio Marcos Amarante has lashed back at the IFA's ongoing campaign demanding a ban on the import of Brazilian beef into the EU. And he blamed the outspoken farmers' group for spreading misinformation and scaremongering among shoppers here.

"This was a kind of conspiracy, not just against us, but against the Irish consumer and the European consumers," the ambassador said, "because their idea is to eliminate one big player in the European meat market."

The IFA has consistently called for a Europe-wide ban on Brazilian beef over the standard of meat in the country and widespread presence of foot-and-mouth disease.

And, last month, members staged an overnight sit-in at the offices of the EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Affairs in Dublin, alleging Commissioner Markos Kyprianou suppressed a critical EU veterinary report on the livestock disease and food safety controls in Brazil.

But in a TV interview this week, Ambassador Amarante is set to challenge IFA reports that meat coming from the region is dodgy.

"The meat that is exported to Europe is de-boned and aged for one week at very low temperatures, which kills all kinds of germs and viruses, everything," he said.

"Then this meat is absolutely clean and safe."
"For export, we only have traced cattle. We have about 10 million cattle that are perfectly traced and could be used for export to the EU," he said.

However, the ambassador's televised response on RTE agricultural series Ear to the Ground, which airs this Thursday, has already added more fuel to the controversial debate and the IFA are refusing to back down.

IFA national livestock chairman John Bryan visited a number of farms in Brazil in a bid to prove their point on the programme.

"The amazing thing was that none of the cattle on these farms wore tags," he said.

"Of all the farms we visited, no cows were tagged, no young cattle were tagged.

"It makes a total farce of any regionalisation policy when they are moving them like that.

"Also, we found hormones on one of the farms," he added. "We found free use of medication and total lack of standards," he said.

"We are talking about -- over the year -- thousands and thousands, probably millions of cattle moving from foot-and-mouth regions to non-foot-and-mouth regions."

- Deirdre Reynolds

 

[andybob]

When you consider the cost to the European farmers for their tracibility and welfare programs, it is understandable that they react against imports that are not up to the same standards, and that pose a health risk to their industry. Viruses survive for the longest period in lymphatic tissue rather than in bone, and even in well trimmed joints, lymph nodes are often missed and left in the meat, so there is a real risk in imported meat carrying F+M if sourced from carriers. The British pig farmers have long been fighting a system that allows the import of pork fed on meat meal and similar feeds illegal in the UK due to being considered a risk to consumersm apparently this only applies to pigs fed these products in the UK! They also have to compete with pigs raised in confinement systems (also illegal in the UK), while they have to absorb the higher costs involved in outdoor and deep litter systems, and compete on a very uneven playing field in which the supermarkets call the shots and the govt refuses to intrvene.

 

[PPRM]

I shake my head...Why is it so hard to understand? People should have the choice to buy what they want! It seems like a lot of people wan nothing labeled so it is indistinguishable. Granted this case is a little different than that, but the worst thing we can do is further Commoditize (LOL, is that a word) our meat so people can't distinguish and make choices based on experience and preference....


PPRM

 

[Sandhusker]

These people have a lot of time and money invested in a food safety program and don't want to see that all go for naught. The down side is that some idiots who can't see that will cry "protectionist" at you.

 

[andybob]

PPRM, the problem is that even though labeling is mandatory, the imported meat is much cheaper, due to the British farmers having to comply with restrictions to feed products and high welfare requirements the costs of which are covered by the farmer, the housewife on a budget goes straight to the cheap imported meat, even though they support the laws governing the welfare standards and non animal products in feeds in their own country. There have also been too many cases where supermarkets have labeled imports as local produce, usually getting no more than a rap on the knuckles when caught, a farmer not complying with welfare or feed regulations will lose his market and go bankrupt.

 

[PPRM]

PPRM, the problem is that even though labeling is mandatory, the imported meat is much cheaper, due to the British farmers having to comply with restrictions to feed products and high welfare requirements the costs of which are covered by the farmer, the housewife on a budget goes straight to the cheap imported meat, even though they support the laws governing the welfare standards and non animal products in feeds in their own country. There have also been too many cases where supermarkets have labeled imports as local produce, usually getting no more than a rap on the knuckles when caught, a farmer not complying with welfare or feed regulations will lose his market and go bankrupt.

Andybob, I think you mistook my comment...I was refering to Brazils reaction being almost like the EU is somehow obligated to buy heir meat,

PPRM

 

[PORKER]

The amazing thing was that none of the cattle on these farms wore tags," he said.

"Of all the farms we visited, no cows were tagged, no young cattle were tagged.


The EU. farmers are being held captive by the Retailers

 

[PORKER]

The problem is that even though labeling is mandatory, the imported meat is much cheaper, due to the British farmers having to comply with restrictions to feed products and high welfare requirements.

The problem is that even though labeling is mandatory, the imported meat is much cheaper, due to the American farmers having to comply with restrictions to feed products and BSE requirements and the dollar Exchange.


The problem is that even though labeling is mandatory, the imported meat is much cheaper, due to the Canadian farmers having to comply with restrictions to feed products and HACCP,BSE requirements and the dollar Exchange.

 

[Longcut]

The problem is that even though labeling is mandatory, the imported meat is much cheaper, due to the British farmers having to comply with restrictions to feed products and high welfare requirements.

The problem is that even though labeling is mandatory, the imported meat is much cheaper, due to the American farmers having to comply with restrictions to feed products and BSE requirements and the dollar Exchange.


The problem is that even though labeling is mandatory, the imported meat is much cheaper, due to the Canadian farmers having to comply with restrictions to feed products and HACCP,BSE requirements and the dollar Exchange.

It looks like YOU have identified what YOU percieve as the problem in various parts of the world.

Now what is YOUR solution?

 

[RobertMac]

The problem is that even though labeling is mandatory, the imported meat is much cheaper, due to the British farmers having to comply with restrictions to feed products and high welfare requirements.

The problem is that even though labeling is mandatory, the imported meat is much cheaper, due to the American farmers having to comply with restrictions to feed products and BSE requirements and the dollar Exchange.


The problem is that even though labeling is mandatory, the imported meat is much cheaper, due to the Canadian farmers having to comply with restrictions to feed products and HACCP,BSE requirements and the dollar Exchange.

It looks like YOU have identified what YOU percieve as the problem in various parts of the world.

Now what is YOUR solution?

It's the same as any other product competition...you have to give the consumer a reason to buy your product instead of something else.

 

[PORKER]

Now what is YOUR solution?

The purchaser has the right to know what he has purchased and you have to give the consumer a reason to buy your product instead of something else. Also if it is healthy food.

 

[Tex]

Now what is YOUR solution?

The purchaser has the right to know what he has purchased and you have to give the consumer a reason to buy your product instead of something else. Also if it is healthy food.

Looks like they have the same problems we have. Put too much faith in a government that will not control cheating.

When packers advertise their meat with carbon monoxide, it is cheating.

When packers claim their poultry is antibiotic free, and it isn't, it is cheating.

We have a government that is ineffective at controlling the cheaters and courts who look the other way.

If it were a classroom, people would be calling for the teacher to get fired.

 

[Anonymous]

Now what is YOUR solution?

Since big business and corporates have lost all morals and ethics involved with marketing--I think the first thing we need worldwide is some strong truth in labeling type laws...If its marketed as Product of the USA- it better be entirely from the USA- if its marketed as All Natural-- it better not have added steroids or antibiotics--If it has CO2 or saline solution or some other type additive added- it should have to marked that it does....Just the truth-PERIOD- not all these little loopholes so that the corporates can make their mass produced stuff fit into their own designed specs.....

Then we in the US should be using our checkoff money to advertise, and promote OUR product instead of generic commodity meat from around the world--both locally and internationally....

I find it hard to understand how NCBA and the Maxines of the world find it so hard to grasp the concept of "telling the truth" to customers.... :roll:

 

[PORKER]

They need to use ISO 22005 traceback standards for the solution or better yet , use ScoringAg, they have better standards.

Press Release from ISO

ISO takes another step forward towards ensuring the safety of food products for consumers with its new ISO 22005 standard on traceability in the feed and food chain, its latest addition to the ISO 22000 series on management systems.

ISO 22005:2007, traceability in the feed and food chain – general principles and basic requirements for system design and implementation, establishes the principles and requirements for the design and implementation of a feed and food traceability system. This standard will allow organisations operating at any step of the food chain to:

• trace the flow of materials (feed, food, their ingredients and packaging),

• identify necessary documentation and tracking for each stage of production,

• ensure adequate co-ordination between the different actors involved,

• require that each party be informed of at least his direct suppliers and clients and more.

Moreover, a traceability system can improve the appropriate use and reliability of information, effectiveness and productivity of the organisation.

In recent years, cases of food poisoning and outbreaks such as the so-called "mad cow disease" among other food hazards, in both developed and developing countries, have illustrated the need for food-related standards that protect public health and reduce negative social and economic impact of such crises.

Since food safety hazards can enter the food chain at any stage, adequate control and communication throughout the process is essential. One weak link in the supply chain can result in unsafe food, which can present a serious danger to consumers and have costly repercussions for suppliers. Food safety is therefore the joint responsibility of all the actors involved.

A traceability system allows an organisation to document and/or locate a product through the stages and operations involved in manufacture, processing, distribution and handling of feed and food, form primary production to consumption. It can therefore facilitate the identification of the cause for nonconformity with a product(s), and the ability to withdraw and/or recall these if necessary.

Apart from public health considerations, the new standard will also have other social and economic advantages. In the food industry, a diversity of retail and private quality schemes generate uneven levels of safety, confusion over requirements and increased cost and complication for suppliers obliged to conform to multiple programmes. ISO 22005 offers a unique solution for good practice on a worldwide basis and thus contributes to lowering trade barriers.

ISO's Secretary-General Alan Bryden commented: "With ISO 22005, ISO contributes once more to safeguarding public health and encouraging the economic development of the global food industry in a manner that respects societal needs for safety. In this way, ISO 22005 reflects the essence of … World Standards Day on 14 Oct., whose 2007 theme is Standards and the citizen: contributing to society."

ISO 22005:2007 is the latest in the series of food safety standards launched in 2005. The standard uses the same definitions of traceability and the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) and provides a complement for organizations implementing the ISO 22000:2005 standard. ISO 22000:2005, gives the basic requirements for a food safety management system to ensure safe food supply chains. ISO 22000 incorporates the principles of the CAC's Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system for food hygiene.

 

[andybob]

Andybob, I think you mistook my comment...I was refering to Brazils reaction being almost like the EU is somehow obligated to buy heir meat,

PPRM

Yes I did get the wrong end of the stick PPRM, sorry about that!

 

[PORKER]

Wales call for ban on Brazil beef
28/11/2007

NFU Cymru President Dai Davies has called on the EU Commission to ban imports of beef from Brazil in the light of further reports of serious breaches in cattle identification regulations in a country where foot and mouth disease is endemic.

Speaking at the Royal Welsh Winter Fair Dai Davies said, "Livestock farmers across Wales have just endured four months of misery as we have complied with the strictest animal movement and biosecurity regime imaginable, at a cost of tens of millions of pounds, in order to satisfy the EU veterinary authorities that our beef, lamb and pork can safely be allowed back into international trade.

"Had our precautions, and in particular our arrangements for tracking and verifying the movement of livestock, been found wanting in the slightest particular, it would have set back the timetable for the lifting of trade restrictions by months.

"Yet now we understand a very different set of rules applies to our main competitors, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, in Brazil. In previous inspections, the EU's Food and Veterinary Organisation (FVO) has found serious shortcomings in the arrangements in the Brazilian cattle traceability and other record-keeping arrangements.

"Last year, an investigation by the Irish Farmers Associations found evidence of deliberate malpractice, which suggested that cattle from regions of Brazil where Foot and Mouth disease is endemic and from which exports are supposed to be banned, were being illegally re-tagged in order to disguise their identity and origin.

"Now we understand that the most recent FVO inspection has identified breaches of animal ID requirements so serious that, according to unconfirmed but entirely plausible reports, the Brazilians have offered to restrict exports themselves in the hope of pre-empting more drastic action by the EU.

"This is simply not an acceptable situation. The same strict standards must be applied to the traceability of meat imported into the EU as apply to meat produced in the EU, in the interests of consumer protection, disease prevention and fair trade. That is the very least our industry deserves.

"I am therefore calling on the EU Commission to act on the findings of the latest FVO inspection without delay and impose an immediate ban on imports from Brazilian beef until the Brazilian authorities have satisfied EU officials that they are fully compliant with the rules.

"That is what has been expected of livestock producers in this country as the price for our meat being allowed back into international trade, and a similar level of compliance must be applied to our competitors, and particularly Brazil."

 

[mrj]

OT, caught in ANOTHER lie!!!!!

OT: "Since big business and corporates have lost all morals and ethics involved with marketing.....".

You absolutely CANNOT know, nor can you verify or prove that ALL big business and corporates (whatever that is!!!) have lost all morals and ethics, whether involved with marketing or anything else. YOU simply CANNOT read the minds of one person, let alone ALL people involved in big business or "corporates".

Give us a break.........please!!!!!

mrj

 

[Anonymous]

I'd expect no less- Maxine- coming from a bankowner- especially right now when the lending institutions of the country are caught up in a scandal that may bankrupt the country..... :roll:

No lie Maxine-- Just my opinion- after watching many years of real life-- Most corporate/Big Business have lost all ethics and morals in their drive to stuff their pockets with dollars, however gained- as long as they don't get caught or can operate in a grey area of legality.....

Look at you and your cult (NCBA)-- they've spent millions $ fighting to keep the Packer Corporates, they're tied to the hip to, from having to tell the truth to US consumers of what country their meat/produce come from-- so the Packer/Retailer/Importer can slap a USDA stamp on anything from anywhere and pass it off to US consumers as US product-- profiteering under fraudulent means.... To me that is not moral or ethical....

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, is it ethical to articicially make beef look fresh when it isn't?

Is it ethical to call a program voluntary when the plan is to make it mandatory?

Is it ethical to put a "USDA Inspected" stamp on product that has not been inspected by the USDA?

 

[Tex]

OT, caught in ANOTHER lie!!!!!

OT: "Since big business and corporates have lost all morals and ethics involved with marketing.....".

You absolutely CANNOT know, nor can you verify or prove that ALL big business and corporates (whatever that is!!!) have lost all morals and ethics, whether involved with marketing or anything else. YOU simply CANNOT read the minds of one person, let alone ALL people involved in big business or "corporates".

Give us a break.........please!!!!!

mrj

mrj, you will never be a good judge of character when you put profits before child safety, which you have advocated on this forum along with your posts defending corporations putting profits over everything else---including a safe product.

You are like the post calling the kettle black.