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

Do Packers Really Care if Japan Wants Our Beef?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
Today 7/4/2005 10:22:00 AM


Jolley: Does Japanese Beef Trade Hinge On The Board Room Or The Back Room?



How serious are the Aussies about keeping their share of the beef market in Asia? Dead serious. They’re putting more international marketing money on the table as we wrestle in the courts over funds to just cover the U.S.



Here’s a quote from an article in the Adelaide Advertiser called Mad cow campaign needs beefing up. “The transaction levy paid by beef cattle farmers is set to rise by more than 40 per cent to fund a marketing campaign to shore up export markets, following confirmation of a second case of mad cow disease in the US.”



The article mentioned Australian beef imports to Japan had jumped 41% to a record $2.2 billion and 90% of Japan’s beef imports – more than half of Australia’s export business.



Beef Industry Funding Steering Committee Chairman Don McDonald said, "Because Australia is free of this disease (BSE), there could be opportunities for us to take and hold more of the Japanese market, because the US will be kept out for a while longer. But while there could be some short-term benefits, disease in any food chain doesn't inspire confidence," he said.



McDonald’s double-sided comment, at once both aggressive in expressing his intent to retain Asian market share and conciliatory in his desire to retain a solid relationship with his friends in the U.S., speaks to the common corporate ownership of the majority of the processing industry in both countries.



The key issue might not hinge on a pending Japanese decision about reopening trade with the U.S. It might not come from that proverbial smoke-filled back room where deals are traditionally made but from a few board rooms; can the world’s largest packers supply Japan more profitably from North America or Australia?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
And yet some still choose to believe the "testing is not based on sound science" excuse. Unbelievable. :mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
And yet some still choose to believe the "testing is not based on sound science" excuse. Unbelievable. :mad:


Yep- And USDA and CFIA with their packer backed "no test" decisions have just helped the multinationals build up their Australian feedlot and slaughter infrastructure....Shows who's jerking the strings in both countries....

No wonder the "Big Boys" were against allowing little Creekstone to test---competition against their Australian subsidiaries..... :mad:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
O.T., we hear these clowns carp on how the closed border is building up Canada, but why don't we hear about how the testing ban is building the Aussie's industry?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Would you two like to be alone?


Why so much concern for our export market Sandman? Bullard said we didn't need an export market to distribute our production and said we'd be in a very favorable position without trade?

Now all of a sudden you are concerned about our export market. Heck, if Japan listens to R-CULT's fear mongering about Canadian beef, why would they want our beef now that we had a domestic case of BSE?



~SH~
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
USPB/National was doing a nice trade with Japan, and is struggling without this highend customer.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You are right Brad!

Just pointing out the hypocrisy again!

Our position with Japan is not helped by R-CALF's BSE "fear mongering".



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
You think our position with Japan is helped by our government telling them their health laws are bunk and then threatening retaliation if they don't change them to suit us? :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
Sandhusker...You think our position with Japan is helped by our government telling them their health laws are bunk and then threatening retaliation if they don't change them to suit us?

It is unbelieveable why we will not test for them.


Senior U.S. Agriculture Department officials and visiting Japanese lawmakers exchanged tough words Tuesday over Japan's 18-month-old ban on American beef imports, the lawmakers said.

U.S. Agriculture Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agriculture Services J.B. Penn "threatened" the Japanese multiparty delegation in a meeting by saying that the patience of the U.S. government, Congress and industries is reaching its limit, the lawmakers said.

"The tone of his comments was that of threatening us," delegation chief Kenji Yamaoka told reporters, adding that the Japanese lawmakers countered by expressing concern over the U.S. inspection system on mad cow disease and urging Penn and other senior department officials to proceed with talks based on "scientific" grounds.

"We told them that we are the buyer and the United States is the seller so the seller should listen and adopt what the buyer wants," Yamaoka said. "The U.S. insistence was something like we are the most advanced nation regarding beef so just listen and follow us."
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
I'm torn by the appeal of "just spending $25 in testing will get us back $100 in market." You guys must realize or remmember all the willy nilly crap Japan pulled a couple decades ago to keep our beef out, this seems like more of the same. Yeah, perhaps it would be cool to call their bluff and back them into a corner, but you cannot corner a weasil.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "You think our position with Japan is helped by our government telling them their health laws are bunk and then threatening retaliation if they don't change them to suit us?"

There is nothing wrong with sharing the best available science on BSE testing procedures and that includes new testing methodology discussed here following peer review.

On threats to Japan, I agree with treading lightly because Japan could tell us to go pack sand.



Brad: "USPB/National was doing a nice trade with Japan, and is struggling without this highend customer."


Sandman,

How do you explain that?

Here's a large PRODUCER OWNED packer that relies heavily on the Japanese market for their heavily marbled carcasses. If selling the "PERCEPTION" of BSE safety by testing cattle less than 24 months of age was in our best interest, why isn't USPB taking the same position as Creekstone?

Why aren't they "playing the victim" of USDA's policy on unjustified tests?

It should be obvious that the Japanese market is equally important to them.

Heck, I'll bet Japan would even pay for the tests (by paying less for the beef). LOL!

This of course is assuming that the Japanese parliament would even allow the importation of BSE tested beef to which you have certainly offered no proof.



~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Brad S said:
I'm torn by the appeal of "just spending $25 in testing will get us back $100 in market." You guys must realize or remmember all the willy nilly crap Japan pulled a couple decades ago to keep our beef out, this seems like more of the same. Yeah, perhaps it would be cool to call their bluff and back them into a corner, but you cannot corner a weasil.

Brad, I agree on calling the bluff. It would not cost one thin dime to "OFFER" tested beef and call that "Bluff". The longer the USDA holds out, the more skeptical the Japs get. Put a proposal on the table and see what they say!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike,

"IF" BSE was showing up in cattle born after the feed ban phase out and "IF" modern testing methodology could detect prions in cattle under 24 months of age, then I'd say BSE testing for the Japanese market would be justified.

Neither is the situation now.

To the contrary, the Japanese government painted themselves into a corner by buying in to the "PERCEPTION OF SAFETY" argument for testing cattle younger than 24 months.

USDA is right to not go down the "PERCEPTION OF SAFETY" road.

Either the testing is justified or it's not!

Either you stand on principle or you cave to every whim that comes along, justified or not.


~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
SH:"Either you stand on principle or you cave to every whim that comes along, justified or not."

I know we will never agree on the subject and refuse to get in a ridiculous name calling argument, but, are you saying the USDA did not "Cave" when they reverted to the 20 month rule as opposed to the 30 month rule they stood on for several months? "Justified or not"? I say they did.
If the USDA were standing on "sound science" and truly believed that science , they would NOT have agreed to the "under 20 month" concessions, period. Whim? The estimates are 5-7 BILLION now on lost revenue! And you use the word "Whim"? Whether the Japs made the proper decision on testing is irrelevant to the argument, it was done, the consumers still want it, and it looks like if we want the market back we will do it. Like it or not.
Keep in mind, a "scientist", if you will, was jailed because he said, "the world is not flat".
Only history can look back on TSE's and determine if mistakes were made.
Thalidomide is a choice example of a serious error in recent history.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike,

You are right, we won't agree on this issue. You, like Sandman, think it's just fine to deceive consumers into thinking that "BSE TESTED" means "BSE FREE". The end ($) justifies the means (selling a perception of safety) for you.


Mike: "If the USDA were standing on "sound science" and truly believed that science , they would NOT have agreed to the "under 20 month" concessions, period."

That's ridiculous! What did we have to lose by agreeing to Japan's demands of 20 month and younger? NOTHING! What did we have to gain? Most of the cattle we send to Japan were under 20 months. The science never changed when we agreed to Japan's demands but you have to put that spin on it because you need something to bitch about.

Where's your proof that the Japanese parliament would have allowed the importation of BSE tested beef?

You can't provide it either!

You and Sandman need to start a consumer deception support group.



~SH~
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Mike said:
SH:"Either you stand on principle or you cave to every whim that comes along, justified or not."

I know we will never agree on the subject and refuse to get in a ridiculous name calling argument, but, are you saying the USDA did not "Cave" when they reverted to the 20 month rule as opposed to the 30 month rule they stood on for several months? "Justified or not"? I say they did.
If the USDA were standing on "sound science" and truly believed that science , they would NOT have agreed to the "under 20 month" concessions, period. Whim? The estimates are 5-7 BILLION now on lost revenue! And you use the word "Whim"? Whether the Japs made the proper decision on testing is irrelevant to the argument, it was done, the consumers still want it, and it looks like if we want the market back we will do it. Like it or not.
Keep in mind, a "scientist", if you will, was jailed because he said, "the world is not flat".
Only history can look back on TSE's and determine if mistakes were made.
Thalidomide is a choice example of a serious error in recent history.

The fact that most of our cattle which would end up in export trade are under 20 months was a good compromise to get trade resumed. The fact that Japan will not test cattle under 20 months any longer aligns them with the science in this matter.

I will remind you again that the two animals under 30 months which they claim had BSE were never offered for testing by other countries. They have refused to allow independent testing to corroborate their claim. That smells like fish to alot of people!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Mike,

You are right, we won't agree on this issue. You, like Sandman, think it's just fine to deceive consumers into thinking that "BSE TESTED" means "BSE FREE". The end ($) justifies the means (selling a perception of safety) for you.


Mike: "If the USDA were standing on "sound science" and truly believed that science , they would NOT have agreed to the "under 20 month" concessions, period."

That's ridiculous! What did we have to lose by agreeing to Japan's demands of 20 month and younger? NOTHING! What did we have to gain? Most of the cattle we send to Japan were under 20 months. The science never changed when we agreed to Japan's demands but you have to put that spin on it because you need something to bitch about.

Where's your proof that the Japanese parliament would have allowed the importation of BSE tested beef?

You can't provide it either!

You and Sandman need to start a consumer deception support group.



~SH~

For the umpeenth time, how can you deceive someone when THEY ARE THE ONE MAKING THE REQUEST?

Why are US producers responsible for labeling product IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY THAT HAS THEIR OWN %^$%DANG LABELING LAWS?

Why are you concerned about the perception of tested beef, but not the perception of organic or hormone free beef?

You totally dodged Mike's comment on the USDA caving to 20 month old. IS THE 20 MONTH AGE SOUND SCIENCE OR NOT? A "yes" or "no" answer will suffice. If "sound science" is your guiding principle, "what do we gain/lose is a question never asked.

Here's an observation on your "deception" arguement: I've read a lot of opinions on this subject and everything the USDA put out - and you're the only one mentioning deception. THE ONLY ONE. That tells me that I'm wasting my time even addressing your half-assed attempts at manufacturing a defense of the USDA clearly playing favorites.

Deception...... :lol: :lol: :roll: Geeeeeeze
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
DeLauro Renews Call for a National BSE Testing Program (05/02/05 10:30)

OMAHA (DTN) -- the Washington Insider reported that Rep. Rose DeLauro, D-Conn., renewed her call for a national BSE testing program following the release of a Kansas State University study showing that the beef industry could have recovered some of the billions of dollars lost from banned exports had USDA allowed voluntary testing of exported cattle.

The K-State study said it would have cost $640 million to test all cattle slaughtered in the United States in 2004 for BSE, excluding any investment needed to place testing facilities in a beef processing plant.

Had voluntary testing of slaughtered cattle been allowed immediately after the BSE incident in Washington state, the report suggested several key markets could have been kept open, and the economic harm to U.S. producers -- estimated as being between $3.2 billion and $4.7 billion -- could have been lessened.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "For the umpeenth time, how can you deceive someone when THEY ARE THE ONE MAKING THE REQUEST?"

Japanese consumers believe BSE testing of cattle less than 24 months assures the safety of their beef. THEY ARE WRONG! THE SCIENCE SAYS THEY ARE WRONG! CREEKSTONE SAYS THEY ARE WRONG! THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT SAYS THEY ARE WRONG!

If consumers didn't believe "BSE TESTED" meant "BSE FREE", THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO TEST.

NOT ONCE HAVE YOU OFFERED ANY PROOF THAT JAPAN WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE IMPORTATION OF BSE TESTED BEEF FROM CATTLE LESS THAN 24 MONTHS OR THAT THEY WOULD HAVE PAID FOR THE TESTING WITHOUT PRICING THE BEEF ACCORDINGLY.

AS ALWAYS, YOU OFFER NOTHING BUT POINTLESS RHETORIC!


Sandman: "Why are US producers responsible for labeling product IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY THAT HAS THEIR OWN %^$%DANG LABELING LAWS?"

What labeling laws?

What the heck do you know about Japanese labeling laws?



Sandman: "Why are you concerned about the perception of tested beef, but not the perception of organic or hormone free beef?"

Keep throwing out the same old "apples to melons" arguments. As if this "old shoe" argument would have gained any usefulness since the last time you tossed it out.

For the umpteenth time, "organic" or "hormone free" is exactly what it implies. There is no deception!

In contrast, "BSE TESTED" implies "BSE FREE" BUT IT'S NOT "BSE FREE" and everyone admits it!


Sandman: "You totally dodged Mike's comment on the USDA caving to 20 month old. IS THE 20 MONTH AGE SOUND SCIENCE OR NOT? A "yes" or "no" answer will suffice."

20 months is not sound science BUT THAT IS JAPAN'S POSITION, NOT THE U.S.'S POSITION.

Negotiating to allow the exportation of 20 month and younger cattle to Japan doesn't change the science, it allows us to export 20 month and younger cattle to Japan.

How can the U.S.D.A. be held responsible for Japan's position?

You're argument here is even weaker than your argument on BSE testing.


Sandman: "Here's an observation on your "deception" arguement: I've read a lot of opinions on this subject and everything the USDA put out - and you're the only one mentioning deception. THE ONLY ONE. That tells me that I'm wasting my time even addressing your half-assed attempts at manufacturing a defense of the USDA clearly playing favorites."

I realize the concept of independent thinking is foreign to an R-CULT follower like you but I don't need to read the USDA's position on this issue to form my own wording.

"BSE TESTED" implies "BSE FREE" but does not guarantee "BSE FREE". Creekstone, USDA, and the Japanese government all agree on that. There is no other reason to "BSE TEST" beef from cattle less than 24 months of age other than to capitalize on the ignorance of Japanese consumers who think "BSE TESTED" means "BSE FREE".

To market "BSE TESTED" beef from cattle less than 24 months of age with current BSE testing technology, is consumer deception because "BSE TESTED" does not mean "BSE FREE" which is exactly what "BSE TESTED" implies.

To market "BSE TESTED" beef from cattle less than 24 months of age with current BSE testing methodology, is "false advertisting" because "BSE TESTED" does not mean "BSE FREE" which is exactly what "BSE TESTED" implies.

What a stupid argument to suggest that since USDA didn't use that wording that it doesn't have merit. What makes your argument even more contradictory is the fact that you claim you don't trust USDA anyway so why would you look to their position to judge mine?

Go ahead, I'll give you time to pull your pants up.

USDA clearly playing favorites? The number 4 packer, USPB, has relied heavily on the Japanese market in the past. WHY AREN'T THEY WHINING ABOUT USDA NOT ALLOWING THEM TO TEST??? Where's the favoritism there? It's in your conspiring mind only.


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top