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

Japanese Demand

A

Anonymous

Guest
Some Japanese demand U.S. inspection of each beef animal



By KANA INAGAKI/The Associated Press

Lincoln Journal Star

June 15, 2006

Nebraska, US



TOKYO — Opponents of U.S. beef imports to Japan accused the government of failing to ensure consumer safety, and demanded at a public hearing Wednesday that Washington inspect every cow that goes to slaughter for mad cow disease.



The hearing was the last of ten public meetings on the safety of U.S. beef, which was banned in January after inspectors found a shipment of American veal that violated Japanese import restrictions.



Japanese officials made a presentation to the crowd of about 400 people gathered in a Tokyo hall to show how safety steps would prevent the importation of American meat infected with mad cow disease.



The hearings are a prelude to final government deliberations on when to lift the ban. Washington has been pushing hard to resume selling to Japan, which was once U.S. beef’s most lucrative overseas market.



Hirofumi Kugita, an Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Ministry official, assured the crowd that Tokyo would respond firmly to any more violations of Japan’s import law.



“If parts at risk for the disease are mixed in with other beef after the ban is removed, then we will of course take necessary measures such as to stop the import from the disputed facility,” he said.



Government assurances were met with scorn by vocal members of the crowd, who questioned the efficacy of U.S. safety measures and accused Tokyo of putting a higher priority on pleasing Washington, a top ally, than protecting its own citizens.



Some pointed to the lifting of a prior ban on U.S. beef, which was imposed after the discovery of mad cow — bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE — in 2003. That ban was lifted just last December, only to be reimposed in January.



“Last year, the import of US beef was resumed despite the fact that most people expressed opposition toward lifting the ban. I feel again that the resumption is still too early,” said Junko Takaya, of the BSE Citizens Network.



Other opponents called for the United States to adopt Japanese safety standards, which require the testing of every cow going to market for mad cow.



One activist called Tokyo the “lapdog” of the United States.



Japanese and U.S. officials wrapped up negotiations on U.S. beef safety steps in mid-May, but did not set a timetable for the resumption of the beef trade.



The U.S. has pushed to resume exports by the end of June, saying that they have taken sufficient steps to prevent the spread of disease. But Japanese officials said public meetings must be held first. They also asked for more information on U.S. meatpacking plants that export the beef.



The harsh consumer reaction at the hearing indicated how difficult it will be for U.S. beef to regain its market position in Japan. Since the 2003 ban, beef imports from Australia have boomed. Japan bought about $1.4 billion worth of U.S. beef in 2003.



Mad cow disease is a degenerative nerve disease in cattle. Eating contaminated meat products has been linked to the rare but fatal human variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.





journalstar.com
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Let's step back and remove ourselves a bit from this situation. If we were businessmen trying to sell our product to a group of potential customers who were leery on our product, wouldn't we ask them what it would take to gain their trust and then do what they asked? Wouldn't we do what we could to foster good relations to not only provide for sales but also foster customer loyalty for the future? Wouldn't we take into account that we have competition in that market already and we would need to present our product as more desireable than theirs?

Now lets compare this commons sense proven business approach to how the USDA has handled Japan. Notice any differences? :mad:
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
TOKYO — Opponents of U.S. beef imports to Japan accused the government of failing to ensure consumer safety, and demanded at a public hearing Wednesday that Washington inspect every cow that goes to slaughter for mad cow disease.

Hmmmm, seems to me I recall _someone_ saying that the Japanese didn't want 100% BSE tested animals and that 100% BSE testing animals would not provide either the US or Canada with any benefit or gain.

It must be a shame for those someones to be wrong, again and again.

Rod
 

Jason

Well-known member
An inspection and an actual test are different things.

Canada inspects every animal in that any animal displaying neurological symptoms for BSE is tested.

The problem is that the Japanese were able to bully a compromise from 30 months to 20 so they will continue to press until they think there is no more room to negotiate.

This has long since passed from a BSE issue to a trade dispute.

The fact that they continue to take all the beef Canada can supply, under the 20 month age with the high marbling, proves they want the beef. Canada has little to offer for them to get into a trade dispute. 30 million people really isn't that attractive of a market, beside we already take many products from them.

The US limits many Japanese products, and has 30 million people with a higher disposable income. Which market has more impact for Japanese exports?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
It shows the complete and utter failure of the USDA that a close allie has to push higher standards of safety for food than what we have domestically.

The same can be said for Canada.

When your friends don't even trust you, you are in deep trouble.

Maybe a change in course is due.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Maybe check into it, but Japan gives Canada more room for infractions than they do to the US, when it comes to bone-fragments etc.

So if we are talking trust, I wonder who they trust more, when it comes to incidence rate etc.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Murgen said:
Maybe check into it, but Japan gives Canada more room for infractions than they do to the US, when it comes to bone-fragments etc.

So if we are talking trust, I wonder who they trust more, when it comes to incidence rate etc.

You look at how the USDA has handled the situation with Japan, the Washington cow, the Texas cow, etc... and you wonder why Japan is even paying us lip service. If I was them I would of told the US to "forget it" long ago.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
The "global" game is one that will be played on all the producers, Murgen. It will allow global companies to use the cheapest labor, the least enforcement of labor laws, the least enforcement of environmental laws, and the most totalitarian of governments to get their products from. Don't you dare think you are the cheapest in any of those regards.

China is the biggest producer of cereals with the U.S. 2nd.
China is the biggest producer of meat with the U.S. 2nd.
China is the biggest producer of fruit and vegetables. The U.S. 4th and 3rd respectively.
The EU is the biggest producer of wheat with China 2nd and the U.S. 4th.
Cotton, China then the U.S.
Coal, China then the U.S.

In competitiveness in infrastructure--the U.S. 1st --China 36.

Hey, that is exactly what is happening.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Sure you could Mike, but how much of that beef would carry an Atypical strain?

Would you like to see what certain states lost economically by having the border shut the first time?

I doubt you, Sandhusker or Econ would believe the numbers, so I won't post them. As Econ would say to anyone that would question his logic, "read the report yet?"

I'm beginning to believe you 3 more and more all the time. We are in this situation due to the greed and dishonesty of individual American citizens.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Murgen said:
Sure you could Mike, but how much of that beef would carry an Atypical strain?

Would you like to see what certain states lost economically by having the border shut the first time?

I doubt you, Sandhusker or Econ would believe the numbers, so I won't post them. As Econ would say to anyone that would question his logic, "read the report yet?"

I'm beginning to believe you 3 more and more all the time. We are in this situation due to the greed and dishonesty of individual American citizens.

We're in the mess because of corporations doing all they can to make money and a government that thinks them making money is a priority higher than the health and safety of the national herd and the US public.

I have yet to see the USDA explain their faulty reasoning/information that was used when the zero-tolerance policy was instituted - the policy that had to be completely redone to accomodate economics when Canada got BSE. Since knowlege of the disease never changed, either they were wrong to institute that policy or they were wrong to change it. Which do you think it was, Murgen?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Murgen said:
Sure you could Mike, but how much of that beef would carry an Atypical strain?

Would you like to see what certain states lost economically by having the border shut the first time?

I doubt you, Sandhusker or Econ would believe the numbers, so I won't post them. As Econ would say to anyone that would question his logic, "read the report yet?"

I'm beginning to believe you 3 more and more all the time. We are in this situation due to the greed and dishonesty of individual American citizens.

I think the bse thing has been used by the USDA to benefit the packers. Rcalf wanted them to continue with their goofy U.S. company benefitting move (Tyson consolidating a Canadian packer into the fold) by keeping with the reason they closed the border in the first place--the science. It would have unraveled the USDA's policy of using bse as takeover tool in your country for Tyson.

I do see that this process has moved the protectionist Canadians on blue tounge being used as a trade barrier. Not all Canadians or Americans are trying to use these issues for their own advantage. The smart ones are not. Still the problem of Canada not having a PSA and having relatively open borders is concerning as well as the non enforcement of it in the U.S. by this administration.

Murgen, MRJ has been defending GIPSA based on the NCBA party line. The OIG report on GIPSA is a rare honest report on how bad an agency is being run in the D.C. power circle for the benefit of those who have captured the regulatory agency (packers and integrators). I think Phyllis Fong could have gone further, if you ask me. Certianly the report is worthy of Congressional oversight hearings into the matter. They are not happening. Why shouldn't anyone question this logic? It is a prime example of power corrupting. Can you ask the NCBA their view on the report with any credibility when it is their main clients who are benefitting from lack of regulatory enforcement and producers are losing?

"I'm beginning to believe you 3 more and more all the time. We are in this situation due to the greed and dishonesty of individual American citizens"

That is what happens when you believe in the consumer surplus crap and throw out the Robinson Patman Act and PSA.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
I think they shut Canada up by changing it. They knew all along where BSE and TSE's came from. They were trying to protect the economics of their own country.

The Canadian government knows more than they are saying also, but who are they protecting, not themselves! Transparency has not been one of our problems.

When this all started a few years back, Canadians on this site were telling you the same things that you are now saying. But at that time we were "scolded" for it.

So don't tell me that it's the USDA's testing procedures etc. We told you that when you were still discounting our observations.

More than a few have said, "you won't find it unless you test for it", meanwhile you were towing the RCALF lines, and letting us know that all was well in the US, and that BSE was not a concern in the US, due to the safeguards etc. When Canada had a case and the US didn't, all that possibility could be done, was being done, and now you are saying it wasn't.

Sandhusker, you have come full circle in the last couple of years and are now saying exactly what you argued against in the past.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Murgen, you need to keep me out of the border closure argument you are having with Sandhusker. I see the reasons for both sides but those are not my arguments. The lack of protections against captive supply would be one of my concerns however. There are ways of keeping the border open and addressing that issue, however.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Murgen, "Sandhusker, you have come full circle in the last couple of years and are now saying exactly what you argued against in the past."

I think you're wrong.

Back to my question, were we wrong to institute the policy or wrong to change it?
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Wrong to institute it.

Reasoning: it was hypocritical, when the US knew they already had these atypical cases within their borders, and continued to sell MBM worldwide.

They should have been discounting less and investigating more.

But that's just my opinion, and I know it's usually wrong on this site.

Do you want me to dig up some quotes, from Sandhusker, discounting Canadians on the need for further testing etc. within the US?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Murgen said:
Wrong to institute it.

Reasoning: it was hypocritical, when the US knew they already had these atypical cases within their borders, and continued to sell MBM worldwide.

They should have been discounting less and investigating more.

But that's just my opinion, and I know it's usually wrong on this site.

Do you want me to dig up some quotes, from Sandhusker, discounting Canadians on the need for further testing etc. within the US?

How did the US KNOW they had atpyical cases? I would think the only way you would KNOW you had it is if you had a test come back positive. Did we have that? I look at the USDA and wonder if they KNOW a dang thing.

Dig up any quote you can find, Murgen.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Murgen said:
I think they shut Canada up by changing it. They knew all along where BSE and TSE's came from. They were trying to protect the economics of their own country.

The Canadian government knows more than they are saying also, but who are they protecting, not themselves! Transparency has not been one of our problems.

When this all started a few years back, Canadians on this site were telling you the same things that you are now saying. But at that time we were "scolded" for it.

So don't tell me that it's the USDA's testing procedures etc. We told you that when you were still discounting our observations.

More than a few have said, "you won't find it unless you test for it", meanwhile you were towing the RCALF lines, and letting us know that all was well in the US, and that BSE was not a concern in the US, due to the safeguards etc. When Canada had a case and the US didn't, all that possibility could be done, was being done, and now you are saying it wasn't.

Sandhusker, you have come full circle in the last couple of years and are now saying exactly what you argued against in the past.

You are exactly right Murgen!

Many on this site basically called Canadians liers, blamers, whatever, when they explained the facts of life to them. My what BSE experts they have become! It's also funny how quickly they changed their tune and started blaming USDA, packers and ever day of the week ending in "Y" for their woes. Whoops I guess its not really their woes as a couple of the biggest noisemakers on this site seem to be those without any cattle.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Top