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

Japs Not Jumping for Joy

A

Anonymous

Guest
Consumers find U.S. beef utterly resistible



Toru Takahashi / Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writer

Jun. 27, 2006

Japan



About 60 percent of respondents to a joint Yomiuri Shimbun/NTT Resonant Inc. survey said they do not want to eat U.S. beef when imports resume.



The survey was conducted for three days through Wednesday after Japan and the United States reached agreement on lifting the ban on U.S. beef, imports of which could resume by as early as next month.



Seventy-one percent of respondents said they were "opposed" or "fairly opposed" to the lifting of the ban.



Sixty percent of this group said they had doubts about the safety of meat processing in the United States, while 52 percent said they were worried about the U.S. meat inspection system.



These figures show that many Japanese have increased their distrust of the U.S. government following the discovery of a part of a backbone--considered a specific risk material for bovine spongiform encephalopathy--in the first shipment of U.S. beef following Japan's lifting of the previous import ban late last year.



Thirty percent of those surveyed said the Japanese government had rushed the decision to lift the ban out of a desire to keep on friendly terms with the United States.



By gender, 64 percent of men opposed lifting the ban, while 76 percent of women did.



Asked if they would eat U.S. beef after imports resume, a combined 61 percent said "no" or "will try not to," with only 6 percent saying they would not mind eating U.S. beef.



Ninety-six percent said restaurants should have to declare the country of origin of beef they served.



In reply to a question on whether they had changed their attitudes regarding the selection of beef since Japan banned U.S. beef imports, 28 percent said they had not changed their attitudes and ate imported beef, while 36 percent said they ate or tried to eat only domestic beef.



The suspension of U.S. beef imports has affected the diet of consumers, with 24 percent of respondents saying they rarely eat beef, and 1 percent said they had stopped eating beef altogether.



In the online survey, carried out on those who had registered with goo research, 1,059 valid answers were received from respondents aged between 14 and 84, with 450 men and 609 women.



===



Beef bowl concerns





Eighty percent of those surveyed disapprove of the idea of gyudon beef-bowl chain restaurants possibly switching back to U.S. beef.



Forty-seven percent said they would prefer restaurants not to use U.S. beef, while 33 percent said they definitely should not.



Only 13 percent said restaurants should use U.S. beef.



===



Country should be shown





Almost 90 percent of pollees said they want to know if U.S. beef is used at restaurants.



Forty-seven percent said they were "somewhat concerned" about the issue, while 39 percent said they were "eager to know."



Fresh and some processed food providers are required to label the origins of their products, but many processed food providers and restaurants do not have to do so.



Sixty-seven percent of pollees said an indication of country of origin on beef should be mandatory at restaurants and on processed food, while 29 percent said they would prefer it if such a system were in operation.





yomiuri.co.jp
 

Bill

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Consumers find U.S. beef utterly resistible



Toru Takahashi / Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writer

Jun. 27, 2006

Japan



About 60 percent of respondents to a joint Yomiuri Shimbun/NTT Resonant Inc. survey said they do not want to eat U.S. beef when imports resume.



The survey was conducted for three days through Wednesday after Japan and the United States reached agreement on lifting the ban on U.S. beef, imports of which could resume by as early as next month.



Seventy-one percent of respondents said they were "opposed" or "fairly opposed" to the lifting of the ban.



Sixty percent of this group said they had doubts about the safety of meat processing in the United States, while 52 percent said they were worried about the U.S. meat inspection system.



These figures show that many Japanese have increased their distrust of the U.S. government following the discovery of a part of a backbone--considered a specific risk material for bovine spongiform encephalopathy--in the first shipment of U.S. beef following Japan's lifting of the previous import ban late last year.



Thirty percent of those surveyed said the Japanese government had rushed the decision to lift the ban out of a desire to keep on friendly terms with the United States.



By gender, 64 percent of men opposed lifting the ban, while 76 percent of women did.



Asked if they would eat U.S. beef after imports resume, a combined 61 percent said "no" or "will try not to," with only 6 percent saying they would not mind eating U.S. beef.



Ninety-six percent said restaurants should have to declare the country of origin of beef they served.



In reply to a question on whether they had changed their attitudes regarding the selection of beef since Japan banned U.S. beef imports, 28 percent said they had not changed their attitudes and ate imported beef, while 36 percent said they ate or tried to eat only domestic beef.



The suspension of U.S. beef imports has affected the diet of consumers, with 24 percent of respondents saying they rarely eat beef, and 1 percent said they had stopped eating beef altogether.



In the online survey, carried out on those who had registered with goo research, 1,059 valid answers were received from respondents aged between 14 and 84, with 450 men and 609 women.



===



Beef bowl concerns





Eighty percent of those surveyed disapprove of the idea of gyudon beef-bowl chain restaurants possibly switching back to U.S. beef.



Forty-seven percent said they would prefer restaurants not to use U.S. beef, while 33 percent said they definitely should not.



Only 13 percent said restaurants should use U.S. beef.



===



Country should be shown





Almost 90 percent of pollees said they want to know if U.S. beef is used at restaurants.



Forty-seven percent said they were "somewhat concerned" about the issue, while 39 percent said they were "eager to know."



Fresh and some processed food providers are required to label the origins of their products, but many processed food providers and restaurants do not have to do so.



Sixty-seven percent of pollees said an indication of country of origin on beef should be mandatory at restaurants and on processed food, while 29 percent said they would prefer it if such a system were in operation.





yomiuri.co.jp
And about 99.9% of Japanese take great exception to being called Japs.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
And about 99.9% of Japanese take great exception to being called Japs.

One of those politically incorrect things I learned from my father-- but I don't think you could have taught him any different (nor would I have tried) after he saw them eating the internal organs of executed American prisoners (some from his own Division) in New Guinea....Dad was a disabled war veteran that died a premature death 30 years ago because of these Japanese....

Bill- since your Canadian and don't believe anything unless it is documented- here is an excerpt from the Division History....

The 41st Division fought for 76 continuous days in combat against the Japanese at Salamaua. For 26 days only canned "C" rations were available. At the end of this campaign, Tokyo Rose, in her propaganda broadcasts, referred to the 41st as the "Butcher Division" because, among all the records established by the 41st, it established a record for taking the least number of Japanese prisoners-of-war in the entire Pacific theatre. This was the result of an incident early during the New Guinea campaign when the bodies of captured American soldiers were found to have been dismembered by their captors and the meat later discovered amongst Japanese prisoners carefully wrapped in large green leaves for preservation.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Consumers find U.S. beef utterly resistible



Toru Takahashi / Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writer

Jun. 27, 2006

Japan



About 60 percent of respondents to a joint Yomiuri Shimbun/NTT Resonant Inc. survey said they do not want to eat U.S. beef when imports resume.



The survey was conducted for three days through Wednesday after Japan and the United States reached agreement on lifting the ban on U.S. beef, imports of which could resume by as early as next month.



Seventy-one percent of respondents said they were "opposed" or "fairly opposed" to the lifting of the ban.



Sixty percent of this group said they had doubts about the safety of meat processing in the United States, while 52 percent said they were worried about the U.S. meat inspection system.



These figures show that many Japanese have increased their distrust of the U.S. government following the discovery of a part of a backbone--considered a specific risk material for bovine spongiform encephalopathy--in the first shipment of U.S. beef following Japan's lifting of the previous import ban late last year.



Thirty percent of those surveyed said the Japanese government had rushed the decision to lift the ban out of a desire to keep on friendly terms with the United States.



By gender, 64 percent of men opposed lifting the ban, while 76 percent of women did.



Asked if they would eat U.S. beef after imports resume, a combined 61 percent said "no" or "will try not to," with only 6 percent saying they would not mind eating U.S. beef.



Ninety-six percent said restaurants should have to declare the country of origin of beef they served.



In reply to a question on whether they had changed their attitudes regarding the selection of beef since Japan banned U.S. beef imports, 28 percent said they had not changed their attitudes and ate imported beef, while 36 percent said they ate or tried to eat only domestic beef.



The suspension of U.S. beef imports has affected the diet of consumers, with 24 percent of respondents saying they rarely eat beef, and 1 percent said they had stopped eating beef altogether.



In the online survey, carried out on those who had registered with goo research, 1,059 valid answers were received from respondents aged between 14 and 84, with 450 men and 609 women.



===



Beef bowl concerns





Eighty percent of those surveyed disapprove of the idea of gyudon beef-bowl chain restaurants possibly switching back to U.S. beef.



Forty-seven percent said they would prefer restaurants not to use U.S. beef, while 33 percent said they definitely should not.



Only 13 percent said restaurants should use U.S. beef.



===



Country should be shown





Almost 90 percent of pollees said they want to know if U.S. beef is used at restaurants.



Forty-seven percent said they were "somewhat concerned" about the issue, while 39 percent said they were "eager to know."



Fresh and some processed food providers are required to label the origins of their products, but many processed food providers and restaurants do not have to do so.



Sixty-seven percent of pollees said an indication of country of origin on beef should be mandatory at restaurants and on processed food, while 29 percent said they would prefer it if such a system were in operation.





yomiuri.co.jp

And all we have to do to appease them is a %^$% $20 test! What the hell is wrong with the USDA?!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Agman, "They want U.S beef and they will scramble to buy it as soon as it it made available."
 

Northern Rancher

Well-known member
You missed Bill's point entirely OT but I'm not surprised-I thought you were interested in regaining market share not in refighting the war. The best way to lose a customer of any product is to show them lack of respect-or I suppose they are Japs until the ban lifts then they will become most esteemed Japanese friends. You R-Laughers take the cake.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Northern Rancher said:
You missed Bill's point entirely OT but I'm not surprised-I thought you were interested in regaining market share not in refighting the war. The best way to lose a customer of any product is to show them lack of respect-or I suppose they are Japs until the ban lifts then they will become most esteemed Japanese friends. You R-Laughers take the cake.
KA-CHING! Right on NR.

I had to laugh at OT's line
Bill- since your Canadian
. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ever ask yourself OT how many Japanese are also one generation removed from the war and then how badly they really want American beef?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Bill said:
Northern Rancher said:
You missed Bill's point entirely OT but I'm not surprised-I thought you were interested in regaining market share not in refighting the war. The best way to lose a customer of any product is to show them lack of respect-or I suppose they are Japs until the ban lifts then they will become most esteemed Japanese friends. You R-Laughers take the cake.
KA-CHING! Right on NR.

I had to laugh at OT's line
Bill- since your Canadian
. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ever ask yourself OT how many Japanese are also one generation removed from the war and then how badly they really want American beef?

Bill, Canada was part of the allied powers too.

We handed Japan back over to the Japanese and have had a great relationship with them over the years despite the cultural differences.

Why do you bring discussions to such a level?

These issues are food safety issues. Nothing more, nothing less. Creekstone was willing to satisfy what even the Japanese were doing to keep their markets and the poor policy of the USDA stopped them dead in their tracks.

If you can not recognize problems, you can not solve them.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Bill said:
Northern Rancher said:
You missed Bill's point entirely OT but I'm not surprised-I thought you were interested in regaining market share not in refighting the war. The best way to lose a customer of any product is to show them lack of respect-or I suppose they are Japs until the ban lifts then they will become most esteemed Japanese friends. You R-Laughers take the cake.
KA-CHING! Right on NR.

I had to laugh at OT's line
Bill- since your Canadian
. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ever ask yourself OT how many Japanese are also one generation removed from the war and then how badly they really want American beef?

Bill, Canada was part of the allied powers too.

We handed Japan back over to the Japanese and have had a great relationship with them over the years despite the cultural differences.

Why do you bring discussions to such a level?

These issues are food safety issues. Nothing more, nothing less. Creekstone was willing to satisfy what even the Japanese were doing to keep their markets and the poor policy of the USDA stopped them dead in their tracks.

If you can not recognize problems, you can not solve them.
No need for the history lesson, Canada was part of the allied forces long before the US entered WWII. I prefer to call any nationality by its proper name especially one that is a customer.

Quick question. What was the amount of the tarrif increase Japan was imposing on the US before they shut the border to the US because of BSE?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Northern Rancher said:
You missed Bill's point entirely OT but I'm not surprised-I thought you were interested in regaining market share not in refighting the war. The best way to lose a customer of any product is to show them lack of respect-or I suppose they are Japs until the ban lifts then they will become most esteemed Japanese friends. You R-Laughers take the cake.

NR- I, and R-CALF, have given the Japanese consumer a whole lot more respect than the USDA/AMI/NCBA has ever-- respecting their rights as consumers to ask for tested beef- and to receive what they ask for...This was at a time when some in the USDA and Congress were saying to fire up the Enola Gay.... I have always said that we should give the consumer what they ask for- not the NCBA/USDA/AMI theory of shove down their throats what we want to force them to take...This means tested beef for the Japanese, and COOL identified beef for the US consumer who I believe we owe a whole lot more to, than a bunch of foreigners, for being so loyal....

If I took it wrong- so be it... But comments coming from a country that has had the US's protection for their 3 Skidoo Army for the last 50+ years- and has had to build their entire beef and cattle economy on the US--- it doesn't mean much to me...
 

Murgen

Well-known member
This was at a time when some in the USDA and Congress were saying to fire up the Enola Gay

Glad you're not the spokesman for the US beef industry!



from a country that has had the US's protection for their 3 Skidoo Army for the last 50+ years-

I'd rather have a 3 ski doo army, or a 3 canoe navy knowing what they are fighting for, than an army and navy, that doesn't have a clue, they fight harder.

History has already written that, about Canadian forces.

OT, you've already questioned the reason why US forces are in "the jungle"
 

Northern Rancher

Well-known member
That was pathetic OT-a real new low for you and ytou've had alot-did you hide behind a sherriff's badge so you wouldn't have to serve. You don't see many American soldiers that served with Canadian troops running down our armed forces-just hawks like you that are safe and warm back in the U.S. Your a sad little man. I'm glad small little minds like you are the minority in Montana at least I've never met anybody as weakminded as you in all my travels to the great state.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well NR- I guess I could set her and trade insults about your beady little eyes or question how you were artificially insulting cows in the back forty- but it would not accomplish much...

I see it as both Japan and Canada have put most of the defense of their nation on the US- and at a very heavy cost to the US taxpayer, while at the same time reaping the benefits of the US trade market, which included building boths economies and many of their industries...

Then when the one time comes that the US asks for support (in the UN vote) Canada showed its true colors- while the Prime Minister, his relatives, and UN rep were reaping fortunes off trading oil blood money with Saddam... And I have seen Canada do nothing or even few say anything against that....
 

Bill

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Well NR- I guess I could set her and trade insults about your beady little eyes or question how you were artificially insulting cows in the back forty- but it would not accomplish much...

I see it as both Japan and Canada have put most of the defense of their nation on the US- and at a very heavy cost to the US taxpayer, while at the same time reaping the benefits of the US trade market, which included building boths economies and many of their industries...

Then when the one time comes that the US asks for support (in the UN vote) Canada showed its true colors- while the Prime Minister, his relatives, and UN rep were reaping fortunes off trading oil blood money with Saddam... And I have seen Canada do nothing or even few say anything against that....
That makes as much sense as same as someone saying the US supported Hitler by declaring neutrality on Sept 5, 1939 while Canada entered WW II 5 days later. The US didn't declare war on anyone until Dec 1941. The day after Pearl Harbor!

You seem big on conspiracy theories so give us your thoughts on why the US sat while Canadian and other allied forces got slaughtered for over 2 years?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Bill said:
Oldtimer said:
Well NR- I guess I could set her and trade insults about your beady little eyes or question how you were artificially insulting cows in the back forty- but it would not accomplish much...

I see it as both Japan and Canada have put most of the defense of their nation on the US- and at a very heavy cost to the US taxpayer, while at the same time reaping the benefits of the US trade market, which included building boths economies and many of their industries...

Then when the one time comes that the US asks for support (in the UN vote) Canada showed its true colors- while the Prime Minister, his relatives, and UN rep were reaping fortunes off trading oil blood money with Saddam... And I have seen Canada do nothing or even few say anything against that....
That makes as much sense as same as someone saying the US supported Hitler by declaring neutrality on Sept 5, 1939 while Canada entered WW II 5 days later. The US didn't declare war on anyone until Dec 1941. The day after Pearl Harbor!

You seem big on conspiracy theories so give us your thoughts on why the US sat while Canadian and other allied forces got slaughtered for over 2 years?

Bill, you know the lease-lend program and the time period in question allowed the U.S. to participate in the war and get the economy changed to a war economy during that time. We were as much at war against the Axis powers as Canada. Pearl Harbor only made it official.

The U.S. had more killed than Canada although Canada had more per capita deaths (4.0 vs. 3.2/100)

http://tinyurl.com/pmbep


Please do not digress this into one of these arguments.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill, "That makes as much sense as same as someone saying the US supported Hitler by declaring neutrality on Sept 5, 1939 while Canada entered WW II 5 days later. The US didn't declare war on anyone until Dec 1941. The day after Pearl Harbor!"

I have a friend in New Brunswick and we trade barbs back and forth. I'll retool one I sent her for your benefit, Bill;

The actions that influenced what you are talking about actually started in 1776 when the Colonists had the nards to tell the British that their governmental services were no longer needed and the United States of America were formed. Thus, in 1939, it had been 163 years since we had been led by the nose by England.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Now I am confused. Econ says it was all about the US taking two years getting their lease-lend program sorted out and Sandhusker says it was all about not getting lead around by the nose by anyone.

Actually Econ I am glad to see there are some Americans who base their knowledge on something other than John Wayne and Hollywood's portrayal. We have a Legion Hall in town with many pictures displayed of friends and family who gave their lives for our freedom and I am not about to let some babbling ex-cop in Montana scoff at their sacrificies.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Bill said:
Now I am confused. Econ says it was all about the US taking two years getting their lease-lend program sorted out and Sandhusker says it was all about not getting lead around by the nose by anyone.

Actually Econ I am glad to see there are some Americans who base their knowledge on something other than John Wayne and Hollywood's portrayal. We have a Legion Hall in town with many pictures displayed of friends and family who gave their lives for our freedom and I am not about to let some babbling ex-cop in Montana scoff at their sacrificies.

It is probably a little of both, Bill. The sacrifices both our countries made to fight the evils represented by Hitler should never be minimized. The lives of our servicemen are not to be compared against one another.

The policies in agriculture is a whole different story.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
But comments coming from a country that has had the US's protection for their 3 Skidoo Army for the last 50+ years- and has had to build their entire beef and cattle economy on the US--- it doesn't mean much to me...

Realizing this is off-topic, but I'm going to take offense to this comment. I have family members who fought and bled in two world wars, and have good friends currently stationed overseas fighting battles that the US couldn't win (Afghanistan ring a bell?).

You keep in mind a few things: The US military hasn't protected us for 50 years: our image as peace keepers and friends to most nations has been our primary protection from 'invaders'. We haven't cost your taxpayers a single red cent, and indeed, our willingness to allow your units and people to be stationed on our soil in the north have cost us goodwill with many nations, including Russia and China.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Since you are all lovers of facts- Heres a couple...

Canada's average defense budget is 1% of their GNP-
The US has been averaging in the 5% range, being as high as 10+%...

The US defense budget is approximately 50% of all military spending in the WORLD...

Last year the US budget ended up spending between $400-500 billion dollars (hard to figure with all the later add ons it was probably more) ..
Canadas defense budget was $13 billion...


If Canada had an aircraft carrier (and they don't) all 60 of their fighter planes could fit on the deck... :roll: :lol:

The Canadian PM reported that when he sent the 2000 troops to Afghanistan, it totally left Canada void of any combat troops to use anywhere else :roll: But their was nothing to fear- Big Brother US wouldn't allow anyone to invade you :wink:

You Canucks can see it your way- but I can definitely see it the way it is...
 
Top