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

Korea Says No- Foreign Cattle an Issue

A

Anonymous

Guest
Korea to Delay Lifting Ban on US Beef Import



The Korea Times

07-04-2006

South Korea



SEOUL (Yonhap) - South Korea will put off lifting its ban on U.S. beef owing to insufficient measures by American meat processors to ensure product safety, an agricultural official said Tuesday.



The official, who declined to be identified, said Washington had forwarded set of changes it will make at meat processing facilities, but experts here are uncertain if such steps are adequate. Seoul’s reluctance to accept the changes will effectively put off the import date of American beef till after July.



“The proposal calls for meat processors to clean tools used to cut cattle older than 30 months old and those below this age,” the official said. He stressed this is not a fundamental solution to possible contamination that may occur.



South Korea has maintained a ban on U.S. beef since late 2003 after a made cow case was confirmed there. It agreed to lift the ban early in January after conducting on-site inspections.



The inspections in May, however, only highlighted shortcomings Seoul wants to resolve before allowing U.S. beef back into the country.



The problems cited by Seoul are facilities that butcher foreign cows along with those raised in the United States.



In addition, while most of the 37 facilities examined had two or more butchering lines and tools to carve meat, a few had only one to process animals aged 30 months or younger.



The butchering of foreign animals is an issue since South Korea currently only allows beef from Australia, New Zealand and Mexico into the country.





times.hankooki.com
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Oldtimer you need to get a life!! You and your bolding certain things in a post... do you not think we can read?

Just trying to make things easier for you- wouldn't want you to miss the important parts :wink: :lol:
 

Jason

Well-known member
More to the point is that most plants don't have seperate lines for over 30 months and under.

Korea might be waiting to see if the US is going to open to cows from Canada.

Without 2 lines they are in effect opening to over 30 month cattle.
 

don

Well-known member
ot you're hilarious. this is korea's way of saying they aren't taking american beef and doing it in such a way that usda can't meet the conditions. you can't id the foreign beef in any meaningful way that can be audited so the koreans just have to ask for verified origin and the deals off. you take a major screwup by usda and the american cattle industry (refusing mandatory id) and turn it into a virtue. were you this smart on the job as a law enforcement officer or is the stereotype accurate?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
don said:
ot you're hilarious. this is korea's way of saying they aren't taking american beef and doing it in such a way that usda can't meet the conditions. you can't id the foreign beef in any meaningful way that can be audited so the koreans just have to ask for verified origin and the deals off.

You are wrong there don-- All beef and all live cattle imported into the US is now IDed and traceable back to its source...
 

don

Well-known member
ot: All beef and all live cattle imported into the US is now IDed and traceable back to its source...

could be but if the koreans pull a box of meat and want to know where it comes from you're stuck because all you can say is it doesn't appear to be imported but other than that we have no idea. that would be reassuring. the point is the koreans have the u.s. over the barrel on this one and they're doing what americans did to canadian cattlemen. in both cases the packers are complicit because they are resisting change to the system. funny that american packers would do to american cattlemen what they did to canadians, eh? money knows no borders. don't try to spin this into a victory for american beef because you guys just hosed yourselves by resisting traceability of your product. the koreans used that as an excuse to keep the border closed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
U.S. gets tough with beef trade partners



By Cathy Roemer, Ag Weekly correspondent

July 4, 2006



TWIN FALLS, Idaho ~ Is free trade really free, and just how fair is it?



In recent U.S. beef trade tussles with South Korea and Japan, free trade seems to come with strings attached -- at best -- even though the World Trade Organization and free-trade agreements are supposed to be the great equalizers.



This time it’s not “where’s the beef” but “what’s in the beef” that had the U.S. Department of Agriculture laying down the law to South Korea in an “all or nothing” trade war.



South Korean trade officials visited 38 meat-processing plants in June in an effort to revitalize beef trade with the United States. The Asian country closed its borders to U.S. beef due to the Dec. 2003 discovery n and two subsequent cases -- of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the U.S. cattle herd.



Out of the 38 plants, South Korean officials gave a thumbs down to seven facilities because Canadian cattle were not separated from U.S. cattle. Canada has had a higher incidence of BSE n five cases -- than the United States since BSE was discovered there in May 2003.



U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said South Korea could not “pick and choose” which plants it will accept product from. The country can either take beef from all U.S. processing plants or none at all, he said.



Fred Stokes, president of the Organization for Competitive Markets questions Johanns position.



With a huge U.S. trade deficit, “what in the heck are we doing in restricting trade?” he asked.



In Japan’s case, beef trade negotiations have volleyed back and forth since the Asian nation closed its doors to American beef at the close of 2003 in response to that first U.S. case of BSE n discovered in a Washington State cow of Canadian origin. Japan recently began accepting beef products, then closed its borders again when a bone fragment was discovered in a shipment of U.S. beef .



Congress recently threatened sanctions to refuse certain Japanese products if Japan did not reconcile. The outcome was a trade agreement between the two nations, signed last week.



Although Johanns tough talk looks like a firm stand for U.S. beef , in reality he is following WTO rules that seek to “harmonize” commodity standards between nations.



That harmonization or “all or nothing” approach based on WTO sanitary/phytosanitary (SPS) equivalency rules leaves little room for individual free-market enterprise.



In the case of Creekstone Farms, a Kansas beef processing plant specializing in custom Angus beef products, the company sought to satisfy Japan by implementing on-site testing for BSE on all its cattle.



Kevin Pentz, senior vice president of operations, said the company invested nearly a half million dollars in testing facilities, but the USDA would not allow Creekstone to “individualize” its product. The company has since filed a lawsuit against the USDA.



This week, in transcript regarding Japanese officials’ visits to inspect U.S beef processing plants, Johanns was asked what if Japan did not approve conditions at various U.S. plants n would the whole market be shut down because of one plant?



“We faced that issue with Korea,” Johanns said. “The point is, we see our system as a whole system. This is not about individual pick and choose.”



If Japan rejected a plant, Johanns said it would be a “serious problem.”



“My hope is we don’t go that way again, any more than I would argue we should shut down their whole automobile market because we find a defective car,” he said.



In a written review of SPS policy, Lucinda Sikes, staff attorney for the Public Citizen, a consumer watchdog group, said SPS equivalency does more to “create strong incentives for downward harmonization to weaker standards” than raise the bar. While Sikes was speaking more about policy to protect American consumers, WTO rules apply to all member countries.



Sikes said international standards should not serve as “a floor curtailing innovative solutions to public health problems that are ahead of the international status quo.”



In light of “intense negotiations” between the United States and South Korea and Japan, the American Meat Institute, said in a press release, “It is important to remember that the role of the USDA is to certify the integrity of the U.S. system for export to various nations according to the terms of agreements.”



If countries are allowed to “pick and choose” who they want to do business with, it would “create a completely unworkable environment for international beef trade,” AMI stated.



“It would also create significant difficulty in our ability to negotiate free trade agreements that included SPS equivalency,” the organization added.



John Munsell, president of Montana Quality Foods and Processing, Mont., has a different point of view.



Why do our USDA trade negotiators continue to shoot domestic producers and processors in the foot?” he asked. “Enterprising domestic meat plants, such as Creekstone Farms … have been summarily rejected by USDA which attempts to impose its all-or-nothing sales gimmick,” he said.



“Universal free trade agreements are being predicated on a common foundation … USDA is now suggesting that consumers must accept all product, regardless of its source, as being part of a universal all-or nothing seamless meat production environment in which individual noncompliant plants cannot be delisted,” Munsell said. “Try selling this concept to American meat-eaters.”



“America needs to earn the confidence of our foreign customers, not force their loyalty,” he said.






agweekly.com
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Today 7/5/2006 5:26:00 PM


US, S Korea Issues Still Unresolved On Beef Trade



WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The U.S. and South Korea continue to negotiate, but the countries still have outstanding issues - such as settling on a tolerance level for bone fragments - that need to be resolved before beef trade can resume, according to U.S. government and industry officials.



South Korea was set last month to announce a partial agreement to allow in U.S. beef, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture insisted on first resolving concerns that would have excluded seven U.S. exporters and left open the possibility of future trade stoppages if even very small amounts of bone fragments were found in a shipment.



Negotiators have tentatively agreed on measures that assure U.S. and Canadian cattle, and the meat produced from them, remain segregated at U.S. plants, but the South Korea's demand that plants also use dedicated tools, such as saws, on beef for exports haven't been settled, said a USDA official.



South Korea has essentially accepted the system of regulations that U.S. producers have agreed to in order to qualify for export to South Korea, but seven individual U.S. plants were pointed out as problematic by South Korea, which toured the 37 U.S. production facilities in May. The USDA audited those seven plants and sent the results of those audits to Seoul last week, a USDA official said.



USDA officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of ongoing negotiations.



U.S. and South Korean officials are also continuing to negotiate a tolerance level for bone fragments that USDA and U.S. beef industry officials say will be crucial for trade resumption. South Korea has agreed to lift its ban on boneless beef cuts from the U.S., but often small bone fragments are unavoidable, U.S. industry representatives said.



Hong Kong has provided an example of a market where a lack of an agreement on bone fragments can stop trade. Hong Kong stopped accepting imports from some U.S. beef producers since it eased its ban on boneless U.S. beef in December 2005. All of those actions were due to the discovery of bone fragments.



U.S. exporters don't want to commit to trade with South Korea if the country could halt shipments at any time if it finds what USDA would consider an acceptable level of bone fragments, a USDA official said.



The only trading partners that now recognize tolerances for bone fragments in beef trade with the U.S. are the North American Free Trade Agreement partners Mexico and Canada.



South Korea banned U.S. beef in December 2003 after the first case of mad-cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, was discovered in the U.S. Before the ban, the U.S. exported $815 million of beef to South Korea in 2003, according to USDA data.



Source: Bill Tomson, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-646-0088; [email protected]
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
This all or nothing deal reminds me of when I was still going to school and working in a manufacturing plant that was union. In a union shop, everybody is supposed to be treated the same. This sounds good at first, but the reality of it is that the "all or nothing" mindset brings up the dead-asses and pulls down the hard workers. It didn't do you any good to put out any extra effort and try to excel. Thus, the whole plant suffered.

Johanns is doing the exact same with Korea. I can't believe this is happening under a Republican administration. I thought Republicans used to think that hard work and and inovation should be rewarded and that the sloth got what they had coming. Republicans used to be in favor of stepping out of the way to let people compete and the strong and smart would survive. The USDA policies of late look like they came from Ted Kennedy. Just like the union plant (that is no longer there) was hurt, Johanns is hurting all of us in the cattle and beef business.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The Republican party and the current administration is not the Republican Party of old in my opinion-- this is one reason there is such a worry by Republicans of so many "Populist" Democrats running this year...

I read an article about a month ago in a conservative publication where they were talking just about this...Their comments were that they were afraid of the change that could take place in the next 2 years of elections- they fear an overreaction against the current administration could take down many Republican seats...That noone now connected with ties to the Bush Administration could win in the Presidential race...Reagan won big because of the "Reagan Democrats"- blue collar middle class independents with strong America first and Christian values that put those values ahead of everything else...And these "Reagan Democrats" would have probably kept Bush #1 in if Perot hadn't pulled so many along with conservatives... But now with the shakey economy balanced on a huge deficit spending and deficit trade balance , outsourcing of everything overseas, the oil profit taking, loss of freedoms thru the Patriot Act, and mainly the fact that the administration has openly gone against 70% of the populations wishes with its stand on immigration they felt that they had not only lost the majority of these independents but a good share of the Republicans....

And usually when we react we overreact.....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I think you're right, OT, the Republican party we have not is not the same party we did have. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm planning on voting Democrat this year. I may have to put up with reading of a few gay weddings, but maybt the Dems will take the USDA building keys away from Tyson and Cargill.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
I think you're right, OT, the Republican party we have not is not the same party we did have. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm planning on voting Democrat this year. I may have to put up with reading of a few gay weddings, but maybt the Dems will take the USDA building keys away from Tyson and Cargill.

I used to think of the Republican Party as the law and order Party-- strong support for local law enforcement- stringent enforcement of the law and demanding strong penalties... Then along comes years of pick and choose enforcement with the total unenforcement of the immigrant hiring laws, avoidance of many corporate regulatory laws including USDA's games with gipsa and M-COOL, and now a lobbying scandal to match Tammany Hall....Then the other day the local Sheriff (a Republican) said the feds had cut way back on drug enforcement support and if he was going to keep from laying off his drug investigator and involved with the Drug Task Force he was going to have to find $75,000...Everything is being shuttled away from local and state enforcement to a bigger federal bureaucracy (another thing the old Republican Party used to oppose)... Now they are building the hugest federal government in history and taking away all the state and local power, all under the name of Homeland Security with the Patriot Act... :(

After reading the article the other day, I had to look up what they meant by what they called these "Populist" candidates...They were defined as "down home type" politicians that had no set platform but supported the popular ideas- that had no connections to any major agenda or lobbying groups but voted on the issues the way the majority of people felt they should......

Say What :???: Representatives and elected officials that actually listen to the voter and follow the wishes of those that elected them- Heaven forbid :wink: :lol: :lol:
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
That harmonization or “all or nothing” approach based on WTO sanitary/phytosanitary (SPS) equivalency rules leaves little room for individual free-market enterprise.

You would think the USA wouldn't be part of something that was against "individual free-market enterprise"?

Johanns said:
“The point is, we see our system as a whole system. This is not about individual pick and choose.”

I guess that answers that question!!! :mad:
This is the cattle industry leadership that NCBA supports...one that sees nothing wrong with limiting individual free-market enterprise!
 

Latest posts

Top