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

Korean, U.S. Negotiators Find No Common Beef Import Grounds

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
By Richard Smith

Despite dissent from some of its own internal agencies, the South Korean government has refused U.S. demands to import all beef, whether boneless or not.

U.S. negotiators' argument the meat is safe to eat, as bone fragments do not contain BSE-causing materials, failed to move their South Korean counterparts. The two sides held talks February 7 and 8 at South Korea's National Veterinary Research and Quarantine Service in Anyang.

The U.S. took an uncompromising stance, refusing the South Korean offer to soften quarantine rules on U.S. beef imports. Seoul proposed to send back only boxes of the meat that contain bone fragments.

A U.S. counter-proposal calling on South Korea to adopt a sample testing regime met with refusal as well.

The U.S. negotiators for the two-day beef talks in Seoul included USDA deputy undersecretary Chuck Lambert, and Cathleen Enright, deputy assistant U.S. trade representative.

The discovery of bone fragments by South Korean quarantine officials prompted Seoul to reject U.S. beef imports three times since September, when it lifted a December 2003 ban on the meat because of BSE. U.S. beef imports resumed on condition the meat be boneless.

The rejected beef came from Creekstone Farms of Arkansas City, Kansas; Pacific Processors of Des Moines, Iowa; and Premium Protein Products of Hastings, Nebraska.

Some foreign newspapers had quoted Lambert as saying some bone fragments were planted in shipments of U.S. beef sent to Korea, the English-language daily The Korea Times of Seoul reported February 8.

Media in South Korea reported the country's ministry of agriculture and forestry said the import of U.S. beef is a separate issue from free trade agreement talks.

This indicates the country will not import beef with bone fragments in the future regardless of the trade negotiations, the Korea Times said February 9.

At a February 8 news briefing, Sang-Ghil Lee, an MAF director general, said, “The dispute over beef cannot be resolved in connection with the FTA negotiations," the Korea Times reported.

Lee said the U.S. also demanded that South Korea conduct only sample tests on U.S. beef shipments. Companies from the two countries that buy and sell the beef would work out their own commercial arrangements that would set standards and penalties if bone fragments are found.

"But we clarified that there is a possibility that backbones containing specified risk materials could reach the market if we stop inspecting all products," Lee said, according to the Korea Times.

Therefore, "our position on maintaining zero tolerance in terms of not allowing any bones or bone fragments into the country remains unchanged, and we've explained this to our counterparts," he said.

Yonhap reported that Lee termed the proposal unacceptable to South Korea, as it could hurt the country's sovereign right to carry out quarantine inspections it believes to be necessary.

South Korean negotiators also asked why dioxin was detected in the beef from Premium Protein Products, the Korea Times reported February 8.

The number of rule violations on the handling of SRMs, including improper removal, among U.S. slaughterhouses and meat processors totaled 276 between 2004 and 2005, the newspaper said the following day.

The newspaper said the U.S. and South Korea had hoped for an agreement in the beef talks to assist them in the seventh round of FTA talks, scheduled in Washington from Feb. 11 to 14.

The U.S. has continued to say that South Korea's full opening of the beef market is a prerequisite for a successful conclusion of the free trade talks. But the two countries still being poles apart on beef will likely have a negative effect on the Washington negotiations, the newspaper said.

The newspaper said relevant South Korean ministries have also failed to reach a consensus on U.S. beef imports. Both the ministry of foreign affairs and trade, and the ministry of finance and economy, have expressed dissatisfaction about MAF policies.
 
Top