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

Market Based Trading

P

PPRM

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,998
Location
NE Oregon
Sooooooooo,

We're in then out......Japan put us all in the same pot so to speak. I have had my own thoughts for awhile and post periodically.....But I can't help but think....


Right now our approach is to force our solution onto other countries. Sooooo Japan, take our methods and "Educate" your people to like them. What a bureacratic marketing approach.

OK, keep an open mind. Japan tests all beef within Japan. It is culturally what makes sense to them. So, as an entreprenuer, I think to myself, "If I want in this market, I better understand what they want." So, Like Creekstone wanted, I offer to test. I pay for the tests. IF the premiums pay for the tests, I will continue. If not, i'll do something else.

So here's my new thought. If we had said, Japan, we'll let individual companies decide if they want to meet your standards, then wouldn't the performance of the individual companies determine if that companies beef continued to be traded? My suspicion is that the New York companies Beef would have been banned, not the USA's...So, the burden falls onto the company, not to outdatd Inspection methods. The companies that want in would far exceed the USDA minimums. Seen it before in food processing. The high end almost needs no government oversight, They tend to look to more than satisfy rather than meet minimums.

But then, I tend to have a capatalist slant and believe in letting market forces work,

PPRM
 
PPRM said:
Sooooooooo,

We're in then out......Japan put us all in the same pot so to speak. I have had my own thoughts for awhile and post periodically.....But I can't help but think....


Right now our approach is to force our solution onto other countries. Sooooo Japan, take our methods and "Educate" your people to like them. What a bureacratic marketing approach.

OK, keep an open mind. Japan tests all beef within Japan. It is culturally what makes sense to them. So, as an entreprenuer, I think to myself, "If I want in this market, I better understand what they want." So, Like Creekstone wanted, I offer to test. I pay for the tests. IF the premiums pay for the tests, I will continue. If not, i'll do something else.

So here's my new thought. If we had said, Japan, we'll let individual companies decide if they want to meet your standards, then wouldn't the performance of the individual companies determine if that companies beef continued to be traded? My suspicion is that the New York companies Beef would have been banned, not the USA's...So, the burden falls onto the company, not to outdatd Inspection methods. The companies that want in would far exceed the USDA minimums. Seen it before in food processing. The high end almost needs no government oversight, They tend to look to more than satisfy rather than meet minimums.

But then, I tend to have a capatalist slant and believe in letting market forces work,

PPRM
Click to expand...

Sounds like the right approach to me. It just doesn't fit the needs of the current politician paying packers.
 
PPRM said:
Sooooooooo,

We're in then out......Japan put us all in the same pot so to speak. I have had my own thoughts for awhile and post periodically.....But I can't help but think....


Right now our approach is to force our solution onto other countries. Sooooo Japan, take our methods and "Educate" your people to like them. What a bureacratic marketing approach.

OK, keep an open mind. Japan tests all beef within Japan. It is culturally what makes sense to them. So, as an entreprenuer, I think to myself, "If I want in this market, I better understand what they want." So, Like Creekstone wanted, I offer to test. I pay for the tests. IF the premiums pay for the tests, I will continue. If not, i'll do something else.

So here's my new thought. If we had said, Japan, we'll let individual companies decide if they want to meet your standards, then wouldn't the performance of the individual companies determine if that companies beef continued to be traded? My suspicion is that the New York companies Beef would have been banned, not the USA's...So, the burden falls onto the company, not to outdatd Inspection methods. The companies that want in would far exceed the USDA minimums. Seen it before in food processing. The high end almost needs no government oversight, They tend to look to more than satisfy rather than meet minimums.

But then, I tend to have a capatalist slant and believe in letting market forces work,

PPRM
Click to expand...

Will never work PPRM. It's based on common sense, not complicated enough, and not skewed to the major packers.
 
PPRM,

It's really quite simple, you either stand on principle or you sell snake oil.

If the BSE test that would be used would reveal prions in young cattle and was approved by USDA, I'd have no problem with it.

If you are using a BSE test that would not reveal BSE prions in cattle under 24 months of age and are selling beef from cattle under 24 months of age, you are doing nothing but contributing to consumer fraud.

If a BSE test is being used that would not reveal prions, there is no purpose in testing. Consumers believe that "BSE TESTED" means "BSE FREE". If that's not what you are providing by BSE testing, you are participating in consumer fraud.

There is no excuse for fraud. BSE testing cattle under 24 months of age with tests that would not reveal BSE prions in cattle under 24 months of age would never be allowed in the U.S. on cattle under 24 months of age, why should we contribute to the same fraud in Japan?

Either the BSE test is legitimate, or it's not. If it's not then there is no reason to conduct it.



~SH~
 
SH is correct PPRM. You either stand on principle or sell snake oil.

If you truly believe that cattle cannot have BSE under 30 months of age, you set that rule in stone and stand on it.

If you truly believe that 30 months is the correct cut-off point you do not drop your standards and sell beef to other countries below that point. It could possibly send the wrong message to your own consumers.
 
And in fact start incinerating cattle over 30 months to show that you are not selling snake oil.

Prions exist naturally SH. They have a purpose. It is when they become misfolded that problems occur.
 
Consumer Fraud......Interesting, a consumer (Japan) that tends to demand a test and the seller is accused of fraud because he says ok.........I see where as a seller I represent nothing other than the animal either passed or failed a test the consumer asked for. I am not saying we represent anything else.....When I sell Natural Beef, I put no claims on it other than that it is raised ina certain way. Is that fraudulent too?

Fraud???? so are we being fraudulent by testing the animals that we currently test.


I could see your point if I said to the consumer, buy only tested beef because nothing else is safe. But when we have a consumer that says we test all meat, well then, I fail to understand how I am being fraudulent by providing this test......

But again, we get hung up on test or no test.....No comment on my point that it would set up a sysstem where individual companies would tend to be locked out.

I fail to see where staying the course has really yielded great results. a country reluctantly agrees to trade and by all accounts the consumers in that country really feel a bias aginst the product. Sounds like a winning strategy to me....


Fraud, LOL, thanks, I needed a good chuckle,

PPRM
 
I sit here and wonder why my paradigm is so different from some others. i then realize, the majority of my beef is a deal where I meet the end customer face to face. I look them in the eye and dearly want them back. Integrity and trust are paramount in my daily dealings. It is very real to me, not at all abstract....

So I want my customer to trust me. I know it has to be earned and well-guarded....

So comments like, "There's no proof of any danger for beef under 24 months," ring hollow for me. Why??? Well, if it turns out not to be true, I have to look someone in the eye and say, "Well, that was wrong." So what else have I said that is wrong???????

I can'tr even imagine how I'd feel if a friend that bought Beef was to come down with a disease from something i raise. look back at my old post, Pull The Scab. I still stand by it.

Can't label me as a pascker hater either. I sell on the grid and do well. I also in a way am a packer, but more of a toll processor. That means I rent that facilities and labor, although somewhat abstractly.....


I find it best when discussing issues to try to see why a person feels a certain way. Why does Japan feel strongly??? They feel they have found folded Prions in an animal younger than 24 months. This whole BSE deal is fairly new and very subject to popular views as to what is sound science changing......ie, Prime Minister of a country eating a juicy burger and claiming no problems here....

PPRM
 
PPRM said:
I sit here and wonder why my paradigm is so different from some others. i then realize, the majority of my beef is a deal where I meet the end customer face to face. I look them in the eye and dearly want them back. Integrity and trust are paramount in my daily dealings. It is very real to me, not at all abstract....

So I want my customer to trust me. I know it has to be earned and well-guarded....

So comments like, "There's no proof of any danger for beef under 24 months," ring hollow for me. Why??? Well, if it turns out not to be true, I have to look someone in the eye and say, "Well, that was wrong." So what else have I said that is wrong???????

I can'tr even imagine how I'd feel if a friend that bought Beef was to come down with a disease from something i raise. look back at my old post, Pull The Scab. I still stand by it.

Can't label me as a pascker hater either. I sell on the grid and do well. I also in a way am a packer, but more of a toll processor. That means I rent that facilities and labor, although somewhat abstractly.....


I find it best when discussing issues to try to see why a person feels a certain way. Why does Japan feel strongly??? They feel they have found folded Prions in an animal younger than 24 months. This whole BSE deal is fairly new and very subject to popular views as to what is sound science changing......ie, Prime Minister of a country eating a juicy burger and claiming no problems here....

PPRM
Click to expand...

I like your thinking. I think part of what is wrong in this situation is this, we are looking at USA vs Japan instead of a US company vs a Japanese company. Those are two different things.

Our countries may have a right and an obligation to set minimum standards for both import and export. What seems to be happening is that we are trying to set an absolute standard on the country level. No deviation on the individual corporation level allowed to make it more stringent.

Think what we would do if Japan set export standards on a product (quality standards) and then told US companies who were importing the product that they were not allowed to require more stringent standards. We would think Japan is an authoritarian dictatorship. Let the countries set minimum standards. Let the corporations go from there.

The problem with the fiasco that caused Japan to cut us off again was that product shipped did not meet a more rigorous standard.

USDA contradicted their rationale that they imposed on Creekstone and allowed for a requirement that would remove ALL SRM materials from all meat going to Japan regardless of age. (Technically they are not SRM's unless they are a certain age). This abandoned the "sound science" only argument that the USDA used against Creekstone. They are hypocrites. The plant that processed the meat did not know the Japanese requirements and processed according to US standards. The USDA inspector passed it for Japan.
 
PPRM: "Fraud???? so are we being fraudulent by testing the animals that we currently test."
Click to expand...

Apples and Oranges.

We are currently testing older cattle where BSE prions are being revealed if they exist. We are not testing cattle under 24 months of age with a test where prions would not be revealed. The two are not comparable.

Why does Japan believe the way they do? They believe BSE tests will reveal BSE prions. That's why. That was not the case with Creekstone. Creekstone's own Fielding admitted that the tests they were going to use would not have revealed prions in cattle under 24 months. He said and I quote, "bse tested, does not mean bse free".

Well then why test? It's dishonest to capitalize on the ignorance of Japanese consumers for financial gain. Japanese consumers believe BSE TESTED means BSE FREE. That's not the case with the BSE test that Creekstone wanted to use. Testing cattle less than 24 months of age for BSE with tests that will not reveal prions in cattle under 24 months of age is consumer fraud no matter how you want to shake it out.

Again, if the BSE test that Creekstone wanted to use would have revealed bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age, I would have no problem with it providing the test met USDA approval which it should if it actually detected bse prions in cattle under 24 months.

You either stand on principle or you sell snake oil.


~SH~
 
We are currently testing older cattle where BSE prions are being revealed if they exist.
Click to expand...
Are you sure prions are being revealed "if they exist"?
Hint: The IHC missed the Texas cow. It took a better test to reveal the true diagnosis. There was no rapid test approved by the USDA when Creekstone initiated their request to test. The USDA was stuck in the stone age with the IHC "Gold Standard". :lol:
Why does Japan believe the way they do? They believe BSE tests will reveal BSE prions. That's why. That was not the case with Creekstone.
Click to expand...
Japan believes that tests will reveal prions because they can if the proper test is used. Creekstone had their hands tied because the USDA was lagging in keeping up with current technology. Creekstone knew that tests were being used in Europe that were better than the USDA's outdated mode but could only use what was available to them per USDA rules.
That's not the case with the BSE test that Creekstone wanted to use.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what type of test Creekstone wanted to use?

Fraud? What a joke.
 
I think this article answers ~SH~'s objections. There are two different approaches. One is more scientific than the other. The USDA uses one. The rest of the world uses the other.

http://www.competitivemarkets.com/news_and_events/newsletters/2006/jan3SoundScience.htm

US Beef quest for 'sound science'
Producers argue for sound science

Dec 21, 2005 - By Daryll E. Ray

U.S. agricultural and trade negotiators had been pressuring the Japanese to reopen their market which had been closed to U.S. beef since BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or mad cow disease) was first detected in the U.S. herd at the end of 2003.

The U.S. is also in a trade dispute with the EU (European Union) over the EU's restrictions on the importation of GMO (genetically modified organism) crops. In both cases the U.S. has argued that, on the basis of "sound science," both of these trade restrictions ought to be lifted.
On the face of it, it would seem that the U.S. argument is very strong. After all how could and why would one argue against sound science?

For their part the Europeans and the Japanese defend their actions on the basis of the "precautionary principle." The precautionary principle is what our mothers were talking about when they told us that it is better to be safe than sorry.

As long-term readers of this column know, we have written about these issues before. Our analysis of these two trade disagreements has been based on two ideas. The first is couched in economic terms arguing that the "customer is always right." If the Japanese are willing to pay for the BSE testing of every head of beef, the idea that the customer is always right would suggest that we would agree to the testing. Likewise, if the Europeans want non-GMO grain, then U.S. farmers ought to be working to provide them with non-GMO grain.

Our second idea has been to identify why customers might assess the risk of GMO grains differently than the producers. After all, growing GMO crops makes it easier for producers to control weeds and insects. While producers receive the benefits, customers take the risks if at a later time it were to be shown that GMO crops posed some health risk. It makes no difference how low the probability of that event is, the probability is nonzero and therefore important in minds of some customers.

Different view
This past summer we read a paper presented by Priya Om Verma and William R. Freudenberg at the 2005 Rural Sociological Society Annual Meeting that took a different look at the conflict between those advocating for the use of sound science and those advocating for the use of the precautionary principle in decision making. Verma and Freudenberg of the University of California, Santa Barbara argue that "the precautionary principle may be the more scientific of the two approaches."

The core of their analysis reduces the two arguments to their essentials. Those using the sound science as the justification for their policies - pressuring Europeans to buy GMOs or Japanese to purchase U.S. beef - are arguing that something is safe unless it is proven to be hazardous. Thus, declaring something is safe runs the statistical risk that it is not.

Those supporting the precautionary principle are arguing that when there is a potential risk to life and safety, the prudent course of action is to err on the side of caution, risking the chance that one may reject an action or product as unsafe when in fact it may be safe.

Hurricane Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans provide us with a chance to apply these concepts to a situation most of us are familiar with.

Those officials who supported cutting back on levee repairs were arguing that the likelihood of a Category 3 hurricane that would cause a breach in the levees was very small and that the money would be better spent elsewhere. This is the sound science argument which takes the risk assuming the levees will hold when in fact they won't.

Those who were arguing for the levee expenditures and protecting the wetlands surrounding New Orleans were basing their argument on the precautionary principle. As we have seen the sound science argument favors short-term economic gain over the potential of catastrophic long-term costs. In this case we can see that an ounce of prevention would have been worth more than a pound of cure.

Applying argument
Applying this back to the case of GMO sales to the Europeans, the U.S. is arguing in favor of immediate economic gains from increased trade over and against long-term health and/or safety problems that may arise if it were to turn out that GMOs pose a risk that does not show up for 10, 20, or 30 years. Similarly, in the case of the sale of beef to the Japanese, the U.S. is arguing that the extra cost of testing each head of beef sold to the Japanese is unnecessary, given the low chance that any one animal would have BSE. The Japanese are arguing that given the long-term risks - if one imports enough untested beef, sooner or later a BSE positive animal will slip through - the cost of testing is a small price to pay for increased long-term safety.

As Verma and Freudenberg note, statistics teaches us that these two risks are closely related. As one reduces the chance of making a short-term error - rejecting a product as unsafe when it is in fact safe - one increases the chance of making a long-term error. There is a tradeoff between these two types of errors. We cannot have our cake and eat it too.

Their argument that the "precautionary principle may be the more scientific of the two approaches is based on their contention that "the precautionary principle recognizes the reality of scientific unknowns and acknowledges . . . scientific uncertainty." They go on to say, "Under conditions of scientific uncertainty, judging what is an acceptable level of risk for society is an inherently political responsibility . . . These are value-laden processes that reflect differing perspectives regarding what ought to be 'society's' preferences for short-term economic risks versus longer-term risks to health and the environment."


Daryll E. Ray holds the Blasingame Chair of Excellence in Agricultural Policy, Institute of Agriculture, University of Tennessee, and is the director of UT's Agricultural Policy Analysis Center (APAC). (865) 974-7407; Fax: (865) 974-7298; dray@utk.edu; http://www.agpolicy.org. Daryll Ray's column is written with the research and assistance of Harwood D. Schaffer, research associate with APAC.
 
It is funny how Johanns switched back to the company model when a problem was found. He banned the company in NY from shipping to Japan. If you make the policy all or nothing, when you get nothing, you should be held accountable for the policy. Whoever pushed that policy in the USDA and killed the Creekstone deal should be asked to leave office and get what they deserve-----nothing.
 
Sound science or the best available scuence once said the earth is flat. I guess to say anything else was fraud......


So, we are 100% sure we know better than the Japanese Consumer as to what they should want???? Hmmm....Now where does the term ugly American come from????? I wouldn't want to be on record calling them ignorant. They have been dealing with BSE longer than us.

This is more about tolerance to risk than absolute right or wrong. The Japanese tend to want to be more thorough. We can trade or not trade, but it is up to them as to how they buy it,


PPRM
 
The cost of testing is a small price to pay for increased long-term safety.*******TESTING has value when the tests follow the product and the product record can be accessed when needed.

Whoever pushed that policy in the USDA and killed the Creekstone deal should be asked to leave office and get what they deserve-----nothing.***** No Guessing here as the Mouth peices spoke often and loud and threw caution to the wind.

For their part the Europeans and the Japanese defend their actions on the basis of the "precautionary principle." The precautionary principle is what our mothers were talking about when they told us that it is better to be safe than sorry. ******When other problems happened in the world like Foot and Mouth and Avian Flu,Sars,BSEand the likes, those precautionary principle's also included the records that made it possible to deciede if THAT product was safe or not ,according to mother. Remember COOL and recordkeeping when those mouth pieces said it would cost TOO MUCH.

Those supporting the precautionary principle are arguing that when there is a potential risk to life and safety, the prudent course of action is to err on the side of caution, risking the chance that one may reject an action or product as unsafe when in fact it may be safe. *******How are you going to tell if something is safe if their is not a record as per the each item,unless you throw caution to the wind and lump everything into one basket.The Japanese were not interested in one LUMP as the mouth pieces of the Beef industry were telling us but were interested in specific details like BSE tests from Creekstone and which animal was tested so that they could get more value and safety.This is why ScoringAg has a large following internationally as the records follow the product and the consumer has the feeling of life and safety is increased beyond the idea of sound science and a governments mouth piece .The Customer has a right to question and demand nomatter his status.
 
I've tried to find the answer to this question before, but never came up with a definite. How much does it cost to test an animal for BSE? And how much more lab space would we need to test every single animal thats slaughtered in the US and Canada?

Not trying to argue with you PPRM, as I agree with much of what you say, but I do wonder what the financial realities are, as the producers would be the ones footing the bill. Perhaps it would be cheaper to educate the consumer that SRMs are removed from the meat before it ever hits store shelves? That whether an animal is positive or negative, it matters not to the end consumer?

I do understand what SH is saying as well. If our current tests don't reveal BSE in UTMs, then the consumer is only getting BSE Tested meat, which doesn't mean a whole bunch, since the test wouldn't reveal the BSE anyway. I think we'd have to educate the consumer on that, in the interest of full disclosure. If we didn't do that, I'd consider it somewhat misleading (fraud I'd say is a little strong).

Rod
 
Rod,

If you read my past posts, you will find that I feel the Premiums will either pay for the testing or the market will dissappear. I didn't want to be redundant, so left that out of this thread.

I am not saying test all meat. I am saying test for those markets that ask for it. Heck, the market can even choose which guidelines it wants. One of the benefits is the market would be paying for increased survellience and we would have a better handle on this. Another benefit is that it could very well open up the market to trading beef from cattle over 30 months of age.

I have been in sales of both my meet and other products for awhile. i can tell you it is always more succcessful to tr to give people what they ask for. An example might be marbled beef. As an industry, a lot of testing has shown better flavor and more consistent tenderness as marbling goes up. a bad mistake would be to force the entire marketinto buying Prime. A lot of people out there actually like a leaner grade,


PPRM
 
Sorry PPRM, when we switched to discussing the Japanese market, I thought maybe gears had been switched to testing all beef.

I see no reason why consumers shouldn't be offered the choice as long as they understand that BSE tested doesn't necessarily mean BSE free. What I'm saying is that just because our current tests don't reveal BSE in UTMs doesn't mean it isn't there. Perhaps the BSE is in a different form, and the test simply doesn't work. No-one seems to know right now.

I really am curious what it costs to test an animal, and how much more lab space would be needed to test every animal in the US and Canada.

Rod
 
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sorry PPRM, when we switched to discussing the Japanese market, I thought maybe gears had been switched to testing all beef.

I see no reason why consumers shouldn't be offered the choice as long as they understand that BSE tested doesn't necessarily mean BSE free. What I'm saying is that just because our current tests don't reveal BSE in UTMs doesn't mean it isn't there. Perhaps the BSE is in a different form, and the test simply doesn't work. No-one seems to know right now.

I really am curious what it costs to test an animal, and how much more lab space would be needed to test every animal in the US and Canada.

Rod
Click to expand...

Everything I've seen is $20, give or take a few bucks.
 


Write your reply...

Latest posts

Back
Top