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

More Beef to Japan!

Help Support Ranchers.net:

M

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Premium Protein Products, Omaha, NE, makes deal with largest Japanese retailer, Aeon Co. according to Aeon spokesman.

Story is on www.Meatingplace.com News Page, date 4/28/'08.

Aeon says it will exclusively carry beef produced by Premium Protein Products. This company has a history of good trade relationships with Aeon. AND the low US dollar makes this deal attractive to Aeon.

CAN IT BE? Maybe this Japanese ban on our beef IS about more than simply beef safety!!!! A good company using good business practices has to be big part of the success of this deal, too.

Congratulations toPremium Protein Products (and the cattle feeders who supply them) on their patience, attention to detail, and sound business practices which surely all contributed to this achievment! Premium has a 500 head per day slaughter facility at Hastings, NE.

mrj
 
mrj said:
Premium Protein Products, Omaha, NE, makes deal with largest Japanese retailer, Aeon Co. according to Aeon spokesman.

Story is on www.Meatingplace.com News Page, date 4/28/'08.

Aeon says it will exclusively carry beef produced by Premium Protein Products. This company has a history of good trade relationships with Aeon. AND the low US dollar makes this deal attractive to Aeon.

CAN IT BE? Maybe this Japanese ban on our beef IS about more than simply beef safety!!!! A good company using good business practices has to be big part of the success of this deal, too.

Congratulations toPremium Protein Products (and the cattle feeders who supply them) on their patience, attention to detail, and sound business practices which surely all contributed to this achievment! Premium has a 500 head per day slaughter facility at Hastings, NE.

mrj
Click to expand...

We've left over 5 Billion on the table that we'll NEVER make up, the border has been open for nearly 2 years and we're still not close to where we were, and you're offering congratulations?

Congratulations, NCBA, we sure appreciate all those dollars that we didn't make..... Doing a hell of a job..... If this is one of those "NCBA successes" you talk about, you really need to raise your standards a bit.
 
Unfortunately, that is the way it is in marketing everywhere you look. My wife picked up some beer, I think it was Michelobe Ultra, because it bragged on having very few carbs - they didn't say that it tasted like soda water with a TSP of beer flavoring. Pickup manufacturers brag on the horsepower without telling you they get 10 mpg, Oscar Meyer tells you kids love their bologna but they don't tell you exactly what goes into it, etc... That's just the way it is and I think people probably don't think about it, but they understand it.
Click to expand...

I guess some countries caught on! Maybe you'll see that somewhere along the line the US has lost some integrity, when you have certain groups, wtih vested interest, attacking the very product they are selling/marketing.

I say mark it to Country of origin, the cream will rise to the top.
 
First, did you see "NCBA" mentioned ANYWHERE in either what I wrote, or in the stories about this sale?

I have no idea if NCBA was involved or not.

THere is absolutely no way NCBA is blameworthy in loss of export markets due to BSE fears AND politics in some of the countries failing to accept US produced beef.

Furthermore, NCBA has worked long and hard to show other nations that the best science available today shows that US beef is safe to eat and that there is no real reason they should not accept US beef.......with some successes.

What, specifically has R-CALF done to increase US beef exports? Apparently, just about the same as they have done to increase US Consumers' confidence in our beef.........posted ads claiming there is great risk in buying beef in the USA because we don't label it as to country of origin, while they fight adamantly against any real trace-back to farm/ranch of origin!!!!

mrj
 
MRJ, "THere is absolutely no way NCBA is blameworthy in loss of export markets due to BSE fears AND politics in some of the countries failing to accept US produced beef."

NCBA backed the policy that prevented us from tapping into that market shortly after it closed. If they truly supported cattlemen, their position AGAINST it might of prevented it from happening and that market would of been open much sooner and we wouldn't of had the BILLIONS IN LOST SALES that we did.

MRJ, "Furthermore, NCBA has worked long and hard to show other nations that the best science available today shows that US beef is safe to eat and that there is no real reason they should not accept US beef.......with some successes. "

NCBA doesn't understand that "best science available" is not a selling tool that carries much weight with consumers. How much weighting to you assign to "best science available" when making your food buying decisions?

MRJ, "What, specifically has R-CALF done to increase US beef exports?"

They've backed the common sense and proven business plan of giving the customer what they want as opposed to NCBA/USDA/AMI plan of forcing people to buy what you want to sell.

Apparently, just about the same as they have done to increase US Consumers' confidence in our beef.........posted ads claiming there is great risk in buying beef in the USA because we don't label it as to country of origin, while they fight adamantly against any real trace-back to farm/ranch of origin!!!!

You don't need traceback to farm/ranch to make COOL work, and that information has no value at all to 99% of the beef buying public, anyway.
We can track every flippin bovine and box of beef to country of origin THIS VERY DAY and some of you just can't figure that out.
 
THere is absolutely no way NCBA is blameworthy in loss of export markets due to BSE fears AND politics in some of the countries failing to accept US produced beef.
Click to expand...

Oh hell yes they are. By going to bat for the big multinational packers and the USDA white wash that testing for export is uneeded sewed that deal up.

The Kansas State Research showed a net gain in BSE testing for export for producers. Remember?
 
Company offers to test all cattle coming into Japanese market

Jun 30 2005

CBC News

Canada



A Japanese company is offering to pay the cost of testing every cow
processed and shipped to Japan for mad cow disease.



Japan closed its border to Canadian beef in May 2003, when the first case of
BSE in a Canadian-born cow was confirmed. The country, which has had a
number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases of its own, tests all
cattle destined to be eaten by humans.



Before allowing trade with Canada to resume, Japan wanted a promise that
each animal shipped over would have been tested. Canada has refused, arguing
that that's not scientifically necessary.



The Canadian government's position is that testing should be done for
scientific reasons and not market access.



Itoham Foods, which processes and sells beef in Japan, says it will pay
those testing costs in order to get Canadian beef back into the market.



The Canada Beef Export Federation supports individual animal testing, if
that's what the specific customer wants.



"One processor in Canada has actually applied for permission to undertake
BSE testing for market access, for the purpose of selling to Japan,
including selling to Itoham," Ted Haney, the federation's president, said.



"Other processors, for concern about relative cost and the potential for
negative effect on consumer confidence in Canada, have not been receptive to
this kind of offer."



Itoham can't pay for the testing without the approval of both the Canadian
and Japanese governments.



Itoham made a similar offer to test U.S. cattle earlier this year, but were
turned down.



The U.S. confirmed its first case of BSE in a U.S.-born cow last week. The
first case of mad cow found in the United States, in Washington state in
December 2003, was traced back to Canada. That dairy cow had been born near
Leduc.



* FROM JUNE 24, 2005: U.S. confirms mad cow case



The U.S. shut its border to Canadian beef and cattle on May 20, 2003, when
the first case of the disease in a Canadian-born animal was confirmed. While
the U.S. resumed some shipments of beef that August, the border has remained
closed to live cattle.



The U.S. Department of Agriculture had planned to reopen the border to
cattle under the age of 30 months on March 7, but R-CALF, a group of
American ranchers, won an injunction against the move, arguing Canada
doesn't adequately test for BSE.



Two other animals have tested positive in Canada since May 2003.



Federal Judge Richard Cebull, who agreed to the injunction on March 2, has
set a July 27 date for trial on R-CALF's concerns with the USDA. The USDA is
appealing Cebull's injunction decision, which will be heard July 13.





calgary

 
Theories are cheap, boys!

Sandhusker, didn't you know that "might of" is a very elusive thing to prove???

But of course! You don't concern yourself with facts and realities when you are bashing NCBA.

Remember, NCBA is not some mysterious maker of decisions, but the cumulative judgement of many thousands of members from across the entire USA with something over 60% being cow calf producers. The mere fact that so many cattle producers from varied types and sizes of cattle businesses disagree with most of your judgement calls for the cattle industry surely seems to upset you. Maybe you should consider that YOU could be wrong!

That CERTAINLY is the case in your insistence that NCBA doesn't give the consumer the beef products they want. That is the most reverse of the facts of anything you have said. I do believe you have outdone yourself!

There are few producer organizations that have interacted more with consmers, and sought their opinions than has NCBA and predecessor organizations. And, yes, I'm including work of the CBB here because we would not have that organization had not NCBA carried the ball and got it formed.

Give us a break! R_CALF still "sells cattle, not beef"! Where is the "business plan" giving consumers what they want.....is that what those infamous ads warning consumers they might get "the human form of mad cow disease" were supposed to be??? And just how can NCBA or anyone else without police powers "force" people to buy beef, or anything else, for that matter???

BTW, there are stories in nearly every publication where consumers are saying they want to know "WHERE food comes from", not "which country" it is from.

You do seem to be losing your grip on reality. Maybe you need more rest.

mrj
 
BTW, there are stories in nearly every publication where consumers are saying they want to know "WHERE food comes from", not "which country" it is from.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, MRJ, but I don't believe for one minute that consumers are worried about whether there food came from Indiana or Wyoming, but I do believe they are worried about whether that food came from the United States or Great Britain.

But then, since when has your group EVER worried about the consumer's right to know. :oops:
 
MRJ, "That CERTAINLY is the case in your insistence that NCBA doesn't give the consumer the beef products they want. That is the most reverse of the facts of anything you have said. I do believe you have outdone yourself! "


What about those consumers in Japan and Korea that want tested beef (the same ones who are eating Australian Beef now)? NCBA told them them no.

What about the US beef producers who want to sell tested beef to Japan? Why does NCBA stand in the way of private enterprise and US producers trying to serve a niche market?
 
mrj, where is NCBA/CBB's response to...
AICR's landmark report, Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective concluded that the scientific evidence linking red meat (beef, pork and lamb) to colorectal cancer
Click to expand...
In "the cumulative judgement of many thousands of members from across the entire USA with something over 60% being cow calf producers" is this not worthy of responding too?????????
Or is there a conflict with NCBA's beef packer partners because they make more money selling poultry???????
 
BTW, there are stories in nearly every publication where consumers are saying they want to know "WHERE food comes from", not "which country" it is from. MRJ Quote;

www.ScoringAg.com gives customers the knowledge of "WHERE food comes from", in 2 seconds or as fast as your internet conection works.MRJ
 
BTW, Porker, you never have answered my question about Scoring Ag controlling or having a monopoly on the technology to do that!

True, or not? Are they they only company that can legally do that, or even the only one that IS doing it. And who monitors Scoring Ag to assure they remain 'pristine' in their conduct of business?

I don't intend those questions as antagonistic, but simply addressing issues I believe need to be addressed regarding any company doing business resulting in consumers having complete confidence in the products so labelled.

That said, I believe Scoring Ag may have the type of system needed to truly achieve viable COOL (if that law were adequate to do what it proposes) and/or to complement NAIS.

mrj
 
RobertMac, quickly checking one of NCBA's sites, www.beef.org/cancer.aspx, I found that there have been several news stories and there are many links listed for information countering or refuting some of the "food scare groups" claims AND presenting the facts about nutrients in beef.

The fact is, that going out throwing tantrums in public news releases (and drawing more attention to the problem) is not in the best interest of the cattle producer. We as having a vested interest and being out for the money, no matter how wrong that is.

Putting the results of credible research with different results into the hands of third party spokespeople is far more effective. You have no idea where and who those sources are, or which favorable or less inflammatory stories are sourced from NCBA, or any other cattle industry group, for that matter. Cattle groups would be seen as biased and even greedy by some, or even attacked for it by perpetrators of false claims about beef.

Further, much of the work the CBB and/or NCBA does to counter such adverse and irresponsible publicity is with the medical and nutrition professionals and does not get much publicity.

The area of the site showing consumers how to make recommended increases of leafy and other veggies and the fruits more palatable and nutritious by combining beef entrees or snacks with them is another way the Beef Checkoff works within government mandates for nutrition to promote beef.

IMO, it is far more productive for the cattle/beef industry to use our checkoff to partner with the Food Pyramid/official nutrition people in government to get our beef accurately and prominently recommended than it would be to attack them for not recommending that consumers can eat all the beef and animal fats available to them as some in your camp seem to advocate doing.

Hammering on the fact that most people actually consume far LESS than the recommended amount of beef and that the naturally occuring fats in beef are necessary to cognitive development in children, (just one of the vitally important things done with Checkoff $$$) gets us much further than throwing bricks at government and medical nutrition experts.

Past slow progress in getting beef nutrition accepted is testament only to the lack of money available for getting our story out.....and the mountains of money anti-animal people have working against us.

mrj
 
mrj said:
First, did you see "NCBA" mentioned ANYWHERE in either what I wrote, or in the stories about this sale?

I have no idea if NCBA was involved or not.

THere is absolutely no way NCBA is blameworthy in loss of export markets due to BSE fears AND politics in some of the countries failing to accept US produced beef.

Furthermore, NCBA has worked long and hard to show other nations that the best science available today shows that US beef is safe to eat and that there is no real reason they should not accept US beef.......with some successes.

What, specifically has R-CALF done to increase US beef exports? Apparently, just about the same as they have done to increase US Consumers' confidence in our beef.........posted ads claiming there is great risk in buying beef in the USA because we don't label it as to country of origin, while they fight adamantly against any real trace-back to farm/ranch of origin!!!!

mrj
Click to expand...

I couldn't/wouldn't take time to read this entire thread....

mrj, thanks for this post about a company paying attention to detail and the desires of thier customer.....I think too often people get in a rut of how things would be better if only someone else did or was doing something differently...

I feel there are too many "Sound Good/Bandaid answers" tossed out there. My personal opinion is Country of Origin is worthless if other protocals do not ensure a good eating experience... Heck, we went beyind that and do "Ranch of Origin" labeling...I have not needed to get any legislation passed nor bother my cattlemans organization to lobbby for this, LOL...

Anyways, I enjoy seeing the success of others as well, so thanks again mrj,

PPRM
 
Thanks for your positive comments, PPRM. There's folks who point fingers and say "someone should do something" about problems, and there's folks who just go ahead and do something themselves! Congratulations for being one of the latter.

Mike and Sandhusker, NCBA, USDA, and apparently the Canadian government as well, are standing on the side of SCIENCE.....that word you hate to consider, especially when you think your COOL law, flawed though it is, would be cheaper and less trouble to you....even though far less trustworthy.

"The best science available" SHOULD NOT be a "selling tool" and certainly when animal health or human health is in question, science definitely SHOULD be the premium consideration for decisions.........otherwise why wouldn't we just forget about safety inspection, stopping e Coli, Salmonella, ad infinitum?????

So far as your bogus claim of "proven business plan...."NCBA has sponsored many consumer/producer workshops to ask the consumers what they like and don't like about beef, and have spent many years helping them to learn proper cooking methods, better ways to prepare beef, and more! Check out the websites for consumers at www.beefboard.org if you are interested in learning what is really being done in the partnerships between CBB, NCBA (BOTH divisions!), and CattleWomen.

FYI chief, there ARE some, in fact a considerable number, of consumers who say they DO want to know, not only which state, but the RANCH of origin! And they are putting their money where their mouths are, buying from people like you, RobertMac......and doing so WITHOUT your precious, costly, but absolutely worthless COOL!!!!

mrj
 
MRJ, "Mike and Sandhusker, NCBA, USDA, and apparently the Canadian government as well, are standing on the side of SCIENCE.....that word you hate to consider, especially when you think your COOL law, flawed though it is, would be cheaper and less trouble to you....even though far less trustworthy. "

Maxine, how much weighting do you give to science when you do your grocery shopping?
 
mrj said:
"The best science available" SHOULD NOT be a "selling tool" and certainly when animal health or human health is in question, science definitely SHOULD be the premium consideration for decisions..
Click to expand...
"Best science available" has been accepted for over thirty years that saturated animal fats contribute to heart disease. With the NCBA/CBB ad campaign promoting the consumer eat LEAN BEEF, we give credibility to our adversaries and have let them define our product as a health risk. When a new study, like this cancer study, is published, our detractors will point to the beef industry succumbing to the "best science available" on saturated fats as evidence that it will only be a matter of time before the beef industry admits that beef is also a factor in causing cancer. This battle will be won or lost IN THE PUBLIC EYE, not behind closed doors. Each attack on our product has to be met with a counter that presents the FACTS. My disagreement is not that NCBA/CBB doesn't have the facts(and the integrity to present them accurately and convincingly), but that they aren't doing it aggressively and in the public eye.

In 1985, the beef industry had over one million producers...today we have about 750,000. NCBA/CBB has lost one fourth of their constituents...shouldn't that be a concern? Over that same time, beef has lost market share in the protein market...shouldn't that be a concern? Isn't it time to, at least, discuss a change in tactics??????

I believe in the complete healthiness of the product I raise and sell it confidently to my customers. I'm sure you and your family do an outstanding job of raising your cattle and that a large percent of your calves finish at the industry recognized high quality of high choice and prime. Does it concern you that NCBA/CBB advertise against the beef you produce and imply it increases the chances of heart disease??????
 

Latest posts

Top