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

NO DEAL

Mike

Well-known member
22 May 2006
U.S., Japan Fail To Reach Final Agreement on Reopening Beef Trade

Japan accepts results of U.S. audit at talks; timeline for action needed

By Susan Krause
Washington File Staff Writer

Washington -- Negotiators from the United States and Japan ended two-and-a half days of talks in Tokyo May 19 without reaching final agreement on conditions for the restoration of U.S. exports of beef and beef products to Japan, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Chuck Lambert, USDA's acting under secretary for agriculture, marketing and regulatory programs, met with reporters following the talks. He said the Japanese government accepted an in-depth audit report prepared by the U.S. government, but the two sides did not establish a timeline for resolving the trade impasse, which has continued for four months.

The U.S. report included results of a review of 25 U.S. meat-processing plants that shipped beef products to Japan between December 12, 2005 -- when Japan partially lifted a two-year ban on imports of U.S. beef -- and January 19, 2006, when Japan reinstated that ban. The report also included an audit of the 35 plants that are eligible to export to Japan under a USDA-administered Export Verification Program.

Japan first banned imports of U.S. beef in December 2003, when a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or "mad cow" disease) was discovered in the United States. After intensive discussions, Japan partially lifted that ban in December 2005, agreeing to accept imports of U.S. beef and beef products from cattle less than 20 months of age. But it restored the ban after finding bone fragments in a shipment of veal one month later. (See related article.)

Lambert said the auditors had verified that the processing plants were implementing rules properly, including new measures imposed by Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns after the January incident. (See related article.)

"The result of those audits has shown that all product that was produced conformed to the requirements of Japan, and that the plants knew and understand and were meeting the requirements of the market for Japan," he said.

Some minor "procedural" issues must be corrected before the two sides can move forward, according to Lambert. He said he expected these problems to be resolved before the end of May.

"We have a pathway," he said. "The government of Japan will sort out its thoughts; they will conduct additional risk communication and get feedback from the public, and then a final agreement as to when and timing and extent of audits that will follow will take place."

The United States has proposed that Japan lift its suspension of the 35 plants, allowing all to resume shipments at the same time, with the end of June the preferred target date, Lambert said.

Japanese officials expressed doubt that the matter could be resolved so quickly, the acting under secretary said.

Lambert said the United States has done its part to resolve the matter, conducting a full investigation as soon as it became aware of the problem with the veal shipment, preparing a 475-page report, and making officials available to the government of Japan to respond to any additional questions. (See related article.)

"We have asked the Japanese government to move forward in an expedited fashion so that we can lift the suspension and resume trade," Lambert said.

He emphasized that the United States has implemented protective measures that far exceed international standards, such as those recommended by the World Animal Health Organization, in order to export to Japan.

"We have a saying in the U.S. that, 'where there's a will, there's a way,'" he said. "We stand ready to work with our counterparts in Japan to help facilitate those audits so that trade can resume in a timely fashion."

For additional information on U.S. policy, see Trade and Economics and East Asia and the Pacific.

A transcript of the acting under secretary's press conference and the text of the audit report are available at the USDA Web site.

(The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
xml
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Maple Leaf Angus said:
I guess the point I was making went right over your head, eh, Sandhusker? I'm so soryy, I thought you might actually get it.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

I got it, MLA. I just couldn't believe you would use an effective feed ban to try to make your point.

You must be using Tam and SH's dictionary to define "effective".
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag,

Did the article mention that Japan was demanding only bse tested beef? I might have missed it.


~SH~
 

Murgen

Well-known member
I think they are asking for (implicitly) some transparency and internal confidence!

It's hard to have confidence in a product when the producers of that product don't have confidence in it. aka "the voice of the cattleman"
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandbag,

Did the article mention that Japan was demanding only bse tested beef? I might have missed it.


~SH~

They were demanding tested beef for over two years, and you missed that too. In fact, you were quite vocal that they were not asking for tested beef.

Since you've already prooved yourself a fool regarding Japan and testing, I suggest you go dig a gopher mound or something else within your capacity.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Murgen said:
I think they are asking for (implicitly) some transparency and internal confidence!

It's hard to have confidence in a product when the producers of that product don't have confidence in it. aka "the voice of the cattleman"

I think it is harder to be confident when you got it wrong before, Murgen, and rely on similar methods of "confidence". "Confidence" doesn't change reality. It just changes your chances of being credible later.
 

Tam

Well-known member
"The result of those audits has shown that all product that was produced conformed to the requirements of Japan, and that the plants knew and understand and were meeting the requirements of the market for Japan,"
What I would like to know is, if this audit was done before or after the addition shipments that contained bone were shipped to Hong Kong. Just maybe Japan isn't trusting of the US plant Processing after multiple shipments containing bone were allowed out of the US. No matter how you spin this the Veal shipment was NOT an isolated case and the world knows it.

And Sandhusker read all the definitions don't just pick out the words that suit your argument Maintain meaning #5 to support by aid, influence, protection #6 to support by providing means of existance; bear the expence of as in he can't maintain his family.

The US beef industry can't maintain or support something you don't have.

The way you read definitions I can read effective to mean producing a desired result, .
Our feed ban was to stop the spread and since we don't have 1000's of cases of BSE like the UK or the EU did or even 25 cases like Japan I think we did produce the desired result. Did it stop all cases maybe not but do we know that these post feed ban cases aren't caused from something else. What about the enviromental theories and the Spontaneous theories could these not be some of those cases? What about the fact that no matter how tight the restrictions are some people will find a way around them or mistakes happen and these animals could have innocently got into the wrong feed. I'll aLmost bet that will be the explanation we will get when the US finds a post feed ban case. But But Our feed ban was effective. Honestly this was a spontaneous case. You can trust us we have maintained the world high standards when it comes to an effective feed ban. (if you don't look at our little loopholes). :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Tam, "And Sandhusker read all the definitions don't just pick out the words that suit your argument Maintain meaning #5 to support by aid, influence, protection #6 to support by providing means of existance; bear the expence of as in he can't maintain his family"

Aren't you picking out the definition that suits your arguement? I'm just saying there is a common definition of the word that makes perfect sense in the context Leo used it. You're having a hard time accepting that there is a definition that throws water on you trying to make something of Leo's comments that isn't there. I'll send Leo an email letting him know that from now on, he needs to clarify which definition of his words that he is using as there are folks who simply refuse to take a statement as it was intended, but would rather try manufacture a whole different meaning.

When is the Tam/SH family reunion this year?
I can't believe we now have to debate how to use a dictionary now.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
I think it is harder to be confident when you got it wrong before, Murgen, and rely on similar methods of "confidence". "Confidence" doesn't change reality. It just changes your chances of being credible later.

Are you talking testing methods?

So what's the difference with Canadian beef? Is it the confidence, credibility or methods. The Japanese seem to find our system credible!

I wonder if Japan would be taking Canadian beef if there was a domestic producer org. questioning it's safety?

They're probably much like a consumer that hears one competitor badmouthing another, they wonder what the badmouther has to hide!
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Murgen said:
I think it is harder to be confident when you got it wrong before, Murgen, and rely on similar methods of "confidence". "Confidence" doesn't change reality. It just changes your chances of being credible later.

Are you talking testing methods?

So what's the difference with Canadian beef? Is it the confidence, credibility or methods. The Japanese seem to find our system credible!

I wonder if Japan would be taking Canadian beef if there was a domestic producer org. questioning it's safety?

They're probably much like a consumer that hears one competitor badmouthing another, they wonder what the badmouther has to hide!

It isn't about what rcalf or anyone else does or doesn't do. It is what the packers want in each country that will happen.

Murgen, you are still in level I.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
We don't have a Creeksone in Canada, and we're not testing every animal.

We use our CCIA tags to verify age. That is all it takes to ship beef to Japan.

No elaborate bone aging, testing etc. Just a birth date, verified by CCIA.

And the packers are paying for the age verification. All be it not enough, but it covers the cost of the tag and a little bit of labour.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Murgen said:
We don't have a Creeksone in Canada, and we're not testing every animal.

We use our CCIA tags to verify age. That is all it takes to ship beef to Japan.

No elaborate bone aging, testing etc. Just a birth date, verified by CCIA.

And the packers are paying for the age verification. All be it not enough, but it covers the cost of the tag and a little bit of labour.

So by your reasoning everyone must follow the leader that the packers set for Canada in order to sell to Japan?

My you are used to being led around.

Does Australia do what Canada does? They are the main exporters to Japan. Tell me again, Canada has how much of the trade with Japan compared to Australia?
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Yes Australia does!

Like I said, all it takes is a National tagging system, no testing required!

And maybe a lack of a producer group that:

questions the safety of the product, speaks out against National ID

In these respects, Australia and Canada are very much alike!

What is the difference in Canadian and US beef at present ECON?

Same packers, same negligence of Governments and Associations that are packer bought!

So, what is the difference. Why is Canada shipping to Japan?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Murgen said:
Yes Australia does!

Like I said, all it takes is a National tagging system, no testing required!

And maybe a lack of a producer group that:

questions the safety of the product, speaks out against National ID

In these respects, Australia and Canada are very much alike!

What is the difference in Canadian and US beef at present ECON?

Same packers, same negligence of Governments and Associations that are packer bought!

So, what is the difference. Why is Canada shipping to Japan?

Australia will also test on demand. The USDA stopped that from happening with Creekstone. Do the Japanese feel they are trying to hide something? You know the answer to that.

The packers are using a difference in national policies to advantage their favorite packing companies with trade with Japan. Too bad Creekstone wasn't one of them.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mike has posted a document that showed the Japanese were asking Veneman for testing. It didn't mention ID. That doesn't mean they wouldn't of accepted ID beef in lei of testing had the USDA counter offered as such, but it certainly suggests tested beef would of opened the door.
 
Top