OOPS!!! Taiwan Too?

[Mike]

Lawmakers slam DOH, calls for halt in U.S. beef imports
By Jenny W. Hsu

Lawmakers across party lines lambasted the Department of Health on Tuesday for allowing the continued import of American beef when a third case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, was confirmed by the United States Department of Agriculture on Monday.

Despite the USDA's assurance that the 10-year-old sick cow from Alabama did not enter the food chain for human consumption, Taiwan Solidarity Union Lawmaker Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛) blasted the DOH for "jeopardizing the health of the public" by refusing to halt U.S. beef import at once.

"We demand that the government stop all U.S. beef imports and pull all U.S. beef off the shelves immediately," Lai said.

"The decision to lift the ban on American beef was a purely political move of the ruling party to court the U.S. government," she said disapprovingly, adding that the DOH is "blatantly arrogant" for lifting the ban without the consent of the Legislative Yuan less than three months ago.

Taiwan banned all U.S. beef, live cattle, and all beef-related products in December 2003 and April 2005 when separate cases of BSE were confirmed in the U.S. However, the ban was suspended for the third time in January when the DOH announced the policy reversal on its Web site.

Kuomintang Lawmaker Lai Shyh-bao (賴士葆) accused the government of cowering to the U.S. government in exchange for what he calls an "admission ticket to the U.S." for President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) upcoming visit in May.

Calling the DOH "ridiculous," Lai asked, "why put the health of 23 million people in grave danger just so Chen can go to the U.S.?"

KMT Legislator Joanna Lei demanded that DOH Minister Hou Sheng-mou be held accountable for allowing the re-entry of the meat to Taiwan.

"By blindly vouching for the safety of the beef, Hou is endangering the welfare of the public," said Lai while pointing out that DOH only has five inspectors to test the 72 million kilograms of imported U.S. beef per year.

Furthermore, said Lei, the USDA tests only 0.679 percent of their cattle each year.

According to the USDA Web site, since the first case of BSE in 2003, testing for the disease increased from about 55 to 1,000 daily. However, as of Monday, only 652,697 of the U.S.' 95 million heads of cattle had been tested.

USDA's National Agricultural Statistic Service reported that 2.6 million heads of cattle were commercially slaughtered in January 2006 alone.

In a study conducted by Giannini Foundation of Agriculture at the University of California in 2002, 35.74 million heads of cattle were slaughtered but only 0.06 percent of the animals were tested for the disease in the U.S. The number was by far the lowest compared to other BSE-affected countries such as the United Kingdom, which had a 15.5 percent test rate.

The legislators have filed for an injunction with the High Administrative Court to re-impose a ban all U.S. beef and related products on Tuesday.

To refute the legislator's criticisms, Deputy Director of Food Safety Department Hsiao Tung-ming (蕭東銘) said the health body has asked the U.S. to provide more information on its latest case to evaluate a possible ban on U.S. beef.

Claiming the sick cow was a "random sporadic" case, Hsiao ensured the safety of U.S. beef in Taiwan by saying the island scrutinizes all beef import by only allowing meat from cows under 30 months of age.

In addition, no free risk materials such as bones and internal organs are allowed to enter the country, he noted.

A spokesperson for the American Institute in Taiwan, a de facto U.S. embassy on the island said, "The U.S. government takes extreme measures to ensure the safety of U.S. beef exports."

John Clifford, USDA's chief veterinarian, at a tele-news conference said his department remains "very confident" in the safety of U.S. beef.

"We will continue to be very transparent in sharing common information with the public and with our trading partners around the world," promised Clifford.

To date, Hong Kong and Japan have re-banned all American beef products when bones were discovered in two recent meat shipments to the countries recently.

Source:Taiwan News(2006/03/15 11:35:11)
More Stories
De

 

[rkaiser]

Blatantly arrogant - Political move - and I suppose that I will be called a Canadian asshole if I were to laugh hey?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[PORKER]

Comments from the Japan Daily News.US should let JPN inspect US BEEF(Mar 19 2006 - 02:32) Rate Post


U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, who compares automobile and beaf, is totally wrong.

If a car has a defect, we would not drive it. Then our safety can be ensured. But if we import BSE-infected US beaf, they will be distributed to the restaurants and fast-food chains all over our nation. Then, we will never know which beaf we are eating.

Most of the Japanese are determind not to buy US beaf at meat shops or supermarkets even if Japanese govt lifts its import ban. That is for sure. But if we have no way of knowing which beaf our restaurants and hamburger shops are using, we cannot protect ourselves.

Thats why "why dont you let the consumers decide?" argument has no legitimacy.

If the US really wants to sell US beaf to Japan, US should be more cautious about our concerns.
Why dont you let Japanese inspectors inspect all the US beaf that will be exported to Japan? (dont worry! we dont inspect beaf for US consumers).

Japanese govt says we will pay all the cost for the inspection. Then why does US govt refuse it? Are you hinding something, or afraid that more BSE beaf would be discovered?

US govt and Congress should know the fact that Japanese consumers would never be convinced the safety of US beaf as long as you refuse Japanese inspection in the US.

 

[PORKER]

Noticed upon reading above the second time;Japanese govt says we will pay all the cost for the inspection.*****Does that include BSE testing???


Then why does US govt refuse it? Are you hinding something, or afraid that more BSE beaf would be discovered? ****Good Question???

Comments from Japan Daily News

 

[PORKER]

According to Japan Daily News Polls the above stories were No. 1 in reading in Japan.

 

[Sandhusker]

And Agman says they'll take untested beef. :roll: He must of got that information from the same folks who told him Japan never asked for testing...who also told him it was just a trade barrier... :roll:

 

[agman]

And Agman says they'll take untested beef. :roll: He must of got that information from the same folks who told him Japan never asked for testing...who also told him it was just a trade barrier... :roll:

It is just a non-tariff trade barrier, a process beyond your ability to recognize. It is quite sad that you never referenced previously the article Mike posted. If you had that article then why did you not post it? That fact is you had no proof of any such statement by the Japanese.

The latter article I posted per this subject refutes their testing requirement and if they demanded testing then answer why they entered an import agreement that DID NOT REQUIRE TESTING? One comment is a statement made to the press while the other is a signed binding contract signed by the govenment of Japan. Which do you really believe? I believe the validity of the signed contract as opposed to political posturing in the press.

And Agman says they'll take untested beef. What proof do you have to refute my statement? Where and when have they demanded tested beef as a condition of importing. Where is that in the import contract signed with the US. Perhaps you or Mike could provide such documentation.

 

[Sandhusker]

And Agman says they'll take untested beef. :roll: He must of got that information from the same folks who told him Japan never asked for testing...who also told him it was just a trade barrier... :roll:

It is just a non-tariff trade barrier, a process beyond your ability to recognize. It is quite sad that you never referenced previously the article Mike posted. If you had that article then why did you not post it? That fact is you had no proof of any such statement by the Japanese.

The latter article I posted per this subject refutes their testing requirement and if they demanded testing then answer why they entered an import agreement that DID NOT REQUIRE TESTING? One comment is a statement made to the press while the other is a signed binding contract signed by the govenment of Japan. Which do you really believe? I believe the validity of the signed contract as opposed to political posturing in the press.

And Agman says they'll take untested beef. What proof do you have to refute my statement? Where and when have they demanded tested beef as a condition of importing. Where is that in the import contract signed with the US. Perhaps you or Mike could provide such documentation.

Explain to me how it is a trade barrier when the same is required of their domestic producers.

I didn't have the article that Mike posted, but who needed it? Circumstancial evidence was 3 miles high. All one had to do was connect the dots. They had an existing law requireing testing, they complained the US was not meeting their demands, they said the US was bullying them, they said not allowing private testing was "regrettable". Geeeeze, Agman, you don't have to be Columbo to figure this one out.

You talk about refuting their testing requirement? Good grief, the evidence is before you and you still can't believe it? It's pretty obvious that you simply don't want to believe it. THEY ASKED FOR TESTING, AGMAN.

You want to know why they finally agreed to accept non tested beef from 20 month old cattle? Do you need Columbo's assistance again? Do you think this proves they didn't ask for testing? :lol: Come on, you're smarter than that, Agman. You're taking SH's arguement because it's the best you have. Follow a clown and you'll be a clown. Did it ever occur to you there might of been considerable pressure applied to the Japanese? Congress has been threatening a trade war. Possibly that MIGHT of had something to do with it? Possibly there were other threats that didn't make the press?

There is no signed document saying the Japanese will take tested beef because the US flat out refused to consider it. You know that. Your choice to dummy up reveals your weak position. Why would a contract even be drawn up? If somebody refused to sell you a home, would you still draw up and sign a purchase agreement? Come on, Agman, give me a better arguement than that. That is the type of no-reasoning blanket support of the USDA/AMI that is SH's modus operandi. I expect better of you.

 

[agman]

And Agman says they'll take untested beef. :roll: He must of got that information from the same folks who told him Japan never asked for testing...who also told him it was just a trade barrier... :roll:

It is just a non-tariff trade barrier, a process beyond your ability to recognize. It is quite sad that you never referenced previously the article Mike posted. If you had that article then why did you not post it? That fact is you had no proof of any such statement by the Japanese.

The latter article I posted per this subject refutes their testing requirement and if they demanded testing then answer why they entered an import agreement that DID NOT REQUIRE TESTING? One comment is a statement made to the press while the other is a signed binding contract signed by the govenment of Japan. Which do you really believe? I believe the validity of the signed contract as opposed to political posturing in the press.

And Agman says they'll take untested beef. What proof do you have to refute my statement? Where and when have they demanded tested beef as a condition of importing. Where is that in the import contract signed with the US. Perhaps you or Mike could provide such documentation.

Explain to me how it is a trade barrier when the same is required of their domestic producers.

I didn't have the article that Mike posted, but who needed it? Circumstancial evidence was 3 miles high. All one had to do was connect the dots. They had an existing law requireing testing, they complained the US was not meeting their demands, they said the US was bullying them, they said not allowing private testing was "regrettable". Geeeeze, Agman, you don't have to be Columbo to figure this one out.

You talk about refuting their testing requirement? Good grief, the evidence is before you and you still can't believe it? It's pretty obvious that you simply don't want to believe it. THEY ASKED FOR TESTING, AGMAN.

You want to know why they finally agreed to accept non tested beef from 20 month old cattle? Do you need Columbo's assistance again? Do you think this proves they didn't ask for testing? :lol: Come on, you're smarter than that, Agman. You're taking SH's arguement because it's the best you have. Follow a clown and you'll be a clown. Did it ever occur to you there might of been considerable pressure applied to the Japanese? Congress has been threatening a trade war. Possibly that MIGHT of had something to do with it? Possibly there were other threats that didn't make the press?

There is no signed document saying the Japanese will take tested beef because the US flat out refused to consider it. You know that. Your choice to dummy up reveals your weak position. Why would a contract even be drawn up? If somebody refused to sell you a home, would you still draw up and sign a purchase agreement? Come on, Agman, give me a better arguement than that. That is the type of no-reasoning blanket

support of the USDA/AMI that is SH's modus operandi. I expect better of you.

Do you for one minute think the US or Canada are in the same risk factor as Japan and their domestic situation? What is your definiton of "low"? Have you got that figureed out yet?

Is Japan going to continue testing all of their cattle or is that being suspended at the Federal level. Will the provinces continue testing once the Federal funding is depleted? Where have you seen any documentation that testing by individual province will extend beyond the federally funded period?

Asking for testing and insisting on testing are vastly different situations with different out comes. I believe you know the difference. What did they sign on to, tested beef or non-tested beef? You cannot have it both ways. Pick the right one and you can dispense from answering any further.

You stated the US flatly refused to sign any document demanding tested beef. Did Japan not have the same option of "refusal"? As a lender who dictates the final terms of a loan, the bank or the customer?

If Tyson or another major packer would have come out immediately and demanded testing of all cattle I am confident you and several others on this forum would have stood steadfastly against such a proposal. Your reasoning would have been that it is anti-competitive and would disadvantage smaller packers and burdened producer with added and unnecessary costs. Such is you disdain for anything a major packer may sponsor. You are on the side of saying the US position is that of the major packers are you not? Is that not the real issue with you?

I have noted with interest that you have never questioned Creekstone's statement that the loss of sales to Japan has cost them $400 per head. Are you not concerned that they were unjustly profiteering? Where is the outcry?

 

[Anonymous]

Agman

I have noted with interest that you have never questioned Creekstone's statement that the loss of sales to Japan has cost them $400 per head. Are you not concerned that they were unjustly profiteering? Where is the outcry?

If the little guys like Creekstone are making $400 per head profit that must mean the "more efficient" Big 4 are making more... What were they making $500-600 :???:

Agman- Was the new NCBA President truthful, fudging a little, or downright lying when he said that every animal slaughtered while the Asian market is closed is costing the producer $175?

 

[Sandhusker]

I still do not understand why you continually bring up this definition of "low". Low meaning nothing without a corresponding scale is one of the laughers R-CALF pointed out on the USDA's arguements for their final rule.

I don't know what the prefects will do. Neither do you. What does that have to do with Japan asking for tested beef in the past?

Japan picked non-tested beef. That certainly doesn't mean they didn't ask for it. We KNOW the opposite to be true. We both KNOW you were wrong. Like I mentioned before, you don't need to be Columbo to figure out why they accepted non-tested beef.

I said no document was drawn up. Can you explain why one would be?

No US packer is demanding testing of all cattle, large or small. Why are you even talking about it?

I"m not concerned if Creekstone was making good money. I hope they were and do. They're not using market power against producers - they have no market power.

Your posts try to detract from the fact that you were dead wrong. You were even quite vocal in your "incorrectness". Who knows what else you're wrong in? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Econ101]

Agman""If Tyson or another major packer would have come out immediately and demanded testing of all cattle I am confident you and several others on this forum would have stood steadfastly against such a proposal. Your reasoning would have been that it is anti-competitive and would disadvantage smaller packers and burdened producer with added and unnecessary costs. Such is you disdain for anything a major packer may sponsor. You are on the side of saying the US position is that of the major packers are you not? Is that not the real issue with you?

I have noted with interest that you have never questioned Creekstone's statement that the loss of sales to Japan has cost them $400 per head. Are you not concerned that they were unjustly profiteering? Where is the outcry?"

So now you are predicting future decisions of those who disagree with you on this issue? You can't even get the past ones right, Agman.

The facts have shown that the USDA makes policy decisions based on big packer issues. You may very well be able to predict the same for the future. The fact that JoAnn Waterfield was not held accountable is an indication that policy will continue.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Japan picked non-tested beef. That certainly doesn't mean they didn't ask for it."

Actions speak louder than words!

Considering the fact that Creekstone's BSE test would not have revealed BSE prions in cattle under 24 months of age, had the Japanese consumers been privy to that information, NONE WOULD HAVE ASKED FOR BSE TESTED BEEF!

You wanted Creekstone to capitalize on the fears of a few Japanese consumers financially because that's the type of pathetic deceptive individual you are.

OT: "Agman- Was the new NCBA President truthful, fudging a little, or downright lying when he said that every animal slaughtered while the Asian market is closed is costing the producer $175?"

OT - Was Creekstone truthful, fudging a little, or downright lying when they said that the loss of sales to Japan has cost them $400 per head???

My guess is that neither you are your whiskey drinking support group has a clue what the Japanese market has cost this industry. Like the R-CULTer you are, you'll pick the argument that fits your agenda today or nod your head like a horse fighting face flies if you hear an argument that happens to support your agenda today.

Agman: "I have noted with interest that you have never questioned Creekstone's statement that the loss of sales to Japan has cost them $400 per head. Are you not concerned that they were unjustly profiteering? Where is the outcry?"

Excellent point! Shows just what a bunch of phony hypocrites we're dealing with doesn't it?



~SH~

 

[Red Robin]

Got this off of ellinghuysen.com sounds like were cutting the price.

US fires price salvo



JENNY KELLY in Taipei

The Weekly Times

March 29, 2006

Meat Poultry



THE US has bounced back into the Taiwanese beef market with an aggressive discounting campaign that undercuts Australian beef.



Taiwan opened its doors to US beef from cattle aged less than 30 months three weeks ago.



Taiwan, along with Japan and South Korea, banned US beef imports in 2004 after mad cow disease was discovered in the US.



But Australian exporters reported last week some US beef cuts were being sold 35 per cent cheaper than before the ban.



Taiwan is being viewed as a test case for how the US may eventually re-enter key Asian markets such as Japan and Korea.



Taiwan is Australia's fourth largest export market for beef, buying 33,222 tonnes last year.



However, it was not all bad news from Taiwan for Australian farmers last week.



While the US may be trying to win back market share on price, there is evidence its reputation as a reliable meat supplier has been damaged due to its bungling of export orders.



Supermarket manager Carter Hung, from the Matsusei chain, said he was wary of rushing to buy US beef again after the events of 12 months ago.



Taiwan originally lifted its bans on US beef in April last year. But just two months later the trade was halted when the US recorded another case of BSE.



''Last year, in April, we joined the hype of importing US beef again and had meat air-freighted in,'' Mr Hung said.



''This time we didn't get air-freight.



''This time we will wait until (we're) sure (that the market stays open).''



Other retail managers, such as Linda Lin from the Carrefour Hypermarket in Taipei, made similar comments about how the US must prove itself again to both consumers and wholesalers.



She said sales of US beef had been slow since it arrived back on shelves.



''Sales are down because consumers are concerned about BSE,'' Ms Lin said.



The giant Costco supermarket, which is American owned, has switched most of its Taiwanese cabinet space to US beef.



Meat and Livestock Australia Southeast Asia and China regional manager Tim Kelf said once a big name like Costco made changes to its meat cabinets, other chains often felt they had to follow.



One supermarket in Taipei, selling US beef at a 20 per cent discount last week, admitted to Mr Kelf it was wearing the cost of the special.



''This shop is wearing the discount because that is what its competitors are doing,'' Mr Kelf said.



''But I believe the cost-cutting that we are seeing will shake itself out in the next month or so.''



Australian exporters such as Ranges Valley, Coles and Australian Country Choice, from Brisbane, all had representatives in Taiwan last week.



Most said it was too early to say what impact the US would have on Australian sales to the region, but they generally talked down the likelihood of the US continuing with big meat discounts.



Wholesalers in Taipei appear to agree.



Eva Liou, senior manager for Mayfull Food Corporation, which is one of the biggest distributors of meat in Taiwan, said the US was offering some good deals on certain beef cuts that would usually go to higher-priced markets such as Korea.



She said they would stockpile these items, as she believes the price won't be available when other Asian markets open to US beef.



''We will buy these cuts before they go to Korea and the price goes up,'' Ms Liou said.



But she said this wouldn't change the amount of beef they would buy from Australia.



The news came as Meat and Livestock Australia ramped up its promotion of local product to Asian retailers and consumers.



A series of 11 Aussie beef retail seminars are being held in Japan this week aimed at fostering Australia's foothold in the lucrative market.



MLA Japan regional manager Samantha Jamieson said US and Japanese officials were meeting this week to discuss the possible re-entry of US beef.



''Out of this, we expect the US to be given its next list of homework of what Japan requires,'' she said.



''All indications are that Japan is not satisfied with the US explanation at this stage.



''The trade over here has almost given up on US beef supplies being available during the remainder of the year.''



Jenny Kelly is visiting Asia as a guest of MLA.



meatpoultry.com

 

[Sandhusker]

"A series of 11 Aussie beef retail seminars are being held in Japan this week aimed at fostering Australia's foothold in the lucrative market."

All this while the US continues to "negotiate".

 

[Econ101]

I think that at some point you have to realize that it is results that count, not the empty rhetoric coming from politicians and sec. Johanns.

The lack of those results has already cost millions, the exact figure we will never know. It doesn't matter if it was 175 per head, 3.95 dollars more or 400 dollars more per head, the USDA has cost the producer just because some packers wanted and got their way. Free and open markets were interfered with for no good reason.

Where is the NCBA---oh, I forgot, they represent the packers pushing this kind of policy and do not represent the producers.

MRJ, what is the NCBA stance on letting JoAnn Waterfield the fraudster off the hook so easily? Seems to me if they could put someone in jail for lying to a federal investigator, they could put someone in jail for lying and misleading Congress. Maybe those questions are just not being asked so that they can push it under the rug and get away with the frauds.

Please no more cheerleading and as Agman puts it, no more foam.