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

Packers jumping through Hoops

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
2
Location
Montgomery, Al
THE DISTRUST IS EVIDENT:

US Beef Exporter Nervous On South Korea Shipment

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Officials at Creekstone Farms Premium Beef LLC are "on pins and needles" after sending the first post-ban shipment of U.S. beef to South Korea amid widespread uncertainty over the country's import restrictions, a company vice president said Tuesday. "We hope they don't destroy the product," Creekstone's Joe Meng told Dow Jones Newswires in an interview.

South Korea announced its decision to partially lift a nearly three-year-old ban on U.S. beef on Sept. 8, but no trade followed amid U.S. concerns that import inspectors might destroy shipments and blacklist U.S. exporters over infractions of uncertain regulations.

But someone had to take the risk, Meng said, and Creekstone volunteered, sending a nine-ton shipment of beef via air freight this weekend. The beef arrived in South Korea on Monday and will undergo rigorous inspection for about 10 days.

"Somebody needs to be first," Meng said, though he stressed the process is nerve-wracking. The U.S. Department of Agriculture shares the concerns of Creekstone and other beef producers over South Korea's handling of beef imports.

When South Korea eased its ban in September, there were still discrepancies over the definition of specified risk material - the parts of a cow believed to transmit bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad-cow disease.

The USDA, in a Sept. 22 letter to South Korean officials, said it was worried the country considers silver skin, a membrane separating muscle groups, cartilage and some bone material, to be specified risk material and, therefore, subject U.S. exports to "suspension or any other detrimental action." Meng said Creekstone hopes that the nine tons of beef it sent won't be destroyed or sent back.

"We're feeling a little hung-out there," he said. "We're a bit on pins and needles, but we know we've done the best we can with this product we sent over there."

Silver skin, the USDA said, is neither bone nor specified risk material, and shouldn't be prohibited in U.S. shipments. But South Korea has raised it as an issue, and Creekstone's Meng said he hopes it won't block trade.

"If silver skin becomes a big issue, then we're probably in trouble because I don't think there's any packing plant in the United States that can remove all the silver skin," he said.

If the deal works out and Creekstone succeeds in getting U.S. beef back on the South Korean market, the company will quickly follow up the first shipment with more, Meng said. "We've got a significant order from our trading partner (in South Korea), so we're prepared to ... fill that order and they're very eager to get the product."

The differences remain substantial, though, between the U.S. and South Korea on acceptable beef for trade, and Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns told Dow Jones Newswires Tuesday that he isn't satisfied. He said he's pleased to see at least some U.S. beef being sold there, but differences between the countries need to be resolved. He said he was optimistic that would happen "soon."

South Korea was the second largest foreign market for U.S. beef until December 2003, when the country - along with most other major markets - banned U.S. beef. On Dec. 23, 2003, the USDA announced finding the first case of mad-cow disease in the U.S.

-By Bill Tomson, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-646-0088; [email protected].
 
This is a test of the USDA's policy of not testing and relying on SRM removal. The additional definition of SRM does not look good if you are with the USDA in this argument.
 
econ: This is a test of the USDA's policy of not testing and relying on SRM removal. The additional definition of SRM does not look good if you are with the USDA in this argument.

if only there was some way of determining if the animal had bse!!!! that might cut some of the risk of shipping material because they would know for sure whether or not it met specs. save negotiating costly slaughter procedures too.
 
don said:
econ: This is a test of the USDA's policy of not testing and relying on SRM removal. The additional definition of SRM does not look good if you are with the USDA in this argument.

if only there was some way of determining if the animal had bse!!!! that might cut some of the risk of shipping material because they would know for sure whether or not it met specs. save negotiating costly slaughter procedures too.

You just hit the nail on the head- don...Nothing ever hurt to have a double test- just a little more security...And if the test is what the Japanese and Asians think is best- give it to them...

We already do a different SRM removal for many of the different countries- as each has their own definition of what is SRM's- and we do different age differentation for each country (20 month for some, 30 month for others), and we do country of origin segregation for some countries--- so if some are asking for or would prefer Tested--Give it to Them.....
 

Latest posts

Top