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

Politics is the BEEF problem

Mike

Well-known member
Politics, Not Markets Slow US Beef Export Growth



KANSAS CITY (Dow Jones)--Since world markets slammed the doors on U.S. beef in December 2003 because of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad-cow disease, the country's beef export market has been stagnant and many industry observers blame politics.



The identification of the first case of BSE in the U.S. touched off an exodus by more than 50 key importers of U.S. beef. It also put pressure on the government to take steps to assure the foreign importers that all steps would be taken to make meat safe.



The process, however, has ground exceedingly slow and has irritated beef producers and other sector participants.



"It's become a government thing and not a market thing," said John Nalivka, president of Sterling Marketing Inc., in Vale, Ore. "The government, in a lot of respects, has bungled this whole thing."



"It seems to me that the reason the politics remain at the heart of the beef export debate has a lot to do with the fact that all of the countries can live with the current scenario of no U.S. beef trade," said Scott Brown, research assistant professor at the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute in Columbia, Mo., in an e-mailed response to questions.



The debate "has come at a point in time in the (U.S.) cattle cycle of record or near-record cattle prices so there is less pressure on USDA to get markets open at $80+ fed cattle than if we had $65 fed cattle," Brown said.



Japanese and South Korean consumers have been without U.S. beef, but they have found replacements that have not affected their pocketbooks to a large extent, Brown said. These governments also can be seen as protecting consumers from potentially bad meat products, especially following the problems with the first re-opening of U.S. beef trade with Japan, he said.



R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America said in a recent press release that Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture "still refuse to correct the problems that contributed to the loss of these significant export markets."



Total beef exports dropped from 1.276 million metric tons worth $3.862 billion in 2003 to zero within days of the BSE discovery. Since then, beef exports rose to 322,000 tons with a value of $809 million in 2004 and then to 473,000 tons worth $1.365 billion in 2005, according to USDA figures.



Japan, South Korea and Mexico were the largest importers of U.S. beef prior to the discovery of BSE. In 2004 and 2005, Mexico and Canada were the largest importers.



The slow progress in regaining export markets "says a lot about the global market and the role of politics," Nalivka said. Trading now has more to do with political science than with real science.



But, "it is what it is," he said. The U.S. could have a competitive edge economically but lack the political advantage. It could have the best beef in the world, but countries don't have to buy it or allow it to cross the border, he said.



South Korea was going to allow U.S. beef into its market in June, but now has backed off indefinitely on the demand of the USDA that South Korea accept shipments from plants that slaughter Canada-origin cattle without differentiating them or the meat, Nalivka said. He expected to see something similar from Japan.



R-CALF USA Chief Executive Bill Bullard said: "That's wrong on so many levels. These obstructionist practices are hurting U.S. cattle producers."



In addition, the USDA reopened the U.S. market to Canadian cattle and beef long before it had restored the confidence of foreign buyers that was lost when the U.S. began mingling Canadian beef and cattle with domestic supplies, said R-CALF USA President Chuck Kiker in the release.



That action was based on an idea that the U.S. needed to be a leader among the nations by granting access to Canadian beef and cattle based on its interpretation of the science and international standards, Kiker said. The action has often been at odds with other countries like Japan and South Korea which add their own, stiffer standards.



Bullard charged the USDA knew when arguing before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that Canadian beef and cattle were as safe as those in the U.S., that the one domestic BSE case at the time was an atypical strain, unlike the Canadian strain. Now that it was revealed the U.S. case being different, the USDA appears to have inconsistent policies, which undermine foreign confidence in the product, he said.



The USDA needs to work on opening other world markets to U.S. beef and spend less time and money on Asian markets, Nalivka said. Efforts to reopen the Asian markets are as hamstrung by politics in Japan and South Korea as they are in the U.S., he said.



The Japanese continue to push the U.S. to test all of the cattle it slaughters for BSE even though the science says it rarely, if ever, shows up in cattle younger than 30 months of age.



The USDA remains steadfast in its position that testing all cattle is expensive and nearly useless for making beef safer. It also continues to rebuff requests from meat packer Creekstone Farms Premium Beef to test all of the cattle it slaughters so the company can access the Japanese market.



Allowing a packer to test all cattle for any customer would send the wrong message to other domestic and foreign customers that there really is a reason to test them all, the USDA said. It would make the rest of the U.S.' production more suspect and hurt U.S. beef exports in the long run.



South Korea does not want to chance importing Canadian-origin beef if it should reopen its market to U.S. beef, and recently rejected seven of 38 plants it inspected for export eligibility because they felt the risk was too high.



The USDA responded it has determined that Canadian cattle under 30 months of age are safe and that South Korea needs to accept this position and allow exports from all 38 plants. The market remains closed.



Nalivka says he can see no reason to keep companies like Creekstone from testing all of its cattle if the customer wants it and will pay for it. The USDA is right in saying there is no justification for testing those young cattle, but it's what the customer wants.



Nalivka also said it wouldn't be hard for packing plants to separate Canadian from U.S. cattle if they were marked. He thinks they are safe, but, again, if this is what the customer wants, the USDA should allow exports to South Korea from the approved plants and discard its all-or-nothing policy.



And because of the political barriers involved with getting Asian markets reopened, the U.S. may be spending too much money on the effort, Nalivka said.



"The cost/benefit ratio may be out of line, particularly since we've lost market share (to Australia)," Nalivka said.



He suggested spending time and money working on ways to increase beef exports to Europe or other countries. He thinks something could be worked out to wedge the door open a bit more in that market with as much effort as the USDA has put into Japan.



Sue Trudell, senior director of Express Markets Analytics in Ft. Wayne, Ind., said, however, that even an agreement in Europe over the U.S.' use of growth-promoting hormones may not open the market. There will still be opposition to the U.S. product, she said.



"It's feasible to think that governments in Europe and elsewhere will come up with new barriers (to U.S. beef) because it's politically motivated," Trudell said.



Robbin Fuller, president of Tallgrass Consulting in Lancaster, Wis., said she wasn't sure the problem with Japan was all politics.



"There seems to be a groundswell of fear in Japan (over the safety of U.S. beef)," Fuller said. If Japanese consumers really wanted U.S. beef, they'd be pressuring the government to get it back on the market. Instead, there are demonstrations and protests against reopening the market, she said.



Source: Lester Aldrich; Dow Jones Newswires; 913-322-5179; [email protected]
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"Allowing a packer to test all cattle for any customer would send the wrong message to other domestic and foreign customers that there really is a reason to test them all, the USDA said. It would make the rest of the U.S.' production more suspect and hurt U.S. beef exports in the long run."

BULLSHEET!!! :mad: Allowing a packer to test would show the world that we are responsive to their needs and are willing and able to deliver what they want - exactly the kind of supplier you want to do business with. If they want to avoid hurting beef exports in the long run, they should consider not alienating and bullying customers! A privage business could not survive treating their customers like the USDA is.

How can they say that tested beef puts a shadow over the rest but organic does not? This appears to me a clear case of reaching facts based on a conclusion instead of a conclusion based on facts.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Wonder why these news folks/USDA never bring up the "Deception" aspect of testing like some on here do? :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Mike said:
Wonder why these news folks/USDA never bring up the "Deception" aspect of testing like some on here do? :lol: :lol: :lol:


Do you really wonder? :shock: :lol: :lol:

No, not really. Just wanted to start crap. :wink:

But I do wonder why Auburn is playing:

Washington State
Buffalo
Tulane
and Arkansas State

this year?
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
"It seems to me that the reason the politics remain at the heart of the beef export debate has a lot to do with the fact that all of the countries[read...global packers] can live with the current scenario of no U.S. beef trade," said Scott Brown, research assistant professor at the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute in Columbia, Mo., in an e-mailed response to questions.



The debate "has come at a point in time in the (U.S.) cattle cycle of record or near-record cattle prices so there is less pressure on USDA to get markets open at $80+ fed cattle than if we had $65 fed cattle," Brown said.

This is all about the cost of procuring live cattle to fill the needs of supplying the USA market. Reducing the price of live cattle in the USA will make the packer cartel more money than any export market. Opening export markets will help producers, not the packer cartel!
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Mike said:
But I do wonder why Auburn is playing:

Washington State
Buffalo
Tulane
and Arkansas State

this year?

I understand the last three, but there is a chance you might lose to Washington State...so why them???? :wink:
 
Top