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

South Korea To U.S. Beef Industry: Change Your Processing

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
South Korea To U.S. Beef Industry: Change Your Processing Procedures


South Korea is suggesting that the United States change its meat-processing procedures if it wants to resume business in the Korean market. Park Hyun-chool, head of the Agriculture Ministry's livestock bureau, said in a radio interview in Seoul yesterday that U.S. processors should run more than a single slaughter line to separate U.S. and Canadian cattle, as well as cattle under and over 30 months of age.

"The U.S. does not consider the concerns voiced as being a problem, but from our view they are," Park said, as reported by Yonhap News Agency.

Park also suggested that different equipment be used to slaughter older cattle in order to lower the risk of potential cross-contamination from older animals, which are at higher risk for bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

However, Park said that he was not worried about reports of animal protein found in a few samples of cattle feed, saying the incidence was too low to pose a significant threat to animal and human health.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
With the current policy of the USDA, there are incentives for processors to take the best and ship it overseas (or there will when the price domestically comes down) and leave what is left here in the U.S.

Is this what the USDA wants to claim as a victory for the U.S. consumer?

The same with UTM in Canada.

What is wrong with these knuckleheads?

Cant we get some competence with the USDA?

Sandhusker, I think yall sent a dud to D.C.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Cant we get some competence with the USDA?

Yup We CAN ,Have Mrs. FONG Put the Packer and Stockyards Act on the front burner and CLEAN HOUSE ,Make em all take the stand!
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
With the current policy of the USDA, there are incentives for processors to take the best and ship it overseas (or there will when the price domestically comes down) and leave what is left here in the U.S.

Is this what the USDA wants to claim as a victory for the U.S. consumer?

The same with UTM in Canada.

What is wrong with these knuckleheads?

Cant we get some competence with the USDA?

Sandhusker, I think yall sent a dud to D.C.


Econ, what are those "incentives" you claim are "current policy of the USDA" which result in the "best" beef being shipped overseas?

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
With the current policy of the USDA, there are incentives for processors to take the best and ship it overseas (or there will when the price domestically comes down) and leave what is left here in the U.S.

Is this what the USDA wants to claim as a victory for the U.S. consumer?

The same with UTM in Canada.

What is wrong with these knuckleheads?

Cant we get some competence with the USDA?

Sandhusker, I think yall sent a dud to D.C.


Econ, what are those "incentives" you claim are "current policy of the USDA" which result in the "best" beef being shipped overseas?

MRJ

I know this might be hard for you, MRJ, so I will help you think a little. All you have to do is look at Canada.

The beef industry wanted to feed cattle by products back to beef and chicken to reduce their costs. It results in transmission of bse.

The USDA will not allow others to test for bse, they want to control it for their own purposes instead of food safety.

There has been a claim made that the current bse testing would not find bse in cattle under a certain age and they therefore do not have bse in cattle in that age category.

Other countries have listened to this claim and imposed restrictions on the importation of cattle over a certain age to get around taking possible bse tainted beef for their population. The U.S. seems to be accepting this strategy and pushing for MID along with possible age verification systems. Now personally I believe this reasoning is a farce and give it no credibility, but there it is.

Now here is the question for you, MRJ:

What happens when you allow milk to separate and skim the cream off the milk?
 

Jason

Well-known member
USDA is controlling BSE for their own purposes?

The USDA will not allow others to test for bse, they want to control it for their own purposes instead of food safety.

There has been a claim made that the current bse testing would not find bse in cattle under a certain age and they therefore do not have bse in cattle in that age category.

BSE has never been detected in cattle under 20 months, that is the reason the claim is made that testing that age won't find it.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
USDA is controlling BSE for their own purposes?

The USDA will not allow others to test for bse, they want to control it for their own purposes instead of food safety.

There has been a claim made that the current bse testing would not find bse in cattle under a certain age and they therefore do not have bse in cattle in that age category.

BSE has never been detected in cattle under 20 months, that is the reason the claim is made that testing that age won't find it.

What other reason, Jason, does the U.S. not allow private testing for bse and why have the been caught red handed not testing competently by Phillis Fong?

As the science of bse testing overtakes the silly rational the USDA is making up to control testing, they will look more and more like the fools they are.

The foxes will have bested themselves.
 

Jason

Well-known member
All gov't agencies have people running them. People make mistakes. USDA has made mistakes. Someone in power thought the IHC was a valid test, and it was, just not the quality of test the Western Blot is.

With the recent claims that the 2 native cases weren't "traditional" BSE it is easy to see how it could look like they were totally fools when they just happened to hit 2 cases that don't work with that test.

Opening up the testing to private for profit firms makes it harder to make sure the tests are performed accurately and positives are announced. Who has more incentive to keep a positive hidden than the company trying to sell tested beef? Or worse yet, what if they decide to announce a positive that is really one of the 6 or more other neurological diseases that inexperienced testers can mistake for BSE? The scare they could cause trying to say they are the only ones with tested and therefore safe beef would be terrible.

Testing needs to stay with gov't oversight. The cost of testing needs to be vaild as it costs the industry, namely lowering the total dollar that gets back to the primary producer.

The science of BSE has advanced a great deal since May of 03 it isn't a health risk as some like to claim, it isn't controlled by the packers or by the USDA. Gov't actions are mainly controlled by the public's reaction unless there is clear evidence that requires an unpopular action. There is no clear need for 100% testing. There is no public outcry for it either.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Thanks, Jason. Is that how we kept bse out of N. America?

This whole secrecy thing because it might affect the industry is a bunch of garbage. I am sure if there was a positive, there would be follow up tests to confirm it, as there should be. A false postive every now and then could be expected. It doesn't scare me a bit. See how much the Alabama cow affected the market? Everyone tells of the necessity of govt. oversight, just not total govt. control. I trust my govt. about as much as the founding fathers did. Not very much. There needs to be checks and balances in everything.

I said once before you would never make a good regulator. You bend over backwards too much to be of any good in that regard. Stick to sales.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Thanks, Jason. Is that how we kept bse out of N. America?

Just so we all know, when did BSE come to North America Econ?

I was also wondering the reasons for the packers not wanting to ship beef to Japan, thanks. That is the market you were talking about in one of your posts, was it not?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Murgen said:
Thanks, Jason. Is that how we kept bse out of N. America?

Just so we all know, when did BSE come to North America Econ?

I was also wondering the reasons for the packers not wanting to ship beef to Japan, thanks. That is the market you were talking about in one of your posts, was it not?

I don't know when bse was brought to n. america. That was the job for APHIS. What is your regulatory equivalent?

Why don't you ask the USDA why they don't let Creekstone test for their Japanese customers? I would suspect rkaiser is right on this one too. The U.S. will ship to Japan when the big packers are ready to. They wouldn't want market innovation and filling customer's needs to be captured by competitors when they can stop it with USDA policies so easily.
 

Jason

Well-known member
If misfolded prions being injested are the cause of BSE, how can young animals that have no misfolded prions transmit it?

Not only can they not, but the first places those prions accumulate are being removed.

Denile is a river in Egypt, I definately am not there.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
For example, Maixner told Keith Good in a May 13 interview (which can be heard at http://agpolicysoup.blogspot.com/), steaks exported to Japan might carry a $15 per lb. price tag at the export terminal, but the rancher gets less than a $1 per pound from the packer when the animal is sold.

If this is true, then tell me again why the large packers don't want to ship to Japan at this point in time?

Why would a $20 test stop them?

Thanks for the help in clearing this up!
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Murgen said:
For example, Maixner told Keith Good in a May 13 interview (which can be heard at http://agpolicysoup.blogspot.com/), steaks exported to Japan might carry a $15 per lb. price tag at the export terminal, but the rancher gets less than a $1 per pound from the packer when the animal is sold.

If this is true, then tell me again why the large packers don't want to ship to Japan at this point in time?

Why would a $20 test stop them?

Thanks for the help in clearing this up!

They are playing the concentration game and haven't whipped all in line that they want in line.

Tell me again why the USDA will not allow Creekstone to test?
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Tell me again why the USDA will not allow Creekstone to test?

Hasn't that topic been beat to death. They don't believe in food safety and they are being influenced by the large packers that want to increase market power.

Do I get a gold star?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
It is too bad much of this research wasn't done or funded by the USA govt.

So much for their food safety record. They would rather spend it on animal ID and age verification programs.

Jason isn't the only one in DENIAL!!
 

Mike

Well-known member
Jason said:
So much for their food safety record. They would rather spend it on animal ID and age verification programs.

Yep things customers really want.

What?????????????????????????????????

Jason have you gone completely nuts? Food safety is the number one priority for consumer confidence, I would say. You're so caught up in being argumentative, you've lost your ability to comprehend.
 
Top