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

Two Long Years Ago

Mike

Well-known member
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Ban on testing beef doesn't cut it

Traditionally the U.S. government has been in the business of tearing down barriers that block American exports from being snapped up by foreign consumers. It seems bizarre that the government is now building barriers to keep U.S. beef from being sold overseas.

The dispute began last year when one case of mad cow disease was found in the United States. As a result a number of nations, notably Japan, grew fearful of importing contaminated beef and demanded that all U.S. beef be tested before it was sold for export to them.

Some small beef producers were fine with the requirement, but some of the major meatpackers were not. The federal government, under industry pressure, has banned producers from doing independent testing for mad cow disease.



Getting shut out

The result is that American beef is getting shut out of some profitable foreign markets, particularly in Asia.

The American Meat Institute, which represents large meatpackers, argues that such testing is not warranted and would unnecessarily scare or confuse American consumers. More likely, the industry fears that any additional testing, or slowing down of the processing at meatpacking plants, would eat into their profits. Meatpackers' efforts to pressure or manipulate the export market are considerably misguided.

When foreign importers began demanding testing for mad cow disease, William Fielding, chief operating officer of Creekstone Farms in Kansas, set up a lab to do just that. The American-made test kits cost approximately $15 per head of cattle.

Fielding says that various countries have had different requirements for their beef — cuts, packaging and even color — and he is happy to test for mad cow disease if that's what the buyers want. He had carved a profitable foreign market, especially for tongue, stomach, liver and other cuts he calls "spare parts." The profit was substantial — a tongue fetched $17 in Japan but only $3.50 in the United States.



The practical solution

The Department of Agriculture's ban, though, has wiped out Fielding's access to Japan. Instead, Australia — willing to play ball — has moved in. Recent shortages caused by the American pullout have pushed the price of tongue in Japan to $42. Australians get the profit.

Claims by major meatpackers that Japanese demands for testing amount to protectionism simply don't wash. On the contrary, Japan, Korea, Russian and other importers are quite eager to buy our beef as long as American producers comply with the requirements.

If foreign buyers want to pay and domestic producers are ready to sell on their terms, why in the world is the U.S. government standing in the way?

Chicago Tribune
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Agman, it is results that count as you have said. It seems that you only count the results that fall on Tyson's side of the ledger, not the producer's.

The big meat packers are trying to continue their comparative advantage of "efficiency" at the expense of smaller more innovative companies. It does not serve the producers well.

Another example of the USDA bending over backwards for the large campaign contributors in the system.

It is the Mexicanization of our markets.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"The American Meat Institute, which represents large meatpackers, argues that such testing is not warranted and would unnecessarily scare or confuse American consumers."

Many countries will not take poultry if it came from certain states. Has this scared or confused American consumers? I would think an attitude of "We won't take that" is scarier than "We'll take it if...."

"More likely, the industry fears that any additional testing, or slowing down of the processing at meatpacking plants, would eat into their profits"

Fine, nobody HAS to test! If it is going to eat into your profits, don't do it!
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
"The American Meat Institute, which represents large meatpackers, argues that such testing is not warranted and would unnecessarily scare or confuse American consumers."

Many countries will not take poultry if it came from certain states. Has this scared or confused American consumers? I would think an attitude of "We won't take that" is scarier than "We'll take it if...."

"More likely, the industry fears that any additional testing, or slowing down of the processing at meatpacking plants, would eat into their profits"

Fine, nobody HAS to test! If it is going to eat into your profits, don't do it!

Has there been a group of US poultry producers targeting those states and telling American consumers that all poultry in the US is unsafe? :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
"The American Meat Institute, which represents large meatpackers, argues that such testing is not warranted and would unnecessarily scare or confuse American consumers."

Many countries will not take poultry if it came from certain states. Has this scared or confused American consumers? I would think an attitude of "We won't take that" is scarier than "We'll take it if...."

"More likely, the industry fears that any additional testing, or slowing down of the processing at meatpacking plants, would eat into their profits"

Fine, nobody HAS to test! If it is going to eat into your profits, don't do it!

Has there been a group of US poultry producers targeting those states and telling American consumers that all poultry in the US is unsafe? :roll:

I don't know, Bill. I'd say you should follow the suggestion you gave me and look in the archives.
 

Mike

Well-known member
For starters, approximately 30 percent of chicken is tainted with Salmonella and 62 percent with its equally virulent cousin, Campylobacter.

Time magazine calls raw chicken "one of the most dangerous items in the American home," and each year in the US alone, contaminated chicken kills at least 1,000 people while sickening as many as 80 million others.

It's no surprise really that chicken is decidedly foul. Desperately crowded factory farms--where more than 90 percent of US chickens and eggs are raised--are fertile breeding grounds for disease. Additionally, slaughterhouses do an excellent job of spreading pathogens from one bird to the next.

Even if chicken was pathogen-free (clearly an unsafe assumption for any shopper to make), it would hardly qualify as wholesome. Not only is chicken nearly devoid of health-promoting compounds found only in plant foods--things like complex carbohydrates, antioxidants, phytochemicals and fiber--it also contains other suspect ingredients rarely recommended as part of a healthy diet.

Cholesterol. You'll find just as much artery-filling cholesterol in chicken as in beef and pork. Cholesterol is found exclusively in muscle tissue and can't be trimmed away.

Protein. People can meet or exceed their protein requirements simply by choosing a varied plant-centered diet and eating ample calories, says the American Dietetic Association. No animal foods are necessary. Many North Americans already eat twice the protein they need, and excessive protein has been linked to osteoporosis, kidney disease and other medical problems.

Antibiotic Residues. Roughly half of all antibiotics used in the US are fed to farm animals. If meat contains drug residues, it's highly unlikely to be detected, as these tests are rarely conducted.

Mystery Feed. Each year billions of pounds of slaughterhouse leftovers are made into animal reed, much of it for chickens. Chickens are also sometimes fed manure, which may contain pesticides, drug residues, pathogens, heavy metals, hormones and microbial toxins.

If you took a raw chicken and dropped it in a cow pile or in a pile of chicken manure, would you pick it up, wash it off and cook it for dinner? That's just about what's happening at these plants.
-- Pat Godfrey, Inspector
Tyson's chicken processing plant, Springdale, Arkansas

Despite millions of people falling ill each year, the US Department of Agriculture (the government agency responsible for meat safety) continues to stamp every thigh, breast and wing with its seal of approval, prompting many to ask, "Who's minding the henhouse?" Sadly, USDA has historically placed the interests of the influential poultry industry ahead of those of the poultry-consuming public. A new, more-scientific governrnent meat inspection system has been agreed upon in principle, but tangible improvements remain years away.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
"The American Meat Institute, which represents large meatpackers, argues that such testing is not warranted and would unnecessarily scare or confuse American consumers."

Many countries will not take poultry if it came from certain states. Has this scared or confused American consumers? I would think an attitude of "We won't take that" is scarier than "We'll take it if...."

"More likely, the industry fears that any additional testing, or slowing down of the processing at meatpacking plants, would eat into their profits"

Fine, nobody HAS to test! If it is going to eat into your profits, don't do it!

Has there been a group of US poultry producers targeting those states and telling American consumers that all poultry in the US is unsafe? :roll:

The antibiotic free and more "organic" types of businesses have been the fastest growing segment in the poultry business. Someone is telling the consumer--or they are finding out somehow.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
"The American Meat Institute, which represents large meatpackers, argues that such testing is not warranted and would unnecessarily scare or confuse American consumers."

Many countries will not take poultry if it came from certain states. Has this scared or confused American consumers? I would think an attitude of "We won't take that" is scarier than "We'll take it if...."

"More likely, the industry fears that any additional testing, or slowing down of the processing at meatpacking plants, would eat into their profits"

Fine, nobody HAS to test! If it is going to eat into your profits, don't do it!

Has there been a group of US poultry producers targeting those states and telling American consumers that all poultry in the US is unsafe? :roll:

I don't know, Bill. I'd say you should follow the suggestion you gave me and look in the archives.
I typed in R-Cluck but nothing came up. :lol:
 

Latest posts

Top