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

We Need COOL- NOW

A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Until you're up to speed on this topic and know what you're talking about, you're just embarassing yourself again. Go do some research on this topic and come back later."

Hahaha! Listen to the little ankle biter.

SHOW ME THE LAW THAT STATES THAT SOUTH KOREA CAN ONLY BUY BEEF FROM CERTAIN US PLANTS TO BACK A "SUPPOSED" STATEMENT BY JOHANNS THAT WAS MORE THAN LIKELY TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT!

Bring me the law Sandbag!

You can't! All you have is statement that was probably taken out of context. AN ILLUSION, AS ALWAYS!

Meanwhile, keep diverting the question on your proof of why Japan wants bse tested beef.


~SH~
 

Jason

Well-known member
In one article it stated that S. Korea wanted to certify which plant were up to their standards. I don't know if this is official or not.

The problem is USDA is in charge of certification. Many here have said another country has no business telling the US how to operate. (now they are saying let them tell us what's the problem?)

Either way, Korea could just decide not to do business with certian plants without all the fuss. They don't want to. They are playing a wait on Japan game. Politics again pure and simple.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "Until you're up to speed on this topic and know what you're talking about, you're just embarassing yourself again. Go do some research on this topic and come back later."

Hahaha! Listen to the little ankle biter.

SHOW ME THE LAW THAT STATES THAT SOUTH KOREA CAN ONLY BUY BEEF FROM CERTAIN US PLANTS TO BACK A "SUPPOSED" STATEMENT BY JOHANNS THAT WAS MORE THAN LIKELY TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT!

Bring me the law Sandbag!

You can't! All you have is statement that was probably taken out of context. AN ILLUSION, AS ALWAYS!

Meanwhile, keep diverting the question on your proof of why Japan wants bse tested beef.


~SH~

Before you flap your lips about "supposed" statements "more than likely taken out of context", why don't you bother yourself to actually read the statement? It's clear that you have absolutley no idea what's transpired on this topic.
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Sandhusker...Before you flap your lips about "supposed" statements "more than likely taken out of context", why don't you bother yourself to actually read the statement? It's clear that you have absolutley no idea what's transpired on this topic.

Do you think he might be setting up his strawman again? Asking a question that doesn't pertain to the statement that was made.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Tommy said:
Sandhusker...Before you flap your lips about "supposed" statements "more than likely taken out of context", why don't you bother yourself to actually read the statement? It's clear that you have absolutley no idea what's transpired on this topic.

Do you think he might be setting up his strawman again? Asking a question that doesn't pertain to the statement that was made.[/quote

Other than commenting on a topic he knows nothing about, I don't know what he's doing.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
He is bringing the circus to town.

I have had enough from his stupid act. I will admit I rarely read his posts anymore because of this.

Let me know if I miss something.
 

fedup2

Well-known member
Here is the original article. It doesn’t make much difference because even if Sh!tHead finds someone to read it to him, he won’t understand it anyway. One thing for sure, when that idiot dies, he will be easy to bury! Just give him an enema & bury him in a shoebox!
Oh geeze, it was in ag-weekly! Didn’t one of their subscribers join R-Calf last year? Yep! That’s it. It must be slanted and a pack of lies!

U.S. gets tough with beef trade partners

By Cathy Roemer, Ag Weekly correspondent

July 4, 2006

TWIN FALLS, Idaho ~ Is free trade really free, and just how fair is it?

In recent U.S. beef trade tussles with South Korea and Japan, free trade seems to come with strings attached -- at best -- even though the World Trade Organization and free-trade agreements are supposed to be the great equalizers.

This time it’s not “where’s the beef” but “what’s in the beef” that had the U.S. Department of Agriculture laying down the law to South Korea in an “all or nothing” trade war.

South Korean trade officials visited 38 meat-processing plants in June in an effort to revitalize beef trade with the United States. The Asian country closed its borders to U.S. beef due to the Dec. 2003 discovery n and two subsequent cases -- of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the U.S. cattle herd.

Out of the 38 plants, South Korean officials gave a thumbs down to seven facilities because Canadian cattle were not separated from U.S. cattle. Canada has had a higher incidence of BSE n five cases -- than the United States since BSE was discovered there in May 2003.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said South Korea could not “pick and choose” which plants it will accept product from. The country can either take beef from all U.S. processing plants or none at all, he said.

Fred Stokes, president of the Organization for Competitive Markets questions Johanns position.

With a huge U.S. trade deficit, “what in the heck are we doing in restricting trade?” he asked.

In Japan’s case, beef trade negotiations have volleyed back and forth since the Asian nation closed its doors to American beef at the close of 2003 in response to that first U.S. case of BSE n discovered in a Washington State cow of Canadian origin. Japan recently began accepting beef products, then closed its borders again when a bone fragment was discovered in a shipment of U.S. beef .

Congress recently threatened sanctions to refuse certain Japanese products if Japan did not reconcile. The outcome was a trade agreement between the two nations, signed last week.

Although Johanns tough talk looks like a firm stand for U.S. beef , in reality he is following WTO rules that seek to “harmonize” commodity standards between nations.

That harmonization or “all or nothing” approach based on WTO sanitary/phytosanitary (SPS) equivalency rules leaves little room for individual free-market enterprise.

In the case of Creekstone Farms, a Kansas beef processing plant specializing in custom Angus beef products, the company sought to satisfy Japan by implementing on-site testing for BSE on all its cattle.

Kevin Pentz, senior vice president of operations, said the company invested nearly a half million dollars in testing facilities, but the USDA would not allow Creekstone to “individualize” its product. The company has since filed a lawsuit against the USDA.

This week, in transcript regarding Japanese officials’ visits to inspect U.S beef processing plants, Johanns was asked what if Japan did not approve conditions at various U.S. plants n would the whole market be shut down because of one plant?

“We faced that issue with Korea,” Johanns said. “The point is, we see our system as a whole system. This is not about individual pick and choose.”

If Japan rejected a plant, Johanns said it would be a “serious problem.”

“My hope is we don’t go that way again, any more than I would argue we should shut down their whole automobile market because we find a defective car,” he said.

In a written review of SPS policy, Lucinda Sikes, staff attorney for the Public Citizen, a consumer watchdog group, said SPS equivalency does more to “create strong incentives for downward harmonization to weaker standards” than raise the bar. While Sikes was speaking more about policy to protect American consumers, WTO rules apply to all member countries.

Sikes said international standards should not serve as “a floor curtailing innovative solutions to public health problems that are ahead of the international status quo.”

In light of “intense negotiations” between the United States and South Korea and Japan, the American Meat Institute, said in a press release, “It is important to remember that the role of the USDA is to certify the integrity of the U.S. system for export to various nations according to the terms of agreements.”

If countries are allowed to “pick and choose” who they want to do business with, it would “create a completely unworkable environment for international beef trade,” AMI stated.

“It would also create significant difficulty in our ability to negotiate free trade agreements that included SPS equivalency,” the organization added.

John Munsell, president of Montana Quality Foods and Processing, Mont., has a different point of view.

“Why do our USDA trade negotiators continue to shoot domestic producers and processors in the foot?” he asked. “Enterprising domestic meat plants, such as Creekstone Farms … have been summarily rejected by USDA which attempts to impose its all-or-nothing sales gimmick,” he said.

“Universal free trade agreements are being predicated on a common foundation … USDA is now suggesting that consumers must accept all product, regardless of its source, as being part of a universal all-or nothing seamless meat production environment in which individual noncompliant plants cannot be delisted,” Munsell said. “Try selling this concept to American meat-eaters.”
“America needs to earn the confidence of our foreign customers, not force their loyalty,” he said.
 

fedup2

Well-known member
Roper writes:[OPEC is not the reason that we have close to $80 a barrel oil. Jason was right, we have $80 a barrel oil because of fears of what might happen, not because of a shortage of crude.]

Sorry I missed this the first time Roper. I was laughing so hard at Sh!tHead’s childish babble & imagining him doing the chicken dance around his chair, that I didn’t see this.

It seems that some posters on this forum like to argue with themselves. They post about things that were never said. Nowhere in my post did I say that opec was responsible for the high oil prices that we have. Nowhere! I stated that they can influence the market. What happens every single time they meet and announce they will cut back production? C’mon Roper, you know what happens! Don’t tell me they have no influence over the market! No one said they have total control!!!

Nowhere on this forum other than in Sh!tHeads simple little mind have I read anyone claiming that opec or the packers have total control of their markets. I have read statements that say they can ‘influence’ prices. I think most all with the exception of Sh!tHead & Jason will agree to that.

Have a nice day.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
More for SH - although since it is from OCM, it is all a bunch of lies.... :roll:

OCM: USDA Continues to Give in to Corporate Influences

Lincoln – This week, The U.S. Department of Agriculture again proved that corporate influences will continue to be the largest shapers of national agricultural policy with its’ decision to not allow South Korea to import beef from packing plants where cattle from American and Canadian origin are held separately.

South Korea currently does not accept any beef imports from Canada due to the high risk of BSE in Canadian beef, and have refused to accept beef packed in plants that do not discriminate between American and Canadian cattle. USDA’s all-or-nothing policy puts plants that wish to sell 100% American raised beef and American producers at a severe disadvantage by not allowing exports to resume.

Korean inspectors approved exports from over 30 plants across the U.S., but rejected beef processed in 7 plants, including 2 facilities owned by Tyson Fresh Meats Inc., that do not keep American and Canadian cattle in separate areas.

According to OCM executive director, Fred Stokes “this is possibly the most absurd decision ever handed down by USDA.” Stokes continued “American producers have a real opportunity to sell their products oversees and are being denied that chance by USDA even though the United States currently holds an almost $21 billion deficit in international food trade, and is the world’s largest beef importer.”
Supporters of USDA’s all-or-nothing policy include Tyson, the American Meat institute, and the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, all of which are strong opponents of mandatory country-of-origin (COOL) labeling and stringent animal testing. Forcing the Resumption of Korean trade with facilities that integrate American and Canadian beef will largely benefit only multinational meat packing companies, and will be to the detriment of American cattle production.

USDA officials contend that current policy keeps foreign companies from singling out plants to exclude from their business, and ensures that the beef export market remains efficient and practical.

OCM Vice-President, Randy Stevenson responded “Other countries’ beef markets have no trouble keeping up with the demands of U.S. retailers that already only import beef from oversees plants that meet their standards.” Stevenson continued “South Korea was the second largest export market for American beef prior to 2004, and producers will begin to struggle if trade is not resumed immediately. If Korea wants only 100% American beef from our plants then the United States Department of Agriculture should do everything within its power to make that possible by requiring that all cattle imported into the US be clearly labeled and segregated so that we do not run into this issue again in the future.”

Many opponents of Mandatory COOL contend that such practices may violate the WTO’s “least restrictive means” policy because it treats domestic beef differently than beef that is imported. In response, Fred Stokes added “Who cares about WTO policies? American producers raise their cattle under the most stringent health standards in the world, and customers, including South Korea, deserve to know that their food is safe. Delaying the implementation of Mandatory COOL for livestock only serves to benefit the multinational meatpacking giants like Tyson Fresh Meats.”

OCM President Keith Mudd concluded “producers need to demand that the USDA be accountable to American producers first, and put an end to the practice of allowing corporate agri-business giants to decide the direction of regulations that affect the entire industry.”

In 2004 OCM initiated and co-authored a paper titled USDA INC: How Agribusiness Has Hijacked Regulatory Policy at USDA (www.revolvingdoor.info).
The Organization for Competitive Markets is an agricultural free market and competition think tank working for honesty, prosperity and economic liberty for farmers, ranchers and rural communities.
 

agman

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
feeder said:
Are we 100% for sure that only Canadian beef is going to Japan or just maybe some US beef being slaughtered in Canada is also being shipped under the diguise of Canadian beef?

Thats the story circulating in this part of the country too, feeder---only RUMOR--no Facts...Lots of "I talked to this Canadian feeder that says"...
But since we know the Packers/USDA/CFIA sleep together it will probably never be proven either way....

I really have to question it- because from what else I've read-- there is very little Canadian beef going to Japan-- no demand for it- and I'm sure these last two BSE cases won't help...Altho one of the Canadian officials claims it is because of Canadian producers reluctance to verify birth dates....

As usual your information is wrong OT-just here-say. The cattle going from the U.S. midwest feeders to Canada are being slaughtered in eastern Canadian plants. I am quite certain some of that product is coming back into the U.S to buyers in the northeast-closer than shipping from western plants. Since there is no ID or age verification the product cannot be shipped to Japan.
 

Latest posts

Top