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

Without Testing--Close Scrutiny of Beef in Korea

Econ101

Well-known member
Seoul resumes US beef imports, vows careful inspection



TOUGH CHECK: Having removed the three-year ban, the quarantine office said it would unpack and scrutinize all 700-odd boxes of beef one by one



Taipei Times

AFP, SEOUL

Tuesday, Oct 31, 2006, Page 10



South Korea yesterday resumed imports of US beef, ending a three-year ban over mad cow disease, officials said.



Nine tonnes of boneless beef from a Kansas-based slaughterhouse arrived at Incheon International Airport, west of Seoul, for quarantine inspection before sale, the agriculture ministry said.



Seoul banned imports of US beef in December 2003 to keep out mad-cow disease. It agreed in January to partially lift the ban but delayed the import resumption after a new US mad cow case reported in March.



"The imported US beef will be subject to thorough quarantine inspections," Park Kyong-il of the National Veterinary and Quarantine Service said.



He said inspectors would unpack and scrutinize all 700-odd boxes of beef one by one to see if they contain harmful levels of antibiotics or banned body parts such as bones.



"The US beef, if found to have no quarantine problems, will be on sale here in the local market around mid-November," he added.



South Korea is the last major Asian market to reopen its doors to US beef after a series of bans were imposed in late 2003 in response to the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, in a US cow.



Before the ban was introduced, South Korea imported more than US$814 million worth of beef, with boneless beef accounting for US$449 million.



The country now permits imports of only boneless beef taken from US cattle aged less than 30 months.



South Korea's partial lifting of a ban on imports of US beef was announced to facilitate free-trade talks with the US, now underway.



South Korea is the US' seventh-biggest trading partner. Bilateral trade last year totaled US$72 billion.





taipeitimes.com
 

Tam

Well-known member
South Korea's partial lifting of a ban on imports of US beef was announced to facilitate free-trade talks with the US, now underway.
South Korea is the US' seventh-biggest trading partner. Bilateral trade last year totaled US$72 billion
.

See Rod this is how US negotiators tie beef exports to all other trade
deals. :wink:

And eCON can you tell us if the US had tested would South Korea not have looked for harmful levels of antibiotics or banned body parts such as bones since Japan found ban bone in their imports from the US?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Tam said:
South Korea's partial lifting of a ban on imports of US beef was announced to facilitate free-trade talks with the US, now underway.
South Korea is the US' seventh-biggest trading partner. Bilateral trade last year totaled US$72 billion
.

See Rod this is how US negotiators tie beef exports to all other trade
deals. :wink:

And eCON can you tell us if the US had tested would South Korea not have looked for harmful levels of antibiotics or banned body parts such as bones since Japan found ban bone in their imports from the US?

:???: :???: :???: :???:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Tam said:
South Korea's partial lifting of a ban on imports of US beef was announced to facilitate free-trade talks with the US, now underway.
South Korea is the US' seventh-biggest trading partner. Bilateral trade last year totaled US$72 billion
.

See Rod this is how US negotiators tie beef exports to all other trade
deals. :wink:

And eCON can you tell us if the US had tested would South Korea not have looked for harmful levels of antibiotics or banned body parts such as bones since Japan found ban bone in their imports from the US?

Tam, why would anyone answer your questions when you resort to kindergarten name calling in the post?

Do you just need more attention? Maybe you should seek it from BMR.

I can not tell you what the South Koreans would do as tomorrow as I do not have my crystal ball. I do know that their suspicion is grounded in mistrust of the USDA having a hard time with credibility because of their food safety/ bse policies and mistakes. That should have been self evident to you but I understand learning disabled need a little more help from the teacher than most.

Get a clue, Tam. I have already asked you not to post to me as I don't like wasting my time with your idiotic nonsense. Keep it in the family and save it for BMR.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Tam said:
South Korea's partial lifting of a ban on imports of US beef was announced to facilitate free-trade talks with the US, now underway.
South Korea is the US' seventh-biggest trading partner. Bilateral trade last year totaled US$72 billion
.

See Rod this is how US negotiators tie beef exports to all other trade
deals. :wink:

And eCON can you tell us if the US had tested would South Korea not have looked for harmful levels of antibiotics or banned body parts such as bones since Japan found ban bone in their imports from the US?

Tam, why would anyone answer your questions when you resort to kindergarten name calling in the post?

Do you just need more attention? Maybe you should seek it from BMR.

I can not tell you what the South Koreans would do as tomorrow as I do not have my crystal ball. I do know that their suspicion is grounded in mistrust of the USDA having a hard time with credibility because of their food safety/ bse policies and mistakes. That should have been self evident to you but I understand learning disabled need a little more help from the teacher than most.

Get a clue, Tam. I have already asked you not to post to me as I don't like wasting my time with your idiotic nonsense. Keep it in the family and save it for BMR.


By labeling this post Without testing--Close Scrutiny of Beef in Korea. I thought maybe you had some proof that the Koreans would not be inspecting the beef as close if the US had tested but since you diverted with discrediting comments I guess you don't.
It the Koreans have so much mistrust why are they excepting untested beef at all? Why are they not demanding tested beef?

Isn't it true that testing has nothing to do with it and the fact that Korea has a zero tolerance to bone chips. Since Japan found some, as did other countries, I would think that Korea is going to make sure there are none in their shippment, Tested or not.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Tam said:
Econ101 said:
Tam said:
.

See Rod this is how US negotiators tie beef exports to all other trade
deals. :wink:

And eCON can you tell us if the US had tested would South Korea not have looked for harmful levels of antibiotics or banned body parts such as bones since Japan found ban bone in their imports from the US?

Tam, why would anyone answer your questions when you resort to kindergarten name calling in the post?

Do you just need more attention? Maybe you should seek it from BMR.

I can not tell you what the South Koreans would do as tomorrow as I do not have my crystal ball. I do know that their suspicion is grounded in mistrust of the USDA having a hard time with credibility because of their food safety/ bse policies and mistakes. That should have been self evident to you but I understand learning disabled need a little more help from the teacher than most.

Get a clue, Tam. I have already asked you not to post to me as I don't like wasting my time with your idiotic nonsense. Keep it in the family and save it for BMR.


By labeling this post Without testing--Close Scrutiny of Beef in Korea. I thought maybe you had some proof that the Koreans would not be inspecting the beef as close if the US had tested but since you diverted with discrediting comments I guess you don't.
It the Koreans have so much mistrust why are they excepting untested beef at all? Why are they not demanding tested beef?

Isn't it true that testing has nothing to do with it and the fact that Korea has a zero tolerance to bone chips. Since Japan found some, as did other countries, I would think that Korea is going to make sure there are none in their shippment, Tested or not.

Tam, put your chicken head to work and think why they don't want bone chips. Here is a hint---it might have to do with SRM removal.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Tam said:
Econ101 said:
Tam, why would anyone answer your questions when you resort to kindergarten name calling in the post?

Do you just need more attention? Maybe you should seek it from BMR.

I can not tell you what the South Koreans would do as tomorrow as I do not have my crystal ball. I do know that their suspicion is grounded in mistrust of the USDA having a hard time with credibility because of their food safety/ bse policies and mistakes. That should have been self evident to you but I understand learning disabled need a little more help from the teacher than most.

Get a clue, Tam. I have already asked you not to post to me as I don't like wasting my time with your idiotic nonsense. Keep it in the family and save it for BMR.


By labeling this post Without testing--Close Scrutiny of Beef in Korea. I thought maybe you had some proof that the Koreans would not be inspecting the beef as close if the US had tested but since you diverted with discrediting comments I guess you don't.
It the Koreans have so much mistrust why are they excepting untested beef at all? Why are they not demanding tested beef?

Isn't it true that testing has nothing to do with it and the fact that Korea has a zero tolerance to bone chips. Since Japan found some, as did other countries, I would think that Korea is going to make sure there are none in their shippment, Tested or not.

Tam, put your chicken head to work and think why they don't want bone chips. Here is a hint---it might have to do with SRM removal.

So it's SRM removal that makes the beef safe. :shock:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Tam said:
Econ101 said:
Tam said:
By labeling this post Without testing--Close Scrutiny of Beef in Korea. I thought maybe you had some proof that the Koreans would not be inspecting the beef as close if the US had tested but since you diverted with discrediting comments I guess you don't.
It the Koreans have so much mistrust why are they excepting untested beef at all? Why are they not demanding tested beef?

Isn't it true that testing has nothing to do with it and the fact that Korea has a zero tolerance to bone chips. Since Japan found some, as did other countries, I would think that Korea is going to make sure there are none in their shippment, Tested or not.

Tam, put your chicken head to work and think why they don't want bone chips. Here is a hint---it might have to do with SRM removal.

So it's SRM removal that makes the beef safe. :shock:

Thats a chicken head response. Think harder.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Tam said:
Econ101 said:
Tam, put your chicken head to work and think why they don't want bone chips. Here is a hint---it might have to do with SRM removal.

So it's SRM removal that makes the beef safe. :shock:

Thats a chicken head response. Think harder.


Neither Japan or Korea are demanding testing of the beef they are taking but both are refusing to except the beef if there is bone chips (hint SRMs). That tells me that they feel testing is not what insures the beef is safe but (hint) SRM removal IS.

:? Gee I wonder if they think that because the OIE experts are telling them that. :?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam
Neither Japan or Korea are demanding testing of the beef they are taking but both are refusing to except the beef if there is bone chips (hint SRMs). That tells me that they feel testing is not what insures the beef is safe but (hint) SRM removal IS.

Gee I wonder if they think that because the OIE experts are telling them that.

And the Koreans don't want beef from high risk areas like Canada- which was the OIE standard... :wink:
Also the Japanese Packers are still testing everything- giving their consumers what they want- tested beef...Those folks know that in order to market your product you have to give the consumer what they want..Not just the change the health guidelines and shove it down their throat :roll:

May be the reason Toyota took so much of Dodge, GM, and Ford's market.....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
The OIE has turned into a pasty for the big gorrilla on the block if you haven't noticed.

There is NO reason why Japan or anyone can order imports to be tested if their own supply is so tested. Food Safety is not just the purview of the USDA (who are failing miserably at it and not being held accountable) and the OIE. It is all our responsibility. Just because the OIE and the USDA say so doesn't make it so and many people don't want to bet their health on people who have had such a poor track record as the USDA. Period.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Neither Japan or Korea are demanding testing of the beef they are taking but both are refusing to except the beef if there is bone chips (hint SRMs). That tells me that they feel testing is not what insures the beef is safe but (hint) SRM removal IS.

So why did the UK test everything over 30 months when they allowed that age to become present in the food chain?

If they thought that SRM removal was enough of a firewall.... why test?

Article Excerpt
An effective system now exists in the UK to test cattle aged over 30 months for BSE before they enter the food chain, the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) announced on Monday.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Neither Japan or Korea are demanding testing of the beef they are taking but both are refusing to except the beef if there is bone chips (hint SRMs). That tells me that they feel testing is not what insures the beef is safe but (hint) SRM removal IS.

So why did the UK test everything over 30 months when they allowed that age to become present in the food chain?

If they thought that SRM removal was enough of a firewall.... why test?

Article Excerpt
An effective system now exists in the UK to test cattle aged over 30 months for BSE before they enter the food chain, the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) announced on Monday.

Europe and the rest of the world has for some time recognized BSE testing as a means of insuring food safety...Its just the US (USDA/AMI/NCBA/Multinational Corporate Packers) and their shirttail step child Canada ( CFIA/CCA/ABP/AMI/same Multinational Corporate Packers) that don't.....
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Neither Japan or Korea are demanding testing of the beef they are taking but both are refusing to except the beef if there is bone chips (hint SRMs). That tells me that they feel testing is not what insures the beef is safe but (hint) SRM removal IS.

So why did the UK test everything over 30 months when they allowed that age to become present in the food chain?

If they thought that SRM removal was enough of a firewall.... why test?

Article Excerpt
An effective system now exists in the UK to test cattle aged over 30 months for BSE before they enter the food chain, the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) announced on Monday.

Europe and the rest of the world has for some time recognized BSE testing as a means of insuring food safety...Its just the US (USDA/AMI/NCBA/Multinational Corporate Packers) and their shirttail step child Canada ( CFIA/CCA/ABP/AMI/same Multinational Corporate Packers) that don't.....

Taken from the 7th page of the OIE report to the US.
The subcommittee considers testing of all cattle slaughtered for human consumption to be unjustifed in terms of protecting human and animal health.
taken from 3rd page of the OIE report to Canada
Implementation of an SRM ban is the most critial and valuable central measure for public health protection and food safety and is fully endorced by the review team. An SRM ban would also reduce the risk of infectivity in animal feed.
So Oldtimer if the rest of the world considers testing to be the answer why is it not recommended by the World experts from the OIE that all animals for human consumption be tested?????? And if SRM removal is not the answer then why are those same experts recommending it as the most critial and valuable central measure for public health????? .
 

Tam

Well-known member
Mike said:
Neither Japan or Korea are demanding testing of the beef they are taking but both are refusing to except the beef if there is bone chips (hint SRMs). That tells me that they feel testing is not what insures the beef is safe but (hint) SRM removal IS.

So why did the UK test everything over 30 months when they allowed that age to become present in the food chain?

If they thought that SRM removal was enough of a firewall.... why test?

Article Excerpt
An effective system now exists in the UK to test cattle aged over 30 months for BSE before they enter the food chain, the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) announced on Monday.

Taken from the OIE web page

The OIE chapter on BSE currently describes five levels of exporting country status based on their determined risk level (free, provisionally free, minimal risk, moderate risk and high risk). It then addresses trade conditions for various commodities through an increasing degree of restrictions commensurate with the risks presented. For example, fresh meat may be imported safely from a country of any BSE status but with increasing restrictions so that, for countries presenting a high BSE risk, more severe measures are applied to the cattle and to the meat itself. The experts consider that, if these measures are followed, the meat is safe.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
So why did the UK test everything over 30 months when they allowed that age to become present in the food chain?

If they thought that SRM removal was enough of a firewall.... why test?

Europe and the rest of the world has for some time recognized BSE testing as a means of insuring food safety...Its just the US (USDA/AMI/NCBA/Multinational Corporate Packers) and their shirttail step child Canada ( CFIA/CCA/ABP/AMI/same Multinational Corporate Packers) that don't.....

Taken from the 7th page of the OIE report to the US.
The subcommittee considers testing of all cattle slaughtered for human consumption to be unjustifed in terms of protecting human and animal health.
taken from 3rd page of the OIE report to Canada
Implementation of an SRM ban is the most critial and valuable central measure for public health protection and food safety and is fully endorced by the review team. An SRM ban would also reduce the risk of infectivity in animal feed.
So Oldtimer if the rest of the world considers testing to be the answer why is it not recommended by the World experts from the OIE that all animals for human consumption be tested?????? And if SRM removal is not the answer then why are those same experts recommending it as the most critial and valuable central measure for public health????? .

As has been explained to you now hundreds of times- OIE is no longer a true scientific group- if it ever was...It is pretty much now just another pawn of the multinational corporate elitists who use it to further their global trade practices by putting an image of science base on whatever best economically benefits them at any given time...

But I also see nowhere there that it says that testing is not a tool of providing safe product- they just think its unjustified... Much of the world- that understand and recognize the moves of the Corporate world, who don't blindly follow the corporate economically driven science drumbeat, have a greater fear of BSE and think the two combined, BSE testing and SRM removal, offer a greater level of guarantee...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Europe and the rest of the world has for some time recognized BSE testing as a means of insuring food safety...Its just the US (USDA/AMI/NCBA/Multinational Corporate Packers) and their shirttail step child Canada ( CFIA/CCA/ABP/AMI/same Multinational Corporate Packers) that don't.....

Taken from the 7th page of the OIE report to the US.
The subcommittee considers testing of all cattle slaughtered for human consumption to be unjustifed in terms of protecting human and animal health.
taken from 3rd page of the OIE report to Canada
Implementation of an SRM ban is the most critial and valuable central measure for public health protection and food safety and is fully endorced by the review team. An SRM ban would also reduce the risk of infectivity in animal feed.
So Oldtimer if the rest of the world considers testing to be the answer why is it not recommended by the World experts from the OIE that all animals for human consumption be tested?????? And if SRM removal is not the answer then why are those same experts recommending it as the most critial and valuable central measure for public health????? .

As has been explained to you now hundreds of times- OIE is no longer a true scientific group- if it ever was...It is pretty much now just another pawn of the multinational corporate elitists who use it to further their global trade practices by putting an image of science base on whatever best economically benefits them at any given time...

But I also see nowhere there that it says that testing is not a tool of providing safe product- they just think its unjustified... Much of the world- that understand and recognize the moves of the Corporate world, who don't blindly follow the corporate economically driven science drumbeat, have a greater fear of BSE and think the two combined, BSE testing and SRM removal, offer a greater level of guarantee...
Maybe you better fill the R-CALF lawyers in how the OIE is not Science based as is seems to me they are using OIE science to further their court actions :wink:
 
Top