Wonder if USDA slapped the ole USDA on this meat

[rancher]

NZ beef contamination issue



Inquiry needed over beef export contamination

Press Release: New Zealand National Party

Paul Hutchison MP National Party Food Safety Spokesman

22 November 2005



Inquiry needed over beef export contamination



An inquiry is needed to find out why the New Zealand Food Safety Authority failed to detect export beef contaminated with a pesticide toxic to humans, says National's Food Safety spokesman, Paul Hutchison.



The key functions of the NZFSA are to protect and promote public health and safety and to facilitate market access for New Zealand food and food-related products.



"Food Safety Minister Annette King has refused to answer questions from the media on a matter which is crucial to our export industry and which has resulted in the loss of a valuable contract to the South Korean military," says Dr Hutchison.



Taiwan, Europe, the USA and Japan also received potentially contaminated meat. The issue was headline news on Taiwanese television.



"While the NZFSA has been shown to have good traceability systems for New Zealand beef products, it is of huge concern that they failed to detect endosulfan in New Zealand.



"A large number of farmers are angry about the situation, and Ms King and the NZFSA must answer their concerns," says Dr Hutchison.

 

[Sandhusker]

Nope, no use for COOL at all. :roll:

 

[Murgen]

So, with COOL, would you be able to pull the meat that is at issue off the shelves? Or would you need to pull all meat from NZ off the shelf?

COOL and traceability are two different things!

 

[STAFF]

With ScoringAg you would know right to the site of potentially contaminated meat with in a few seconds .Taiwan, Europe, the USA and Japan also received potentially contaminated meat. The issue was headline news on Taiwanese television.
It will be headline news tommorow.

 

[Sandhusker]

So, with COOL, would you be able to pull the meat that is at issue off the shelves? Or would you need to pull all meat from NZ off the shelf?

COOL and traceability are two different things!

If consumers were leery, they could simply avoid the NZ beef instead of shunning all beef and buying chicken. Without COOL, one country dropping the ball hurts all of us.

 

[STAFF]

Here is a link to the chemical http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs41.html

 

[Murgen]

If consumers were leery, they could simply avoid the NZ beef instead of shunning all beef and buying chicken. Without COOL, one country dropping the ball hurts all of us.

And if the problem ever happened with "US born, raised" they would shun all US beef.

Wouldn't it better to have a fully source verified product, where you could pull the offending product off the shelves in minutes?

But that wouldn't fit into the premise of "restricting trade by doing as I say, not as I do"

 

[STAFF]

FSA still investigating beef contamination incident
Posted at 4:07pm on 23 Nov 2005

The fate of a Northland farmer who allegedly caused major disruption to New Zealand's beef trade is on hold, while the Food Safety Authority concentrates on getting exports back to normal.

The authority has been investigating possible prosecution of the farmer, who is alleged to have used a horticultural insecticide called endosulfan to treat cattle for ticks.

South Korean authorities found small traces of the chemical in New Zealand beef during routine tests.

As a result, they imposed import restrictions on New Zealand beef, and hundreds of cartons had to be recalled from a number of markets as a precaution.

The authority's compliance and investigation director, Geoff Allen, says South Korea has lifted its ban on beef from the Northland plant that processed the contaminated meat, but is still imposing extra testing on New Zealand beef.

Mr Allen says the authority will add endosulfan to the list of targetted chemicals it tests for.

 

[Sandhusker]

If consumers were leery, they could simply avoid the NZ beef instead of shunning all beef and buying chicken. Without COOL, one country dropping the ball hurts all of us.

And if the problem ever happened with "US born, raised" they would shun all US beef.

Wouldn't it better to have a fully source verified product, where you could pull the offending product off the shelves in minutes?

But that wouldn't fit into the premise of "restricting trade by doing as I say, not as I do"

If the US was the offending party, then yes, we would be shunned as we should. There has to be responsibility.

Yes, it would be better to have source verified product, but I don't see the packers allowing that to happen. They say we can't afford COOL, and source verified product would have a much larger price tag than that.

 

[Anonymous]

If consumers were leery, they could simply avoid the NZ beef instead of shunning all beef and buying chicken. Without COOL, one country dropping the ball hurts all of us.

And if the problem ever happened with "US born, raised" they would shun all US beef.

Wouldn't it better to have a fully source verified product, where you could pull the offending product off the shelves in minutes?

But that wouldn't fit into the premise of "restricting trade by doing as I say, not as I do"

Don't worry Murgen because most consumers don't even know that Canada produces beef- It has all had to go thru the US and get the USDA stamp before anyone buys it - You better hope the USDA didn't screw up and throw their stamp on this stuff when they mixed it in with the Canadian :wink:

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

OT- You amaze me with th e dreams you come up with :roll:

 

[agman]

If consumers were leery, they could simply avoid the NZ beef instead of shunning all beef and buying chicken. Without COOL, one country dropping the ball hurts all of us.

And if the problem ever happened with "US born, raised" they would shun all US beef.

Wouldn't it better to have a fully source verified product, where you could pull the offending product off the shelves in minutes?

But that wouldn't fit into the premise of "restricting trade by doing as I say, not as I do"

Don't worry Murgen because most consumers don't even know that Canada produces beef- It has all had to go thru the US and get the USDA stamp before anyone buys it - You better hope the USDA didn't screw up and throw their stamp on this stuff when they mixed it in with the Canadian :wink:

How do you know they mixed it in with Canadain product? Do you have any eveidence to support your claim?

 

[Sandhusker]

They claim it is too expensive to segregate it. If they're not mixing it, they're lying about the costs. I'm positive they wouldn't do that. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

And in USDA's world of generic world beef, consumers can't even choose if they want to eat NZ beef or not--all has a USDA stamp and is passed off as US beef...It appears in this case you either take the chance of eating chemically adulterated beef or no beef ....

Really helps build consumer confidence and demand :???:

 

[Tommy]

agman...How do you know they mixed it in with Canadain product? Do you have any eveidence to support your claim?


Do you have any evidence that they do not agman?

 

[fedup2]

As far as mixing beef:
Not taking sides here but I've read on here many times how important it was that we imported beef to mix with ours to add value!

 

[agman]

And in USDA's world of generic world beef, consumers can't even choose if they want to eat NZ beef or not--all has a USDA stamp and is passed off as US beef...It appears in this case you either take the chance of eating chemically adulterated beef or no beef ....

Really helps build consumer confidence and demand :???:

Not so OT... trim would not be identifed in a blended form but processed retail-ready product is labeled by country and is offered that way by retailers.

 

[Anonymous]

And in USDA's world of generic world beef, consumers can't even choose if they want to eat NZ beef or not--all has a USDA stamp and is passed off as US beef...It appears in this case you either take the chance of eating chemically adulterated beef or no beef ....

Really helps build consumer confidence and demand :???:

Not so OT... trim would not be identifed in a blended form but processed retail-ready product is labeled by country and is offered that way by retailers.

I am aware of that--So does that mean you have info that this was all packaged, labeled, retail-ready beef?

 

[Murgen]

Just a question?

How much fat(tallow) is exported from the US every year?

If they had enough lean, would they not be able to add value?

What is the value of exports/lb, compared to the value of imports/lb?

How is "adding value" determined?

If you're able to take a product of low value domestically, and market it abroad for higher retail, is this adding value?

What products from a carcass are of low value in North America, but valued higher elsewhere?

Can you export quality, and replace it in certain markets for a lower quality?