South Korea Moves Closer To Allowing Beef From Canada.

[joedales]

Key Step Completed on Road towards Canadian beef access to South Korea


Ottawa, Ontario, December 30, 2011 - Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz and International Trade Minister Ed Fast today announced that a major step has been taken towards restoring access for Canadian beef in South Korea with the South Korean Parliament ratifying the import health requirements for Canadian beef, under 30 months of age. This is one of the final steps prior to Canadian beef re-entering the South Korean market.



“This has been a long journey and today’s announcement is a big step forward for our hard working beef producers to once again bring their world class product to the South Korean marketplace,” said Minister Ritz. “The re-opening of this market will benefit our industry and the entire Canadian economy and we look forward to the finalization of the commercially viable agreement and the commencement of trade.”



"I recently raised this issue with my Korean counterpart at the WTO. Canada has closely monitored South Korea's domestic process and we are working towards complete access being restored," said Minister Fast. "We will continue to work closely with our South Korean counterparts to deepen the trade ties that create jobs and prosperity in both countries."



Following Canada’s first case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in May 2003, South Korea banned Canadian beef and beef products. After years of emphasizing that there is no scientific basis for the ban, Canada requested a World Trade Organization (WTO) Panel to review South Korea's ban on Canadian beef.



Last June, Ministers Ritz and Fast announced a breakthrough in restoring access bilaterally. Both the Canadian and South Korean governments agreed on a process to restore access by the end of 2011. Following this agreement, Canada formally requested a suspension of the WTO proceedings.



The process to restore access is now close to conclusion. Earlier today, the South Korean National Assembly deliberated the issue and passed the Import Health Requirements (IHRs) for Canadian beef. The South Korean Government still has to promulgate the IHRs early in the new year, then issue a list of approved beef establishments for export and formally accept the import health certificates. This is expected to happen early in 2012. South Korea's progress meets timelines established, therefore the WTO Panel remains suspended.



The lucrative South Korean beef market – which Canada Beef Inc estimates could be worth $30 million to Canadian producers by 2015 – was the last major Asian market banning Canadian beef. In 2002, South Korea was Canada's fourth-largest beef market.

[ASRG]

Now if Ritz would cut us a check for poisoning the cattle herd in the first place, things would be good? Coming up to ten years of stalling and refusing to pay up.

[food4u]

Instead of trying to nail the present
government" Why not go after the minister
and bureaucrats that let it happen in the
first place??" Or is there a statue of
limitation on this sort of thing?

[ASRG]

Who were they? Was it under Mulrooney or Chretiens watch?
I think it was the "government of Canada" that allowed the original BSE cattle in, and the infected meal from Britain....long after they knew it was a problem? Therefore the "government of canada" is the one being sued....not any individual?
I wonder if interest on the amount being sued for keeps adding up?

[grassfarmer]

ASRG, Was it not a Canadian rancher that imported
the original BSE case animal in rather than the
Government?
What infected meal was brought in from Britain? don't
think that happened. Still not been proven that the
"contaminated feed" theory was the cause of CDN
cases in any case. Makes it hard to hold the
Government financially responsible.

Should every bar owner be sued for selling a drink to
anyone who subsequently drove drunk? Where does
Government responsibility end personal responsibility
start?

[ASRG]

I'm not sure about all that.....it was a long time ago. I thought the whole point of the law suit was the government failed to stop imports, even though they knew there was a problem in Britain....and they should have shut the door?
I never imported any cows or fed any meal (and you probably didn't either) and yet I was affected just like you, because the government failed to do it's job on food safety.
And yea, I think the bartender can be sued if he keeps selling a drunk drinks? Maybe that shouldn't be, but I think it is the law?

[ASRG]

Did a bit of research on MBM from BSE countries (specifically Britain). Although Canada banned MBM from Britain in early eighties, Canada continued to bring in large amounts from the USA...which continued to bring in MBM from the UK until after 2000. Canada allowed freely allowed imports from the USA, even though the USA was feeding MBM from "BSE positive countries".

Steve Stecklow
Staff Reporter
The Wall Street Journal
11-30-1

Like a mantra, federal officials and beef-industry executives are fond of repeating that there never has been a case of mad-cow disease in the United States.

It's the same claim that Germany, Italy, Spain and Japan used to make -- until the disease showed up in their cattle, instantly resulting in plunging beef sales.

Will the U.S. go down the same road?

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Harvard University plan to release a government-funded study that is expected to show that the U.S. has little chance of facing the kind of mad-cow epidemic that befell Britain, where the disease was first diagnosed in cattle 15 years ago.

But a close examination of America's mad-cow safety net shows some possible flaws. New data provided Tuesday by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reveal that scores of shipments of animal byproducts for use in animal feed came into the U.S. in recent years from countries that now have mad-cow disease in their cattle herds, a potentially serious source of contamination. In addition, federal inspections have shown that many U.S. animal-feed mills continue to violate regulations designed to prevent the spread of the disease. And critics say the U.S. isn't spending enough time or money inspecting cattle -- or people -- for signs of the sickness.

[kato]

I still remember hearing that when one American cattleman heard about the BSE cow in 2003, the only comment he had was "Don't you people have backhoes up there?" If there's a reason BSE won't be found in the U.S., it's most likely to be because they don't want to find it. Not because it's not there.

The accepted theory behind our BSE fiasco is that we had a positive imported from British cow in 1993 which was found and removed from the food chain. The trouble was that she was only one of a number of imported cows that were here at the time, some of whom had already died and gone through the rendering system. The government knew this, and chose not to impose an immediate feed ban, even after being told the consequences of ignoring it.

This choice, given the knowledge they had, and the potential for disaster that they knew full well was there, is why they are being sued. They had the opportunity to stop this thing before it happened, and chose to waste it.

We have paid a big price for their negligence.

[burnt]

Interesting story. Here is the link to "the rest of the story...". Kinda leaves a few questions over their very lax inspection practices.

http://www.rense.com/general17/usmd.htm

[grassfarmer]

ASRG, A bar owner may well be sued if he continues
to sell drinks to someone who is already intoxicated
but I don't think after a car wreck due to drunk
driving the police find out where the drink was
bought and sue the bar owner - there is a
difference in the two scenarios and I think there is a
parallel between this and the use thing.

Have you any idea how many things the
Government has to deal with on an ongoing basis?
to expect them to always make the right decisions
judged retrospectively is a tough row to hoe.
How many Canadian ranchers or beef producer
organizations were arguing for tougher restrictions
on imported MBM through the 90's when this was
allegedly happening? If we didn't know it was a
threat or weren't doing anything about it and it's
our industry how can we criticize the Government?

If, god forbid, we suffer an FMD outbreak this year
in Canada will we try to sue the Government
retrospectively for not preventing it and not having
a workable traceability system in place? Seems to
me most "industry leaders" spend more time
fighting against having a traceability system than
support it.
Sometimes it's just easier to blame others for our
misfortune. I'm not convinced this was really
anybodies fault at the end of the day. Just an
unfortunate occurrence that with the benefit of
hindsight could have been handled better.

[ASRG]

Well I guess you are just a more forgiving fellow than me! The thing that bugs me about the whole deal was guys like you and me paid the price for the screw up? The packers made out like bandits, the civil service grew, the ear tag boys found a whole source of revenue......and we picked up the tab!
I've never had a lot of use for the government for a lot of years. Somewhere along the way.....they lost their way! They quit working for the average joe and went to work for the big corporations.
I'm sure you've seen the NFU presentation on what happened to the cattle industry? That pretty well says it all? The same thing happened in our oil & gas sector.

[cpallett]

Fortunately lawsuits in this country are determined by a combination of evidence and the law. Speculation and opinion have little, if any, place in the mix.

In a lawsuit the standard of proof is balance of probabilities. That means that you have proven your point if the evidence presented in court satisfies the judge that it is more likely than not that your case is well-founded. More likely than not. Evidence. Important concepts.

For example, the OIE has confirmed that in 1992 there were just over 38,000 confirmed cases of BSE in Britain. Last year (2011) there were two. The feed ban worked. The overwhelming scientific evidence confirms that BSE is caused by a prion and is transmitted through contaminated feed. Opinions vary, but on the balance of probabilities and from a legal point of view there is no doubt that the prion theory is correct.

Never mind that the government has many times confirmed the prion theory of transmission and that the most likely source of infection in the cow that closed the borders on May 20, 2003 was pre feed-ban feed.

BTW, if the bar continues to serve a patron that is obviously inebriated they are indeed potentially liable for any damage caused by that patron upon leaving the bar. The potential consequences of continuing to serve an inebriated patron are reasonably foreseeable and thus the bar owner may be liable if those consequences occur. This is common sense.

What people forget, or perhaps never knew, is that eight Salers heifers born in England on the same farm within three weeks of each other in the summer of 1986 (embryonic implants), and all hand fed the same calf-starter ration containing MBM, were imported into Canada as a group in January 1987. This was before much was known about BSE, as it had only been officially described by Dr. George Wells of the MAFF in November 1986. The route of transmission of BSE was not determined until December 1987 at best. Perhaps the importing producer should be faulted for failing to be psychic?

The first case of BSE confirmed in North America (December 7, 1993) was one of these eight imported Salers. It was certainly reasonably foreseeable at that time that the other seven Salers cows were the highest risk animals for BSE in North America. In fact, it was foreseen as Agriculture Canada (as they were then known) immediately sought to locate and destroy the remaining seven animals. The Feds were able to locate and destroy five of these Salers.

The other two had been sent to routine slaughter and their rendered remains had entered the animal food chain. Including one animal that was slaughtered at the age of six years and three months, statistically an ideal age to be packed with prions. Agriculture Canada chose to take the position to all and sundry, including Canadian producers, that all was well and chose to ignore the obvious threat posed by these two Salers, as well as 78 other imported British cattle that had gone to routine slaughter (66) or entered the rendering vats whole (12) in the previous four years.

A lost paper clip is not the same thing as a lost thermonuclear warhead. The bomb may not go off, but as the watchdog who has undertaken the safety of cattle feed, was the government free to ignore it? There's the rub. From December 1993 at the very least the BSE crisis in Canada was certainly foreseeable.

For those who wonder whether the Feds had actually taken on the responsibility to keep Canad BSE-free, it is probably best to use their own words:
"The purpose of the Feeds Regulations is to monitor and control all livestock feed used in Canada, to ensure that it is safe, wholesome and properly labelled so that consumers and livestock producers are protected against potential health hazards from residues and contaminants in livestock products, and against fraud in marketing."

For those who would like to blame the politicians, the evidence indicates that the Minister of Agriculture was never told about the missing Salers entering the human and animal food chain in Canada. Ooops. Tough to make an informed decision without the necessary, and indeed critical, information now isn't it?

Iain, does your get out of liability free card extend to the government when the professional public servants cover up their mistakes from the politicians? Accountability anyone? Yes, Minister makes an entertaining TV show, but when it becomes reality it may well be time for the courts to intervene.

Now I realize that this forum is all about free association proselytizing (there's one for you Randy) but I would respectfully remind all and sundry that the BSE class action will be decided upon evidence and law, not opinion. The evidence (over 75,000 documents) and the law indicate a very good chance of success indeed.

Nothing is ever certain in a lawsuit, but given that our record on my appearances in contested court battles so far is seven wins and one tie (with one decision on reserve), it may be fair to say that the judges who have had the benefit of weighing the evidence and the law are taking this thing very seriously indeed.

[kato]

grassfarmer, there was much more to it than that.

There was a study done on the potential consequences of that first cow. It's conclusions were prophetic. It listed everything that could happen if we had BSE in this country, as well as the odds of it happening.

EVERYTHING HAPPENED. (except the loss of confidence by the Canadian consumers in our beef. Thank you consumers!)

They put it away and ignored it. They knew what would happen. They knew the odds of it happening. They still did nothing.

That fits the definition of negligence.

neg·li·gence [neg-li-juhns] noun

1.the quality, fact, or result of being negligent; neglect: negligence in discharging one's responsibilities.


2.Law . the failure to exercise that degree of care that, in the circumstances, the law requires for the protection of other persons or those interests of other persons that may be injuriously affected by the want of such care.

[kato]

Thanks Mr. P. Seems we're online at the same time. I pushed the submit button to find your response was up.

[littledoggie]

Another thing - was it ever considered that the EQUIPMENT used for manufacturing feed was permantly contaminated? Did we see any of the feed manufacturers have to destroy any of their EQUIPMENT? Trucks and tractor buckets were considered as a possible carrier of the infective agent. So why wasn't the EQUIPMENT at the feed manufacturers?

Thank you cpallett for posting comments on this forum. I wish more professionals would post comments when things needed clarification. I believe that gov't and producer organizations are missing out on providing good information by not participating in this forum, which I'm sure many producers read.