Rethinking the testing issue

[cakadu]

Now, for some of you, this is going to be like a 4 letter word, but the following article from the Food Safety Net might give some pause to the whole 100% testing issue. I'd like to know what you think.

Japanese meat industry and consumers divided on BSE testing policy
August 20, 2004
Meatingplace.com
John Gregerson
Japanese consumers and meat industry members remain divided on the effectiveness of current safety measures for BSE ? particularly Japan's policy that all cattle entering its food supply be tested for the disease.
Japanese consumers, distributors, restaurant operators and bureaucrats all agreed to disagree on that matter at a spirited exchange hosted by Japan's Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Health in Tokyo on Wednesday.
As a result, upcoming talks between Japan and the United States aimed at paving the way for the resumption of beef imports from the U.S. will likely be postponed to September. In the meantime, the ministries plan to hold other sessions on the topic in Hokkaido, Osaka and Kumamato Prefecture.
About 200 people participated in the Tokyo session, during which a representative of the grilled-meat industry pointed out that testing all cattle doesn't scientifically ensure safety. His recommendation was to simply eliminate those cuts of meat that pose danger. A consumer supported scrapping Japan's 100 percent test policy, which has kept U.S. beef off Japanese tables since BSE was discovered in Washington last year.
But others, including representatives of consumer and retail groups, opposed changing the system, with one participant maintaining that the 100 percent testing policy "ensures a sense of security about beef."

[pmckenna]

Cakadu: I would agree with your idea that testing has its own problems built in. Here's what I think:

1) What test? Who will agree on what test? How many tests? who will agree on how many types of tests? when to change to a new test, when a new one comes? What if, say, Japan, all of a sudden decides to accept only a newer test? Perhaps they can play it politically forever that way?

2) Being reactionary is something we all do (I have been very bad for that) but it isn't usually the way. Testing is reactionary. It doesn't promote the idea of a strong industry for very long. It tells Japan and R-Calf that they never did anything wrong themselves. Vaccinations, similarly, are done in third world because they have no quality system. How about Canada leading the way instead with reportability to consumers in every country that wants to buy beef? US, Japan, Canada, Far East, and other places along the way?

[oxbow]

The Japanese were very resistant to accepting North Amerian beef 20 years ago with no such food safety distractions. This BSE deal dropped in their lap as a natural import impediment, and they are going to exploit the hell out of it. Those proposed US troop movements out of Korea will do more to bring the east to milk than all the testing we can do.

[oxbow]

You might be right about those troop movements oxbow, and the politics behind testing may be all there is to it, pmckenna, however there are also arguements for testing from our side.

First of all, if Japan was waiting for something like BSE to put up protectionist barriers, why all the beef flowing into their country from Australia and Mexico. Certainly those countries have not shown their own BSE card yet, but I also beleive that Japanese people like to eat beef, and will always need imports to satisfy that demand.

I would also like to point out something that I have said all along to everyone including CFIA and Mark Purdey himself (with agreement). Japan is slowly disproving the theory of transmission through feed. The conventional theory of BSE in Japan, is that they contracted the problem throught rendered byproducts. Once contracted and left undetected for a number of years, BSE should have spread throughout the country, just as it should have in Canada. Our survailence system would posibly allow for more cases to be out there undetected, however, with 100% testing like Japan has, they should be finding more that a dozen cases. We have been following the transmissible theory of the American ego maniac and saleman for testing processes, Prusiner, into oblivion. Even if it takes his own test kits to prove it, let the Japanese, or whoever else want to test,test. Our best hope long term is to show this Bull Shit BSE thing to be what it really is. That is, no threat to humans, and, certainly no need for destruction of the cattle industry when discovered in numbers like we have found here in Canada.
Spontanoeus ; natural, produced by some internal cause. It has always been here, testing is only proving that to be true. Outbreaks or clusters are related to environmental factors causing chemical imbalance.

[kato]

The way I see it is that the 'threat to test' is our best leverage in bringing some serious movement on this issue. To be listened to in this will require having something of value to our negotiations. Having us behave ourselves and toe the U.S. line is of significant value to our neighbours to the south, and they want that to keep happening. Whatever happens...they DO NOT want us to go it alone.

I think we all agree that in a sane and rational world, this debate would not even be happening.

In this information age, where everyone is bombarded by one study after another declaring this is dangerous or that is dangerous, is it no wonder that food safety has taken on paranoid proportions?

First eggs will kill you, then they are good. Then beef makes you fat, then it's the only way to lose weight. Remember when marjarine would stop all those heart attacks from evil old butter? Well, now it turns out that margarine is worse. They just hadn't found out about trans fats at the time.

What it boils down to is that as science develops on a subject, we are constantly finding out that the old science was bad. Now no one knows who to trust, so they trust no one.

We have to live with this. It's going to be this way for a very long time. Ten years from now, when some smart guy gets the BSE all figured out, will it really matter which way this testing debate ends up? It'll be old news. Test, or no test, in the long run it will not matter.

What will matter, to us anyway, is whether or not we have found a way to survive long enough to see the other end. I think that way is to give the customer what they want. That doesn't necessarily mean the Japanese either. There are lots of other people in the world.

[oxbow]

Japan is open to Mexican and Aussie beef because it is complimentary to their beef production. The southern beef is very lean while Japan's beef contains considerable fat. Japan can mix lean southern beef and fat trimmings and it actually helps their domestic beef production prosper. This is done in the US every day. Now canadian beef and US beef is usually a head to head competitor to Japan's domestic high quality beef. This is why Japan is playing games with Canadian and US beef.

I see nothing wrong with testing and thought Canada would go to it long age. Who'd spend $30/head to make, what $500? Who the hell wouldn't? I thought Creekstone in the US should have been allowed to test if that's what they wanted to do. Creekstone is only 70 miles from my house. But, Japan has weasil words that suggest testing product for export may still not satisfy them or open their border.

Furthermore, one big problem facing Canadians is a shortage of packing space, and testing (because of the requisite holding) will exaserbate this problem.

Finally, Canada doesn't threaten the US market in Japan even with Canadian testing. The beef that Canada would send to Japan would be subtracted from the beef that Canada sends to the US. There is no net gain anywhere. This is why an open border is not bad for US producers.

[oxbow]

Oh yeah, Randy and Gail, Oxbow = Brad S from Rancher's . net. My place is Flying Oxbow Cattle so you see where oxbow comes from.

[oxbow]

I liked an earlier statement that you made oxbow, about BSE being dropped in their lap and now they will exploit the hell out of it.

How many groups could we call "THEY".
I understand that you were refering to the Japanese, but,,,,,, could we not substitute Cargil, Tyson, RCALF, and even to some point the United States government for THEY.

This list will not end in the near term, and will only end when this BSE bullshit is exposed for what it truely is. Nothing.

BIG C is simply promoting testing for markets that may ask for it, and therefore the fear of slowing, already lacking, kill capacity is something that needs to be cleared up. BIG C is not asking Cargil and Tyson foods to test for BSE. These two companies are the main reason that testing is being avoided in North America. They do not need to test as all of the beef that they can process is being sold at record profits. They want no part of this kind of change even though it might help producers.

If I am to be labeled a packer blamer for a statement like this. Maybe someone should ask the packers why they have no interest in anything but profits. Do you think they are farmer haters, or farmer blamers.

This Ranchers site has a few fellows who tend to label you an idiot and a packer blamer if you say one word against these multinational hurricanes.
Is it your goal to cut loose on this site with that same type of degrading, yet arrogant conversation oxbow, or are we free to talk about the thrashing that we are receiving?

[cakadu]

When I read the article, there were a couple of significant statements in there - at least for me. The first was the recommendation to withhold what amounts to the specified risk materials, which we are already doing.

Secondly, it is the perception that the 100% testing is the right thing to do, yet the article implies that it amounts to a somewhat false sense of security. Unless the BSE test is different from the other tests that are done, it is subject to titers and interpretation and I would suspect both false positives and negatives.

There are many customers other than the Japanese and we should be looking for those customers as well. Do any of you know if any other country has asked for 100% testing before taking our animals? To my knowledge I haven't been made aware of any, but some of you may have.

If you want to go strictly on the argument of a customer being willing to pay - as in the case of the U.S. - then the Japanese are definitely in that ball park because they are willing to pay good money for the goods that they want - witness the high-end pork that goes from Canada to Japan.

By being pro-active instead of reactive, as pmckenna has suggested, we would be better served going with the "Brand Canada" scheme under the Ag Policy Framework as that has a specific set of steps to show that Canada is a leader in terms of both production and processing.

[oxbow]

Randy, "How many groups could we call "THEY".
I understand that you were refering to the Japanese, but,,,,,, could we not substitute Cargil, Tyson, RCALF, and even to some point the United States government for THEY."

Certainly RCALF is at least as guilty as Japan in exploiting the BSE problem. As for the US, perhaps. Remember that the USDA had a border opening date but was lawyered by RCALF. When you examine administrative procedural protocal, there is a real opportunity for RCALFto go "aha! you didn't do exactly what the rules call for" It has crossed my mind that Bush could be playing a little payback with Canada over the UN vote re. Iraq, but I don't see the evidence. First, he knows the cattle producers in Canada (though a small minority) are about the only friends he has in Canada so harming them would be stupid. Second, the USDA did try to reopen the border some time ago.


Randy, "If I am to be labeled a packer blamer for a statement like this. Maybe someone should ask the packers why they have no interest in anything but profits. Do you think they are farmer haters, or farmer blamers.

This Ranchers site has a few fellows who tend to label you an idiot and a packer blamer if you say one word against these multinational hurricanes.
Is it your goal to cut loose on this site with that same type of degrading, yet arrogant conversation oxbow, or are we free to talk about the thrashing that we are receiving?"


Well, I too am labled and dismissed as a packer blamer because I wish for greater competition among packers. I'd like to give you an historical example. At the start of the 20th century Rockefeller and Standard oil was found to be a monopoly in the oil business, so the doj split Standard oil into (I think) 12 companies. In no time, the sum value of the competing new companies was much greater than the former monopoly. So you see, I advocate competition for packers and cattlemen, and perhaps this is why an open border seems fair to me. In the particular situation in Canada, RCALF has given packers a windfall position since Canada beef production exxceeds processing capacity. I can't blame the coyote for eating the rabbit nor can I blame the packer for making all the money they can. I am a free market capitolist to the core, but sometimes unique or artificial circumstances justify special market intervention, and I'd suggest the case of windfall profits for Tyson and Cargil is a perfect example. You may know that President Bush's brother, Jeb is the governer of Florida and Florida was just hit with the biggest hurricane to hit the US in over a decade. Jeb is prosecuting price gougers in the damage zone. Also, like 25 years ago the US started taxing oil companies that were able to seize excess profits due to oil shortages - they called it "windfall profits tax." Clearly the border closing created windfall profits for the packers and government should address the issue. I'd be the first to keep govt out of business on either side of the border, but this is clearly a special case.

[cowman]

The fact of the matter is this: Cargill, IBP, Neilsons etc. are not doing anything wrong. They are just taking care of business and making as much money for their shareholders/owners as possible. Isn't this what business is all about?
And then consider what R-CALF is doing? Aren't they standing up for their members...the American cow/calf producer? They are an American organization and quite frankly they don't owe us anything? We might not agree with the things they propose and we might think they are misguided but really that is up to the American producer to decide? And apparently a whole lot of them think R-CALF has the right solution? And consider R-CALFS main goal...American markets for American producers? Is that a bad thing? Why should they have to compete with every third world country around? Maybe we need a Canadian RCALF?
The total blame for this whole sorry mess has to lie with our federal government? Who put in policies that created this massive cow herd buildup in Canada? Who is in charge of food safety? Who created the rules that let these monopolys flourish? Who refuses to step in and make the changes necessary?
Cargill, Tyson, R-calf, and the Bush administration are all doing what is in their best interests. If our federal government refuses to stand up and look out for our interests, how does that make any of the others evil or something?
Cargill and IBP are in a tough, dirty business and they know how to play the game. They didn't get so big by being stupid? If someone hands them an opportunity on a silver platter they will take it? And Canada has held out that platter!

[cowman]

Nothing you have said is wrong cowman, and yes change must come in the form of policy change. First of all, however, our federal government must realize that something is wrong with the situation which seems to be a way from happening yet. Therefore, we must continue to push to expose the real profits that the packers are exploiting at the moment. (Over and above our limited Auditor Generals report. $146.00 is a joke)

Thank you for the reply Oxbow, it seems that my mind and yours are on similar tracks; captialism, with common sense in times of crisis or extreme.

Cakado - Even Japan has not outright declared that they would take beef if tested, have they? No other country holds as high a standard for testing as Japan. Therefore, some of us beleive that by breaking into the Japanese market, even with a pickup load of beef, we could open the doors to the whole of Asia.

I simply cannot understand why we are being held back from testing in any marketing sense other than realizing that none of our current packing capacity needs testing to sell beef at record profits, and they do not want anyone screwing with the current, very workable system. Somebody tell me that that is exactly the case with the USA and Creekstone farms, except that Creekstone sees an opportunity for even greater profits in exports.
No common sense behind not testing to satisfy export markets in either Canada or the USA.
Totally unecessary; I agree, essential to open the market being lost in Japan: you tell me.

[oxbow]

First, let me remind you that Rcalf represents very few in the industry, but they need only be 1 to have standing in the courts. Their injuncton really amounts to fancy lawyering to pervert fairness. You can excuse them for doing their will, but their methoods have taken some cynical turns.

As for testing, creekstone is a small paker that can feasibly hold beef long enough to test it. No real inconveniance. IBP can have trucks, sitting outside, waiting to haul processed beef that is still alive. If they were to have to hang a few day's production waiting on a bse test, they'd be forced to run at perhaps 30% capacity until they built more space (which they could do in 60 days). I'm not surprised that the majors won the testing srandards because they simply have too much political juice.

[cakadu]

Randy, from what I understand, we have had chances to sell to Japan - we just haven't taken them. Several years ago there was a CBEF mission to Japan and the Japanese wanted to buy strip loin - the Canadians wanted to sell the whole beef in a box. Now I don't presume to know all of the details on the deal, but the Canadians walked away because the two sides couldn't agree. The Japanese were mystified because the Canadians appeared not to be interested in what the Japanese were willing to pay or how much they wanted to purchase.

The Japanese market is huge and there are a variety of avenues into the markets over there. Perhaps now we have adjusted our thinking enough to do what it will take to fill the customers needs.

I still maintain that without letters of intent in hand to purchase tested beef, it will be hard to convince any of those that make the decisions to allow for voluntary testing, let alone mandatory testing.

Does anyone have any idea as to what progress, if any, is being made with new or previously untapped potential markets in terms of being able to ship beef?

[kato]

I don't think it's testing, so much as 'being able' to test if necessary that is the issue.

There are enough barriers to trade thrown up in our faces right now from outside the country. To have barriers thrown up within Canada is not needed. If a customer were to ask for testing, we should be able to tell them, "Whatever you like." It's as simple as that. Whether they will ask or not remains to be seen, but just knowing that we can do it if needed helps strengthen the future viability of new plants.

Try this scenario. What if we had the border open, and were shipping to Japan, for instance. We had good contracts and were doing well. Then another cow showed up. Would we rather spend two more years trying to beg our way back in the door, or a couple of months setting up a lab to keep the contract? If the regulations were in place, we could move and move fast.

If our customers knew we would be able to move quickly to maintain the business, they would have more faith in us. It would also enhance our reputation as people who take our food safety very seriously.