Japan, US agree on beef import resumption

[Eugene]

Japan, US agree on beef import resumption

Jun 20, 2006 — TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan has agreed to resume U.S. beef imports,
suspended for five months due to concerns about mad cow disease, after it inspects
beef processing plants authorized by the U.S. government as suppliers to it,
a Japanese official said on Wednesday.

The announcement comes just a little more than a week before Japanese Prime Minister
Junichiro Koizumi leaves for talks with President Bush in Washington.

Japan's ban on U.S. beef has been a thorny issue between the United States and its closest
ally in Asia.

Before the ban, Japan was the top importer of U.S. beef, buying 240,000 tons valued at $1.4
billion in 2003.

<snip>

Full article: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2100622

[Kagemusha]

1. My gut reaction is that this sounds fair.

The US' position Japan should let in all US beef exports seemed too unreasonable. This looks like a genuine compromise that allows a higher degree of confidence in the actual product being brought in.

[PSPS]

2. Japan gets clean meat, we get the droppings

> Japan has agreed to resume U.S. beef imports, suspended for five
> months due to concerns about mad cow disease, after it inspects
> beef processing plants authorized by the U.S. government as suppliers to
> it...

And from the end of the article:

> Japan had lifted a ban on U.S. beef and beef offal in December on
> condition that the meat was only from animals aged up to 20 months and
> that risk materials such as spinal cords that can spread mad cow disease
> were removed before shipment.

Gee, it's too bad that domestic consumers of beef (that's US citizens) can't place these conditions. But, as bush would say, "who cares what you think?"

[WinkyDink]

3. Not so fast.

"Japanese government officials say that country is planning to lift its reinstated ban on U.S. beef after they confirm that U.S. efforts are adequate to safeguard against bovine spongiform encephalopathy."

Operative words: "after they confirm".

[deminks]

4. US-Japan pact means no more beef trade bans: USDA

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060621/pl_nm/madcow_japan_usa_dc



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As part of a U.S.-Japan agreement to restore beef trade, Tokyo could reject individual shipments, rather than cutting off trade altogether, as a safeguard against mad cow disease, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said on Wednesday.

Japan's January 20 suspension of U.S. beef imports came after it discovered banned spinal material in a shipment of veal from New York. U.S. farm groups have since complained Tokyo's response was overblown

Half a dozen senators from farm and ranch states unveiled legislation for potentially billions of dollars in sanctions against Japan unless sales resume by fall.

"Our goal is resumption of trade -- not promises that trade may resume," said Sen. Kent Conrad (news, bio, voting record), a North Dakota Democrat. "We will proceed with our sanctions bill until Japan opens its beef market to fair trade. We've had promises before that have turned up empty."

(end snip)

Japan has had promises before, too.

[NYC]

5. So now we can ship them all the spinal cord we want.

How do we ram these agreements down other people's throats? Japan inspects every cow.

We, after a long ban, sent spinal cord within the first few months. We don't care about Japan's safety. I think we made that obvious.

I think big business wins again, and the consuming public be damned.

[Kagemusha]

6. Now the last article on this read completely different.

It was about Japan inspecting a limited # of factories from which beef may be shipped... inspecting them TO ENSURE THAT THEY DON'T PACK SPINAL CORDS WITH THE BEEF. Which to Japan is rather important to understate things.

Now hours later we have this article which spins things completely differently, making this seem like a trick that Japan's been roped into to force it to deal with violations on a case by case basis rather than banning beef altogether, followed by threats of billions in sactions to use brute economic force to make the Japanese import beef with a higher chance of disease (because once the incentive to be careful is gone, why would for-profit businesses do so?).

Now I don't know about you, but I tend to think the Japanese only signed onto this with the idea that they could make a genuine compromise that focuses on prevention of problems rather than blind tolerance of sloppiness in ensuring that spinal cords aren't included. This article has to be bitter reading for Japanese officials.

[NYC]

9. They handled their own problem with thorough inspection,

and did their best to inspire confidence in their consumers. Having gone through all that, how could they just accept U.S. standards?

Maybe this is spin for U.S. reading. Who can say?

[Kagemusha]

10. Oh, absolutely it's spin, but is it more than that I wonder?

That's the thing, as soon as the Japanese agreed to it, the trade official guy turns around and says, see the Japanese probably won't shut down the whole thing in the future, with senators screaming, they can't shut down any of it, we'll bleed them dry if they do!! ..etc.

What sorta matters is if the US has any intention of ensuring that there isn't potential mad cow transmission here.

[NYC]

11. I don't believe they have any such intention.

You said: "What sorta matters is if the US has any intention of ensuring that there isn't potential mad cow transmission here."

They won't ensure it for us. I doubt they will ensure it for the Japanese. I think at best, it will be a pretense, and a hope that Japan doesn't catch anything.

Profits before people.

[warrens]

7. Johanns may THINK that's what the Japanese said...

But just like the "agreement" Bush claimed he had just before the 2004 election, this is so far a lot of smoke. I talked to a lobbyist who saw a rough outline of the agreement, and he said they just punted on whether Japan can shut down a supplier who ships banned stuff and will deal with it if it comes up.

That's what they did last time. They closed down the market after it had been open for only a couple of weeks.

The sensible way to deal with this is to suspend an exporter if they screw up, but Johanns is claiming that only USDA can do that. In a way he's right, but I'm pretty sure if we were receiving bad goods from a foreign supplier on a routine basis, it would be within our rights to revoke their permission to export to us.

[warrens]

8. After reading the story again...

Johanns didn't say anything of the kind. He IMPLIED it, but he said he "has expectations." The Japanese statement is pretty unambiguous--they'll take whatever steps they think are appropriate.