Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

K, I have a friend of mine who works in farming and during a discussion in the local last night he informed me of this news and filled me in on his thoughts, so I thought considering Dakkadakka has a good number of EU and American members it would make for a good discusion.

In the past week the EU and the US have negotiated a deal to lift the ban on US beef imports in return for reduction in tarrifs on many EU products.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7015047554

Windsor Genova - AHN News Writer

Brussels, Belgium (AHN) - The European Union and the United States hope to end a dispute over beef trade with a temporary agreement announced on Wednesday by the European Commission.

Under the deal, American beef from cattle not fed with growth hormones banned by the EU will be allowed duty-free entry to the European market in the next four years in exchange for the U.S. not imposing higher tariffs on a range of food products from Europe, including French cheese and Italian mineral water.

U.S. beef exporters expect to sell 20,000 metric tons of hormone-free beef on top of their existing duty-free quota of 11,500 tons in the first three years and 45,000 tons more in the fourth year through the deal.

The deal was announced three days before the scheduled imposition of tariffs on EU foods by the U.S. in retaliation for the EU's ban on hormone-laced American beef imposed since 1996.

The U.S. complained of the ban before the World Trade Organization, which ruled in April 2008 that the ban was unjustified.

The agreement must be approved by officials from EU countries, who will discuss the issue Friday, commission spokesman Michael Jennings said, according to Wsj.com.

What this means?

Basicly some are arguing it's a good thing as it will lower the price of beef in the EU. However they fail to notice it's going to severely hamper the quality of beef we get at the moment. Not only is the US method of injecting growth-hormones into cattle (the reason the ban was introduced) still prevalent but many other practices in America are proved to produce much lower quality beef. While in most EU countries cattle is almost guaranteed at least some green plant (mainly grass by pasture grazing) feed in it's lifetime, meaning high levels of omega 3 in the beef, the US is very much different. The majority of farming processes in America are made up of intensive feed lots and feeding cattle with corn or cake (a man made cereal of barley, wheat, sugar cane, rape and other additives), methods designed to put meat on cattle quickly above the attention to maintain good quality product. Take it as you will but it has been argued that the obesity problems in America could be down to it's low quality meat production.

There are also fears that while the agreement is constructed to prevent the import of beef produced with growth hormones it is still unviable to check that this is the case.

What’s more while the European consumer may benefit in price EU farmers will not, as cattle prices will drop. As it stands most EU farmers rely on subsidy payments to keep any business going at all.

So do we want American beef? What do the American dakka members make of this?

Free trade sucks doesn't it.

HAHAHAHAHAH

Presumably though this would also allow non fethed around with USA beef into the EU as well though yes ? Let them label that as such and let the people decide.

More evidence of the "durn liberals" interfering and trying to help the pesky economy !

reds8n wrote:Presumably though this would also allow non fethed around with USA beef into the EU as well though yes ? Let them label that as such and let the people decide.

As I said though, it's unviable to check whether the beef has been produced with growth hormones. And there isn't much of the "non fethed around stuff either" as the vast majority of american cattle are farmed with those methods.

Although yes I'm all for letting people decide what beef to buy if it was labelled properly. Problem is people need to know the above, and know what they are buying.

If it's better, i'll eat it. If it's not, I won't. I vote with my stomach

Let the Europeans have their hippie treehugger beef. I am in favor of growth hormones. After the apocalypse, they'll be the Eloi and we'll be the Morlocks.

whatwhat wrote:

reds8n wrote:Presumably though this would also allow non fethed around with USA beef into the EU as well though yes ? Let them label that as such and let the people decide.

As I said though, it's unviable to check whether the beef has been produced with growth hormones. And there isn't much of the "non fethed around stuff either" as the vast majority of american cattle are farmed with those methods.

Although yes I'm all for letting people decide what beef to buy if it was labelled properly. Problem is people need to know the above, and know what they are buying.

But the article states that only non growth hormone fed beef would be allowed. Whilst I'm not going to claim that any checks would be 100% foolproof there are ways of checking this sort of thing out. I'd imagine that there are suppliers in the USA who don't use these and are "certified" or somesuch already.

---I can't imagine there not being an "organic" or healthier eating trend in the USA of some type that would already have led to some such labelling already.

reds8n wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

reds8n wrote:Presumably though this would also allow non fethed around with USA beef into the EU as well though yes ? Let them label that as such and let the people decide.

As I said though, it's unviable to check whether the beef has been produced with growth hormones. And there isn't much of the "non fethed around stuff either" as the vast majority of american cattle are farmed with those methods.

Although yes I'm all for letting people decide what beef to buy if it was labelled properly. Problem is people need to know the above, and know what they are buying.

But the article states that only non growth hormone fed beef would be allowed. Whilst I'm not going to claim that any checks would be 100% foolproof there are ways of checking this sort of thing out. I'd imagine that there are suppliers in the USA who don't use these and are "certified" or somesuch already.

---I can't imagine there not being an "organic" or healthier eating trend in the USA of some type that would already have led to some such labelling already.

Checking it out is as aeasy as keeping taps on famrers 24 hours a day and making sure they don't inject it. i.e. not easy at all. Checking the beef itself is not done as its not ecnomicly viable.

I'm sure there will be non organic methods of farming cattle in the US. However in the Eu organic cattle farming is mainstream, it's the one area of livestock farming we have right.

Checking it out is as aeasy as keeping taps on famrers 24 hours a day and making sure they don't inject it. i.e. not easy at all. Checking the beef itself is not done as its not ecnomicly viable.

I'm sure there will be non organic methods of farming cattle in the US. However in the Eu organic cattle farming is mainstream, it's the one area of livestock farming we have right

*cut down to avoid those horrible pyramids*

Yes, but that's the same case for farmers anywhere isn't it ? And given the litigious nature of (gogogocrassstereotype!) the USA society if a supplier was found out not to be organic and claiming they were they'd be sued into oblivion by anyone who'd ever bought their product.

Quick point: I am of course basing this around there being food standards agency type departments, if there's not this is all as valid as an MPs expense claim

I feel sorry for the EU farmers... but don't forget they'll be able to sell their stuff and would otherwise have lost trade due to the USA embargo.

But I broadly agree that a mostly organic approach is a good idea.

You can just not buy US labelled beef if you don't like it.

I haven't noticed the growth hormone in all my food. But it might explain why a lot of people down here (in the American South) are six feet tall+. But I think we're getting it from our chickens though. We love some chicken in the south.

I've been cutting down on a lot of beef and chicken lately. So I'm sort of ok.

Kilkrazy wrote:You can just not buy US labelled beef if you don't like it.

Ok, labelling. For one you only have to process meat in britain in order to clasify it as british beef. + it is not in the supermarkets/producers interest to label something if it would mean less sales. So in order to introduce a system of labeling which would provide the buyer with information about what they are buying theyre would need to be laws put in place.

As it stands if this was passed we could have american meat in the same packaging same shelves as european meat and you wouldn't know the difference. Thus degrading the qaulity of prduce on our shelves.

Any nation that has haggis should not be talking about "degrading the quality of produce on our shelves."

First off, all beef spends it time in pastures. I don't care what you read but it is too expensive and completely unfeasible for beef to spend their entire life on a feed lot being fed feed product.

As for the EU farmers. The agreement works both ways, we gain something and the EU farmers don't have to pay as high a tariff on goods bound for the US. In theory it works both ways.

Plus the US is not the tops in beef exports so I think it seems like we are the least of your worries. As a matter of fact, we are not even in the top three.

Frazzled wrote:Any nation that has haggis should not be talking about "degrading the quality of produce on our shelves."

The EU isn't a nation.

....yet...

And haggis isn't produce. Unless your one of these people who believe haggis is actualy a highland animal with one leg shorter than the other so it can run around hills better.

loomisc wrote:First off, all beef spends it time in pastures. I don't care what you read but it is too expensive and completely unfeasible for beef to spend their entire life on a feed lot being fed feed product.

The cattle in America which goes into feed lots ussualy spends the first half of it's life grasing, correct. Then they go into a feed lot and are farmed intensively. The majority of other processes in america amount to cattle ussualy not eating any green plant feed in it's life thus lowering the quality of meat. For example omega 3 is absent from beef where the cattle has not had access to green plants.

As for the EU farmers. The agreement works both ways, we gain something and the EU farmers don't have to pay as high a tariff on goods bound for the US. In theory it works both ways.

The tarrfis are being lowered on things like mineral water, it's not going back to cattle farmers.

The world trade organisation ordered this ban lifted 11 years ago.

It should be lifted and the meat correctly labelled and consumers informed about the different methods of farming. I do find it amusing that it's only when the luxury cheeses and mineral water get threatened, suddenly EU allows it...

For the record though, whilst I object to the use of hormone injected meat, I don't doubt I am ingesting far worse in some form or another and just don't know about it yet. There is Chloromine in the water here for goodness sake, , if it gets into fishtanks it kills the fish - I don't want to be ingesting large amounts of disinfectant, they are now talking about adding florine to the water as well. These things are poisonous.

I dont mind having weird things added to consumable products, just let me have the information about them and the ability to buy an alternative without.

From what my friend told me farmers are contantly pushing for more jurasdiction in the way food is labelled in order to get better results from better farming, but the power is firmly in the hands of the supermarkets, distributers and resteraunts and it isn't in their interest to do that. Plus many farmers are afraid to speak out together in fear of losing their subsidy payments which they live on.

You know, if various additives, hormones, pesticides, and other high-yield techniques were not used in food production, there wouldn't be anywhere near enough food to feed the world's population.

I'm so sick of whiny people going off about organic-this, or hormone-free when it's obvious that they don't understand why food production relies so heavily on these things.

Don't like it? Stop breeding. Reduce the number of the people on the planet, and maybe we can go back to all-natural methods of food production. But, until the planet loses about 5 billion people, hormones, pesticides, growth additives and the like are here to stay.

Funny how the Eu manages without feed lots and hormone induced cattle.

And no ones going on about organitc this, hormone free that. I'm talking about the quality of beef we have in europe being worsoned by bad quality import and harmpering the business of EU farmers.

I'm well aware some food practices are necesary yet unatractive, this has nothing to do with that.

No, obviously it has nothing to do with that, nothing is ever connected...

The UK pioneered factory farming in the 50s. My grandfather was a farmer near Kings Lynn, and I've heard his stories about what was involved. The lack of cattle feed lots has less to do with some moral superiority and more to do with lack of space for them.

I think you're making a big fuss over nothing. If you like paying high prices for beef, you'll still be able to get your quality stuff, and if you want affordable meat, you'll have that as an option too. Just like it works in the states. If you want to pay $100/pound for beef, you can even get your Kobe steaks...

The UK pioneered factory farming in the 50s. My grandfather was a farmer near Kings Lynn, and I've heard his stories about what was involved. The lack of cattle feed lots has less to do with some moral superiority and more to do with lack of space for them.

Yeh because there's just no space in europe. The EU still manages without them regardless of why, and in addition to that cattle are fed with less cake than American cattle are.

I think you're making a big fuss over nothing. If you like paying high prices for beef, you'll still be able to get your quality stuff, and if you want affordable meat, you'll have that as an option too. Just like it works in the states. If you want to pay $100/pound for beef, you can even get your Kobe steaks...

And of course the farmers have no place in the matter.

I'm pro automated and engineered farming practices. More food, less waste. It's what's needed if were going to sustain the rapidly growing human population over the next 100 years. Clone foods are about the only thing that will keep this species going past the point of collapse.

Get used to it.

Checking it out is as aeasy as keeping taps on famrers 24 hours a day and making sure they don't inject it. i.e. not easy at all. Checking the beef itself is not done as its not ecnomicly viable.

Then I challenge you to prove that european farmers don't already do it. It's cost effective after all. Or is this just some anti american rant? If it's impossible to check our meat because you don't have the time, then honestly how trustworthy is your own? Since you clearly don't have the time.

And of course the farmers have no place in the matter.

Smalltime farmers should disappear. They are holding onto a romanticized and failed way of life. By simply existing they do more harm then good. Or did you shed the same tears for the locksmiths?

Shuma: I reckon we can do it without hormone injections and with grazing and still have enough to feed everyone, and it will also lead to drastically reduced methane emissions from the cattle. We just need more efficient farming, it can be improved in lots of places. The biggest problem with that tends to be the farmers themselves, who tend to be stuck in their ways and not likely to try new and more efficient practices easily.

wait,

Respectfully you just said two diamterically opposed things Da Boss.

You can either have more efficient farming, or grazing.

Typeline wrote:I haven't noticed the growth hormone in all my food. But it might explain why a lot of people down here (in the American South) are six feet tall+. But I think we're getting it from our chickens though. We love some chicken in the south.

I've been cutting down on a lot of beef and chicken lately. So I'm sort of ok.

Doesn't the south have a lot of Swedish etc blood. They are tall. Anyway lots of German and Dutch blood in America. They are tall. It could be the hgh in the beef I don't know.

Also I read that groups of people adapt their height to their enviroment, not via natural selection just hormone levels. Crowded places (forests, built up cities etc) have shorter people. Wide open spaces (America, Russia etc) have larger people. Though also tempreture plays a part etc etc.

You like Chicken in the south eh... assumptions come to mind...

gator, the other other other white meat

It's possible to have more efficient farming that's also grazing.

How? The most efficient farms are US concentration farms. I know as I ran the financials back when I was a young whipper snapper. Its not PETA friendly but its bloody cost efficient.

I'm not defending it-I hate and think certain restrictions need to be made. But it is more efficient.

Oh, damn. My language wasn't specific enough. I meant "more efficient than it currently is". We can have enough to feed us while using grazing, we just need to become more efficient about a lot of the ancillaries. And also, improve conditions in areas where farming is massively inefficient. I agree it probably isn't the most cost effective way to mass produce beef.

Cloned beef does sound interesting though. I'll have to look at the literature. It'd be veggie friendly and everything, since no thinking organism is harmed in it's creation.