NPPC Wants Taiwan to Lift Ractopamine Ban

NPPC reports that lifting the Ractopamine ban on pork to Taiwan would eventually increase exports by $417 million.

Published on: Jul 31, 2012

In a letter sent Monday to Obama administration trade officials, the National Pork Producers Council expressed its strong objection to re-opening Trade and Investment Framework Agreement negotiations with Taiwan because of that country's continued failure to lift a ban on a widely approved dietary additive used in pork production.

The Taiwanese parliament recently voted to ease restrictions on U.S. beef imports from cattle produced with Ractopamine but left the ban in place on pork produced with the same product.

Ractopamine is a dietary additive that improves the feed efficiency, growth rate and lean carcass percentage of live hogs and cattle. It has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and by the food-safety agencies in 24 countries. Earlier this month, the U.N.'s Codex Alimentarius, which sets international standards for food products, approved a maximum residue limit for Ractopamine, which U.S. pork meets.

"Failing to lift the ractopamine ban for pork was not an inadvertent omission," said NPPC President R.C. Hunt, a pork producer from Wilson, N.C. "It is nothing more than a ploy by the Taiwanese government to bring the United States back to the TIFA negotiating table.

"In Taiwan, pork production is much more important than beef, and pork producers have much more political clout," Hunt added. "This, and only this, explains the decision to lift the Ractopamine ban on beef but not on pork."

NPPC asked U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to make clear to Taiwan that lifting the Ractopamine ban for beef only will not prompt the United States to re-open TIFA talks with Taiwan. TIFA provides a framework for expanding trade and resolving trade disputes between countries.

The pork organization also urged the U.S. officials to "up the ante" on Taiwan by indicating that the United States will not support the Asian nation's entry into negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a regional trade pact, until it drops its Ractopamine ban on pork imports.

"We believe it is time for the United States to explore all potential means, including legal tools, of getting the Taiwanese to open their market," said Hunt.

If Taiwan were to lift the Ractopamine ban on pork imports, U.S. pork exports to that country would increase to $417 million within 10 years, according to Iowa State University economist Dermot Hayes. Just $53.8 million of U.S. pork was shipped to Taiwan in 2011.

Comments:
Add Comment
  1. Anonymous says:

    The Pork Industry apparently did not learn anything from the "pink slime" issue. Science will always be trumped by consumer perception. I followed the issue, interviewed and polled thousands of consumers, read thousands of comments on blogs, and here is the fact. The consumer was outraged that the Beef Industry was using pink slime and had for over twenty years and had not told anyone. Furthermore the Industry was making three cents a pound profit more on hamburger. All of the other information was ignored. All the of this could have been avoided if the Beef Industry had "promoted" the process, outlined who would receive the savings, stressed the food safety aspect, and proudly put it on the label. The consumer would have kissed their butts for the savings and use of a product that would otherwise have gone to waste. When you try and deceive the consumer, like they feel they have been for years, you have to have your A game. The "good ole days" of back room BS are long gone.

  2. MrKnowItAll says:

    Science is irrelevant if the consumer thinks it is bad! Apparently the Livestock Industry did not learn anything from the "pink slime" issue. Doing the same thing over and over again and again, expecting a different outcome is a definition of insanity. The Livestock Industry also suffers from chronic arrogance and an acute bad attitude!

Please provide the answer to the following question:

 =