What's new

China-US Geopolitics: News & Discussions

"concessions"

whatever you want to call it to feed your ego.

diplomats call this "compromise". trump may offer easier access and greater protection for Chinese investment in the US in return. it's right in your article.

Trump will likely scrap that stupid "national security concern" that US Congress inflicted each time China offers good money to buy some dying companies and save US jobs.

Western Digital and Texas Instruments must be liberated!
 
. .
This is what really matters... Not contaminated US beef. Come and compete Russia. Russian soybean and corn taking over US soybean and corn exports to China... :P

Trump is easy to manipulate.


***

First trainload of Russian wheat arrives in China
Xinhua, April 9, 2017

A freight train fully loaded with Russian wheat arrived at Manzhouli land port in north China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Saturday.

This is the first bulk shipment of Russian wheat to enter China via the land port after the two countries reached deals on quarantine inspection requirements for exporting Russian wheat, corn, rice and soybean to China in December 2015.

China's state-owned foodstuff conglomerate COFCO Corp. is responsible for quality control, import and distribution to the Chinese market.

COFCO president Yu Xubo said the group plans to import 1 million to 2 million tonnes of wheat from Russia a year. This may increase to 4 million or 5 million tonnes a year in the future, he said.

Russia replaced the United States as the world's top wheat exporter last year with 25 million tonnes of exports, according to figures provided by the Russian side. :sarcastic:

"Compared with ocean shipping, land transport via Manzhouli cuts travel time and costs," said Chen Lixin, Party chief of Manzhouli City.

He said China's import of Russian wheat is a new breakthrough in bilateral trade and economic cooperation achieved within the framework of the Belt and Road initiative.

Russia has banned all GMO and Monsanto. It's better to eat traditional organic food from Russia than eating US junk.
 
.
I am in favor of a balanced trade, question is what can the US possibly offer that could make China interested beside crude, LNG and hollywood movies
 
.
I am in favor of a balanced trade, question is what can the US possibly offer that could make China interested beside crude, LNG and hollywood movies

With fracking revolution in the US, they can be major crude and natural gas exporters, as a matter of fact. Now that Trump does not believe in nature, China, along with other US companies, can explore and exploit Alaska's rich hydrocarbon resources.

China has a giant SPR program to fill in. The US has a giant budget deficit to patch up.

Win-win.
 
. .
So what exactly caused the contamination of American beef in prior years?
China first imposed a beef embargo in 2001 in response to mad cow disease in Europe. The agriculture ministry announced the ban would include American beef after the disease appeared in the U.S. in 2003.

Typical American BS reporting. Making sound like China made concession to American.
US farmers have been hoping to resume exports to China, and China already planned to lift the ban last year, as well as buy more grains and other agricultural products, items that US is good at. Now US says it's a "concession".

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/cnn-...on-beef-imports-from-u-s.451266/#post-8726402
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/22/news/china-us-beef-imports/index.html
 
.
Wow. It really has been a long time since then, which confused me into believing there was a separate incident. I still remember those news reports, but I never expected the ban to last this long.
 
.
If this is a concession, then Trump's missing 45% tariffs and promise to label China a currency manipulator on day one must be full body kowtow.

Concession to this guy?

upload_2017-4-11_10-58-28.png
 
.
. .
Q&A on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat
October 2015

1. What do you consider as red meat?
Red meat refers to all mammalian muscle meat, including, beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat.

2. What do you consider as processed meat?
Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation. Most processed meats contain pork or beef, but processed meats may also contain other red meats, poultry, offal, or meat by-products such as blood.

Examples of processed meat include hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong or beef jerky as well as canned meat and meat-based preparations and sauces.

3. Why did IARC choose to evaluate red meat and processed meat?
An international advisory committee that met in 2014 recommended red meat and processed meat as high priorities for evaluation by the IARC Monographs Programme. This recommendation was based on epidemiological studies suggesting that small increases in the risk of several cancers may be associated with high consumption of red meat or processed meat. Although these risks are small, they could be important for public health because many people worldwide eat meat and meat consumption is increasing in low- and middle-income countries. Although some health agencies already recommend limiting intake of meat, these recommendations are aimed mostly at reducing the risk of other diseases. With this in mind, it was important for IARC to provide authoritative scientific evidence on the cancer risks associated with eating red meat and processed meat.

4. Do methods of cooking meat change the risk?
High-temperature cooking methods generate compounds that may contribute to carcinogenic risk, but their role is not yet fully understood.

5. What are the safest methods of cooking meat (e.g. sautéing, boiling, broiling, or barbecuing)?
Cooking at high temperatures or with the food in direct contact with a flame or a hot surface, as in barbecuing or pan-frying, produces more of certain types of carcinogenic chemicals (such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic aromatic amines). However, there were not enough data for the IARC Working Group to reach a conclusion about whether the way meat is cooked affects the risk of cancer.

6. Is eating raw meat safer?
There were no data to address this question in relation to cancer risk. However, the separate question of risk of infection from consumption of raw meat needs to be kept in mind.

7. Red meat was classified as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean exactly?
In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.

Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.

8. Processed meat was classified as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean?
This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. In other words, there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer. The evaluation is usually based on epidemiological studies showing the development of cancer in exposed humans.

In the case of processed meat, this classification is based on sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer.

9. Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Tobacco smoking and asbestos are also both classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Does it mean that consumption of processed meat is as carcinogenic as tobacco smoking and asbestos?
No, processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.

10. What types of cancers are linked or associated with eating red meat?
The strongest, but still limited, evidence for an association with eating red meat is for colorectal cancer. There is also evidence of links with pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer.

11. What types of cancers are linked or associated with eating processed meat?
The IARC Working Group concluded that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer. An association with stomach cancer was also seen, but the evidence is not conclusive.

12. How many cancer cases every year can be attributed to consumption of processed meat and red meat?
According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.

Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. However, if the reported associations were proven to be causal, the Global Burden of Disease Project has estimated that diets high in red meat could be responsible for 50 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide.

These numbers contrast with about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600 000 per year due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200 000 per year due to air pollution.

13. Could you quantify the risk of eating red meat and processed meat?
The consumption of processed meat was associated with small increases in the risk of cancer in the studies reviewed. In those studies, the risk generally increased with the amount of meat consumed. An analysis of data from 10 studies estimated that every 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by about 18%.

The cancer risk related to the consumption of red meat is more difficult to estimate because the evidence that red meat causes cancer is not as strong. However, if the association of red meat and colorectal cancer were proven to be causal, data from the same studies suggest that the risk of colorectal cancer could increase by 17% for every 100 gram portion of red meat eaten daily.

14. Is the risk higher in children, in elderly people, in women, or in men? Are some people more at risk?
The available data did not allow conclusions about whether the risks differ in different groups of people.

15. What about people who have had colon cancer? Should they stop eating red meat?
The available data did not allow conclusions about risks to people who have already had cancer.

16. Should I stop eating meat?
Eating meat has known health benefits. Many national health recommendations advise people to limit intake of processed meat and red meat, which are linked to increased risks of death from heart disease, diabetes, and other illnesses.

17. How much meat is it safe to eat?
The risk increases with the amount of meat consumed, but the data available for evaluation did not permit a conclusion about whether a safe level exists.

18. What makes red meat and processed meat increase the risk of cancer?
Meat consists of multiple components, such as haem iron. Meat can also contain chemicals that form during meat processing or cooking. For instance, carcinogenic chemicals that form during meat processing include N-nitroso compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Cooking of red meat or processed meat also produces heterocyclic aromatic amines as well as other chemicals including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are also found in other foods and in air pollution. Some of these chemicals are known or suspected carcinogens, but despite this knowledge it is not yet fully understood how cancer risk is increased by red meat or processed meat.

19. Can you compare the risk of eating red meat with the risk of eating processed meat?
Similar risks have been estimated for a typical portion, which is smaller on average for processed meat than for red meat. However, consumption of red meat has not been established as a cause of cancer.

20. What is WHO’s health recommendation to prevent cancer risk associated with eating red meat and processed meat?
IARC is a research organization that evaluates the evidence available on the causes of cancer but does not make health recommendations as such. National governments and WHO are responsible for developing nutritional guidelines. This evaluation by IARC reinforces a 2002 recommendation from WHO that people who eat meat should moderate the consumption of processed meat to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. Some other dietary guidelines also recommend limiting consumption of red meat or processed meat, but these are focused mainly on reducing the intake of fat and sodium, which are risk factors for cardiovascular disease and obesity. Individuals who are concerned about cancer could consider reducing their consumption of red meat or processed meat until updated guidelines related specifically to cancer have been developed.

21. Should we eat only poultry and fish?
The cancer risks associated with consumption of poultry and fish were not evaluated.

22. Should we be vegetarians?
Vegetarian diets and diets that include meat have different advantages and disadvantages for health. However, this evaluation did not directly compare health risks in vegetarians and people who eat meat. That type of comparison is difficult because these groups can be different in other ways besides their consumption of meat.

23. Is there a type of red meat that is safer?
A few studies have investigated the cancer risks associated with different types of red meat, such as beef and pork, and with different kinds of processed meats, like ham and hot dogs. However, there is not enough information to say whether higher or lower cancer risks are related to eating any particular type of red meat or processed meat.

24. Could the preservation method influence the risk (e.g. salting, deep-freezing, or irradiation)?
Different preservation methods could result in the formation of carcinogens (e.g. N-nitroso compounds), but whether and how much this contributes to the cancer risk is unknown.

25. How many studies were evaluated?
The IARC Working Group considered more than 800 different studies on cancer in humans (some studies provided data on both types of meat; in total more than 700 epidemiological studies provided data on red meat and more than 400 epidemiological studies provided data on processed meat).

26. How many experts were involved in the evaluation?
The IARC Working Group consisted of 22 experts from 10 countries.

27. What actions do you think governments should take based on your results?
IARC is a research organization that evaluates the evidence on the causes of cancer but does not make health recommendations as such. The IARC Monographs are, however, often used as a basis for making national and international policies, guidelines and recommendations to minimize cancer risks. Governments may decide to include this new information on the cancer hazards of processed meat in the context of other health risks and benefits in updating dietary recommendations.

http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

images
 
.
So what exactly caused the contamination of American beef in prior years?

China first imposed a beef embargo in 2001 in response to mad cow disease in Europe. The agriculture ministry announced the ban would include American beef after the disease appeared in the U.S. in 2003.
Yes, there was mad cow disease.

But IMO, what is more important is American cattle is fed with Ractopamine.

Taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ractopamine


"Ractopamine use has been banned in most countries, including the European Union, mainland China and Russia[3][4] while 27 other countries, such as Japan, the United States, Canada, and South Korea, have deemed meat from livestock fed ractopamine safe for human consumption."

Good that this "ractopamine" is banned in Australia.
 
.
Yes, there was mad cow disease.

But IMO, what is more important is American cattle is fed with Ractopamine.

Taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ractopamine


"Ractopamine use has been banned in most countries, including the European Union, mainland China and Russia[3][4] while 27 other countries, such as Japan, the United States, Canada, and South Korea, have deemed meat from livestock fed ractopamine safe for human consumption."

Good that this "ractopamine" is banned in Australia.

Idiotic Taiwan government also resumed the import of US beef with ractopamine after a short ban and intense US pressure.

But, me and people around myself, we never buy US meat but New Zealand or Australian.
 
.
http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod-us.s3.amazonaws.com%2F4af5071e-1e0c-11e7-b7d3-163f5a7f229c


China tosses a trade bone to the White House
https://www.ft.com/content/40e77a5c-1de6-11e7-b7d3-163f5a7f229c

Beijing’s decision is economically insubstantial but politically savvy.

Nearly 40 years since starting to liberalise its economy, China’s adoption of a fully fledged market economy is still far from complete. But one thing it has picked up from the democratic capitalist west along the way is an ability to spin small changes in policy to placate its international partners.

China showed its prowess in this area by offering some trade liberalisation measures following Xi Jinping’s meeting with Donald Trump in the US last week. Beijing is ready to lift a hygiene-related ban on American beef imports, which has been in place since 2003, and remove some restrictions on foreign companies investing in its financial services sector. By giving Mr Trump some impressive-sounding victories to tout at home, China may hope to forestall some of the wilder protectionist acts the US president has been threatening. Yet ironically, one of the outcomes it is keen to avoid — having the administration label China a currency manipulator — is one for which there is no basis and hence it can do little to affect. It is genuinely innocent.

China’s decision was designed to make a big noise without necessarily changing very much. The pronouncement on beef involved a highly symbolic American product. The agreement to open its financial services sector, meanwhile, may not make a dramatic difference in reality. Western companies are likely to be chary about plunging into a debt-laden Chinese financial system.

The selective nature of Beijing’s policy change underlines the fundamental problem with its trade and regulatory policy. Despite more than 15 years’ membership of the World Trade Organization, China’s economy remains resistant to foreign investment in many sectors and its trade is distorted by regulatory interference.

This week’s offer is not a substitute for substantive liberalisation, particularly in the service sector. Rather than threatening WTO-illegal actions on tariffs, Mr Trump’s administration would do better to pick up negotiations with Beijing on a bilateral investment treaty, which were left over from Barack Obama’s administration and could deliver considerable access to Chinese service markets.

In the nearer term, Mr Trump faces the decision of whether to follow through with a manifesto promise that will have very little effect in practice, except to inflame diplomatic tensions. On the campaign trail, he promised to designate China as a currency manipulator on day one of his administration. The US Treasury’s biennial currency report, due to come out later this week, provides him with an opportunity.

There are, however, two rather substantial problems with doing so. One is that such a designation has no impact whatsoever beyond compelling the US Treasury to negotiate with China, which it is already doing. The second is that China is desperately trying to prop up its currency to prevent financial instability, not hold it down to give it competitive advantage. It is in no one’s interest, including the US, if Beijing suddenly stops intervening to defend the renminbi and a destabilising rush of capital flight and sharp devaluation follows.

The US administration is learning that making substantial and constructive gains in trade negotiations is slow incremental work. It is to be hoped that Mr Trump does not get frustrated with the pace of change and unleash the destructive policies he promised before he came to office.

China will not offer him rapid and widescale liberalisation. But accepting what it can get and carefully and continuously pushing for more is America’s best course of action.

My 2c:
Trump and his new found bone. He must be very proud of it. Oh, thanks for that GMO beef.
Read the comment section over there.
 
Last edited:
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom