Derek wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:09:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>At present, "grass-fed beef" means exactly that: 100%
>>grass-fed.
>
>
> No, that isn't true,

Yes, it is true. The USDA has proposed, but NOT YET
ADOPTED, a marketing standard that would allow beef
sold as "grass-fed" to come from cattle that were fed
up to 20% of their calories as grain. The rule has not
been adopted.

You are lying. You also don't understand what the rule
would mean. It would NOT mean that producers *must*
feed 20% grain to their cattle; it would mean they
*could*, yet still call the beef "grass-fed".

That is the very point of the comments, you moron.
Western Grasslands Beef currently sells 100% grass-fed
beef. They do not want to see a rule implemented that
allows someone to produce lower-cost 80% grass-fed beef
and gain a cost advantage on them.