Derek wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:14:53 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:21:42 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:08:58 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Claim and Standard:
>>>>>[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
>>>>>forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
>>>>>source throughout the animal's life cycle.
>>>>>
>>>>>Dated: December 20, 2002.
>>>>>A.J. Yates,
>>>>>Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
>>>>>[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]
>>>>>
>>>>>BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
>>>>>http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt
>>>>>
>>>>>These "proposed minimum requirements mean that
>>>>>grass fed beef can in fact be fed up to 80% grains for
>>>>>60 days in a feedlot, just like any other steer, and still
>>>>>qualify as grass fed beef.
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what it's name
>>>>>implies,
>>>>
>>>> If you're not lying
>>>
>>>The evidence before you and which you'll ignore
>>>at any cost to your already ruined integrity is from
>>>U.S.D.A.
>>
>>False.
>
>
> No, it's perfectly true.

No, it's false. You have reposted producers' public
comments. You have not posted a USDA standard.

>
>>***No consensus standards currently exist*** for
>>production or marketing claims related to meat and
>>livestock products.
>
>
> Yet you earlier claimed their was a standard, and that
> that standard is followed.

No. There IS an implied standard. It's not a USDA
standard.