On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:20:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:56:45 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:38:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>Go to the links and find yourself on U.S.D.A.
>>>
>>>Been there, long before you found it.
>>
>> Then you will no option but to agree that the
>> evidence I put before Harrison is from U.S.D.A.
>
>No. It is not "from" USDA.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt You're
wrong.

>>>>>You have reposted producers' public
>>>>>comments. You have not posted a USDA standard.
>>>>
>>>>I've produced both the standard
>>>
>>>FALSE. You have "produced" only a PROPOSED standard.
>>
>> That was the standard you asked for
>
>No. A proposed standard isn't a standard; it's a proposal.

And that's exactly the standard you asked for, unless
you were asking for a standard that didn't exist. There
is no other standard, as you've been forced to concede.

>>>>>>>***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.
>>>>
>>>>As things stand at the moment, according to U.S.D.A.
>>>>
>>>> "Some segments of the livestock and meat industries
>>>> make claims to distinguish their products from
>>>> competing products and may request third-party
>>>> verification by USDA to increase the credibility of
>>>> their claims."
>>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt
>>>>
>>>>As we can plainly see, so-called grass fed beef
>>>>producers are lying
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> Both the producer and U.S.D.A. are misleading the
>> consumer into believing that the grass fed beef they're
>> buying is grass fed
>
>Currently, beef sold as grass-fed beef IS 100% grass fed.

Ipse dixit and false. The evidence above and the need for
required guidelines from usda dash that little bit of meat
propaganda to smithereens, and your argument that it
accrues less collateral deaths than regular beef.