Derek wrote:
> 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

That is the proposal. The comments are not the proposal.



>>>>>>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


No. You're lying. I asked for an ADOPTED standard.
That proposal has not been adopted.


>>>>>>>>***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.

No, TRUE. Western Grasslands in California, and
Slanker's Grass-fed in Texas both sell beef that is
100% grass fed; ZERO grain.