On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:03:07 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:59:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:22:31 +0100, 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, and it's because of that intentional
>>>lying to the consumer that U.S.D.A. have "proposed
>>>minimum requirements for livestock and meat industry
>>>production/marketing claims, when adopted, will
>>>become the United States Standards for Livestock
>>>and Meat Marketing Claims."
>>
>> Regardless
>
>Nope. The grass fed beef you refer to is the same
>grass fed beef as defined by U.S.D.A.

That's a lie Goochild.

>You don't
>get to define it differently,

I get to define what I'm referring to. You don't. When
I refer to grass raised beef, I'm referring to grass raised
beef. Anything you say to the contrary, is you lying again.

>Harrison. Grass fed beef
>animals are fed grains in feedlots like any other
>steer, and accrue the same numbers of collateral
>deaths.

How do the grain fed beef you're referring to, accrue the
same number of deaths as those who can not be regarded
as grass raised?