 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Derek lied:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:24:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:57:30 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>>Derek wrote: > >>> > >>>>While the meat pushers on these vegetarian and animal- > >>>>related forums try to convince vegans that grass fed > >>>>beef is that: grass fed, and therefore has a much lesser > >>>>association with the collateral deaths caused by farmers > >>>>growing animal feeds, they neglect to mention that > >>>>grass fed beef is also fed grains at the feedlot just like > >>>>any other steer, > >>> > >>>False. > >> > >> Meat-labeling guidelines > > > >No such thing. > > Yes, there are. > > >Standard commercial law means that if a package says > >"100%" anything, it must be true. > > Then all those non-cruelty and 100% animal free and > friendly goods on the supermarket shelves are telling > the truth? As far as saying they don't contain animal parts (to the best of the producers' knowledge) and were not *directly* tested on animals, probably so. That's a weak claim, though. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 7 Sep 2005 11:27:06 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:50:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >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. >> >> And found on usda's web site > >It is not a standard Nevertheless, whatever you might claim it to be, it was evidence put before Harrison that came from U.S.D.A., so you were wrong to declare "false" when you did. I don't expect you to admit it, but the facts are there to see that you were in error. >> >>>>>>>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. >> >> There is no adopted standard, so when asking me to >> produce the standard supporting my claims you were >> in fact asking me for the standard I gave you > >No. Yes. >> >>>>>>>>>***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. >> >> I don't believe Western Grasslands in California, > >You have no reason NOT to believe them. I have no evidence other than his word, so I've every GOOD reason not to believe him. I would be a fool to rely on anecdotal evidence to base any conclusions upon. You should know that. >> just as equally as you refuse to believe statements made >> by Kent Lundberg concerning his collateral death-free >> rice. > >He did not say his rice is "collateral death-free". You are lying >again. Nevertheless, you refused to believe what this producer claimed about his product, just as I'm refusing to believe the claims of the producer you put forward here now. You lose. Evidence from U.S.D.A. reveals that grass fed beef animals are fed grains at the feedlot like any other steer, and I'm not obliged to believe anything else apart from that without good reason. Anecdotal evidence is not good reason. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 7 Sep 2005 11:24:43 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:50:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:19:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >>>Derek wrote: >> >>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:52:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >>>>>Derek wrote: >> >>>>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:38:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >>>>>>>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 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>Not so. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>"The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in >> >>>>>>conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary >> >>>>>>USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA >> >>>>>>Verified programs." [my edit] >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>and >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>"AMS is seeking public comment on the following proposed United >> >>>>>>States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. New >> >>>>>>participants in USDA Certified or USDA Verified programs will be >> >>>>>>required to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock and >> >>>>>>Meat Marketing Claims immediately." >> >>>>> >> >>>>>So. PROPOSED, not adopted. >> >>>> >> >>>>Adopted immediately >> >>> >> >>>NOT adopted. >> >>> >> >>>http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/claim.htm >> >>>http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/ls-st.htm >> >>>http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/ >> >>> >> >>>It is STILL only a proposed standard. >> >> >> >> What part in, "New participants in USDA Certified or >> >> USDA Verified programs will be required to adhere to >> >> the United States Standards for Livestock and Meat >> >> Marketing Claims immediately." don't you understand? >> > >> >It doesn't mean what you're saying it means. >> >> It means that ALL "New participants in USDA Certified >> or USDA Verified programs will be required to adhere >> to the United States Standards for Livestock and Meat >> Marketing Claims immediately > >It doesn't mean that producers must be participants in those programs It means that the ones that are are feeding their grass fed beef animals grains at the feedlot like any other steer, and that they are freely entitled to sell their beef as grass fed beef, knowingly deceiving their customers and ruining your most beloved collateral deaths rant in a single stroke. >you ****wit. Oh dear. Down there already, are we. >It STILL is only a proposed standard. It has not been adopted. "The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA Verified programs." [my edit] and "AMS is seeking public comment on the following proposed United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. New participants in USDA Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims immediately." >You lied. Evidence from U.S.D.A. and the comments from disgruntled beef producers proves otherwise. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 7 Sep 2005 11:28:01 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:52:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:23:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >>>Derek wrote: >> >>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:07:11 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >> >>>>>Derek 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 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>"The proposed >> >>>>> >> >>>>>What part of PROPOSED do you not understand, dummy? >> >>>> >> >>>>Though they are proposed, >> >>> >> >>>The proposed standard is just that: a proposal. >> >> >> >> What part in, >> > >> >The proposed standard has not been adopted. >> >> "The proposed marketing claim standards > >...has not been adopted. "The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA Verified programs." [my edit] and "AMS is seeking public comment on the following proposed United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. New participants in USDA Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims immediately." >You lied. Evidence from U.S.D.A. and the comments from disgruntled beef producers proves otherwise. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 7 Sep 2005 11:29:38 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:24:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: [..] >> >Standard commercial law means that if a package says >> >"100%" anything, it must be true. >> >> Then all those non-cruelty and 100% animal free and >> friendly goods on the supermarket shelves are telling >> the truth? > >As far as saying they don't contain animal parts (to the best of the >producers' knowledge) and were not *directly* tested on animals, >probably so. That's a weak claim, though. I rang Tescos a while ago, and the area manager told me that all the foods I buy there are 100% CD-free. Amazing! All that guilt (hah) lifted off and was taken away like it was never even there to begin with. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek lied:
> On 7 Sep 2005 11:29:38 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >Derek lied: > >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:24:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > [..] > >> >Standard commercial law means that if a package says > >> >"100%" anything, it must be true. > >> > >> Then all those non-cruelty and 100% animal free and > >> friendly goods on the supermarket shelves are telling > >> the truth? > > > >As far as saying they don't contain animal parts (to the best of the > >producers' knowledge) and were not *directly* tested on animals, > >probably so. That's a weak claim, though. > > I rang Tescos a while ago No, you didn't; you're lying again. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 7 Sep 2005 12:16:08 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 7 Sep 2005 11:29:38 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:24:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> [..] >> >> >Standard commercial law means that if a package says >> >> >"100%" anything, it must be true. >> >> >> >> Then all those non-cruelty and 100% animal free and >> >> friendly goods on the supermarket shelves are telling >> >> the truth? >> > >> >As far as saying they don't contain animal parts (to the best of the >> >producers' knowledge) and were not *directly* tested on animals, >> >probably so. That's a weak claim, though. >> >> I rang Tescos a while ago > >No, you didn't; you're lying again. The argument remains the same whether I'm lying or not. You cannot rely on anecdotal evidence to reach a sound conclusion, and that's exactly what you want me to do while urging me to accept your claim as true. Throw again. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek lied:
> On 7 Sep 2005 12:16:08 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > > >Derek lied: > >> On 7 Sep 2005 11:29:38 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >Derek lied: > >> >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:24:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> [..] > >> >> >Standard commercial law means that if a package says > >> >> >"100%" anything, it must be true. > >> >> > >> >> Then all those non-cruelty and 100% animal free and > >> >> friendly goods on the supermarket shelves are telling > >> >> the truth? > >> > > >> >As far as saying they don't contain animal parts (to the best of the > >> >producers' knowledge) and were not *directly* tested on animals, > >> >probably so. That's a weak claim, though. > >> > >> I rang Tescos a while ago > > > >No, you didn't; you're lying again. > > The argument remains the same whether I'm lying or not. No, it doesn't. Tesco wouldn't make such a claim even if you did call them, which you didn't. Thanks for admitting you lied. The nature of markets and business is such that firms, on average, cannot get away with lying; especially relatively small firms in competitive markets, when those firms are trying to establish a name that the public will treat as synonymous with quality. If you opened Derk's Grass-Fed Butcher Shoppe, we'd know that you're lying, because you have no name to protect. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
> On 7 Sep 2005 11:27:06 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:50:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>And found on usda's web site >> >>It is not a standard > > > Nevertheless, whatever you might claim it to be, it > was evidence put before Harrison that came from > U.S.D.A., so you were wrong to declare "false" > when you did. I don't expect you to admit it, but > the facts are there to see that you were in error. > > >>>>>>>>>>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. >>> >>>There is no adopted standard, so when asking me to >>>produce the standard supporting my claims you were >>>in fact asking me for the standard I gave you >> >>No. > > > Yes. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>***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. >>> >>>I don't believe Western Grasslands in California, >> >>You have no reason NOT to believe them. > > > I have no evidence other than his word, so I've > every GOOD reason not to believe him. I would > be a fool to rely on anecdotal evidence to base > any conclusions upon. You should know that. > > >>>just as equally as you refuse to believe statements made >>>by Kent Lundberg concerning his collateral death-free >>>rice. >> >>He did not say his rice is "collateral death-free". You are lying >>again. > > > Nevertheless, you refused to believe what this > producer claimed about his product Because the nature of his claim is absurd. He doesn't know anything about collateral deaths; the sleazily loaded question put to him by that **** Lesley is the first he had ever even *thought* about it. He doesn't know about CDs, but he's bright enough to see the implication of it when it's introduced to him, so he splutters some bullshit about "exaggeration" and the great care they take not to kill some ducks (but no mention of other birds, or reptiles, or amphibians...) By contrast, Ernest Phinney's claims about Western Grassland's grass-fed beef are based on THE DISTINGUISHING characteristic of his product: that the beef is from animals who were *only* fed grass. In contrast to the caught-by-surprise, deer-in-the-headlights Kent Lundberg, Mr. Phinney knows *all* about feeding grass, and only grass, to cattle - it is the very basis for the existence of his company. Mr. Phinney knows about value of preserving the meaning of "grass-fed" as a marketing claim, and his company is predicated on the notion that grass-fed means *only* grass-fed. Lundberg, caught entirely off-guard by Lesley's loaded and sleazy and undoubtedly dishonestly composed question, didn't know what he was talking about concerning CDs. That's just how it is, Dreck. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
> Derek wrote: <..> > > Nevertheless, you refused to believe what this > > producer claimed about his product > > Because the nature of his claim is absurd. He doesn't > know anything about collateral deaths; the sleazily > loaded question put to him .... > Lundberg, caught entirely off-guard by > Lesley's loaded and sleazy and undoubtedly dishonestly > composed question, didn't know what he was talking > about concerning CDs. This is what I wrote Lundberg: "It has come to my attention that during the harvesting of rice, birds and amphibians may be caught up in the machinery. I have heard to my horror and dismay, from one source- an 'organic' rice farmer, that it can get very messy indeed. " Their reply: "There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere. The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field. Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However, the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to the road kill on a mile of highway. Harvesters move slowly, and they are not the high speed machines described in this article. At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000 duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring. There are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails, pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in our fields. We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques. We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that this hoax suggests. --> Kent Lundberg. Kent Lundberg Lundberg Family Farms http://www.lundberg.com Judge for yourselves. End of my participation in this thread. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 06:06:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 7 Sep 2005 11:27:06 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:50:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>And found on usda's web site >>> >>>It is not a standard >> >> Nevertheless, whatever you might claim it to be, it >> was evidence put before Harrison that came from >> U.S.D.A., so you were wrong to declare "false" >> when you did. I don't expect you to admit it, but >> the facts are there to see that you were in error. I'll take your lack of a response as tact admission. >>>>>>>>>>>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. >>>> >>>>There is no adopted standard, so when asking me to >>>>produce the standard supporting my claims you were >>>>in fact asking me for the standard I gave you >>> >>>No. >> >> Yes. And there. >>>>>>>>>>>>>***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. >>>> >>>>I don't believe Western Grasslands in California, >>> >>>You have no reason NOT to believe them. >> >> I have no evidence other than his word, so I've >> every GOOD reason not to believe him. I would >> be a fool to rely on anecdotal evidence to base >> any conclusions upon. You should know that. And there. >>>>just as equally as you refuse to believe statements made >>>>by Kent Lundberg concerning his collateral death-free >>>>rice. >>> >>>He did not say his rice is "collateral death-free". You are lying >>>again. >> >> Nevertheless, you refused to believe what this >> producer claimed about his product > >Because the nature of his claim is absurd. No, it is not absurd. If Kent Lundberg claims that he goes to great lengths to avoid causing collateral deaths while producing his rice, then I have no reason to believe that that claim is absurd or a lie. >He doesn't know anything about collateral deaths Now who's being absurd, Jon? > the sleazily loaded question put to him by that **** Lesley Keep a lid on it for five minutes if you can. > He doesn't know about CDs Yet he makes it quite clear in his statements on the subject that he does his best to avoid them. To now claim that he doesn't even know what they are is absurd, and you know it. >By contrast, Ernest Phinney's claims about Western >Grassland's grass-fed beef are based on ... anecdotal evidence and U.S.D.A.'s definition of grass fed beef that allows him to finish his so- called grass fed beef animals on grains in a feedlot along with all the regular steers, and still declare them as grass fed animals. The proposed minimum requirement was issued on December 20, 2002 and "The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA Verified programs." [my edit] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt As we can see, the proposed market claim standard can be and has been adopted by grass fed beef producers since 2002. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> ... > The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical > proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice > farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields > are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, Causing the amphibians to die... > and the ground is > left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd > sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field. No - they've already left. > Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However, the > number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to the > road kill on a mile of highway. Harvesters move slowly, and they are > not the high speed machines described in this article. diderot did not describe "high speed" machines. And Lundberg has no idea how many animals are killed on highways, nor how many are killed in his fields. > > At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that we share > our fields with. Well, isn't that SPECIAL! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek lied:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 06:06:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek lied: >> >>>On 7 Sep 2005 11:27:06 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek lied: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:50:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:20:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:56:45 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:38:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:14:53 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>And found on usda's web site >>>> >>>>It is not a standard >>> >>>Nevertheless, whatever you might claim it to be, it >>>was evidence put before Harrison that came from >>>U.S.D.A., so you were wrong to declare "false" >>>when you did. I don't expect you to admit it, but >>>the facts are there to see that you were in error. > > > I'll take your lack of a response as tact admission. No, dumb-ass. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>There is no adopted standard, so when asking me to >>>>>produce the standard supporting my claims you were >>>>>in fact asking me for the standard I gave you >>>> >>>>No. >>> >>>Yes. > > > And there. No. I asked you for a standard, not a proposal. You furnished a proposal that has NOT been adopted. The proposed standard 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. >>>>> >>>>>I don't believe Western Grasslands in California, >>>> >>>>You have no reason NOT to believe them. >>> >>>I have no evidence other than his word, so I've >>>every GOOD reason not to believe him. I would >>>be a fool to rely on anecdotal evidence to base >>>any conclusions upon. You should know that. > > > And there. **** off, Dreck. You posted the same bullshit half a dozen times. Not responding to one of them doesn't constitute an admission. Grow up. > > >>>>>just as equally as you refuse to believe statements made >>>>>by Kent Lundberg concerning his collateral death-free >>>>>rice. >>>> >>>>He did not say his rice is "collateral death-free". You are lying >>>>again. >>> >>>Nevertheless, you refused to believe what this >>>producer claimed about his product >> >>Because the nature of his claim is absurd. > > > No, it is not absurd. It IS absurd. He doesn't really know anything about CDs at all. > If Kent Lundberg claims that > he goes to great lengths to avoid causing collateral > deaths while producing his rice, He did NOT claim that, you liar. >>He doesn't know anything about collateral deaths > > > Now who's being absurd, Jon? He didn't even think about it until getting that horseshit e-mail from Lesley. >>He doesn't know about CDs > > > Yet he makes it quite clear in his statements on the > subject that he does his best to avoid them. No, he does not. He doesn't say anything like that. Here's all he says, and it's clearly self-serving: At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000 duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring. There are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails, pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in our fields. There is NOTHING in that to suggest that they "do their best" to avoid killing animals. The ONLY efforts they take are to move some migratory waterfowl nests, because for some reason waterfowl get the attention of the whole-grain-goodness clueless urbanites of San Francisco and Berkeley, not much more than an hour away from where Lundberg grows rice. They don't do ANYTHING to relocate and avoid killing frogs, salamanders, mice, gophers, voles and other vertebrates. >>By contrast, Ernest Phinney's claims about Western >>Grassland's grass-fed beef are based on > > > ... anecdotal evidence No. By contrast, Ernest Phinney's claims about Western Grassland's grass-fed beef are based on THE DISTINGUISHING characteristic of his product: that the beef is from animals who were *only* fed grass. In contrast to the caught-by-surprise, deer-in-the-headlights Kent Lundberg, Mr. Phinney knows *all* about feeding grass, and only grass, to cattle - it is the very basis for the existence of his company. Mr. Phinney knows about value of preserving the meaning of "grass-fed" as a marketing claim, and his company is predicated on the notion that grass-fed means *only* grass-fed. Lundberg, caught entirely off-guard by Lesley's loaded and sleazy and undoubtedly dishonestly composed question, didn't know what he was talking about concerning CDs. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 14:54:32 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >The proposed standard has not been adopted. The proposed minimum requirement was issued on December 20, 2002 and "The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA Verified programs." [my edit] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt As we can see, the proposed market claim standard can be and has been adopted by grass fed beef producers since 2002. This means that so-called grass fed producers have been selling grain finished beef while at the same claiming it to be grass fed, and of course with U.S.D.A.,'s full seal of approval. When the standard is implemented ALL "New participants in USDA Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims immediately." "AMS is seeking public comment on the following proposed United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. New participants in USDA Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims immediately." http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt Grass fed beef currently being sold has been grain finished, and consumers of it are being duped into believing they're buying grass fed beef because U.S.D.A.'s seal of approval tells them it is. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek lied:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 14:54:32 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>The proposed standard has not been adopted. > > > The proposed minimum requirement It is not a "minimum requirement" in any way. You lied. It is a proposed standard for marketing claims. It definitely does NOT require producers of grass-fed beef to feed grain to their cattle. It allows beef from cattle that were fed a MAXIMUM of 20% of their calories from grain to be marketed as "grass-fed". The standard has not been adopted, and may never be. At present, it has no legal force - ZERO. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:27:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 14:54:32 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >>>The proposed standard has not been adopted. >> >> The proposed minimum requirement > >It is not a "minimum requirement" in any way. Yes it is. "SUMMARY: These 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." http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt Yet that proposal can be and has been adopted by so-called grass fed beef producers since it was first published on December 20, 2002 "The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA Verified programs." [my edit] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt As we can see, the proposed market claim standard can be and has been adopted by grass fed beef producers since 2002. This means that so-called grass fed producers have been selling grain finished beef while at the same claiming it to be grass fed, and of course with U.S.D.A.,'s full seal of approval. When the standard is implemented ALL "New participants in USDA Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims immediately." "AMS is seeking public comment on the following proposed United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. New participants in USDA Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims immediately." http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt You've lost this one badly, Jon. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek lied:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:27:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek lied: >> >>>[...] I received permission from the official at Union of Concerned Scientists to post her e-mail to me, confirming that the proposed standard has NOT been adopted: Hi Jonathan, The USDA is currently working on a new standard for a USDA grassfed label that it will soon publish for public comment. I expect this standard to be meaningful. A USDA official informed me that the agency hopes to publish this standard for public comment by the end of September. Susan Prolman Susan Prolman ] Washington Representative Food & Environment Program Union of Concerned Scientists 1707 H Street NW, Suite 600 Washington DC 20006-3962 Direct Line 202-331-5433 UCS General Line 202-223-6133 Fax 202-223-6162 www.ucsusa.org Note well, Dreck, you caught-out liar: this means the earlier proposed standard will NOT be adopted. Ms Prolman clearly states that "a ***new*** standard for a USDA grassfed label" will be published, and available for public comment [emphasis added]. That means the comments from Western Grasslands and numerous others have caused the USDA to *withdraw* the prior proposed standard, and start over. Dreck, I *always* beat you at this kind of thing. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:59:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >I received permission from the official at Union of >Concerned Scientists to post her e-mail to me, >confirming that the proposed standard has NOT >been adopted: Yet that proposal can be and has been adopted by so-called grass fed beef producers since it was first published on December 20, 2002. "The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA Verified programs." [my edit] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt As we can see, the proposed market claim standard can be and has been adopted by grass fed beef producers since 2002. This means that so-called grass fed producers have been selling grain finished beef while at the same claiming it to be grass fed, and of course with U.S.D.A.,'s full seal of approval. When the standard is implemented ALL "New participants in USDA Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims immediately." "AMS is seeking public comment on the following proposed United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. New participants in USDA Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims immediately." http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt You've lost this one badly, Jon. >Hi Jonathan, > >The USDA is currently working on a new standard for a >USDA grassfed label that it will soon publish for >public comment. And while waiting for it to be published; "The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA Verified programs." [my edit] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt As we can see, the proposed market claim standard can be and has been adopted by grass fed beef producers since 2002. This means that so-called grass fed producers have been selling grain finished beef while at the same claiming it to be grass fed, and of course with U.S.D.A.,'s full seal of approval. When the standard is implemented ALL "New participants in USDA Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims immediately." "AMS is seeking public comment on the following proposed United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. New participants in USDA Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims immediately." http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt You lose again, Jon. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek lied:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:59:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>I received permission from the official at Union of >>Concerned Scientists to post her e-mail to me, >>confirming that the proposed standard has NOT >>been adopted: > > > Yet that proposal can be and has been adopted by No one. You lost, Dreck. The proposed standard was never adopted, and producers selling beef labeled "grass-fed" are, indeed, selling 100% grass-fed beef: no grain. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:16:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek lied: >> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:59:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >>>I received permission from the official at Union of >>>Concerned Scientists to post her e-mail to me, >>>confirming that the proposed standard has NOT >>>been adopted: >> >> >> Yet that proposal can be and has been adopted by > >No one. Yes, it has, and that's what has prompted all those comments from disgruntled so-called grass fed beef producers. You lose. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:16:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek lied: >> >>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:59:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I received permission from the official at Union of >>>>Concerned Scientists to post her e-mail to me, >>>>confirming that the proposed standard has NOT >>>>been adopted: >>> >>> >>>Yet that proposal can be and has been adopted by >> >>No one. > > > Yes, it has, No, it has not. Beef sold as "grass-fed" is, indeed, 100% grass-fed. The current grass-fed producers have well established commercial reputations to protect. Ted Slanker, of Slanker's Grassfed Meats, wrote me to say that he considers grain unfit for animal *and* human consumption, period: "I think they [USDA] are still stewing about it [proposed standard]. If they rule that, we will not change a thing other than state even more bluntly that we're '100% grass-fed.' Grain is unfit for feed for man or beast." You lose, again. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:37:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:16:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:59:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> >>>>>I received permission from the official at Union of >>>>>Concerned Scientists to post her e-mail to me, >>>>>confirming that the proposed standard has NOT >>>>>been adopted: >>>> >>>>Yet that proposal can be and has been adopted by >>> >>>No one. >> >> Yes, it has, > >No, it has not. > >Beef sold as "grass-fed" is, indeed, 100% grass-fed. Not according to evidence from U.S.D.A. While the meat pushers on these vegetarian and animal- related forums try to convince vegans that grass fed beef is that: grass fed, and therefore has a much lesser association with the collateral deaths caused by farmers growing animal feeds, they neglect to mention that grass fed beef is also fed grains at the feedlot just like any other steer, and therefore has a larger association with collateral deaths than they would like to admit. Meat-labeling guidelines are all over the place, allowing producers to make whatever claims they want to with impunity, so U.S.D.A. has "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." They are as follows; [SUMMARY: These 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. ..... Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass, green or range pasture, or forage throughout their life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the animal's well being at all times, limited supplementation is allowed during adverse environmental conditions. Grass feeding usually results in products containing lower levels of external and internal fat (including marbling) than grain-fed livestock products. 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. While the proposed standard goes through, So-called grass fed beef producers can and have been selling their dubious product using the proposal's standard since it was introduced in 2002. "The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA Verified programs." [my edit] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt Comments from disgruntled grass fed beef producers bear this out and reveal the lie behind grass fed beef; [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the most commented upon topic in this docket. We will not belabor all the points of concern which are addressed but will focus on the areas of concern to our cooperative of growers. While Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that you need to define both as what they ARE since that is what is motivating the consumer. While the intent of this language would suggest that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, especially in Feedlots, the language as written is not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with consumer expectations as is borne out in the website comments.] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf and [The proposed definition of the claim ?grass fed,? as it may appear on future USDA approved beef labels, is meaningless in the context of the current United States cattle market and would violate consumer trust if put into effect. The huge majority of all beef cattle in the United States are ?finished? on a grain-based ration in a commercial feed lot. Even so, virtually all American cattle spend 80% or more of their lives on pasture eating grasses, legumes and naturally occurring seeds (grain). Calling these animals ?grass fed,? as proposed in the new label claim definition, ignores the fact that in most cases their whole diet for the last few months of their lives contains no grass at all. Calling these animals ?grass fed? therefore becomes meaningless since virtually all cattle are grass fed as in the proposed definition. However, for the last decade, a small, but growing number of producers, including ourselves, have been marketing cattle finished exclusively on pasture and hay without the use of unnatural levels of grain-based seeds. This grass- finished beef has been marketed as ?grassfed? or ?grass- fed?, and these terms have come to be recognized by millions of consumers. The enormous publicity over the last year for grassfed meats (following on best-selling books such as The Omega Diet and Fast Food Nation) has reinforced the perception that ?grass fed? is synonymous with grass-finished and, by extension, that no supplemental grain has been provided to the animals. So, I feel that to call an animal that has received as much as 20% of its total nutrition in a grain feeding finishing program ?grass fed? could be misleading and confusing to the consumer. Grain finishing of ruminants is an artificial feeding practice born of our unique circumstances here in the United States. Grass feeding is the basis for ruminant health consistent with the genetic structure and nutritional requirements of the animals. The claim ?grass fed? as used on a USDA-approved label should mean that a grassfed animal has received no grain other than that which is naturally occurring on pasture or in hay feeds. I am glad that the USDA is attempting to bring some order to the grassfed meat discussion, but I join those voices that have been raised calling for a larger forum in which to discuss the definition of the grassfed claim as well as other new claims. I ask that the March 31, 2003, deadline for public comment be extended indefinitely to give all citizens, most particularly those who have been building the grassfed meats market, our customers, and those who support our efforts, the opportunity to have our perspective thoroughly considered. Thank you for your serious consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Ernest Phinney General Manager Western Grasslands Beef] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc102.txt Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what it's name implies, and has just as much an association with the collateral deaths found in crop production as any other steer in the feedlot. Don't be fooled by the meat pushers, here or anywhere. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek lied:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:37:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >Derek lied: > >> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:16:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>Derek lied: > >>>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:59:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>I received permission from the official at Union of > >>>>>Concerned Scientists to post her e-mail to me, > >>>>>confirming that the proposed standard has NOT > >>>>>been adopted: > >>>> > >>>>Yet that proposal can be and has been adopted by > >>> > >>>No one. > >> > >> Yes, it has, > > > >No, it has not. > > > >Beef sold as "grass-fed" is, indeed, 100% grass-fed. > > Not according to evidence from U.S.D.A. Yes, according to all evidence. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 8 Sep 2005 12:43:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:37:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >> >Beef sold as "grass-fed" is, indeed, 100% grass-fed. >> >> Not according to evidence from U.S.D.A. > >Yes, according to all evidence. U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard proposal which was published for comment in 2002, and while this marketing claims standard is under review so-called grass fed beef producers can and have adopted it with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval. Here below is that proposed standard. 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 And below is a statement from the same page urging so- called grass fed beef producers to use those proposed marketing standards while U.S.D.A. prepares to make them final by publishing them. "The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA Verified programs." [my edit] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt When published ALL "New participants in USDA Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims immediately." "AMS is seeking public comment on the following proposed United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. New participants in USDA Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims immediately." http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt Grass fed beef is grain finished, just like any other steer in the feedlot, and U.S.D.A. is about to publish a claims standard that will allow beef farmers to continue lying to their customers. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek lied:
> On 8 Sep 2005 12:43:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >Derek lied: > >> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:37:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> > >> >Beef sold as "grass-fed" is, indeed, 100% grass-fed. > >> > >> Not according to evidence from U.S.D.A. > > > >Yes, according to all evidence. > > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard > proposal which ....has now been withdrawn. They are working on a new standard, which will have to go through the public comment period. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:37:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek lied: >> >>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:16:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek lied: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:59:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>I received permission from the official at Union of >>>>>>Concerned Scientists to post her e-mail to me, >>>>>>confirming that the proposed standard has NOT >>>>>>been adopted: >>>>> >>>>>Yet that proposal can be and has been adopted by >>>> >>>>No one. >>> >>>Yes, it has, >> >>No, it has not. >> >>Beef sold as "grass-fed" is, indeed, 100% grass-fed. > > > Not according to evidence from U.S.D.A. You haven't produced any evidence from the USDA. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 8 Sep 2005 16:42:39 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 8 Sep 2005 12:43:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:37:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >> >> >> >Beef sold as "grass-fed" is, indeed, 100% grass-fed. >> >> >> >> Not according to evidence from U.S.D.A. >> > >> >Yes, according to all evidence. >> >> U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >> proposal which > >...has now been withdrawn. That's a desperate lie to be offering right now, especially when looking at the response you received only yesterday from William Sessions, the associate deputy administrator at the Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who verifies that the proposal is still very much alive and under review. Here's what you wrote yesterday; [I wrote to William Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the "meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday, http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_i...p?news_id=1152 Here's his reply: From: "Sessions, William" > To: <jonball@[...]> Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the standards have not been published in a final form for use. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if further information is needed. Thanks, William T. Sessions Associate Deputy Administrator Livestock and Seed Program Jonathan Ball (Rudy Canoza) http://tinyurl.com/dkdxo So you've lied, Jon. It hasn't been dropped at all: "The marketing claims standards are still under review by USDA.", and while this review is under way USDA urges beef producers to use their proposed marketing claims standards while it prepares to make them final later by publishing them. "The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA Verified programs." [my edit] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt When published ALL "New participants in USDA Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims immediately." "AMS is seeking public comment on the following proposed United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. New participants in USDA Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims immediately." http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt Grass fed beef, then, is grain finished, just like any other steer in the feedlot, and U.S.D.A. is about to publish a claims standard that will allow beef farmers to continue deceiving their customers. A consumer reports magazine confirms these concerns as follows; [The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,” which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either. A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification program for “process claims,” including feeding methods, would only add to the confusion. Products that passed an inspection could carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be used with a diet of as little as 50 percent grain. The agency has delayed implementation of the rule after protests from farmer and consumer groups, including Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine.] http://tinyurl.com/b63f3 You lied, Jon. You have no interest in the truth concerning these matters, and being the meat propagandist you most certainly are you'll say anything to keep the lie behind grass fed beef alive. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 04:18:00 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:37:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:16:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:59:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>I received permission from the official at Union of >>>>>>>Concerned Scientists to post her e-mail to me, >>>>>>>confirming that the proposed standard has NOT >>>>>>>been adopted: >>>>>> >>>>>>Yet that proposal can be and has been adopted by >>>>> >>>>>No one. >>>> >>>>Yes, it has, >>> >>>No, it has not. >>> >>>Beef sold as "grass-fed" is, indeed, 100% grass-fed. >> >> Not according to evidence from U.S.D.A. > >You haven't produced any evidence from the USDA. U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard proposal and published it for comment in 2002, and while this proposal is under review so-called grass fed beef producers can and have adopted it with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval to offload their grain-finished beef onto unsuspecting customers as grass-fed beef. Here below is that proposed standard. 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 And below is a statement from the same page urging so- called grass fed beef producers to use those proposed marketing claims standards while U.S.D.A. prepares to make them final by publishing them. "The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA Verified programs." [my edit] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt When published ALL "New participants in USDA Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims immediately." "AMS is seeking public comment on the following proposed United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. New participants in USDA Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims immediately." http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt Grass fed beef, then, is grain finished, just like any other steer in the feedlot, and U.S.D.A. is about to publish a claims standard that will allow beef farmers to continue deceiving their customers. A consumer reports magazine confirms these concerns as follows; [The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,” which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either. A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification program for “process claims,” including feeding methods, would only add to the confusion. Products that passed an inspection could carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be used with a diet of as little as 50 percent grain. The agency has delayed implementation of the rule after protests from farmer and consumer groups, including Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine.] http://tinyurl.com/b63f3 The protests from these farmers and consumer groups can be found on U.S.D.A.'s web site, and I've included two here as examples; [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the most commented upon topic in this docket. We will not belabor all the points of concern which are addressed but will focus on the areas of concern to our cooperative of growers. While Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that you need to define both as what they ARE since that is what is motivating the consumer. While the intent of this language would suggest that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, especially in Feedlots, the language as written is not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with consumer expectations as is borne out in the website comments.] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf and [The proposed definition of the claim ?grass fed,? as it may appear on future USDA approved beef labels, is meaningless in the context of the current United States cattle market and would violate consumer trust if put into effect. The huge majority of all beef cattle in the United States are ?finished? on a grain-based ration in a commercial feed lot. Even so, virtually all American cattle spend 80% or more of their lives on pasture eating grasses, legumes and naturally occurring seeds (grain). Calling these animals ?grass fed,? as proposed in the new label claim definition, ignores the fact that in most cases their whole diet for the last few months of their lives contains no grass at all. Calling these animals ?grass fed? therefore becomes meaningless since virtually all cattle are grass fed as in the proposed definition. However, for the last decade, a small, but growing number of producers, including ourselves, have been marketing cattle finished exclusively on pasture and hay without the use of unnatural levels of grain-based seeds. This grass- finished beef has been marketed as ?grassfed? or ?grass- fed?, and these terms have come to be recognized by millions of consumers. The enormous publicity over the last year for grassfed meats (following on best-selling books such as The Omega Diet and Fast Food Nation) has reinforced the perception that ?grass fed? is synonymous with grass-finished and, by extension, that no supplemental grain has been provided to the animals. So, I feel that to call an animal that has received as much as 20% of its total nutrition in a grain feeding finishing program ?grass fed? could be misleading and confusing to the consumer. Grain finishing of ruminants is an artificial feeding practice born of our unique circumstances here in the United States. Grass feeding is the basis for ruminant health consistent with the genetic structure and nutritional requirements of the animals. The claim ?grass fed? as used on a USDA-approved label should mean that a grassfed animal has received no grain other than that which is naturally occurring on pasture or in hay feeds.] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc102.txt Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what its name implies, and has just as much an association with the collateral deaths found in crop production as from any other steer found in the feedlot, so don't be fooled by the meat pushers, here or anywhere. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek lied:
> On 8 Sep 2005 16:42:39 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >>Derek lied: >> >>>On 8 Sep 2005 12:43:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek lied: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:37:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Beef sold as "grass-fed" is, indeed, 100% grass-fed. >>>>> >>>>>Not according to evidence from U.S.D.A. >>>> >>>>Yes, according to all evidence. >>> >>>U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >>>proposal which >> >>...has now been withdrawn. > > > That's a desperate lie Not a lie. They're starting over. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:20:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 8 Sep 2005 16:42:39 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On 8 Sep 2005 12:43:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:37:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Beef sold as "grass-fed" is, indeed, 100% grass-fed. >>>>>> >>>>>>Not according to evidence from U.S.D.A. >>>>> >>>>>Yes, according to all evidence. >>>> >>>>U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >>>>proposal which >>> >>>...has now been withdrawn. >> >> That's a desperate lie > >Not a lie. It IS a lie, and the note you received from Sessions proves it. Only yesterday he wrote to you, telling you that the proposed claims standard is very much alive and under review, liar Jon. He clearly points out that, "The marketing claim standards ***are still under review by USDA.*** It hasn't been withdrawn at all, liar. Here's the letter you received, and which you snipped away in this reply. [I wrote to William Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the "meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday, http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_i...p?news_id=1152 Here's his reply: From: "Sessions, William" > To: <jonball@[...]> Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the standards have not been published in a final form for use. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if further information is needed. Thanks, William T. Sessions Associate Deputy Administrator Livestock and Seed Program Jonathan Ball (Rudy Canoza) http://tinyurl.com/dkdxo You lied, and you'll keep on lying even while the evidence in your email from Sessions is right under your nose. You're an habitual liar, Jon. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:58:08 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:36:17 -0400, dh@. wrote: >>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:38:29 +0100, 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. >> >> Regardless of what can legally be labeled as grass raised, >>when I refer to grass raised beef, I am referring to beef that >>was not fed grain. > >Then, regardless of what can be usually associated with >crop production, when I refer to the vegetables I eat, I >am referring to vegetables that don't carry a collateral >death antecedent. LOL!!! We know that Gooling. You have always denied the cds that you contribute to. I believe I've explained to you that your denial is one of the more contemptible things about your inconsiderate, dishonest ass. You have proven that you don't care about the animals. You have proven that you lie about animals and humans. And oddly(?) enough, the thing that you hate most about me is my honesty. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:20:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On 8 Sep 2005 16:42:39 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 8 Sep 2005 12:43:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:37:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Beef sold as "grass-fed" is, indeed, 100% grass-fed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Not according to evidence from U.S.D.A. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, according to all evidence. >>>>> >>>>>U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >>>>>proposal which >>>> >>>>...has now been withdrawn. >>> >>>That's a desperate lie >> >>Not a lie. > > > It IS a lie, It's not a lie. The new proposed standard hasn't been published yet. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:54:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:20:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On 8 Sep 2005 16:42:39 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On 8 Sep 2005 12:43:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:37:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Beef sold as "grass-fed" is, indeed, 100% grass-fed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Not according to evidence from U.S.D.A. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes, according to all evidence. >>>>>> >>>>>>U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >>>>>>proposal which >>>>> >>>>>...has now been withdrawn. >>>> >>>>That's a desperate lie >>> >>>Not a lie. >> >> It IS a lie, > >It's not a lie. <restore> It IS a lie, and the note you received from Sessions proves it. Only yesterday he wrote to you, telling you that the proposed claims standard is very much alive and under review, liar Jon. He clearly points out that, "The marketing claim standards ***are still under review by USDA.*** It hasn't been dropped at all, liar. Here's the letter you received, and which you snipped away in this reply. [I wrote to William Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the "meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday, http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_i...p?news_id=1152 Here's his reply: From: "Sessions, William" > To: <jonball@[...]> Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the standards have not been published in a final form for use. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if further information is needed. Thanks, William T. Sessions Associate Deputy Administrator Livestock and Seed Program Jonathan Ball (Rudy Canoza) http://tinyurl.com/dkdxo You lied, and you'll keep on lying even while the evidence in your email from Sessions is right under your nose. You're an habitual liar, Jon. <end restore> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:46:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:03:07 +0100, Derek > wrote: > >>You don't get to define it differently, > > I get to define ... nothing. Sadistic animal abusers who breed animals to fight to the death in pits don't get to define anything on these animal-related forums, Harrison, you piece of lying scum. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:16:53 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:54:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:20:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On 8 Sep 2005 16:42:39 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>On 8 Sep 2005 12:43:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:37:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Beef sold as "grass-fed" is, indeed, 100% grass-fed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Not according to evidence from U.S.D.A. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Yes, according to all evidence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >>>>>>>>proposal which >>>>>>> >>>>>>>...has now been withdrawn. >>>>>> >>>>>>That's a desperate lie >>>>> >>>>>Not a lie. >>>> >>>>It IS a lie, >>> >>>It's not a lie. >> >> <restore> >> It IS a lie, > >It is not a lie. <restore> It IS a lie, and the note you received from Sessions proves it. Only yesterday he wrote to you, telling you that the proposed claims standard is very much alive and under review, liar Jon. He clearly points out that, "The marketing claim standards ***are still under review by USDA.*** It hasn't been dropped at all, liar. Here's the letter you received, and which you snipped away in this reply. [I wrote to William Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the "meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday, http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_i...p?news_id=1152 Here's his reply: From: "Sessions, William" > To: <jonball@[...]> Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the standards have not been published in a final form for use. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if further information is needed. Thanks, William T. Sessions Associate Deputy Administrator Livestock and Seed Program Jonathan Ball (Rudy Canoza) http://tinyurl.com/dkdxo You lied, and you'll keep on lying even while the evidence in your email from Sessions is right under your nose. You're an habitual liar, Jon. <end restore> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:16:53 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:54:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:20:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On 8 Sep 2005 16:42:39 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On 8 Sep 2005 12:43:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:37:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Beef sold as "grass-fed" is, indeed, 100% grass-fed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Not according to evidence from U.S.D.A. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Yes, according to all evidence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >>>>>>>>>proposal which >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>...has now been withdrawn. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That's a desperate lie >>>>>> >>>>>>Not a lie. >>>>> >>>>>It IS a lie, >>>> >>>>It's not a lie. >>> >>> <restore> >>>It IS a lie, >> >>It is not a lie. > > > <restore> > It IS a lie, It is not a lie. The proposed standard is being rewritten, and again will be subject to public comment. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Cooking differences bet. grass fed and regular beef? | General Cooking | |||
| Grass fed beef - breeds | General Cooking | |||
| Grass Fed vs. Grain Fed Beef: The Cook Off | General Cooking | |||
| Grass Fed Beef v. Grain Fed Beef | General Cooking | |||
| M.Odom-grain-fed beef better than grass-fed ? | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
