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.

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

Dear Mr. Carpenter,

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.

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, explain how you know that ALL
grass fed beef receives the same amount of grain,
and that none of it is raised completely on grass.

>and has just as much an association with
>the collateral deaths found in crop production as
>any other steer in the feedlot.

If you're not lying, explain how you know that ALL
grass fed beef recieves as much grain as any other
steer in the feedlot, and that none of it is raised completely
on grass.

>Don't be fooled by
>the meat pushers, here or anywhere.

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

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.

>>and has just as much an association with
>>the collateral deaths found in crop production as
>>any other steer in the feedlot.
>
> 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.

>>Don't be fooled by
>>the meat pushers, here or anywhere.
>
> · From

From here or anywhere, meat-pusher.

At present, "grass-fed beef" means exactly that: 100%
grass-fed. All producers selling grass-fed beef are
selling beef that was raised entirely on grass and
other forage; ZERO grain.

The USDA has proposed a change to its MARKETING (not
production) rules that would *allow*, but not mandate,
that beef marketed as "grass-fed" could come from
cattle who in fact were fed up to 20% of their calories
from grain. The rule has not been implemented. Derek
is lying.

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.

4/9/2003 USDA Seeks More Input on "Marketing Claims"
For Meat Products – 4/9 MeatingPlace

USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service will seek
additional input on several proposed U.S. Standards for
Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims, department
officials said on April 3.

Final standards for claims related to use of
antibiotics, hormones and breed-specific information,
as well as definitions for the terms "free-range" and
"grass-fed," will be established after further
technical input is obtained from interested parties and
an additional public comment period is conducted, USDA
said in a news release.

***No consensus standards currently exist*** for
production or marketing claims related to meat and
livestock products. The proposed standards are
voluntary and set the minimum requirements for common
production and marketing claims that may be used in
USDA-certified or USDA-verified programs.

http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_i...p?news_id=1152

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."

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 and require "third-party
verification by USDA to increase the credibility
of their claims."

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.

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

Dear Mr. Carpenter,

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.

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. Go to the links and find
yourself on U.S.D.A.

>***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. Why did you lie?

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 and require "third-party
verification by USDA to increase the credibility
of their claims."

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, a marketing standard that would allow beef
sold as "grass-fed" to come from cattle that were fed
up to 20% of their calories as grain. The rule has not
been adopted.

You are lying. You also don't understand what the rule
would mean. It would NOT mean that producers *must*
feed 20% grain to their cattle; it would mean they
*could*, yet still call the beef "grass-fed".

That is the very point of the comments, you moron.
Western Grasslands Beef currently sells 100% grass-fed
beef. They do not want to see a rule implemented that
allows someone to produce lower-cost 80% grass-fed beef
and gain a cost advantage on them.

Derek wrote:

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

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

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

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

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."

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.

>You have reposted producers' public
>comments. You have not posted a USDA standard.

I've produced both the standard and comments
from grass fed beef producers pertaining to that
standard which reveal the lie behind grass fed beef.

>>>***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 and require "third-party
verification by USDA to increase the credibility
of their claims."

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

So. PROPOSED, not adopted.

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. Your claim is false.


>>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.


>>>>***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, there's nothing at all to indicate they're lying.

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. You're once again suggesting that because SOME animals receive
some percent of feed in grain rations that ALL therefore do. That's
patently false. Most producers of grass-fed beef feed NO grain rations
at all. The proposed USDA rule is for MARKETING, not for production.

Dreck 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?

PROPOSE: To put forward for consideration, discussion, or
adoption; suggest: propose a change in the law.
http://www.answers.com/topic/propose

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.,
even though you were foolish enough to jump in
and shout False.

>>>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, so I brought
it here for your perusal and to back my claim.

>>>>>***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, when in actual fact it has been fed
grains at the feedlot like any other steer; that's lying.
It also ruins your argument where grass fed beef
accrue less collateral deaths, and while this lie persists
the vegan has it all his own way on this issue, thanks
to U.S.D.A.

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, as shown, but which you snipped away.

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.

You are a liar.

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. It is "from" the many
producers who wrote to the USDA, ALL of whom objected
to what they see as a weak and bad standard. They ALL
want "grass-fed" to mean 100% grass-fed, because that's
how ALL the current grass-fed beef producers finish
their cattle.


>>>>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.



>>>>>>***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.

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, "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."

"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]

You lose.

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 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.

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

Dear Mr. Carpenter,

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 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. It
has not been adopted, as the USDA web site makes clear:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/ls-st.htm
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/claim.htm

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.

Standard commercial law means that if a package says
"100%" anything, it must be true.

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.

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. When I refer to grain fed beef, I will then be
referring to beef that was fed grain. This of course will be too
complex for your feeble mind to comprehend, but that's the
way it is regardless of your comprehension disability.

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?

>You are a liar.

The evidence proves I've not lied while your desperate
snipping of it proves you want to conceal the truth, so
which out of the two of us is lying here? Think about it.

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, "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?

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.

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. The
"Certified" and "Verified" programs are *not* about the
proposed standard for marketing claims.

The proposed standard has not been adopted. You are lying.



>
>
>>You are a liar.
>
>
> The evidence proves I've not lied

The evidence proves you've lied in every post. The
proposed standard has not been adopted.

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.

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. You can't have it both ways, Harrison.

Under the current climate grass fed beef can be and is
fed grains like any other steer in the feedlot. When the
proposed definition from U.S.D.A. is fully implemented
so-called grass fed beef can be fed 85% grain for 60
days and still qualify as grass fed beef.

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 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. When I refer to grain fed beef, I will then be
referring to beef that was fed grain. This of course will be too
complex for your feeble mind to comprehend, but that's the
way it is regardless of your comprehension disability.

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? How wonderful.

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, so you now have no
option but to agree that the evidence I put before
Harrison was in fact where I said it came from,
and that you made an error when screaming, "False."

>>>>>>>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 that
reveals the lie behind grass fed beef.

>>>>>>>>>***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, just
as equally as you refuse to believe statements made
by Kent Lundberg concerning his collateral death-free
rice. You can't have it both ways, Jon. Grass fed beef
animals are fed grains at the feedlot like any other steer,
and that fact is verified with evidence form usda.

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.", and that standard defines
grass fed beef animals as animals fed grains at the feedlot
like any other steer. Of course, such animals will also
accrue the same number of collateral deaths associated
with regular beef animals as well, so grass fed beef isn't
the option you were hoping it was.

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 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

You lose.

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. You don't
get to define it differently, Harrison. Grass fed beef
animals are fed grains in feedlots like any other
steer, and accrue the same numbers of collateral
deaths.

Derek lied:
> 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,
you ****wit.

It STILL is only a proposed standard. It has not been adopted. You
lied.

Derek lied:
> 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; it is merely a proposed standard.


> >>>>>>>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. You should have replied, "There is no adopted standard." That's
what an honest person would have done, but not you.


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


> 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.

Derek lied:
> 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.

You lied.