|
Derek's continuing stupid and untenable lie about grass-fed beef
On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>"Sessions, William" > >To: jonball@... >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM > >Mr. Ball: > >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA >will be published with a public comment period. The initial claims standard proposal was published for comment in 2002, and while that 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 that proposed marketing claims standard while U.S.D.A. prepares to make it final by publishing it. "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. You lose, Jon. Grass fed is grain finished, as has been since the initial proposal's publication in 2002. What made you think you could lie and get away with, liar Jon? |
Derek lied:
> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > > >"Sessions, William" > > >To: jonball@... > >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims > >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM > > > >Mr. Ball: > > > >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under > >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA > >will be published with a public comment period. > > The initial claims standard proposal was published > for comment in 2002 ....and is now being revised due to the fierce opposition it engendered during the public comment period. William Sessions, the person in charge of the proposed standard, says so. Once again, Dreck, you lose. |
On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek lied: >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >"Sessions, William" > >> >To: jonball@... >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM >> > >> >Mr. Ball: >> > >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA >> >will be published with a public comment period. >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published >> for comment in 2002 > >...and is now being revised No, it not being revised, liar, and in the mean time, while that claims standard is being proposed for comment, so-called grass fed beef producers are urged by USDA to adopt it. What part in that don't you understand, you stupid, sick ****? 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. |
Don't you folks get tired of personal childish attacks?
|
Derek lied:
> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >Derek lied: > >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> > >> >"Sessions, William" > > >> >To: jonball@... > >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims > >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM > >> > > >> >Mr. Ball: > >> > > >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under > >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA > >> >will be published with a public comment period. > >> > >> The initial claims standard proposal was published > >> for comment in 2002 > > > >...and is now being revised > > No, it not being revised, YES, you dumb semi-literate ox, it is: "A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under development by USDA." They had a proposed standard, and it generated intense opposition. Now they're revising it, and it is UNDER DEVELOPMENT, i.e., not in final form. Dreck, I honestly think you get up in the morning and drink a litre of Stupid Juice. They must have had a promotion on it down at Tesco's, and you bought several cases. |
Beach Runner wrote:
> Don't you folks get tired I *never* tire from beating on Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck. |
On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >"Sessions, William" > >> >To: jonball@... >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM >> > >> >Mr. Ball: >> > >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA >> >will be published with a public comment period. >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published >> for comment in 2002 > >...and is now being revised You said that it had been dropped, you lying, sick ****, and now, after being shown that it hasn't, you've changed your claim to say that it's being revised instead, even though Sessions wrote and told you that it was very much alive and published for comment. Also, what you keep failing to acknowledge is that while the proposed claims standard is up for comment so-called grass fed beef producers are urged by USDA to adopt it, thereby allowing beef producers to sell grain-finished beef as grass-fed beef with USDA's seal of approval. Grain-fed beef producers have been lying to consumers since the claims standard proposal was first published in 2002, and most probably for a good while before that proposal was even published. 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 that proposed marketing claims standard while U.S.D.A. prepares to make it final by publishing it. "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. You lose, Jon. Grass fed is grain finished, as has been since the initial proposal's publication in 2002. What made you think you could lie and get away with it? |
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 21:14:48 GMT, Beach Runner > wrote:
>Don't you folks get tired of personal childish attacks? **** off, you stupid ******. |
On 9 Sep 2005 14:26:25 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >"Sessions, William" > >> >> >To: jonball@... >> >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims >> >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM >> >> > >> >> >Mr. Ball: >> >> > >> >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under >> >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA >> >> >will be published with a public comment period. >> >> >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published >> >> for comment in 2002 >> > >> >...and is now being revised >> >> No, it not being revised, > >YES You said that it had been dropped, you lying, sick ****, and now, after being shown that it hasn't, you've changed your claim to say that it's being revised instead, even though Sessions wrote and told you that it was very much alive and published for comment. Also, what you keep failing to acknowledge is that while the proposed claims standard is up for comment so-called grass fed beef producers are urged by USDA to adopt it, thereby allowing beef producers to sell grain-finished beef as grass-fed beef with USDA's seal of approval. Grain-fed beef producers have been lying to consumers since the claims standard proposal was first published in 2002, and most probably for a good while before that proposal was even published. 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 that proposed marketing claims standard while U.S.D.A. prepares to make it final by publishing it. "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. You lose, Jon. Grass fed is grain finished, as has been since the initial proposal's publication in 2002. What made you think you could lie and get away with it? |
Derek lied:
> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >Derek lied: > >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> > >> >"Sessions, William" > > >> >To: jonball@... > >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims > >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM > >> > > >> >Mr. Ball: > >> > > >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under > >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA > >> >will be published with a public comment period. > >> > >> The initial claims standard proposal was published > >> for comment in 2002 > > > >...and is now being revised > > You said that it had been dropped, I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped, Dreck, you fearfully backpedaling oaf. I said the earlier proposed standard had been dropped, and it has been. Given that a revision is *already* underway, that earlier proposed standard for all intents and purposes doesn't exist; it will *not* be issued with the language it contained, so it has, indeed, been dropped. |
Derek lied:
> On 9 Sep 2005 14:26:25 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >Derek lied: > >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >Derek lied: > >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >"Sessions, William" > > >> >> >To: jonball@... > >> >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims > >> >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM > >> >> > > >> >> >Mr. Ball: > >> >> > > >> >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under > >> >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA > >> >> >will be published with a public comment period. > >> >> > >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published > >> >> for comment in 2002 > >> > > >> >...and is now being revised > >> > >> No, it not being revised, > > > >YES > > You said that it had been dropped I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped, Dreck, you fearfully backpedaling oaf. I said the earlier proposed standard had been dropped, and it has been. Given that a revision is *already* underway, that earlier proposed standard for all intents and purposes doesn't exist; it will *not* be issued with the language it contained, so it has, indeed, been dropped. |
On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >"Sessions, William" > >> >> >To: jonball@... >> >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims >> >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM >> >> > >> >> >Mr. Ball: >> >> > >> >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under >> >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA >> >> >will be published with a public comment period. >> >> >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published >> >> for comment in 2002 >> > >> >...and is now being revised >> >> You said that it had been dropped, > >I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped [start - me] > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard > proposal and [you] ...have now dropped it. http://tinyurl.com/754e8 There are at least half a dozen statements from you claiming USDA have dropped it, you lying piece of shit, and now, after being shown that it hasn't, you've changed your claim to say that it's being revised instead, even though Sessions wrote and told you that it was very much alive and published for comment. Also, what you keep failing to acknowledge is that while the proposed claims standard is up for comment so-called grass fed beef producers are urged by USDA to adopt it, thereby allowing beef producers to sell grain-finished beef as grass-fed beef with USDA's seal of approval. Grain-fed beef producers have been lying to consumers since the claims standard proposal was first published in 2002, and most probably for a good while before that proposal was even published. 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 that proposed marketing claims standard while U.S.D.A. prepares to make it final by publishing it. "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. You lose, Jon. Grass fed is grain finished, as has been since the initial proposal's publication in 2002. What made you think you could lie and get away with it? |
On 9 Sep 2005 14:35:30 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:26:25 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >Derekwrote: >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >"Sessions, William" > >> >> >> >To: jonball@... >> >> >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims >> >> >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Mr. Ball: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under >> >> >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA >> >> >> >will be published with a public comment period. >> >> >> >> >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published >> >> >> for comment in 2002 >> >> > >> >> >...and is now being revised >> >> >> >> No, it not being revised, >> > >> >YES >> >> You said that it had been dropped > >I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped You said that it had been dropped, you lying, sick ****; [start - me] > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard > proposal and [you] ...have now dropped it. http://tinyurl.com/754e8 There are at least half a dozen statements from you claiming USDA have dropped it, you lying piece of shit, and now, after being shown that it hasn't, you've changed your claim to say that it's being revised instead, even though Sessions wrote and told you that it was very much alive and published for comment. Also, what you keep failing to acknowledge is that while the proposed claims standard is up for comment so-called grass fed beef producers are urged by USDA to adopt it, thereby allowing beef producers to sell grain-finished beef as grass-fed beef with USDA's seal of approval. Grain-fed beef producers have been lying to consumers since the claims standard proposal was first published in 2002, and most probably for a good while before that proposal was even published. 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 that proposed marketing claims standard while U.S.D.A. prepares to make it final by publishing it. "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. You lose, Jon. Grass fed is grain finished, as has been since the initial proposal's publication in 2002. What made you think you could lie and get away with it? |
Beach Runner wrote:
> Don't you folks get tired of personal childish attacks? **** off, retard. |
Derek lied:
> On 9 Sep 2005 14:35:30 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >Derek lied: > >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:26:25 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >Derek lied: > >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >> >Derek lied: > >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >"Sessions, William" > > >> >> >> >To: jonball@... > >> >> >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims > >> >> >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Mr. Ball: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under > >> >> >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA > >> >> >> >will be published with a public comment period. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published > >> >> >> for comment in 2002 > >> >> > > >> >> >...and is now being revised > >> >> > >> >> No, it not being revised, > >> > > >> >YES > >> > >> You said that it had been dropped > > > >I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped > > You said that it had been dropped, The previous proposed standard, yes. And it HAS been dropped. That proposed standard will never see the light of day in the wording you read. They're revising it, and the revised version hasn't even been published it. You said it wasn't being revised, you cuckold, and the letter from William Sessions says SPECIFICALLY that it is being revised. I didn't say the whole endeavor was dropped, you liar; I said the old version has been dropped, and indeed it has been. |
Derek lied:
> On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >Derek lied: > >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >Derek lied: > >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >"Sessions, William" > > >> >> >To: jonball@... > >> >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims > >> >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM > >> >> > > >> >> >Mr. Ball: > >> >> > > >> >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under > >> >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA > >> >> >will be published with a public comment period. > >> >> > >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published > >> >> for comment in 2002 > >> > > >> >...and is now being revised > >> > >> You said that it had been dropped, > > > >I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped > > [start - me] > > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard > > proposal and > [you] > ...have now dropped it. > http://tinyurl.com/754e8 And indeed they have dropped that old Dec 2002 proposed standard, and are hard at work on a revised proposal. You said it wasn't being revised, you lying cuckold, and the letter from William Sessions says SPECIFICALLY that it is being revised. I didn't say the whole endeavor was dropped, you liar; I said the old version has been dropped, and indeed it has been. |
On 9 Sep 2005 16:40:49 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:35:30 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:26:25 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >"Sessions, William" > >> >> >> >> >To: jonball@... >> >> >> >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims >> >> >> >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Mr. Ball: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under >> >> >> >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA >> >> >> >> >will be published with a public comment period. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published >> >> >> >> for comment in 2002 >> >> >> > >> >> >> >...and is now being revised >> >> >> >> >> >> No, it not being revised, >> >> > >> >> >YES >> >> >> >> You said that it had been dropped >> > >> >I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped >> >> You said that it had been dropped, > >The previous proposed standard, yes. And it HAS been dropped. You've only just finished claiming that it hasn't been dropped, and now you've been shown the evidence of your lie you're back to claiming it has been dropped again; [start - me] > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard > proposal and [you] ...have now dropped it. http://tinyurl.com/754e8 There are at least half a dozen statements from you claiming USDA have dropped it, you lying piece of shit, and now, after being shown that it hasn't, you've changed your claim to say that it's being revised instead, even though Sessions wrote and told you that it was very much alive and published for comment. Also, what you keep failing to acknowledge is that while the proposed claims standard is up for comment so-called grass fed beef producers are urged by USDA to adopt it, thereby allowing beef producers to sell grain-finished beef as grass-fed beef with USDA's seal of approval. Grain-fed beef producers have been lying to consumers since the claims standard proposal was first published in 2002, and most probably for a good while before that proposal was even published. 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 that proposed marketing claims standard while U.S.D.A. prepares to make it final by publishing it. "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. You lose, Jon. Grass fed is grain finished, as has been since the initial proposal's publication in 2002. What made you think you could lie and get away with it? |
Derek lied:
> On 9 Sep 2005 16:40:49 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >Derek lied: > >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:35:30 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >Derek lied: > >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:26:25 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >> >Derek lied: > >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >> >> >Derek lied: > >> >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >"Sessions, William" > > >> >> >> >> >To: jonball@... > >> >> >> >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims > >> >> >> >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >Mr. Ball: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under > >> >> >> >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA > >> >> >> >> >will be published with a public comment period. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published > >> >> >> >> for comment in 2002 > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >...and is now being revised > >> >> >> > >> >> >> No, it not being revised, > >> >> > > >> >> >YES > >> >> > >> >> You said that it had been dropped > >> > > >> >I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped > >> > >> You said that it had been dropped, > > > >The previous proposed standard, yes. And it HAS been dropped. > > You've only just finished claiming that it hasn't been > dropped Right: the endeavor to write a standard for marketing claims has not been dropped. The specific proposed standard from Dec 2002 HAS been dropped, and a revised proposed standard will soon be published. Endeavor to write a standard: not dropped, and never claimed to be dropped; Specific prior proposed standard: dropped. I hope that helps. |
On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >"Sessions, William" > >> >> >> >To: jonball@... >> >> >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims >> >> >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Mr. Ball: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under >> >> >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA >> >> >> >will be published with a public comment period. >> >> >> >> >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published >> >> >> for comment in 2002 >> >> > >> >> >...and is now being revised >> >> >> >> You said that it had been dropped, >> > >> >I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped >> >> [start - me] >> > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >> > proposal and >> [you] >> ...have now dropped it. >> http://tinyurl.com/754e8 > >And indeed they have dropped that No, they haven't, you stinking pile of **** snot. There are at least half a dozen statements from you claiming USDA have dropped it, and then, after being shown that it hasn't, you changed your claim to say that it's being revised instead, only to then go back and claim that it has been dropped after all, even though Sessions wrote and told you that it was very much alive and published for comment until it goes through. Also, what you keep failing to acknowledge is that while the proposed claims standard is up for comment so-called grass fed beef producers are urged by USDA to adopt it, thereby allowing beef producers to sell grain-finished beef as grass-fed beef with USDA's seal of approval. Grain-fed beef producers have been lying to consumers since the claims standard proposal was first published in 2002, and most probably for a good while before that proposal was even published. Grass fed beef is grain finished, and the evidence comes from USDA, so stop lying. |
On 9 Sep 2005 17:05:00 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 9 Sep 2005 16:40:49 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:35:30 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:26:25 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >"Sessions, William" > >> >> >> >> >> >To: jonball@... >> >> >> >> >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims >> >> >> >> >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Mr. Ball: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under >> >> >> >> >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA >> >> >> >> >> >will be published with a public comment period. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published >> >> >> >> >> for comment in 2002 >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >...and is now being revised >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No, it not being revised, >> >> >> > >> >> >> >YES >> >> >> >> >> >> You said that it had been dropped >> >> > >> >> >I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped >> >> >> >> You said that it had been dropped, >> > >> >The previous proposed standard, yes. And it HAS been dropped. >> >> You've only just finished claiming that it hasn't been >> dropped > >Right So you lied, slime. There are at least half a dozen statements from you claiming USDA have dropped it, and then, after being shown that it hasn't, you changed your claim to say that it's being revised instead, only to then go back and claim that it has been dropped after all, even though Sessions wrote and told you that it was very much alive and published for comment until it goes through. Also, what you keep failing to acknowledge is that while the proposed claims standard is up for comment so-called grass fed beef producers are urged by USDA to adopt it, thereby allowing beef producers to sell grain-finished beef as grass-fed beef with USDA's seal of approval. Grain-fed beef producers have been lying to consumers since the claims standard proposal was first published in 2002, and most probably for a good while before that proposal was even published. Grass fed beef is grain finished, and the evidence comes from USDA, so stop lying. |
Derek lied:
> On 9 Sep 2005 17:05:00 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >Derek lied: > >> On 9 Sep 2005 16:40:49 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >Derek lied: > >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:35:30 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >> >Derek lied: > >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:26:25 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >> >> >Derek lied: > >> >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >Derek lied: > >> >> >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >"Sessions, William" > > >> >> >> >> >> >To: jonball@... > >> >> >> >> >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims > >> >> >> >> >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >Mr. Ball: > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under > >> >> >> >> >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA > >> >> >> >> >> >will be published with a public comment period. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published > >> >> >> >> >> for comment in 2002 > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >...and is now being revised > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> No, it not being revised, > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >YES > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You said that it had been dropped > >> >> > > >> >> >I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped > >> >> > >> >> You said that it had been dropped, > >> > > >> >The previous proposed standard, yes. And it HAS been dropped. > >> > >> You've only just finished claiming that it hasn't been > >> dropped > > > >Right > > So you lied No, I didn't lie. Endeavor to write a standard: not dropped, never claimed it was dropped; Actual prior proposed standard: dropped I hope that helps. |
Derek lied:
> On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >Derek lied: > >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >Derek lied: > >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >> >Derek lied: > >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >"Sessions, William" > > >> >> >> >To: jonball@... > >> >> >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims > >> >> >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Mr. Ball: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under > >> >> >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA > >> >> >> >will be published with a public comment period. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published > >> >> >> for comment in 2002 > >> >> > > >> >> >...and is now being revised > >> >> > >> >> You said that it had been dropped, > >> > > >> >I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped > >> > >> [start - me] > >> > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard > >> > proposal and > >> [you] > >> ...have now dropped it. > >> http://tinyurl.com/754e8 > > > >And indeed they have dropped that > > No, they haven't, Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped. The effort to write a standard has not been dropped, and in fact, they are going to issue a revised proposed standard soon, perhaps by the end of the month. Endeavor to write a standard: not dropped, and never was claimed to be dropped Actual prior proposed standard: dropped I hope that helps. |
On 9 Sep 2005 17:21:32 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >No, I didn't lie. You always lie, **** snot. You're just a time-waster when all is said and done. Evidence from USDA, disgruntled consumers, your email from Sessions, and consumer magazines prove my claim on this issue, and all you have to refute it is your repeated lying. Your done. I'm not going to allow you to waste any more of my time on this. |
On 9 Sep 2005 17:23:18 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published >> >> >> >> for comment in 2002 >> >> >> > >> >> >> >...and is now being revised >> >> >> >> >> >> You said that it had been dropped, >> >> > >> >> >I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped >> >> >> >> [start - me] >> >> > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >> >> > proposal and >> >> [you] >> >> ...have now dropped it. >> >> http://tinyurl.com/754e8 >> > >> >And indeed they have dropped that >> >> No, they haven't, > >Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped. No it has not been dropped, liar Jon. There are at least half a dozen statements from you claiming USDA have dropped it, and then, after being shown that it hasn't, you changed your claim to say that it's being revised instead, only to then go back and claim that it has been dropped after all, even though Sessions wrote and told you that it was very much alive and published for comment until it goes through. Also, what you keep failing to acknowledge is that while the proposed claims standard is up for comment so-called grass fed beef producers are urged by USDA to adopt it, thereby allowing beef producers to sell grain-finished beef as grass-fed beef with USDA's seal of approval. Grain-fed beef producers have been lying to consumers since the claims standard proposal was first published in 2002, and most probably for a good while before that proposal was even published. Grass fed beef is grain finished, and the evidence comes from USDA, so stop lying. |
usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > >> Don't you folks get tired of personal childish attacks? > > > **** off, retard. A brilliant statement. What a useless world you live in. |
Derek lied:
> On 9 Sep 2005 17:21:32 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > > > >No, I didn't lie. > > You always lie, I didn't lie. The prior proposed standard has been dropped; the endeavor to write a standard has not. I was very clear about that all along. |
Derek lied:
> On 9 Sep 2005 17:23:18 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >Derek lied: > >> On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >Derek lied: > >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >> >Derek lied: > >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> >> >> >Derek lied: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published > >> >> >> >> for comment in 2002 > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >...and is now being revised > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You said that it had been dropped, > >> >> > > >> >> >I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped > >> >> > >> >> [start - me] > >> >> > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard > >> >> > proposal and > >> >> [you] > >> >> ...have now dropped it. > >> >> http://tinyurl.com/754e8 > >> > > >> >And indeed they have dropped that > >> > >> No, they haven't, > > > >Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped. > > No it has not been dropped, Yes, it has. Actual prior proposed standard: dropped Endeavor to write a standard: not dropped, and never was claimed to be dropped I hope that helps. |
On 9 Sep 2005 17:55:41 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek lied: >> On 9 Sep 2005 17:21:32 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> > >> >No, I didn't lie. >> >> You always lie, > >I didn't lie. The prior proposed standard has been dropped Then, if what you say is true, even though we both know you're lying through your teeth and USDA proves you wrong, so-called producers of grass fed beef have no claims standard to guarantee their product's validity and are selling grain finished beef animals onto their customers like they've always done. Either way you lose. You cannot claim that grass fed beef is grass fed, and you cannot now claim that it accrues less collateral deaths than the regular beef animals fed in feedlots. Strong work, Jon! |
On 9 Sep 2005 17:57:16 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 9 Sep 2005 17:23:18 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published >> >> >> >> >> for comment in 2002 >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >...and is now being revised >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You said that it had been dropped, >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped >> >> >> >> >> >> [start - me] >> >> >> > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >> >> >> > proposal and >> >> >> [you] >> >> >> ...have now dropped it. >> >> >> http://tinyurl.com/754e8 >> >> > >> >> >And indeed they have dropped that >> >> >> >> No, they haven't, >> > >> >Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped. >> >> No it has not been dropped, > >Yes, it has. > > Actual prior proposed standard: dropped You have no evidence to support that claim other than your word, and that, as we all know, stinks. I, on the other hand, have evidence from USDA and your email from William Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who is in charge of writing the standard for the "meat marketing claims", and he says that, "The marketing claim standards are still under review by USDA." 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. |
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 00:53:02 GMT, Beach Runner > wrote:
>usual suspect wrote: >> Beach Runner wrote: >> >>> Don't you folks get tired of personal childish attacks? >> >> **** off, retard. > >A brilliant statement. He said **** off retard, so take a telling and **** off. |
Derek wrote: > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 00:53:02 GMT, Beach Runner > wrote: > >>usual suspect wrote: >> >>>Beach Runner wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Don't you folks get tired of personal childish attacks? >>> >>>**** off, retard. >> >>A brilliant statement. > > > He said **** off retard, so take a telling and **** off. I thought this was a vegan newsgroups. Something about being productive, caring about the world, life, the environment and people. I am open to any reasonable discussion. |
Derek lied:
> On 9 Sep 2005 17:55:41 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >>Derek lied: >> >>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:21:32 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>> >>>>No, I didn't lie. >>> >>>You always lie, >> >>I didn't lie. The prior proposed standard has been dropped > > > Then, if what you say is true, It is true, as you fully know. The earlier proposed standard has been dropped; the letter from William Sessions clearly indicates a new proposed standard is in the works. You lied, Dreck - you said more than an hour before this latest lie/reply that you were done, and weren't going to reply to me again. I knew you were lying - you always lie. The standard is being revised, and the earlier proposed standard is DROPPED. |
Derek lied:
> On 9 Sep 2005 17:57:16 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >>Derek lied: >> >>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:23:18 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek lied: >>>> >>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>The initial claims standard proposal was published >>>>>>>>>>>for comment in 2002 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>...and is now being revised >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You said that it had been dropped, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [start - me] >>>>>>> > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >>>>>>> > proposal and >>>>>>> [you] >>>>>>> ...have now dropped it. >>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/754e8 >>>>>> >>>>>>And indeed they have dropped that >>>>> >>>>>No, they haven't, >>>> >>>>Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped. >>> >>>No it has not been dropped, >> >>Yes, it has. >> >> Actual prior proposed standard: dropped > > > You have no evidence to support that claim other > than your word, No, you imbecile - I have William Sessions's e-mail, and Susan Prolman's e-mail from yesterday that led me to believe what Sessions's e-mail confirms: the earlier proposed standard has been DROPPED, and a major revision is underway: 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 ---------------------------------------------------- Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA will be published with a public comment period. 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 You are completely stuffed, Dreck. In fact, you're more stuffed than you even know. Look at Mr. Sessions's third sentence: "***Any*** grass-fed marketing claim ***proposed by USDA*** will be published with a public comment period." That language suggests to me there is some possibility that NO standard will be proposed at all. I've been playing you like a Stradivarius, Dreck. It's been sweet music, eh? |
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message ...
> > > Derek wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 00:53:02 GMT, Beach Runner > wrote: > > > >>usual suspect wrote: > >> > >>>Beach Runner wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Don't you folks get tired of personal childish attacks? > >>> > >>>**** off, retard. > >> > >>A brilliant statement. > > > > > > He said **** off retard, so take a telling and **** off. > > > I thought this was a vegan newsgroups. Something about being productive, > caring about the world, life, the environment and people. I am open to > any reasonable discussion. True.. but what you did was like stepping in front of a charging bull, vegan as it is.. |
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:37:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 9 Sep 2005 17:57:16 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:23:18 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>The initial claims standard proposal was published >>>>>>>>>>>>for comment in 2002 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>...and is now being revised >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>You said that it had been dropped, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [start - me] >>>>>>>> > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >>>>>>>> > proposal and >>>>>>>> [you] >>>>>>>> ...have now dropped it. >>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/754e8 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And indeed they have dropped that >>>>>> >>>>>>No, they haven't, >>>>> >>>>>Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped. >>>> >>>>No it has not been dropped, >>> >>>Yes, it has. >>> >>> Actual prior proposed standard: dropped >> >> You have no evidence to support that claim other >> than your word, > >No, you imbecile - I have William Sessions's e-mail, >and Susan Prolman's e-mail from yesterday that led me >to believe "that led [you] to believe" is not good enough. It's clear from Sessions' email that the proposed claims standard is still being proposed rather than dropped, and a quick check on USDA's web site today confirms this. Also, what you keep failing to acknowledge is that while the proposed claims standard is up for comment so-called grass fed beef producers are urged by USDA to adopt it, thereby allowing beef producers to sell grain-finished beef as grass-fed beef with USDA's seal of approval. Grain-fed beef producers have been lying to consumers since the claims standard proposal was first published in 2002, and most probably for a good while before that proposal was even published. Grass fed beef is grain finished, and the evidence comes from USDA, so stop lying. >I've been playing you like a Stradivarius, Dreck. Then you must be deluded if you think that, because while that proposal remains on USDA's web site urging beef producers to follow its proposed claims standard until the (huh) revised proposal is published for further comment, you cannot claim that grass fed beef is anything other than as defined by that first proposal published in 2002, which means that the grass fed beef being sold has been grain finished at a feeding lot according to the comments raised on USDA's web site and in consumer magazines. >It's been sweet music, eh? To me, yes, but a din to you. |
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:29:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 9 Sep 2005 17:55:41 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>> >>> The prior proposed standard has been dropped >> >> Then, if what you say is true, > >It is true Then you must concede that while that proposal remains on USDA's web site urging beef producers to follow its proposed claims standard until the (huh) revised proposal is published for further comment, you cannot claim that grass fed beef is anything other than as defined by that first proposal published in 2002, which means that the grass fed beef being sold has been grain finished at a feeding lot according to the comments raised by consumers and beef producers on USDA's web site and in consumer magazines. Either way, you lose |
Derek lied:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:37:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek lied: >> >>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:57:16 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek lied: >>>> >>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:23:18 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>The initial claims standard proposal was published >>>>>>>>>>>>>for comment in 2002 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>...and is now being revised >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>You said that it had been dropped, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>[start - me] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >>>>>>>>>>proposal and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>[you] >>>>>>>>>...have now dropped it. >>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/754e8 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>And indeed they have dropped that >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No, they haven't, >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped. >>>>> >>>>>No it has not been dropped, >>>> >>>>Yes, it has. >>>> >>>> Actual prior proposed standard: dropped >>> >>>You have no evidence to support that claim other >>>than your word, >> >>No, you imbecile - I have William Sessions's e-mail, >>and Susan Prolman's e-mail from yesterday that led me >>to believe > > > "that led [you] to believe" is not good enough. But it was absolutely RIGHT, as it turned out. Ms. Prolman's e-mail led me to believe the proposed standard was being rewritten, so I wrote to Mr. Sessions and asked him, and there it was! Once again, you lose, you chump. Stop lying. Why did you lie and say you weren't going to deal with this any more, then jump right back into it? You always lie. |
Derek lied:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:29:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek lied: >> >>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:55:41 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>> >>>>The prior proposed standard has been dropped >>> >>>Then, if what you say is true, >> >>It is true > > > Then you must concede that while that proposal remains > on USDA's web site urging beef producers to follow its > proposed claims standard It urges no such thing, you liar. |
You really ought to read this post in full before
responding to it, Jon. You've got some serious explaining to do. On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:37:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >Derek wrote: >> On 9 Sep 2005 17:57:16 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:23:18 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote >>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>The initial claims standard proposal was published >>>>>>>>>>>>for comment in 2002 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>...and is now being revised >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>You said that it had been dropped, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [start - me] >>>>>>>> > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >>>>>>>> > proposal and >>>>>>>> [you] >>>>>>>> ...have now dropped it. >>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/754e8 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And indeed they have dropped that >>>>>> >>>>>>No, they haven't, >>>>> >>>>>Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped. >>>> >>>>No it has not been dropped, >>> >>>Yes, it has. >>> >>> Actual prior proposed standard: dropped >> >> You have no evidence to support that claim other >> than your word, and that, as we all know, stinks. >> I, on the other hand, have evidence from USDA >> and your email from William Sessions, the associate >> deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the >> Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who is in >> charge of writing the standard for the "meat >> marketing claims", and he says that, "The marketing >> claim standards are still under review by USDA." > >No, you imbecile - I have William Sessions's e-mail, > > Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. A revised > grass-fed marketing claim is under development by > USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by > USDA will be published with a public comment period. > 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 Gotcha! That email is different to the email you claim to have received from Sessions. YOU wrote it and then altered it in this post to fit your argument, giving the impression that the proposed claims standard had been dropped. Read on and see where you've changed the original informational part in Sessions' email from; "The marketing claim standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the standards have not been published in a final form for use." to "A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA will be published with a public comment period." Both emails start with "Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message." and end with "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" But the informational part in your second false email has now changed. Read your first email again (below). 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 http://tinyurl.com/dkdxo They're different. You wrote both those emails and pretended the original one was from, "William T 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" How can you be so stupid, Jon? Just who do you think you're trying to fool? >You are completely stuffed, Dreck. You are, and you know it. > It's been sweet music, eh? Beautiful. |
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:11:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:29:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:55:41 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>> >>>>>The prior proposed standard has been dropped >>>> >>>>Then, if what you say is true, >>> >>>It is true >> >> Then you must concede that while that proposal remains >> on USDA's web site urging beef producers to follow its >> proposed claims standard until the (huh) revised proposal >> is published for further comment, you cannot claim that >> grass fed beef is anything other than as defined by that first >> proposal published in 2002, which means that the grass fed >> beef being sold has been grain finished at a feeding lot >> according to the comments raised by consumers and beef >> producers on USDA's web site and in consumer magazines. >> Either way, you lose > >It urges no such thing, you liar. 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 that proposed marketing claims standard while U.S.D.A. prepares to make it final by publishing it. "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 Also, why did you alter the supposed email from Sessions to fit your new argument where the claims standard proposal had been dropped? Acccording to you, the informational part of his brief email went; "The marketing claim standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the standards have not been published in a final form for use." but now reads; "A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA will be published with a public comment period." Here's the claimed original email; 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 http://tinyurl.com/dkdxo and here's your edited copy; Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA will be published with a public comment period. 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 http://tinyurl.com/9m9cz Both emails start with, "Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message." and end with "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" But the informational part in your second false email has now changed. You've got some serious explaining to do, liar Jon. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter