On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:34:29 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Dreck wrote:
That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
later on in the year.

If someone happens to eat beef like that it wouldn't
really matter anyway

It does matter when farmers lie to their customers,
whatever you believe.

Yes, but how many do lie to consumers?

Enough for USDA to make note of it and comment.
You can never tell, especially where farmers are
concerned.

Buy locally-produced foods and there's less risk for lies.

The risk remains the same wherever the customer
buys his meat. The farmer might take his animals
far from home to finish them in a feedlot on corn.

snip
Farmers have always
been honest even when it hurts.

Then why do they intentionally infect their own
cattle with painful, deadly diseases? That's not
being "honest even when it hurts", and neither
is their lying to customers which YOU think
"wouldn't really matter anyway."

The article tells why: because compensation rates for sick animals are
higher than market prices. You get more of what you subsidize and less
of what you tax. Stop paying farmers in excess of market price for sick
animals and they'll try to keep their livestock from becoming ill. Or
tax them for sick animals (use the tax money to pay for more
inspections) and you'll see much healthier herds.

So, you're blaming the market, consumers and the
government for the farmer's intentional lies and
dishonesty, not to mention the intentional infecting
of his animals for compensation. Anyone but the
farmer himself. How transparent you are.

[A huge increase in compensation payments being
made for brucellosis infected cattle in Northern
Ireland has been criticised by a Stormont Assembly
committee. The Public Accounts Committee said it
was greatly concerned at the increased payments
and the evidence that some

*farmers were deliberately infecting their herds.*

In a report published on Tuesday, the committee said
there was evidence in five cases where farmers
deliberately introduced the disease to take advantage
of the compensation on offer.]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1787931.stm

[LONDON, England (CNN) -- The British government's
hope of eradicating foot-and-mouth disease suffered a
setback amid reports that it may have been spread
deliberately.

Rumours have circulated for months that unscrupulous
farmers have been approaching those in the industry
offering infected animals to generate generous
compensation claims.

Last week a farmer in Pembrokeshire, west Wales,
notified authorities saying she had received a telephone
call from someone demanding £2,000 cash in exchange
for infecting her animals with the disease.]
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe...britain.sheep/

[THE Government is investigating allegations that
farmers are deliberately infecting their sheep and cattle
with the foot and mouth virus to claim compensation far
in excess of their market value.

Some evidence has already been found in Cumbria,
where rumours have been circulating about infected
ears and tails from farms stricken with foot and mouth
being offered to owners of healthy livestock.

At least one suspect lamb's tail has been found on a farm
in the area. Officers of the Department for the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs' investigation unit are looking into the
find and police will be called in if the unit is satisfied there is
a case to answer.]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../30/nfnm30.xml

You might think farmers are "honest even when it hurts",
even while lying to their customers and infecting their
own cattle, but don't expect me to.

They generally don't lie to consumers.

I disagree with your opinion. I believe they generally
do lie to their customers.