On 7 Sep 2005 11:28:01 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:52:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:23:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >>>Derek wrote:
>> >>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:07:11 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>> >>>>>Derek wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>At present, "grass-fed beef" means exactly that: 100%
>> >>>>>>>>>grass-fed.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>No, that isn't true,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Yes, it is true. The USDA has proposed, but NOT YET
>> >>>>>>>ADOPTED
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>"The proposed
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>What part of PROPOSED do you not understand, dummy?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Though they are proposed,
>> >>>
>> >>>The proposed standard is just that: a proposal.
>> >>
>> >> What part in,
>> >
>> >The proposed standard has not been adopted.
>>
>> "The proposed marketing claim standards
>
>...has not been adopted.

"The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in
conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary
USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA
Verified programs." [my edit]

and

"AMS is seeking public comment on the following proposed United
States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. New
participants in USDA Certified or USDA Verified programs will be
required to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock and
Meat Marketing Claims immediately."

>You lied.

Evidence from U.S.D.A. and the comments from disgruntled
beef producers proves otherwise.