Derek wrote:

> On 7 Sep 2005 11:27:06 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:50:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:20:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:56:45 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:38:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:14:53 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:21:42 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:08:58 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Claim and Standard:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>source throughout the animal's life cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dated: December 20, 2002.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A.J. Yates,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>These "proposed minimum requirements mean that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>grass fed beef can in fact be fed up to 80% grains for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>60 days in a feedlot, just like any other steer, and still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>qualify as grass fed beef.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what it's name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>implies,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If you're not lying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The evidence before you and which you'll ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>at any cost to your already ruined integrity is from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>U.S.D.A.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>False.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>No, it's perfectly true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No, it's false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Go to the links and find yourself on U.S.D.A.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Been there, long before you found it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Then you will no option but to agree that the
>>>>>>>evidence I put before Harrison is from U.S.D.A.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. It is not "from" USDA.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt
>>>>
>>>>That is the proposal.
>>>
>>>And found on usda's web site
>>
>>It is not a standard
>
>
> Nevertheless, whatever you might claim it to be, it
> was evidence put before Harrison that came from
> U.S.D.A., so you were wrong to declare "false"
> when you did. I don't expect you to admit it, but
> the facts are there to see that you were in error.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>You have reposted producers' public
>>>>>>>>>>comments. You have not posted a USDA standard.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I've produced both the standard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>FALSE. You have "produced" only a PROPOSED standard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That was the standard you asked for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. A proposed standard isn't a standard; it's a proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>>And that's exactly the standard you asked for
>>>>
>>>>No. You're lying. I asked for an ADOPTED standard.
>>>>That proposal has not been adopted.
>>>
>>>There is no adopted standard, so when asking me to
>>>produce the standard supporting my claims you were
>>>in fact asking me for the standard I gave you
>>
>>No.
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>***No consensus standards currently exist*** for
>>>>>>>>>>>>production or marketing claims related to meat and
>>>>>>>>>>>>livestock products.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you earlier claimed their was a standard, and that
>>>>>>>>>>>that standard is followed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No. There IS an implied standard. It's not a USDA
>>>>>>>>>>standard.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As things stand at the moment, according to U.S.D.A.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Some segments of the livestock and meat industries
>>>>>>>>>make claims to distinguish their products from
>>>>>>>>>competing products and may request third-party
>>>>>>>>>verification by USDA to increase the credibility of
>>>>>>>>>their claims."
>>>>>>>>>http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As we can plainly see, so-called grass fed beef
>>>>>>>>>producers are lying
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Both the producer and U.S.D.A. are misleading the
>>>>>>>consumer into believing that the grass fed beef they're
>>>>>>>buying is grass fed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Currently, beef sold as grass-fed beef IS 100% grass fed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>>>
>>>>No, TRUE. Western Grasslands in California, and
>>>>Slanker's Grass-fed in Texas both sell beef that is
>>>>100% grass fed; ZERO grain.
>>>
>>>I don't believe Western Grasslands in California,
>>
>>You have no reason NOT to believe them.
>
>
> I have no evidence other than his word, so I've
> every GOOD reason not to believe him. I would
> be a fool to rely on anecdotal evidence to base
> any conclusions upon. You should know that.
>
>
>>>just as equally as you refuse to believe statements made
>>>by Kent Lundberg concerning his collateral death-free
>>>rice.
>>
>>He did not say his rice is "collateral death-free". You are lying
>>again.
>
>
> Nevertheless, you refused to believe what this
> producer claimed about his product

Because the nature of his claim is absurd. He doesn't
know anything about collateral deaths; the sleazily
loaded question put to him by that **** Lesley is the
first he had ever even *thought* about it. He doesn't
know about CDs, but he's bright enough to see the
implication of it when it's introduced to him, so he
splutters some bullshit about "exaggeration" and the
great care they take not to kill some ducks (but no
mention of other birds, or reptiles, or amphibians...)

By contrast, Ernest Phinney's claims about Western
Grassland's grass-fed beef are based on THE
DISTINGUISHING characteristic of his product: that the
beef is from animals who were *only* fed grass. In
contrast to the caught-by-surprise,
deer-in-the-headlights Kent Lundberg, Mr. Phinney knows
*all* about feeding grass, and only grass, to cattle -
it is the very basis for the existence of his company.

Mr. Phinney knows about value of preserving the meaning
of "grass-fed" as a marketing claim, and his company is
predicated on the notion that grass-fed means *only*
grass-fed. Lundberg, caught entirely off-guard by
Lesley's loaded and sleazy and undoubtedly dishonestly
composed question, didn't know what he was talking
about concerning CDs.

That's just how it is, Dreck.