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.

Derek lied:
> U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
> proposal and

....have now dropped it. It generated intense opposition from dozens of
affected parties, and they have dropped it. They are now working on a
new proposed standard, for which they will again solicit public comment.

On 8 Sep 2005 16:40:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>>
>> U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
>> proposal and
>
>...have now dropped it.

That's a desperate lie to be offering right now, especially
when looking at the response you received only yesterday
from William Sessions, the associate deputy administrator
at the Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who verifies
that the proposal is still very much alive and under review.
Here's what you wrote yesterday;

[I wrote to William 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";
his name, title and e-mail address are at a web page
whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_i...p?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

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
Jonathan Ball (Rudy Canoza) http://tinyurl.com/dkdxo

So you've lied, Jon. It hasn't been dropped at all: "The
marketing claims standards are still under review by
USDA.", and while this review is under way USDA
urges beef producers to use their proposed marketing
claims standards while it prepares to make them final
later 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

You lied, Jon. You have no interest in the truth concerning
these matters, and being the meat propagandist you most
certainly are you'll say anything to keep the lie behind grass
fed beef alive.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On 8 Sep 2005 16:40:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza"
> > wrote:
>>Derek wrote:
>>>
>>> U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
>>> proposal and
>>
>>...have now dropped it.
>
> That's a desperate lie
=============
And you know all about desperate lys, eh hypocrite?

Derek wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2005 16:40:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
>>>proposal and
>>
>>...have now dropped it.
>
>
> That's a desperate lie to be offering right now, especially
> when looking at the response you received only yesterday
> from William Sessions, the associate deputy administrator
> at the Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who verifies
> that the proposal is still very much alive and under review.

The response from Susan Prolman:

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.

They got so much negative feedback on the earlier
proposed standard that they have withdrawn it, and are
starting over.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:58:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 8 Sep 2005 16:40:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>>U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
>>>>proposal and
>>>
>>>...have now dropped it.
>>
>> That's a desperate lie to be offering right now, especially
>> when looking at the response you received only yesterday
>> from William Sessions, the associate deputy administrator
>> at the Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who verifies
>> that the proposal is still very much alive and under review.
>
>The response from Susan Prolman:

And who the Hell is she? Whoever she is, she certainly
isn't "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."

> 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.

That doesn't contradict William Sessions' note to you.
Sessions clearly points out that, "The marketing claim
standards ***are still under review by USDA.***
It hasn't been dropped at all, liar.

Here's the letter you received, and which you snipped
away in this reply.

[I wrote to William 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";
his name, title and e-mail address are at a web page
whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_i...p?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

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
Jonathan Ball (Rudy Canoza) http://tinyurl.com/dkdxo

You lied, and you'll keep on lying even while the
evidence in your email from Sessions is right under
your nose. You're an habitual liar, Jon.

Derek wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:58:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>On 8 Sep 2005 16:40:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
>>>>>proposal and
>>>>
>>>>...have now dropped it.
>>>
>>>That's a desperate lie to be offering right now, especially
>>>when looking at the response you received only yesterday
>>>from William Sessions, the associate deputy administrator
>>>at the Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who verifies
>>>that the proposal is still very much alive and under review.
>>
>>The response from Susan Prolman:
>
>
> And who the Hell is she?

It was right in the e-mail I posted yesterday, ****:

================================================== ==

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

Susan Prolman
Washington Representative
Food & Environment Program
Union of Concerned Scientists
1707 H Street NW, Suite 600
Washington DC 20006-3962
Direct Line 202-331-5433
UCS General Line 202-223-6133
Fax 202-223-6162
www.ucsusa.org

================================================== ==


If your little pencil-thin dick weren't attached to you
with 8 gauge wire, Dreck, you wouldn't be able to ****.

Derek wrote:

> U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
> proposal

....and now they've withdrawn it. It got too much
criticism during the public comment period.

They've withdrawn it, and they're working on a replacement.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 04:19:09 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>
>> U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
>> proposal
>
>...and now they've withdrawn it.

That's a desperate lie to be offering right now, especially
when looking at the response you received only yesterday
from William Sessions, the associate deputy administrator
at the Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who verifies
that the proposal is still very much alive and under review.
Here's what you wrote yesterday;

[I wrote to William 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";
his name, title and e-mail address are at a web page
whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_i...p?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

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
Jonathan Ball (Rudy Canoza) http://tinyurl.com/dkdxo

So you've lied, Jon. It hasn't been dropped at all: "The
marketing claims standards are still under review by
USDA.", and while this review is under way USDA
urges beef producers to use their proposed marketing
claims standards while it prepares to make them final
later 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

You lied, Jon. You have no interest in the truth concerning
these matters, and being the meat propagandist you most
certainly are you'll say anything to keep the lie behind grass
fed beef alive.

Derek lied:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 04:19:09 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Derek lied:
>>
>>
>>>U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
>>>proposal
>>
>>...and now they've withdrawn it.
>
>
> That's a desperate lie

Not a lie. The earlier proposal got such a bad
reaction, they've withdrawn it and started over. There
will be a standard, but not the one you foolishly think
shows something it does not.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:17:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 04:19:09 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>>U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
>>>>proposal
>>>
>>>...and now they've withdrawn it.
>>
>> That's a desperate lie
>
>Not a lie.

It IS a lie, and the note you received from Sessions
proves it. Only yesterday he wrote to you, telling
you that the proposed claims standard is very much
alive and under review, liar Jon. He clearly points
out that, "The marketing claim standards
***are still under review by USDA.***
It hasn't been dropped at all, liar.

Here's the letter you received, and which you snipped
away in this reply.

[I wrote to William 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";
his name, title and e-mail address are at a web page
whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_i...p?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

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
Jonathan Ball (Rudy Canoza) http://tinyurl.com/dkdxo

You lied, and you'll keep on lying even while the
evidence in your email from Sessions is right under
your nose. You're an habitual liar, Jon.

Derek lied:

> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:17:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Derek lied:
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 04:19:09 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
>>>>>proposal
>>>>
>>>>...and now they've withdrawn it.
>>>
>>>That's a desperate lie
>>
>>Not a lie.
>
>
> It IS a lie,

It is a lie. They've started over.