 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
What are they feeding that cow?
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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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" > 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 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 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:51:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>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, ****: 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." She 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:52:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> 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, > >It is a lie. I know it is; that's what I've been telling you all along while you try to wriggle away from the note Sessions gave you in response to your question. You're now claiming that the claims standard has been dropped, but only yesterday he wrote to you, telling you that the proposed claims standard is very much alive and still 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 15:51:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek lied: >> >>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:58:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek lied: >>>> >>>>>On 8 Sep 2005 16:40:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>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, ****: > > > 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." No, but William Sessions is undoubtedly the official with whom she spoke: "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***." You are just stuffed, Dreck. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:05:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek lied: >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:51:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >>>Derek lied: >>> >>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:58:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> >>>>>Derek lied: >>>>> >>>>>>On 8 Sep 2005 16:40:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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, ****: >> >> >> 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." > >No, but William Sessions is undoubtedly the official >with whom she spoke: And William Sessions clearly points out that, contrary to your lie, the proposal hasn't been dropped at all. He spells out quite clearly that it is very much alive and still under review. 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 15:52:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>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, >> >>It is a lie. > > > I know it is You either altered my statement (likely), or I forgot to put "not" into it (less likely). In either case, my statement that the USDA has withdrawn the earlier proposed standard is not a lie. They *have* withdrawn it, and are rewriting it, as a result of intense public criticism it received. Understand, Dreck, you ignorant jerk, that the standard covered much more than just claims about "grass-fed" beef. It also covered claims about meat being "organic", "no antibiotics", "no hormones", and a host of other potential claims. It did NOT deal solely with labeling claims about being "grass-fed". They received several hundred comments - http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/claim.htm - and it is not surprising that they decided to readdress the standard as it was written; that's what the public comment period is intended to achieve. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:05:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>Derek lied: >> >>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:51:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Derek lied: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:58:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>On 8 Sep 2005 16:40:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>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, ****: >>> >>> >>>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." >> >>No, but William Sessions is undoubtedly the official >>with whom she spoke: > > > And William Sessions clearly points out that ....the proposed standard is being rewritten. Yes. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:14:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:52:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>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, >>> >>>It is a lie. >> >> I know it is > >You either altered my statement (likely), or I forgot >to put "not" into it (less likely). Neither. Look at the thread, you hapless piece of lying scum. >In either case, my >statement that the USDA has withdrawn the earlier >proposed standard is 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 wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:14:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:52:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek wrote: >>>> >>>>>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, >>>> >>>>It is a lie. >>> >>>I know it is >> >>You either altered my statement (likely), or I forgot >>to put "not" into it (less likely). > > > Neither. Look at the thread, you hapless piece of > lying scum. > > >>In either case, my >>statement that the USDA has withdrawn the earlier >>proposed standard is not a lie. > > > It IS a lie, It is not a lie. The proposed standard is being rewritten, and again will be subject to public comment. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:17:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:05:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:51:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>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, ****: >>>> >>>>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." >>> >>>No, but William Sessions is undoubtedly the official >>>with whom she spoke: >> >> And William Sessions clearly points out that > >...the proposed standard is .... still under review. William Sessions clearly points out that, contrary to your lie, the proposal hasn't been dropped at all. He spells out quite clearly that it is very much alive and still under review, liar Jon. 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 keep trying to distance yourself from. [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 And while that proposal is under review, a statement from the same page urges so-called grass fed beef producers to use those proposed marketing claims standards while U.S.D.A. prepares to make them final by later 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. 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 16:17:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:05:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:51:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>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, ****: >>>>> >>>>>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." >>>> >>>>No, but William Sessions is undoubtedly the official >>>>with whom she spoke: >>> >>>And William Sessions clearly points out that >> >>...the proposed standard is > > > ... still ....being rewritten. It hasn't been published. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:25:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:17:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:05:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:51:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>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, ****: >>>>>> >>>>>>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." >>>>> >>>>>No, but William Sessions is undoubtedly the official >>>>>with whom she spoke: >>>> >>>>And William Sessions clearly points out that >>> >>>...the proposed standard is >> >> ... still > >...being rewritten. No, it's still under review, liar Jon. William Sessions clearly points out that, contrary to your lie, the proposal hasn't been dropped at all. 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 keep trying to distance yourself from. [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 And while that proposal is under review, a statement from the same page urges so-called grass fed beef producers to use those proposed marketing claims standards while U.S.D.A. prepares to make them final by later 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. 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 16:25:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:17:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:05:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:51:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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, ****: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>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." >>>>>> >>>>>>No, but William Sessions is undoubtedly the official >>>>>>with whom she spoke: >>>>> >>>>>And William Sessions clearly points out that >>>> >>>>...the proposed standard is >>> >>>... still >> >>...being rewritten. > > > No, it's still ....being rewritten, and is UNPUBLISHED. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:20:47 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:14:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:52:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>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, >>>>> >>>>>It is a lie. >>>> >>>>I know it is >>> >>>You either altered my statement (likely), or I forgot >>>to put "not" into it (less likely). >> >> Neither. Look at the thread, you hapless piece of >> lying scum. Well, scum, aren't you going to apologise for your error and accusation that I altered your statement? >>>In either case, my >>>statement that the USDA has withdrawn the earlier >>>proposed standard is not a lie. >> >> It IS a lie, > >It is 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. Keep wriggling. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:20:47 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:14:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:52:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>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, >>>>>> >>>>>>It is a lie. >>>>> >>>>>I know it is >>>> >>>>You either altered my statement (likely), or I forgot >>>>to put "not" into it (less likely). >>> >>>Neither. Look at the thread, you hapless piece of >>>lying scum. > > > Well, scum, aren't you going to apologise for your error > and accusation that I altered your statement? > > >>>>In either case, my >>>>statement that the USDA has withdrawn the earlier >>>>proposed standard is not a lie. >>> >>>It IS a lie, >> >>It is not a lie. > > > It IS a lie, It is not a lie. The proposed standard is being rewritten, and again will be subject to public comment. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:43:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:25:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:17:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:05:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:51:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>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, ****: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No, but William Sessions is undoubtedly the official >>>>>>>with whom she spoke: >>>>>> >>>>>>And William Sessions clearly points out that >>>>> >>>>>...the proposed standard is >>>> >>>>... still >>> >>>...being rewritten. >> >> >> No, it's still > >...being rewritten No, it's under review and isn't being rewritten. Sessions wrote and told you that, but being the liar you are you now want to distance yourself from what he wrote. William Sessions clearly points out that, contrary to your lie, the proposal hasn't been dropped at all. He clearly points out that, "The marketing claim standards ***are still under review by USDA.*** It hasn't been dropped at all, liar, and nor has it been rewritten either. Here's the letter you received, and which you keep trying to distance yourself from. [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 And while that proposal is under review, a statement from the same page urges so-called grass fed beef producers to use those proposed marketing claims standards while U.S.D.A. prepares to make them final by later 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. 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dreck lied:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:43:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Dreck lied: >> >>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:25:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Dreck lied: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:17:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Dreck lied: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:05:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Dreck lied: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:51:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Dreck lied: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:58:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Dreck lied: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8 Sep 2005 16:40:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dreck lied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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, ****: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>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." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>No, but William Sessions is undoubtedly the official >>>>>>>>with whom she spoke: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And William Sessions clearly points out that >>>>>> >>>>>>...the proposed standard is >>>>> >>>>>... still >>>> >>>>...being rewritten. >>> >>> >>>No, it's still >> >>...being rewritten > > > No, it's ....being rewritten, and is UNPUBLISHED. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I do confess that I have not read all of your comments, but I thought
you would like to know that, here in England we had the most awful scare about beef caused by infected food. Mad cows disease. No one had any idea that the remains of animals where being fed to cows. And in the early days even organic farmers where feeding this stuff in ignorance to their herds. Last week a report was published, very quietly, no one seemed to make a fuss, about how HUMAN remains where in that infected feed. Apparently bones where imported form India and some of them where dredged form the river Ganges. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:51:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:43:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:25:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:17:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:05:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:51:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>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, ****: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>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." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>No, but William Sessions is undoubtedly the official But that didn't stop you from altering his alleged email to you to fit in with your new argument where the claims standard proposal had been dropped, did it? According 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. How could you be so stupid as to try a stunt like that and think you could get away with it? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:46:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:20:47 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:14:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:52:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>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, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It is a lie. >>>>>> >>>>>>I know it is >>>>> >>>>>You either altered my statement (likely), or I forgot >>>>>to put "not" into it (less likely). >>>> >>>>Neither. Look at the thread, you hapless piece of >>>>lying scum. >> >> Well, scum, aren't you going to apologise for your error >> and accusation that I altered your statement? No, I didn't think you would. Why do you accuse others when making your mistakes, and why do you refuse to apologise and retract your accusations about their honesty after being found guilty of that error you accuse them of? >>>>>In either case, my >>>>>statement that the USDA has withdrawn the earlier >>>>>proposed standard is not a lie. >>>> >>>>It IS a lie, >>> >>>It is not a lie. >> >> It IS a lie, > >It is not a lie. The proposed standard is being >rewritten, and again will be subject to public comment. How can I believe a word you write on this issue while unidentical cites of Sessions' email to you exist? According 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. How could you be so stupid as to try a stunt like that and think you could get away with it? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
aisa wrote:
> I do confess that I have not read all of your comments, but I thought > you would like to know that, here in England we had the most awful > scare about beef caused by infected food. Mad cows disease. Oh reeeeeeeeeeeeally? /sarcasm > No one had > any idea that the remains of animals where being fed to cows. And in > the early days even organic farmers where feeding this stuff in > ignorance to their herds. Last week a report was published, very > quietly, no one seemed to make a fuss, about how HUMAN remains where were, not where. Dittos below. > in that infected feed. No, dummy, it's a THEORY about the origin of BSE and how it MIGHT have occurred under such a scenario. It's an interesting theory, and quite plausible, but as yet there's no evidence that BSE in cattle is the result of feeding CJD-infected matter from dead humans to cattle. The Colchesters, who've put forward this theory, admit it's only circumstantial. See the following articles. http://tinyurl.com/dwqf4 http://tinyurl.com/awp9q > Apparently bones where imported form India and some > of them where dredged form the river Ganges. Apparently you're too daft to comprehend the articles written about this, preferring instead to assume that this controversial theory is indeed factual. The imported bones in question were from animals. The Colchesters suggest some infected human bones MIGHT also have been imported and processed into animal feed. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I suppose my point was that it is disgusting to feed animal matter to
cows and even more disgusting to process human corpses and put them into our food chain. I must say I feel prion disease may have come from chemical sprays. I am sorry to come off of your point but it is important to not trust the powers that be http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4201072.stm |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek lied:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:51:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek lied: >> >>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:43:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek lied: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:25:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:17:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:05:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:51:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:58:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8 Sep 2005 16:40:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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, ****: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>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." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>No, but William Sessions is undoubtedly the official > > > But that didn't stop you from altering his alleged email No substantive alteration. As I said, give me a real e-mail address where you receive e-mail, and I'll forward both of Mr. Sessions's e-mail messages to you, including the headers. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:20:09 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:51:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:43:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:25:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:17:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:05:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:51:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>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, ****: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>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." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>No, but William Sessions is undoubtedly the official >> >> But that didn't stop you from altering his alleged email > >No substantive alteration. So you ADMIT you DID alter it, and this is while claiming Sessions wrote you two emails to get you off the hook. >As I said, give me a real >e-mail address where you receive e-mail Stop feigning ignorance about how to get in touch with me through email. Our last set of 15 private emails to each other wasn't that long ago, and isn't that easy to forget. > and I'll >forward both of Mr. Sessions's e-mail messages to you, >including the headers. Both? But you've already admitted in this post that there was " |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek lied:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:20:09 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek lied: >> >>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:51:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek lied: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:43:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:25:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:17:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:05:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:51:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:58:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8 Sep 2005 16:40:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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, ****: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>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." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>No, but William Sessions is undoubtedly the official >>> >>>But that didn't stop you from altering his alleged email >> >>No substantive alteration. > > > So you ADMIT you DID alter it, Only to take my real e-mail address out of it. Unlike you, I don't like to have it in usenet. That's the only alteration I made. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:20:09 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:51:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:43:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:25:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:17:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:05:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:51:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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, ****: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>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." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>No, but William Sessions is undoubtedly the official >>>> >>>>But that didn't stop you from altering his alleged email >>> >>>No substantive alteration. >> >> So you ADMIT you DID alter it, > >Only to take my real e-mail address out of it. The part you altered was the informational part of it and had nothing to do with hiding your identity, liar. Here (below) is the email you claimed to have received from Sessions; 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 (below) is the second which you tried to pass off as the original but failed because I spotted your editing of it; 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 wrote them both to suit your argument, liar Jon. Of that there can be no doubt. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek lied:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek lied: >> >>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:20:09 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek lied: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:51:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:43:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:25:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:17:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:05:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:51:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:58:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8 Sep 2005 16:40:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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, ****: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, but William Sessions is undoubtedly the official >>>>> >>>>>But that didn't stop you from altering his alleged email >>>> >>>>No substantive alteration. >>> >>>So you ADMIT you DID alter it, >> >>Only to take my real e-mail address out of it. > > > The part you altered was the informational part of it > and had nothing to do with hiding your identity, liar. The only thing I altered was the removal of my e-mail address. You are wrong. The e-mails from Mr. Sessions are authentic, and you know it. You've been caught lying, again - no surprise. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:20:44 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>But that didn't stop you from altering his alleged email >>>>> >>>>>No substantive alteration. >>>> >>>>So you ADMIT you DID alter it, >>> >>>Only to take my real e-mail address out of it. >> >> The part you altered was the informational part of it >> and had nothing to do with hiding your identity, liar. > >The only thing I altered was the removal of my e-mail >address. The part you admittedly altered in the second alleged email had nothing to do with your hiding your identity at all. It was the informational part of the email that you altered, yet your now claiming that that altered email is but one of two. According 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" How could you be so stupid as to try a stunt like that and think you could get away with it? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek lied:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:20:44 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>>>>>>But that didn't stop you from altering his alleged email >>>>>> >>>>>>No substantive alteration. >>>>> >>>>>So you ADMIT you DID alter it, >>>> >>>>Only to take my real e-mail address out of it. >>> >>>The part you altered was the informational part of it >>>and had nothing to do with hiding your identity, liar. >> >>The only thing I altered was the removal of my e-mail >>address. > > > The part you admittedly altered in the second alleged email The only thing altered was the removal of my e-mail address. The e-mails are authentic. You know it. You're just playing the fool now, something you have some 44 years experience in doing. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Feeding a Zombie | General Cooking | |||
| Feeding starter | Sourdough | |||
| Troll Feeding | Wine | |||
| Washing vs feeding? | Sourdough | |||
| The self feeding troll | Barbecue | |||
Linear Mode
