Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH, "It's not what the company says, it's what the label implies. If the label did not imply food safety there would be no reason to test for BSE."
That's rediculous. First of all, implications are totally subjective. Secondly, how can you give more credence to an implication over a direct statement from the company?
SH, "USDA doesn't have to say it's fraud for it to be fraud. Typical deceptive argument from the master illusionist. "
So it's fraud if you say so? Who is the illusionist here? Have you looked up "fraud" in the dictionary yet? You need to.
SH, "Sound science applies when it applies and not when it doesn't apply. Obviously in cases of food safety, it would apply. Obviously in cases of religious practices it would not HAVE TO apply. That would be obvious to anyone with any common sense but not an idiot. "
Where did the USDA say that? What are their guidelines on when it applies and when it doesn't? Do they just flip a coin?
Sh, "Already answered twice. The answer is yes!"
No, you skirted twice and answered once. Now tell my why organic is based on sound science - and leave out the verification. Aren't they providing the "illusion of safety"? :roll:
SH, "Nobody mentioned anything about mandatory testing. More deception from you."
Hmmm, didn't I just say that? :roll:
Sh, "If a customer wants BSE testing, they should be made aware that the testing they are asking for does not provide the safety they believe it does."
OK, fine. Would you be in favor of allowing testing if each package of tested beef carried the disclosure that BSE testing means only that and not necessarily BSE free?
Sh, "Pathetic flea!"
I see your recent absense wasn't spent at charm school. :lol:
That's rediculous. First of all, implications are totally subjective. Secondly, how can you give more credence to an implication over a direct statement from the company?
SH, "USDA doesn't have to say it's fraud for it to be fraud. Typical deceptive argument from the master illusionist. "
So it's fraud if you say so? Who is the illusionist here? Have you looked up "fraud" in the dictionary yet? You need to.
SH, "Sound science applies when it applies and not when it doesn't apply. Obviously in cases of food safety, it would apply. Obviously in cases of religious practices it would not HAVE TO apply. That would be obvious to anyone with any common sense but not an idiot. "
Where did the USDA say that? What are their guidelines on when it applies and when it doesn't? Do they just flip a coin?
Sh, "Already answered twice. The answer is yes!"
No, you skirted twice and answered once. Now tell my why organic is based on sound science - and leave out the verification. Aren't they providing the "illusion of safety"? :roll:
SH, "Nobody mentioned anything about mandatory testing. More deception from you."
Hmmm, didn't I just say that? :roll:
Sh, "If a customer wants BSE testing, they should be made aware that the testing they are asking for does not provide the safety they believe it does."
OK, fine. Would you be in favor of allowing testing if each package of tested beef carried the disclosure that BSE testing means only that and not necessarily BSE free?
Sh, "Pathetic flea!"
I see your recent absense wasn't spent at charm school. :lol: