• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

NCBA Shows Growth in 2005

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
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:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "First of all, implications are totally subjective."

WHAT THE HECK DOES "BSE TESTED" IMPLY IF NOT FOOD SAFETY?????

WHY TEST FOR BSE IF IT'S NOT ABOUT FOOD SAFETY????

Keep defending your consumer deception Sandman, I would expect nothing less!


Sandman: "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?"

The guidelines on when it applies is WHEN IT COULD APPLY, not when it doesn't as in religious practices. What a stupid argument on your part.

WHY WOULD "SOUND SCIENCE" APPLY WHEN IT DOESN'T APPLY???

Sometimes I wonder why I even respond to an idiot like you.


Sandman: "Now tell my why organic is based on sound science - and leave out the verification."

Another apples to oranges comparison.

In the case of "BSE TESTED BEEF", with the test Creekstone wanted to use, this product implies that it is safer than it may be.

In the case of "organic", the only implication is that it might be safer than beef that contains hormone or antibiotics. There is no problem in approving a product that might be safer. There is a problem in approving a product that implies that it is safer than it is.

These two products are going in opposite directions with their implications so why should USDA be concerned about "organic" when it could only be safer than regular beef?


Sandman: "I see your recent absense wasn't spent at charm school."

Would that apply to your windbag comment? Hypocrite!

I'll leave the snake charming to someone else.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
You missed this question; 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?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If you are going to take a position that BSE testing does not mean BSE free, WHY TEST????

Either find a test that guarantees that it is BSE free or there is no need to test.

If Creekstone was using a test that was approved by USDA to provide what it implies, than I wouldn't have a problem with it.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
If you are going to take a position that BSE testing does not mean BSE free, WHY TEST????

Either find a test that guarantees that it is BSE free or there is no need to test.

If Creekstone was using a test that was approved by USDA to provide what it implies, than I wouldn't have a problem with it.



~SH~

You didn't answer the question. Here it is for a third time; 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?
 

Latest posts

Top