NCBA

[Sandhusker]

OT: "How does supporting USDA's denial of Creekstone's proposal match these guiding principles?"

SH, "It stops at the point of deceiving consumers into believing 100% testing offers safer beef. It stops at setting a presidence that 100% testing is justified. "

When did NCBA add a "deception and justification" clause?

Is the deception you're talking about that same deception that boiled down to "Somebody told them something sometime"? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Think about it, SH. You KNOW NCBA has egg on their faces on this one. Everybody else can figure it out, too.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "When did NCBA add a "deception and justification" clause?"

There's your deceptive nature again Sandhusker.

Who would need a "decepton clause" to not support something that is as deceptive as 100% testing that reveals nothing???


Sandhusker: "Is the deception you're talking about that same deception that boiled down to "Somebody told them something sometime"?"

You'd be the one that would know about that. You support any statement that supports your R-CULT bias.


Sandhusker: "Think about it, SH. You KNOW NCBA has egg on their faces on this one. Everybody else can figure it out, too."

NCBA does not have egg on their face for taking a stand against deceptive marketing. That's what 100% testing is.

You and I will never agree on this so why don't you give it a rest. No sense in hammering the same issue over and over and over and over.

I will never support Creekstone wanting to create the perception that 100% testing offers food safety when it doesn't. If that was not the intent, then there would be no reason for it.

"WE ARE PROVIDING 100% TESTING KNOWING THAT IT DOES NOT GUARANTEE SAFE FOOD"

What a farse!


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Hat: "SH, I think your DREAMY!"

Of course you do because that's easier than bringing the facts to support your position.

You R-CULTers are all the same. Just keep nodding your heads as your leaders tell you what you want to hear. Facts be damned!



~SH~