mrj said:Sandhusker, short on time tonight, so, 1. it is ACCEPTED by many nutrition and health professionals that lean anything is better for people than fat laden foods. Not saying that is right or wrong....but that it IS.
2. No change! NCBA and CBB do listen to consumers. A. It isn't always practical to take what is said at face value, BECAUSE often consumers actions are not the same as the talk and consumers have been known to change their minds about things from time to time. YOU claim to know a lot of things about NCBA that is NOT factual!
3. I didn't say consumers don't care about country of origin, I said they care NOT ONLY about country of origin but want to know where and by whom foor is raised. That was an after the numbers comment by the professional polling company of one of the polls touted as PROVING that consumers want COOL on this site some time back.
Did you deliberately twist that around with your claim that I said that "a mother in Boston......wants to know which ranch the meat she is buying comes from...... but isn't concerned about the country"?.........or did you truly fail to understand that what I actually said was that consumers want to know BOTH country and ranch of origin?
While I don't know for certain whether that means she wants the actual information in her hands, or wants it known by herself or someone in authority in case of need to find the source of an illness, it was the claim of that pollster that consumers DO want that info in some way or for it to be available in case of need.
mrj
MRJ
mrj, it used to be when you went to the store and looked on a package of chicken, the plant code was on the package. Now it is not on there. There is just a USDA stamp on it. I am interested in this because Tyson and possibly others are advertising "hormone free" yet you can't trace that chicken back to the processor or complex to actually verify that claim. The USDA knows this is the case. Even the grocer thought the USDA stamp had the processor's plant on it. He then said it might be on the box as he was sure it was. He checked for me and it was not.
Do you agree with this USDA practice of helping packers hide facts from consumers? Does this have something to do with burden of proof and being able to actually enforce the law in court? Do you think we should have to have a dna sample and trace back chickens to their parents to be able to verify claims of packers since the USDA has helped them hide facts?
mrj, you are so interested in tracing back to the farm but not tracing back to the processor and their claims. Why is that?
You have to know, mrj, that chicken is the main competitor for beef on the plate. It would seem to me you wouldn't be such an appeaser for your competitor's actions or even truth in the govt.
Oh, by the way, on that same package of chicken, and I have noticed this with Perdue also, that the chicken companies are claiming that the chicken is raised without hormones. Of course this is the case with all chicken (supposedly) in the U.S. as hormones are not allowed in chicken production. Isn't this as bad a claim as you seem to think "grass fed" or "Born and raised in the USA" is when comparing certain beef to the kind of beef you raise? How about "bse tested"? At least these are real differences. Don't you think the hormone free chicken claim is an underhanded slam against beef, since it is the main competitor?
It seems you have a double standard when it comes to your packer friends when they start their advertising but are more than willing to tie the hands of fellow beef advertisers.
Is there a reason?