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

Survey of consumer attitude on ground beef safety

Tex

Well-known member
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?
 

PORKER

Well-known member
TEX Quote;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.
The International Division of Tyson Foods is dedicated to offering the highest-quality products throughout the world. We have a two-pronged strategy:
Export U.S. production overseas
Establish new production facilities in key regions
Tyson International has been successful because we have specialized in listening to and understanding our customers. Our product development team works to develop new products that meet individual market needs and preferences. These needs include dual-language packaging, localized seasoning and flavor preferences, certified processing to meet religious and local government standards, and portions prepared using local weights and measures.

From its simple beginnings in 1931, Tyson Foods has become the world's largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef and pork. Since 1987, our international business has grown to include valued customers in more than 80 countries. We began by simply exporting commodity products. While we still provide high-quality commodity products, many of our international products are specialty and prepared items tailored to local market needs.

Our operation in Mexico, Tyson de Mexico, is the largest producer of value-added chicken for both retail and foodservice in Mexico. Additionally, Tyson has established joint ventures in Panama, China, Ireland and Russia, producing a variety of value-added foods.

Tyson is committed to continuous improvement. Please let us know how we can better serve your needs in the world marketplace.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Tex/Econ, you are at it again!

First, I do not take your word for anything! Show me documentation of USDA "helping packers hide facts from consumers" if you want me to believe it is fact and did not originate with your infamous 'crystal ball'.

I don't have knowledge about "burden of proof....law enforcement, and effectiveness re. dna sampling of chickens. What sort of system to you have designed (and how much will your profit be???)including the methods, storage systems, etc. needed to accomplish holding generations of poultry dna for matching?

Most important, I've NEVER said we should not have trace-back to the processor, as is required under COOL, but that it should be traceable through ALL who own and/or handle the food if it is required of any who do so.

I've NEVER said I don't want "truth in government". Why you insist on attempting to put words into my mouth which never came out of it in the first place (ok, out of my computer) is a real mystery.......unless, oh! could it be???????? To serve your particular political agenda????

Where did I EVER say "hormone free", "Grass Fed", or "Born & Raised in the USA" were bad claims??? I've only said that if the product so labelled is not tested and proven TO HAVE the attributes claimed in the labels and advertising, and the competing conventionally raised products are tested to show that they do NOT Have those attributes, then it SHOULD be allowed. Many claims have been made without real testing, and without real deficits proven in ALL conventionally produced beef. Further, the "Born & Raised" claim CAN NOW BE MADE, only not with checkoff dollars. I would hope the claim must be verified with records proving it, but doubt it is.

You are an absolute liar and attempt to deceive people when you say that I hold people to a double standard on these issues. I've never said people should not be allowed to advertise whatever they CAN PROVE with ADEQUATE records or research, applicable to prove the claim.

mrj
 

mrj

Well-known member
RobertMac, where have you ever seen the Beef Checkoff advertising or otherwise promoting a diet high in carbohydrates as healthy????

Am I incorrect in thinking this is the FIRST time you have mentioned "calorie restricted" in connection with your promotion of heavy beef/meat diet for weight loss and health improvement? It seems to me you have touted "eat all you want, but eliminate (a the least, strictly limit)
carbohydrates to lose weight and be healthy".

Many people, including the cattle producers who run the Beef Checkoff, believe it is best to err on the side of caution in accepting dietary changes, and pushing developing knowledge about the nutrient profiles of beef fat.

You have given a bit of lip service to the huge pile of money the opponents of beef fat have. You have ignored the miniscule amount that the Beef CHeckoff has. It takes money to buy advertising space, even when it is for educational purposes.

A "strong voice" is NOT all that is needed. Jumping on research bandwagons before adequate clinical trials have been successfully completed and analyzed is dangerous to an industry. You have cited quite the mix of 'research' (and I have not tried to verify the credentials of your sources, so give them the benefit of the doubt) and annecdotal claims. Annecdotal claims don't always stand up to careful scrutiny, much as we may wish they would. Again, erring on the side of caution is NOT a bad thing. It is just too costly to our industry to clean up the mess after glowing, but premature, food claims are made and proven faulty.

I believe if you really knew much about CBB or NCBA, you would find that they do not engage in reciprocal name calling against other products, If I recall correctly, are forbidden by law from doing so.....one of the 'penalties' for having a legislated checkoff.

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, you claim the Beef Board won't jump on a bandwagon until adequate research trials have been completed and analyzed. Sounds like a good plan, I could buy that. However, they are on the "lean beef" bandwagon - who and when did and analyzed the research trials on that?
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
Tex/Econ, you are at it again!

First, I do not take your word for anything! Show me documentation of USDA "helping packers hide facts from consumers" if you want me to believe it is fact and did not originate with your infamous 'crystal ball'.

I don't have knowledge about "burden of proof....law enforcement, and effectiveness re. dna sampling of chickens. What sort of system to you have designed (and how much will your profit be???)including the methods, storage systems, etc. needed to accomplish holding generations of poultry dna for matching?

Most important, I've NEVER said we should not have trace-back to the processor, as is required under COOL, but that it should be traceable through ALL who own and/or handle the food if it is required of any who do so.

I've NEVER said I don't want "truth in government". Why you insist on attempting to put words into my mouth which never came out of it in the first place (ok, out of my computer) is a real mystery.......unless, oh! could it be???????? To serve your particular political agenda????

Where did I EVER say "hormone free", "Grass Fed", or "Born & Raised in the USA" were bad claims??? I've only said that if the product so labelled is not tested and proven TO HAVE the attributes claimed in the labels and advertising, and the competing conventionally raised products are tested to show that they do NOT Have those attributes, then it SHOULD be allowed. Many claims have been made without real testing, and without real deficits proven in ALL conventionally produced beef. Further, the "Born & Raised" claim CAN NOW BE MADE, only not with checkoff dollars. I would hope the claim must be verified with records proving it, but doubt it is.

You are an absolute liar and attempt to deceive people when you say that I hold people to a double standard on these issues. I've never said people should not be allowed to advertise whatever they CAN PROVE with ADEQUATE records or research, applicable to prove the claim.

mrj

mrj, you really side stepped the question posed. In a former post you claimed ionophores were not antibiotics or didn't matter because disease is everywhere. Do you need a copy of the article on Tyson/USDA over anitibiotic free to refresh your memory?

Do you agree with poultry companies putting "antibiotic free" on labels when they contain ionophores?

Did you tell your NCBA members ie packers who also sell chicken, to go with your definition, not the "best science available"? Did you tell them you don't like beef not being able to have that label when chicken is still on the shelves with it on it---WITHOUT the previously required USDA stamp that has the plant code on it?

Since people can not "prove" that this chicken is antibiotic free, why aren't you yelling about it to protect beef against false advertising by chicken?

Please just let us know your position?
 

PORKER

Well-known member
mrj quote;Most important, I've NEVER said we should not have trace-back to the processor, as is required under COOL, but that it should be traceable through ALL who own and/or handle the food if it is required of any who do so.

Required audit trail back to the birth source .it's in the COOL law.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Are you VERY sure trace back to birth is in COOL? I believe it was after the law was passed and rules for that traceback were being discussed when Leo McDonnell said producers should not have to be burdened with trace back. Did he fail to get his terms into the law or rules?

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
MRJ, you claim the Beef Board won't jump on a bandwagon until adequate research trials have been completed and analyzed. Sounds like a good plan, I could buy that. However, they are on the "lean beef" bandwagon - who and when did and analyzed the research trials on that?

?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker....did the people in nutrition, science, and medical professions just fabricate the whole lean foods trend? Wasn't there SOME honest belief, even research, supporting the idea that since people were getting fatter, and more fats were being consumed that fat in the diet was a likely culprit? Sure people were/are eating more than we need simply because it tastes good, and we are not exercising as much as we used to.

Are you claiming there was NO research, analysis, or trials showing that consuming too much fat, AMONG OTHER FOODS, was/is a contributing factor in obesity?

mrj
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj said:
Sandhusker....did the people in nutrition, science, and medical professions just fabricate the whole lean foods trend? Wasn't there SOME honest belief, even research, supporting the idea that since people were getting fatter, and more fats were being consumed that fat in the diet was a likely culprit? Sure people were/are eating more than we need simply because it tastes good, and we are not exercising as much as we used to.

Are you claiming there was NO research, analysis, or trials showing that consuming too much fat, AMONG OTHER FOODS, was/is a contributing factor in obesity?

mrj

Simple answer...
NO, there is no conclusive scientific evidence that dietary fat is the cause of obesity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, there is scientific evidence that dietary carbohydrates does cause obesity!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is the purpose of Gary Taibus's "Good Calorie, Bad Calories" to bring out the truth. He is an award winning, scientific journalist that studied all the research on diet and obesity going back to the middle nineteenth century. His book has 460 pages of text, but, more importantly, 113 pages of bibliography and footnote credits...an extensively documented book.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
Sandhusker....did the people in nutrition, science, and medical professions just fabricate the whole lean foods trend? Wasn't there SOME honest belief, even research, supporting the idea that since people were getting fatter, and more fats were being consumed that fat in the diet was a likely culprit? Sure people were/are eating more than we need simply because it tastes good, and we are not exercising as much as we used to.

Are you claiming there was NO research, analysis, or trials showing that consuming too much fat, AMONG OTHER FOODS, was/is a contributing factor in obesity?

mrj

If you were telling the truth and not just blowing smoke about the Beef Board only using proven data, you would know who did the research.

You need to quit making up excuses for your leaders that are dropping the ball. That is counter productive and is causing problems for all of us and is losing us money. You are also easily debunked. You should know you're playing a tough room here. :lol:
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj, you have answered Sandhusker but not me. Is it because you have no good answer?

Is it because the frauds being perpetuated by the poultry industry on consumers that hurts beef dose not matter because the same people committing the frauds are members of the NCBA?

When are you going to recognize that the NCBA is being managed by packers who will use the NCBA members for their own purpose--- not allowing anyone to question them while the do false advertising that actually hurts beef producers? I think in the union world you would be called a "scab".
 

mrj

Well-known member
Tex/Econ, what is difficult to understand about the words "I do not condone false claims on labels"?

Since you 'know' you are perfect, and I'm not, would you please post the validated information showing that ionophores are antibiotics?

That is all beside the point, since I've stated many times, in many ways, and simple words, that I believe in and want truth in labeling, and still you make your wild claims about what I "think", in supporting your 'evil corporation' biases.

You deny the difficulty if not outright impossibility of processing the tonnage of meat this country produces, and GUARANTEEING an absolutely pristine, germ free product on the consumer plate.

You make absolutely ludicrous claims and charges against NCBA.

Since you apparently do not understand that some bona fide cattle producers see the value in talking to people in other segments of cattle/beef production, and even occasionally working with them on mutually beneficial projects, you counter your ignorance by attempting to make that cooperation into something evil. It is not! Either bring some verfiable facts, or get over it!

Requesting an apology for you false charges and claims would probably be useless, because you apparently feel you are never wrong, therefore, you remain simply a vicious schemer, IMO.

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
Tex/Econ, what is difficult to understand about the words "I do not condone false claims on labels"?

Since you 'know' you are perfect, and I'm not, would you please post the validated information showing that ionophores are antibiotics?

That is all beside the point, since I've stated many times, in many ways, and simple words, that I believe in and want truth in labeling, and still you make your wild claims about what I "think", in supporting your 'evil corporation' biases.

You deny the difficulty if not outright impossibility of processing the tonnage of meat this country produces, and GUARANTEEING an absolutely pristine, germ free product on the consumer plate.

You make absolutely ludicrous claims and charges against NCBA.

Since you apparently do not understand that some bona fide cattle producers see the value in talking to people in other segments of cattle/beef production, and even occasionally working with them on mutually beneficial projects, you counter your ignorance by attempting to make that cooperation into something evil. It is not! Either bring some verfiable facts, or get over it!

Requesting an apology for you false charges and claims would probably be useless, because you apparently feel you are never wrong, therefore, you remain simply a vicious schemer, IMO.

mrj

No one has a problem with talking to anyone, mrj. What I have a problem with is the NCBA not achieving results--- you believe in making friends with your competitors who are making false claims with their product that competes with beef. You and the other drones in the NCBA who can not see what is happening are the problem, and it ain't about talking or not talking to anyone. It is about results.

You can't deliver results because you do not believe the NCBA should stand up for beef interests when facing their main competitor-- chicken.

You just can't do it. No wonder beef sales compared to chicken has not been turned around despite the checkoff money which is supposed to support beef--not be hog tied because of packer's interests.

It takes people like you who don't know the definition of antibiotic to keep up with your lame packer excuses, mrj, not I. Do your own research before supporting chicken mislabeling. Keep backing packer interests over beef interests, but maybe you should do it from the AMI instead of the NCBA. For cattlemen, you are a disgrace but more important than that, you support ideas that support packers over producers. The chicken argument is a perfect example and why the NCBA has been losing the battle over the consumer. They can't adequately confront the lies the consumer sees because of ignorant people like you who support "best science available" but don't know what the heck it is. So easily bought with a cheap award against beef interests.

You should be ashamed of yourself. If you had any sense you would.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Boys, I've had a hard day, so please understand that I'm not likely to put up with a bunch of your b.s.!

Tex, you are either ignoring REAMS of reports demonstrating benefits and results of Beef Checkoff activities and projects, failing to accept the fact that there ARE beneficial results, or don't know or understand those results, or you would not be claiming there are no achievements.

In which case, YOU are the problem. Not the Checkoff leaders. Isn't it obvious, when YOU are the only one who can see all these problems, you should just look into the mirror to find the REAL problem!

It is another of your lies to claim that I do not believe NCBA should do anything OTHER than stand up for beef interests ABOVE ALL THINGS.

Get a clue! Beef sales compared with chicken sales ARE influenced by the price difference between the two........as well as that little fact that there are more ready to eat chicken products at low cost, while beef remains a higher cost food which usually requires some home preparation.

You have yet to show ANY proof of ANY packer influence "hog tieing" the Beef Checkoff in ANY way. Do you know the difference between a lie and a truth?????

Did I SUPPORT mislabeling of ANY product? But, you know the answer to that is NO. YOu simply insist on lies and claiming to know what I think.

IF I was in error on ionophores being, or not being classed as antibiotics, that was an honest mistake........quite unlike your repeated insistence on perpetuating your old and new lies about the beef checkoff.

What in HELL is "a cheap award against beef interests"????? I certainly don't know what you are talking about, and doubt anyone else does. Do you even know? Or is that stupid statement just more hot air from you?

You really should have some shred of evidence when you accuse people of committing fraud. Of course, since you make all these ridiculous, empty claims constantly, who would believe anything you say?

Have you ever attended a real NCBA meeting where issues are discussed and decisions are made? Clearly you have missed the depth of discussions, the tough arguments, and deeply probing questions that do get answered before votes are conducted. To claim that "NCBA is 'managed' by any one entity, let alone the packing industry, is beyond silly! It is profound stupidity!!!

Sandhusker, please get in line behind Tex and apply for some better brain cells. I am not, nor have I claimed to be, on current committees within NCBA, therefore it is not my responsibility to KNOW who did any particular research. That I do not know is immaterial. ANYONE can find that out by calling, emailing, or often even by checking the websites for NCBA or CBB.

I do know that I have heard, and I'm betting you have too if you would only admit it, from the beginning of the legislated Beef Checkoff, that we must act from a basis of fact, science, and keeping the messages re. beef legal, which equates with using proven data responsibly, and yes, having the research available to back it up.

Re. your accusations of "leaders dropping the ball", that could be possible from time to time. These are, after all, ranchers, farmers, and other ordinary people, some of whom reasonably often manage to make extra-ordinarily wise decisions. Decisions sometimes result in products like the Flat Iron steak and the many other similar successful 'new' cuts of beef that rate very high with retailers, food service, and CONSUMERS.

Truly, Sandhusker, no one has "debunked" me, only lied and twisted my words or ascribed things other than what I said to me. This is not so much a "tough room" here, as it is one dominated by a very few activists pushng some form of regressive turn to a Populist agriculture where it took a majority of the population to feed the people a far less varied diet than is available to us today, with simply far less FOOD for the rest of the world outside the USA.

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
Boys, I've had a hard day, so please understand that I'm not likely to put up with a bunch of your b.s.!

Tex, you are either ignoring REAMS of reports demonstrating benefits and results of Beef Checkoff activities and projects, failing to accept the fact that there ARE beneficial results, or don't know or understand those results, or you would not be claiming there are no achievements.

In which case, YOU are the problem. Not the Checkoff leaders. Isn't it obvious, when YOU are the only one who can see all these problems, you should just look into the mirror to find the REAL problem!

It is another of your lies to claim that I do not believe NCBA should do anything OTHER than stand up for beef interests ABOVE ALL THINGS.

Get a clue! Beef sales compared with chicken sales ARE influenced by the price difference between the two........as well as that little fact that there are more ready to eat chicken products at low cost, while beef remains a higher cost food which usually requires some home preparation.

You have yet to show ANY proof of ANY packer influence "hog tieing" the Beef Checkoff in ANY way. Do you know the difference between a lie and a truth?????

Did I SUPPORT mislabeling of ANY product? But, you know the answer to that is NO. YOu simply insist on lies and claiming to know what I think.

IF I was in error on ionophores being, or not being classed as antibiotics, that was an honest mistake........quite unlike your repeated insistence on perpetuating your old and new lies about the beef checkoff.

What in HELL is "a cheap award against beef interests"????? I certainly don't know what you are talking about, and doubt anyone else does. Do you even know? Or is that stupid statement just more hot air from you?

You really should have some shred of evidence when you accuse people of committing fraud. Of course, since you make all these ridiculous, empty claims constantly, who would believe anything you say?

Have you ever attended a real NCBA meeting where issues are discussed and decisions are made? Clearly you have missed the depth of discussions, the tough arguments, and deeply probing questions that do get answered before votes are conducted. To claim that "NCBA is 'managed' by any one entity, let alone the packing industry, is beyond silly! It is profound stupidity!!!

Sandhusker, please get in line behind Tex and apply for some better brain cells. I am not, nor have I claimed to be, on current committees within NCBA, therefore it is not my responsibility to KNOW who did any particular research. That I do not know is immaterial. ANYONE can find that out by calling, emailing, or often even by checking the websites for NCBA or CBB.

I do know that I have heard, and I'm betting you have too if you would only admit it, from the beginning of the legislated Beef Checkoff, that we must act from a basis of fact, science, and keeping the messages re. beef legal, which equates with using proven data responsibly, and yes, having the research available to back it up.

Re. your accusations of "leaders dropping the ball", that could be possible from time to time. These are, after all, ranchers, farmers, and other ordinary people, some of whom reasonably often manage to make extra-ordinarily wise decisions. Decisions sometimes result in products like the Flat Iron steak and the many other similar successful 'new' cuts of beef that rate very high with retailers, food service, and CONSUMERS.

Truly, Sandhusker, no one has "debunked" me, only lied and twisted my words or ascribed things other than what I said to me. This is not so much a "tough room" here, as it is one dominated by a very few activists pushng some form of regressive turn to a Populist agriculture where it took a majority of the population to feed the people a far less varied diet than is available to us today, with simply far less FOOD for the rest of the world outside the USA.

mrj

mrj, I have a flatiron in the fridge.

Do you still think chicken should be allowed to advertise antibiotic free when it is not and do you still think that that the plant code should be taken off the USDA stamp for poultry?

If antibiotic free doesn't help sell chicken which replaces meat on the table, do you think they would pt it on the package?

They are misleading consumers and your NCBA has no protest against it because NCBA members are doing it.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Tex was right on the money, you lose mrj.

The term “antibiotics” is defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) as “a chemical substance produced by a microorganism, which has the capacity, in dilute solutions, to inhibit the growth of or to kill other microorganisms.” It is longstanding FSIS policy that ionophores are antibiotics because they meet the AVMA definition. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agrees that by strict definition, ionophores are antibiotics thus; poultry meat from birds to which ionophores have been administered is not eligible to bear a “RWA” claim.

Effective immediately, all poultry product labels bearing a RWA or similar claim for birds administered ionophores are rescinded. Any company using ionophores in the feed formulations of poultry that are labeled with a RWA claim needs to 1) remove the claim from its labeling, 2) remove ionophores from the feed formulation of such poultry, or 3) submit a new label application with appropriate supporting documentation, for approval of a revised claim regarding ionophores.

Tyson lost TOO !
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj said:
Tex, you are either ignoring REAMS of reports demonstrating benefits and results of Beef Checkoff activities and projects, failing to accept the fact that there ARE beneficial results, or don't know or understand those results, or you would not be claiming there are no achievements.

Please bring some of those reports to the debate. Who did the reports...CBB????????????
Might I remind you that, since 1977, beef has lost mark share and per capita consumption has declined...those are ABSOLUTE AND UNDENIABLE FACTS!

mrj said:
Get a clue! Beef sales compared with chicken sales ARE influenced by the price difference between the two........as well as that little fact that there are more ready to eat chicken products at low cost, while beef remains a higher cost food which usually requires some home preparation.

One question...was there a price difference between beef and chicken in 1977 when beef had over 50% of the protein market?????
Of course there was...so how in he!! is that the only problem today?????

A bit of information for you and everyone...In 1977 Sen. George McGovern held the first hearings on obesity, food, and their impact on public health. Scientist from all sides of the issues testified, but only the idea that fat was the cause of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity was put in the government report by the liberal animal rights/vegetarian McGovern staff. These findings were supported by a small group of Ivy League health professionals that publicly berated and ridiculed any health professional that presented any evidence that disputed their accepted fat/cholesterol hypothesis(which ignored scientific evidence that disputed it). These Ivy League health professional were receiving large grants and research funds from the sugar and processed food industries(who benefited monetarily from the perpetuation of this false hypothesis).
I ask anyone...isn't this a more believable scenario as to why beef has lost market share???? And it IS documented truth!!!!!

mrj said:
...from the beginning of the legislated Beef Checkoff, that we must act from a basis of fact, science, and keeping the messages re. beef legal, which equates with using proven data responsibly, and yes, having the research available to back it up.

The facts, the science, and the research is out there and always has been!!! NCBA/CBB has failed to do their job...plain and simple!!!!!!!

mrj said:
Truly, Sandhusker, no one has "debunked" me, only lied and twisted my words or ascribed things other than what I said to me. This is not so much a "tough room" here, as it is one dominated by a very few activists pushng some form of regressive turn to a Populist agriculture where it took a majority of the population to feed the people a far less varied diet than is available to us today, with simply far less FOOD for the rest of the world outside the USA.

mrj, none of us believe that we will convince you that you have been debunked, but you serve as a platform to show others that your and NCBA/CBB's positions are wrong for cattlemen!!!!!

Consider yourself DEBUNKED....AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "I do know that I have heard, and I'm betting you have too if you would only admit it, from the beginning of the legislated Beef Checkoff, that we must act from a basis of fact, science, and keeping the messages re. beef legal, which equates with using proven data responsibly, and yes, having the research available to back it up."

You're not understanding, MRJ. The beef board is with the "Lean Beef" movement, but RM has pointed out that lean beef has not been proven to be better than "fat beef". On the contrary, actual research shows it to be the other way around! That being the case, the beef board is out of line to be spreading unproven information! They are NOT following the protocols that you claim they have to in your excuses for them not doing what we are entrusting them to do!

MRJ, "Re. your accusations of "leaders dropping the ball", that could be possible from time to time. These are, after all, ranchers, farmers, and other ordinary people, some of whom reasonably often manage to make extra-ordinarily wise decisions. Decisions sometimes result in products like the Flat Iron steak and the many other similar successful 'new' cuts of beef that rate very high with retailers, food service, and CONSUMERS."

Whoopie wow wow, they found a new cut. How much has that affected producer's bottom line compared to the effect of consumers shying away from the product we produce because they are wrongly being told it is unhealthy - even by those we are paying to promote our product?

MRJ, "Truly, Sandhusker, no one has "debunked" me, only lied and twisted my words or ascribed things other than what I said to me. This is not so much a "tough room" here, as it is one dominated by a very few activists pushng some form of regressive turn to a Populist agriculture where it took a majority of the population to feed the people a far less varied diet than is available to us today, with simply far less FOOD for the rest of the world outside the USA."

Us "activists" have opened our eyes and noticed a few things that we don't like seeing that have happened under the "NCBA Administration".
I could make a list, but that has been done many times before and you just made your usual excuses or just ignored them. If you want to talk regression, take a look at beef's protein marketshare and the producer's share of the dollars that are spent on beef.
 

Latest posts

Top