RobertMac, there seems to me quite a difference between giving the consumer what she/he wants, and allowing people to make claims about beef that are not true.
Such as: the consumer who maybe just for the "yuk factor", wants only beef that is fed only ________, processed in ______manner. No possibly bogus health claims made. That is fine with me.
On the other hand: a company touts beef fed only ______, because "commodity" beef is fed "XYZ feeds that will make your masculinity questionable", stated for the purpose of selling their product for considerable amounts above conventionally raised beef. That is mighty close to committing fraud against both the consumer and the producers of conventionally raised beef, IMO. And we in the beef industry should not allow it to go unchallenged because that gives the scam artist credibility in the eye of the public.
Contrary to your assumption, RM, I truly am in favor of providing the products consumers want. I simply do not want them to be ill-informed victims of scams about their foods.
Kathy, I find the comment by that vet strange, considering that HACCP is a modern system of check points, cleanliness, and scientific tests far advanced from the "look, touch, smell" system of determining if beef is wholesome in use prior to HACCP. I do know that the unions of the meat inspectors fought very long and hard against acceptance of HACCP. But to have a trained vet put it down, when it requires science based testing to replace the mostly hit and miss guessing game previously employed is just hard to imagine. It would be interesting to hear the lady expand on her remark.
MRJ