From: sholzapfel@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:20 PM
To: MarketingClaim
Subject: Standard for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claim, Grass (Forage) Fed
Claim, Docket No. LS-05-09


To: Martin E. O"Connor, Chief, Standardization Branch, Livestock and Seed
Program, AMS, USDA


Mr. O'Connor,
Having just read about the proposed standard for what is allowed to be called
"grass-fed" livestock, I want to register with you my firm belief that the
standard should include no antibiotics, no hormones and no feedlots.   Your
claim that such stipulations "dilute the meaning of grass-fed" (NYT, 7/26/06,
D4) was perhaps taken out of context.  If however that was exactly what you
meant, then I must disagree with your word choice.  The prohibitions would in
fact literally strengthen what grass-fed means by setting a higher, more
exclusive standard for such products.  Obviously "grass-fed" taken more
literally says nothing about hormones, etc., but given that you are in
marketing, you must understand that consumers are not necessarily thinking
literally about the term, but rather what it connotes.  Why do you want to set
the bar lower when many producers themselves want a higher, more meaningful
standard?  It seems the main beneficiaries of a watered down standard would be
industrial producers.  Why make a choice that hurts small producers and hands an
unfair advantage to agribusiness?  People buy grass-fed meat precisely because
the animals shouldn't need the chemicals required by corn fed livestock in the
first place.  Why take that health benefit away with obvious loopholes?

 Best, Simon Holzapfel,
          Buffalo, NY
          716-566-7939