5 ms·

It is obvious to everyone that due to the economic advantages of cheating, there needs to be some kind of inspection and certification program. Not that everyon

It is obvious to everyone that due to the economic advantages of cheating, there needs to be some kind of inspection and certification program. Not that everyone is a cheater, but there will be cheaters, and it will put pressure on the non-cheaters to cheat too. The same people who bitch about big government will strangle inspection programs via budget cuts, and then when something like this story comes out, use it as proof that government inspection programs don't work and that even more defunding is in order. It makes me despair.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
eikenberry 7y ago
Inspection and certification programs don't need to be government run to be effective. Kosher certification programs are the first example that comes to mind. I'm just trying to say you can argue for more, better inspections without having to argue for "big government".
- wbl 7y ago
  Kosher certification has a bunch of complexities. There are several big national certification authorities, but they have different standards, with Tablet-K accepting some things in the realm of cheese production others don't. Some small local hechshers provide more supervision then the national chains, but piggyback for the tough halachic questions. And then there is the whole milk thing, where kashrut organizations have largely said that the FDA is enforcing the rule better then they can, so they won't bother, but some consumers don't think this is good enough. There is also a controversy over slaughterhouse conditions brought to light when a kosher slaughterhouse was raided by the agriculture department for health violations.
- 75dvtwin 7y ago
  I agree with you as well. I think country-wide, there need to be, usually, 3-bodied system of inspection/certification (whether it is financial organizations, law firms, doctors, educational or food suppliers.. ). one organization should be multi-state collaboration of supervision & certification. The other should be industry collaboration of supervision & certification. And 3rd -- is academia-powered. Any business claiming to have certificate in something needs to strive to get it from all 3. 2 out 3 may be acceptable, and 1 out of 3 is not. This model would prevent corruption that more likely occurred in single-bodied systems.
  - horomeme 7y ago
    The industry org will hollow the others into facades. Proxies for public relations in service of the heads of industry. Happens every time. But kudos for going full anti-democracy from the start.
    - AdrianB1 7y ago
      What does this have to do with democracy, pro- or anti-?
TwoBit 7y ago
According to libertarian philosophy, the public soon finds out about such cheats and takes their business elsewhere. Thus little oversight is needed.
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  You have read the wrong book about libertarian philosophy.
loeg 7y ago
How do you inspect grain for "organic?" The label is meaningless and honestly this is kind of an intended side effect — charging people more for the same product. This guy just got even greedier than the original creators of the term and the government agreed was acceptable.
- umvi 7y ago
  The label means it is not genetically modified, and does not use chemical fertilizers or pesticides. It seems to me you'd be able to inspect grain genome looking for known GMO sequences
  - DoctorOetker 7y ago
    It seems you'd also be able to isotope-label fertilizer. That just leaves the pesticides...
mrosett 7y ago
According to the article, there’s no way to distinguish organic grain from standard grain. So if by all accounts “organic” is a marketing ploy, why should the government spend money on an inspection program to facilitate that? Let the farmers pay a private certifying authority.
- strainer 7y ago
  They do. It is not wise to infer controversial information from ambiguous journalistic language. I typed "us organic certification cost" into google, and it helpfully quoted this at the top of the page [1] : > Certification costs vary depending on the size of your production operation and on the accredited agency you choose to use. In general, organic certification costs run between $200 – $1500. Your costs will include an application fee, site inspection fee, and an annual certification fee. I humbly suggest you might have taken a moment to check if your hunch was correct rather than leaving that to others. Also its not possible for tests to confirm if produce is organic, but it possible to confirm it is not - if it contains traces of prohibited pesticides which are routine in non-organic produce then its not organic.[2] [1] https://blog.quicklabel.com/2010/10/how-to-get-a-certified-organic-product-label-in-the-usa/ https://blog.quicklabel.com/2010/10/how-to-get-a-certified-o... [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/organic_food_health https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/organic_food_health
  - mrosett 7y ago
    If you're going to be condescending, please actually engage with my point. I wasn't claiming that nobody pays for certification. I was specifically questioning why it's a government agency that they are paying. "Organic" is clearly a marketing term (as discussed in the first link you provided). It's not a safety-related term as (at least in theory) all produce that's sold should be safe to eat. I don't see the reason for a government agency to be involved there.
    - strainer 7y ago
      Here you complained that farmers were not paying for certification, because you had not checked the facts. Your gov is involved because it has authority to enforce accuracy of labeling. Organic standards are "safety-related", not in everyone's "theory" but to those who believe much stricter pesticide regulation than government standards is better for health and environment. We are all entitled to accurate labeling.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

eikenberry 7y ago

Inspection and certification programs don't need to be government run to be effective. Kosher certification programs are the first example that comes to mind. I'm just trying to say you can argue for more, better inspections without having to argue for "big government".

wbl 7y ago
Kosher certification has a bunch of complexities. There are several big national certification authorities, but they have different standards, with Tablet-K accepting some things in the realm of cheese production others don't. Some small local hechshers provide more supervision then the national chains, but piggyback for the tough halachic questions. And then there is the whole milk thing, where kashrut organizations have largely said that the FDA is enforcing the rule better then they can, so they won't bother, but some consumers don't think this is good enough. There is also a controversy over slaughterhouse conditions brought to light when a kosher slaughterhouse was raided by the agriculture department for health violations.
75dvtwin 7y ago
I agree with you as well. I think country-wide, there need to be, usually, 3-bodied system of inspection/certification (whether it is financial organizations, law firms, doctors, educational or food suppliers.. ). one organization should be multi-state collaboration of supervision & certification. The other should be industry collaboration of supervision & certification. And 3rd -- is academia-powered. Any business claiming to have certificate in something needs to strive to get it from all 3. 2 out 3 may be acceptable, and 1 out of 3 is not. This model would prevent corruption that more likely occurred in single-bodied systems.
- horomeme 7y ago
  The industry org will hollow the others into facades. Proxies for public relations in service of the heads of industry. Happens every time. But kudos for going full anti-democracy from the start.
  - AdrianB1 7y ago
    What does this have to do with democracy, pro- or anti-?

TwoBit 7y ago

According to libertarian philosophy, the public soon finds out about such cheats and takes their business elsewhere. Thus little oversight is needed.

AdrianB1 7y ago
You have read the wrong book about libertarian philosophy.

loeg 7y ago

How do you inspect grain for "organic?" The label is meaningless and honestly this is kind of an intended side effect — charging people more for the same product. This guy just got even greedier than the original creators of the term and the government agreed was acceptable.

umvi 7y ago
The label means it is not genetically modified, and does not use chemical fertilizers or pesticides. It seems to me you'd be able to inspect grain genome looking for known GMO sequences
- DoctorOetker 7y ago
  It seems you'd also be able to isotope-label fertilizer. That just leaves the pesticides...

mrosett 7y ago

According to the article, there’s no way to distinguish organic grain from standard grain. So if by all accounts “organic” is a marketing ploy, why should the government spend money on an inspection program to facilitate that? Let the farmers pay a private certifying authority.

strainer 7y ago
They do. It is not wise to infer controversial information from ambiguous journalistic language. I typed "us organic certification cost" into google, and it helpfully quoted this at the top of the page [1] : > Certification costs vary depending on the size of your production operation and on the accredited agency you choose to use. In general, organic certification costs run between $200 – $1500. Your costs will include an application fee, site inspection fee, and an annual certification fee. I humbly suggest you might have taken a moment to check if your hunch was correct rather than leaving that to others. Also its not possible for tests to confirm if produce is organic, but it possible to confirm it is not - if it contains traces of prohibited pesticides which are routine in non-organic produce then its not organic.[2] [1] https://blog.quicklabel.com/2010/10/how-to-get-a-certified-organic-product-label-in-the-usa/ https://blog.quicklabel.com/2010/10/how-to-get-a-certified-o... [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/organic_food_health https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/organic_food_health
- mrosett 7y ago
  If you're going to be condescending, please actually engage with my point. I wasn't claiming that nobody pays for certification. I was specifically questioning why it's a government agency that they are paying. "Organic" is clearly a marketing term (as discussed in the first link you provided). It's not a safety-related term as (at least in theory) all produce that's sold should be safe to eat. I don't see the reason for a government agency to be involved there.
  - strainer 7y ago
    Here you complained that farmers were not paying for certification, because you had not checked the facts. Your gov is involved because it has authority to enforce accuracy of labeling. Organic standards are "safety-related", not in everyone's "theory" but to those who believe much stricter pesticide regulation than government standards is better for health and environment. We are all entitled to accurate labeling.