Hacker News Reader

Comment by tasty_freeze | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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".

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.

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.

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.

What does this have to do with democracy, pro- or anti-?

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.

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

It seems you'd also be able to isotope-label fertilizer.

That just leaves the pesticides...

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.

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-o...

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/organic_food_health

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.

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.

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

You have read the wrong book about libertarian philosophy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com