Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One of biggest frauds in U.S. farm history

kansascity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 133 posts

Re: One of biggest frauds in U.S. farm history

#101

Post by ironic_ali »

ironic_ali wrote: post #93
Jedd wrote: post #47

> ... is fed to cattle and chickens, whose meat is also sold at a premium [...] because a growing number of consumers are willing to pay more for protein that comes from animals raised on a natural, organic diet. Consumers have been misled - cattle's natural diet is grass, not grains. Chickens will opportunistically eat grains and seeds, but if given the opportunity will eagerly eat a blend of greens and insects & wo…

Our chickens are nice occasionally too.

*ate

And never commenting again

Re: One of biggest frauds in U.S. farm history

#102

Post by DoctorOetker »

umvi wrote: post #88
loeg wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Re: One of biggest frauds in U.S. farm history

#103

Post by cortesoft »

beerandt wrote: post #66
cortesoft wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the appeal of organic is to be better for the environment. That is not something that is inherent to the product produced, but is an externality.

It depends on what you want to maximize, because you don't use manufactured fertilizer, but you might need to deforest 3x the land to generate the same long-term average yield.

Agreed that it is not so simple a calculation. However, I still don’t think you should commit fraud just because you think the calculation is complicated.

Re: One of biggest frauds in U.S. farm history

#104

Post by Thorrez »

ourmandave wrote: post #85
Thorrez wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a variation of the common phrase "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."[1] It's a common debate, at what point, if ever, can we say something doesn't exist when there's no evidence for it. There might actually be some evidence that organic food is healthier, this study[2] found an association between organic food and reduction in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_abse…

Yes, and the dragon in my garage only eats organic knights. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage

In that exact same book by Carl Sagan he uses the quote:

> Appeal to ignorance—the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist—and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Carl Sagan says we should be comfortable with ambiguity. We should say "organic food might be healthier, or it might not, we don't know".

But I already linked one study that seemed to indicate a health benefit.

I don't see how "The Dragon in My Garage" is relevant here. In that story, the goalposts are constantly moved until the idea is untestable. But the idea of organic food being healthier doesn't seem to have moving goalposts, and it doesn't seem untestable to me.

Re: One of biggest frauds in U.S. farm history

#105

Post by strainer »

mrosett wrote: post #98
tasty_freeze wrote: post #38

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 a…

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

Re: One of biggest frauds in U.S. farm history

#107

Post by horomeme »

75dvtwin wrote: post #99
eikenberry wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

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 c…

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.

Re: One of biggest frauds in U.S. farm history

#108

Post by paganel »

zaroth wrote: post #71
paganel wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure about beef but I can guarantee you that there's a ton of difference between the eggs produced by my parents' chicken (they raise them "organically", so to speak, i.e. they do subsistence agriculture) and the eggs that I can purchase from the supermarket closest to me. And the difference is in favour of my parents' chicken. The same discussion is valid for the chicken meat.

Two of my neighbors raise chickens. They both regularly drop off eggs as their supply exceeds demand. They are visually distinctive (they tend to be smaller than a supermarket “large egg” and dirtier for sure) but after cooking are entirely indistinguishable from the eggs at the store. Of course I’m very grateful for the eggs, but even they will admit it’s not for quality and quantity, but mostly a fun hobby and some…

> but after cooking are entirely indistinguishable from the eggs at the store.

I can personally feel the difference both when cooking schnitzels (I use the same meat, but the "crust" tastes different depending on the eggs used) and when making pancakes (I use the same milk and flour).

Re: One of biggest frauds in U.S. farm history

#109

Post by lasky »

“The most intriguing question of all may never be answered. Only Randy Constant knows why he did what he did, but at age 60 he took his own life last August. Three days earlier he’d been sentenced to 10 years in prison after he pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud. He was ordered to forfeit $128 million, a fine that he almost certainly never would have been able to pay off.”

Intriguing? On what planet of pretend do I need to live on, in order for a statement like this to not sound like a dystopian sci-fi story where autistic serial killers who go to church, for the networking benefits, are the ones writing newspaper articles?

.... it gets worse

“I know Randy was deeply ashamed of his conduct,” his widow said soon after his passing.

Yeah. No kidding. Also sounds like your marriage to him was just splendid.

“Despite Constant’s faults, former business partner Glen Borgerding remains sympathetic and remembers him fondly.

“The reaction you get from people after hearing of his suicide is that he deserved what he got,” he said. “But I don’t feel that way. There was a lot of good in Randy and the real tragedy is that he went down this path.””

Most people think he deserved suicide... what world do we live in ?

Was his business partner the only human being with a functioning soul in the entire town?

Re: One of biggest frauds in U.S. farm history

#110

Post by pintxo »

noonespecial wrote: post #84
downrightmike wrote: post #28

He scammed out a couple dozen million dollars each year and is fined 128 million, which ruined him and he'd never be able to pay it back. This is the kind of punishment That needs to happen to a lot of industries, really any of the crimes people commit should cost them more than they gained. But he must have been too small potatoes, so he got an appropriate sentence.

If the punishment levied by the government costs less than the gain from the crime, I think its just called taxes .

Taxes != punishment
Post reply on HN