Re: POLITICS Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Digest Number 3425)

[Guest guest]

" How will you coerce a business to be inspected privately? And will I be

able to obtain such inspection results under a freedom of infomation act? Or

will I have to pay a large fee? Or will the results be hidden from the public? "

____

[Chris's reply]

Hi (is this ? It isn't signed and I can't tell by your email

address),

Businesses couldn't be coerced into being inspected privately. They simply

couldn't bear the certification marks of the certification agencies and would

be subject to legal action if they fradulently used them. Inspection

agencies could publish results or not. Naturally those consumers most

concerned

about quality would choose inspection agencies that did so over those that

didn't, and there would be a general trend towards the highest quality of

information resulting from such.

_____

[Guest guest]

> [Chris's reply]

>

> Businesses couldn't be coerced into being inspected privately. They

simply

> couldn't bear the certification marks of the certification agencies

and would

> be subject to legal action if they fradulently used them.

Inspection

> agencies could publish results or not. Naturally those consumers

most concerned

> about quality would choose inspection agencies that did so over

those that

> didn't, and there would be a general trend towards the highest

quality of

> information resulting from such.

> _____

>

>

>

> >The difference between a

> > public regulation system of the government and private regulation

systems

> are

> > that in the latter you can have diverse sets of standards and

have the

> selective

> > pressure of the market yield the best sets of standards and the

most

> > valuable and efficient methods of inspection at the least cost.

>

> " Where is your evidence for this statement? "

> _____

>

> [Chris's Reply]

>

> I don't have any evidence because I'm using a priori logic. While

some

> people criticize the choices markets offer as ridiculous, it's, to

my knowledge,

> universally recognized that markets yield vastly more choices of any

given

> product marketed than do public production and distribution systems.

To take

> but one example: public water systems offer only one choice of water

in any

> given geographical area. If your munipality happens to chlorinate

and

> fluoridate the water, your municipality doesn't offer an

alternative. However, in

> the private water market, one has access to many different kinds of

filtration

> systems based on different technologies with qualitatively and

quantitatively

> different resultant products, other forms of water treatment, and

bottled

> waters that range from spring water to filtered water to structured

water, and

> from one kind of plastic to another to glass, etc.

>

> It's a simply matter of deduction from the general principle that

> competition between many different producers yields more choices

than the

> competition-less offering of one monopoly producer, which is

evidenced by every case of it

> that exists.

> ______

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- In , " mark robert " <colowe@i...>

wrote:

> As a Libertarian, I don't envision any kind of forced inspection

> of anything on someone else's private property. Why would that be

> necessary? It is no one's job or right to protect others by

> engaging in non-consensual force. Besides, the best way to

> protect others is always to protect yourself. Here's how. A

> simple inspection of the products you purchased should indicate

> if the products were misrepresented or harmful (when used as

> directed). If so, you have yourself an excellent civil suit. Your

> successful lawsuit will not only make you rich and possibly break

> the company, it will send a very strong message to competing

> companies to not make the same mistake. Therein is the most

> effective and efficient protection you can possibly give to

> others, without performing any unconstitutional searches

> ( " inspections " ).

OK Mark, you wish to do it yourself? Let us see how you would do this.

This week in my job I analyzed a domestic cheese (among other foods)

(I'm a microbiologist). This cheese might be in your grocery

store...heck it might be in your 'fridge. For this one cheese my

analysis took about 15 hands-on hours and about 3 days total. I

checked it for the presence of Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes,

Staph aureus, E.coli (plain), and E. coli O157:H7. I used approx 10

liters of sterile liquid microbiological media, 110 tubes of liquid

media, and 100 petri plates of solid media as well as assorted sterile

blender jars, etc. In some cases this cheese would also have been

analyzed for filth (hair, bug parts, feces, mold, etc) and various

prohibited chemicals (dyes, pesticides, etc.) by the filth lab and the

chemistry departments.

So, how much time and money do you have to check all your food? I'll

promise you from personal experience that your cheese could have some

or all of the above and it would look, smell, and taste perfectly

normal. Please tell me how your " simple inspection " will protect you

or anyone else? The idea is absurd and shows an ignorance of food

analysis. I would highly reccomend (again, from experience) that you

avoid spices imported from India (Salmonella), seafood from Asia

(again, Salmonella), imported ginsing (much of it contains pesticides

prohibited in the US and at unsafe levels) and Mexican cheeses

(everything). Of course, right now a lot of this is screened out for

you by regulatory agencies, but you are welcome to take it on

yourself. Or if you wish to pay me I would be willing to do it for you

for around $600 per cheese if you supply me with a lab and materials.

And process and haul off the biological waste too.

Oh, and if you do come down with something, I hope you have the time

and expertise in epidemiology to track down and prove what food item

caused your illness so you can sue. Your doctor won't have the time or

expertise and there won't be any public health agencies to help you.

Some contaminants like filth won't make you ill but are simply

disgusting, but hey, this is the new world after all.

And of course, this won't help a single soul but yourself, but that

seems to be the heart of " right-libertarianism " , all to the individual

and damn the common good. That this food migh be causing an outbreak

of some kind is not relevant.

[Guest guest]

Another good book on the history of food in the US is Fast Food Nation by

Schlosser.

Irene

At 02:57 PM 3/4/2005, you wrote:

>

> > [Chris's reply]

> >

> > Businesses couldn't be coerced into being inspected privately. They

> simply

> > couldn't bear the certification marks of the certification agencies

>and would

> > be subject to legal action if they fradulently used them.

>Inspection

> > agencies could publish results or not. Naturally those consumers

>most concerned

> > about quality would choose inspection agencies that did so over

>those that

> > didn't, and there would be a general trend towards the highest

>quality of

> > information resulting from such.

> > _____

> >

> >

> >

> > >The difference between a

> > > public regulation system of the government and private regulation

>systems

> > are

> > > that in the latter you can have diverse sets of standards and

>have the

> > selective

> > > pressure of the market yield the best sets of standards and the

>most

> > > valuable and efficient methods of inspection at the least cost.

> >

> > " Where is your evidence for this statement? "

> > _____

> >

> > [Chris's Reply]

> >

> > I don't have any evidence because I'm using a priori logic. While

>some

> > people criticize the choices markets offer as ridiculous, it's, to

>my knowledge,

> > universally recognized that markets yield vastly more choices of any

> given

> > product marketed than do public production and distribution systems.

> To take

> > but one example: public water systems offer only one choice of water

>in any

> > given geographical area. If your munipality happens to chlorinate

>and

> > fluoridate the water, your municipality doesn't offer an

>alternative. However, in

> > the private water market, one has access to many different kinds of

> filtration

> > systems based on different technologies with qualitatively and

>quantitatively

> > different resultant products, other forms of water treatment, and

>bottled

> > waters that range from spring water to filtered water to structured

> water, and

> > from one kind of plastic to another to glass, etc.

> >

> > It's a simply matter of deduction from the general principle that

> > competition between many different producers yields more choices

>than the

> > competition-less offering of one monopoly producer, which is

>evidenced by every case of it

> > that exists.

> > ______

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

_____

From: dosdodog [mailto:seaorca@...]

Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 6:29 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICS Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

Digest Number 3425)

--- In , " mark robert "

<colowe@i...>

wrote:

> As a Libertarian, I don't envision any kind of forced

inspection

> of anything on someone else's private property. Why would that

be

> necessary? It is no one's job or right to protect others by

> engaging in non-consensual force. Besides, the best way to

> protect others is always to protect yourself. Here's how. A

> simple inspection of the products you purchased should indicate

> if the products were misrepresented or harmful (when used as

> directed). If so, you have yourself an excellent civil suit.

Your

> successful lawsuit will not only make you rich and possibly

break

> the company, it will send a very strong message to competing

> companies to not make the same mistake. Therein is the most

> effective and efficient protection you can possibly give to

> others, without performing any unconstitutional searches

> ( " inspections " ).

OK Mark, you wish to do it yourself? Let us see how you would do

this.

This week in my job I analyzed a domestic cheese (among other

foods)

(I'm a microbiologist). This cheese might be in your grocery

store...heck it might be in your 'fridge. For this one cheese my

analysis took about 15 hands-on hours and about 3 days total. I

checked it for the presence of Salmonella, Listeria

monocytogenes,

Staph aureus, E.coli (plain), and E. coli O157:H7. I used approx

10

liters of sterile liquid microbiological media, 110 tubes of

liquid

media, and 100 petri plates of solid media as well as assorted

sterile

blender jars, etc. In some cases this cheese would also have been

analyzed for filth (hair, bug parts, feces, mold, etc) and

various

prohibited chemicals (dyes, pesticides, etc.) by the filth lab

and the

chemistry departments.

So, how much time and money do you have to check all your food?

I'll

promise you from personal experience that your cheese could have

some

or all of the above and it would look, smell, and taste perfectly

normal. Please tell me how your " simple inspection " will protect

you

or anyone else? The idea is absurd and shows an ignorance of food

analysis. I would highly reccomend (again, from experience) that

you

avoid spices imported from India (Salmonella), seafood from Asia

(again, Salmonella), imported ginsing (much of it contains

pesticides

prohibited in the US and at unsafe levels) and Mexican cheeses

(everything). Of course, right now a lot of this is screened out

for

you by regulatory agencies, but you are welcome to take it on

yourself. Or if you wish to pay me I would be willing to do it

for you

for around $600 per cheese if you supply me with a lab and

materials.

And process and haul off the biological waste too.

Oh, and if you do come down with something, I hope you have the

time

and expertise in epidemiology to track down and prove what food

item

caused your illness so you can sue. Your doctor won't have the

time or

expertise and there won't be any public health agencies to help

you.

Some contaminants like filth won't make you ill but are simply

disgusting, but hey, this is the new world after all.

And of course, this won't help a single soul but yourself, but

that

seems to be the heart of " right-libertarianism " , all to the

individual

and damn the common good. That this food migh be causing an

outbreak

of some kind is not relevant.

--------------------------

,

I could respond in a few different ways, but let's try this one.

You are correct that a lot of food inspection would be difficult

and expensive for single individual/citizens. I either neglected

to make that point or I assumed too much by assuming you would

realize that there are more than just individual units in the

private sector. In a well-functioning free-enterprise society,

most often *businesses* would be hiring testing-services for

their purchased inventory, not individuals. The testing of

purchased products would not have to wait until the end of the

" food chain " (the individual setting down to eat it). And all

this testing would all be voluntary with no force involved.

How would all this be voluntary? Remember what I said about the

effect of uncapped judgments and successful lawsuits? Think

" incentive " . For example, it would only take a few big successful

lawsuits against badly managed grocery stores to hit the news

before even the tightest grocers would soon be running to hire

microbiologists or subcontract private food-analysis labs to

regularly test the food products that they have purchased for

resale. And if they still were reluctant to do so, their

insurance companies would be demanding it of them. This quality

testing would run all the way up the " food chain " because no

producer/importer/wholesaler would want to be sued out of home

and business for providing a lousy product. Naturally

counter-balancing market forces (only possible without

regulation) would safeguard all consumers much better very soon

after the first few huge judgments were handed out.

This should appeal to all you corporate-haters out there.

Of course the expense of food-testing would go way down since the

industry would explode and market competition would drive down

the price of services.

Readers take note: It is very conspicuous that no one here yet

has tried to argue against this particular Libertarian contention

(the far-reaching effect of uncapped civil judgments).

The beauty of freedom-based plans (vs legalism-based ones) is

that they put the responsibility squarely where it belongs, but

do it in a fair and consensual way (without violating rights and

without force). Not to mention the improved efficiency and

improved protection for everyone.

Freedom is not perfectly safe, but it is safER than any

alternative.

-Mark

[Guest guest]

[Chris:]

>>To take

>>but one example: public water systems offer only one choice of water in

any

>>given geographical area. If your munipality happens to chlorinate and

>>fluoridate the water, your municipality doesn't offer an

>>alternative. However, in

>>the private water market, one has access to many different kinds

>>of filtration

>>systems based on different technologies with qualitatively

>>and quantitatively

>>different resultant products, other forms of water treatment, and bottled

>>waters that range from spring water to filtered water to

>>structured water, and

>>from one kind of plastic to another to glass, etc.

[]

>This is a specious comparison, because the public water utility pipes water

>into your home while the so-called private water market provides it

>bottled. I assume you're not suggesting that privatization would result in

>multiple parallel piping systems, are you?

____

[Chris's reply]

I'd have to give it more thought, and I don't know enough about water

systems. My point was about certification though. The one deficiency in my

analogy may have been that a public water system might be restricted by the

nature

of water in a way that other public systems wouldn't. Nevertheless, I think

the point is true, and we could use other, more appropriate examples. Isn't

the USDA Organic certification much more monolithic than the multiple

certifiers and standards that existed previously? And isn't it much more

likely to

develop a private raw milk certification to service a niche market than it

would to wait for the market to develop so big that government engages in the

same certification? And if various forms of food certification that are

needed remain for some time niche markets, private certification could pick up

the

ball on all of them to deliver diverse kinds of food certification while

government would only offer such when it becomes so big.

____

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>To take

>but one example: public water systems offer only one choice of water in any

>given geographical area. If your munipality happens to chlorinate and

>fluoridate the water, your municipality doesn't offer an

>alternative. However, in

>the private water market, one has access to many different kinds

>of filtration

>systems based on different technologies with qualitatively

>and quantitatively

>different resultant products, other forms of water treatment, and bottled

>waters that range from spring water to filtered water to

>structured water, and

>from one kind of plastic to another to glass, etc.

This is a specious comparison, because the public water utility pipes water

into your home while the so-called private water market provides it

bottled. I assume you're not suggesting that privatization would result in

multiple parallel piping systems, are you?

>It's a simply matter of deduction from the general principle that

>competition between many different producers yields more choices than the

>competition-less offering of one monopoly producer, which is evidenced by

>every case of it

>that exists.

A certifier is not a producer in any meaningful sense of the word either.

-

[Guest guest]

>I fail to see, from what you state above, how you expect this system

>to protect the public heath. You are proposing voluntary inspections

>(useless),done by private organizations with a patchwork of differing

>internal standards, the results of which are not made public.

_____

[Chris's Reply]

I fail to see how a inspections done by a third party which are imposed by

means of a voluntarily entered contract would be any less useful than those

imposed by means of universal decree. The inspections aren't necessarily

" voluntary " in the sense that all is left to the sole discretion of the

inspectee.

The only thing that's voluntary is entering the contract. Once the

contract is entered into, for the duration of its validity the company is bound

by

whatever the contract stipulates, which could conceivably require inspection

on the demand of the inspector. Where you got the idea that the results

wouldn't be made public is beyond me.

____

[Guest guest]

On Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 00:21:20 -0500 " mark robert " wrote>

> I could respond in a few different ways, but let's try this one.

> You are correct that a lot of food inspection would be difficult

> and expensive for single individual/citizens. I either neglected

> to make that point or I assumed too much by assuming you would

> realize that there are more than just individual units in the

> private sector. In a well-functioning free-enterprise society,

> most often *businesses* would be hiring testing-services for

> their purchased inventory, not individuals. The testing of

> purchased products would not have to wait until the end of the

> " food chain " (the individual setting down to eat it). And all

> this testing would all be voluntary with no force involved.

>

>

>

> How would all this be voluntary? Remember what I said about the

> effect of uncapped judgments and successful lawsuits? Think

> " incentive " . For example, it would only take a few big successful

> lawsuits against badly managed grocery stores to hit the news

> before even the tightest grocers would soon be running to hire

> microbiologists or subcontract private food-analysis labs to

> regularly test the food products that they have purchased for

> resale. And if they still were reluctant to do so, their

> insurance companies would be demanding it of them. This quality

> testing would run all the way up the " food chain " because no

> producer/importer/wholesaler would want to be sued out of home

> and business for providing a lousy product. Naturally

> counter-balancing market forces (only possible without

> regulation) would safeguard all consumers much better very soon

> after the first few huge judgments were handed out.

Once again I see a 2 tiered system. Those that can afford privately

inspected foods and afford lawyers get the safe food, those that can't get

by on whatever undisputed crap remains.

The notion that businesses would line up for private inspection because they

might get sued is pure fantasy. Right now a business which violates public

health laws runs the risk of being shut down as well as fines by the

government. Some of these fines have amounted to over $500 million dollars.

Yet many still risk it.

You are also living in fantasy land regarding imports. Many/most of these

products are a one-shot deal and importers are happy to run the risk. Right

now less than 2% of imports are analyzed. Many are simply prohibited entry

due to the track record of the company or country of origin. How is private

inspection going to improve on that? Do you have a single clue how many

people it would take to examine $52.5 billion of imported food alone?How

many folks have the money for layers to sue a foreign producer? Going to sue

the importer? They don't have much money so you are out of luck.

>

> Of course the expense of food-testing would go way down since the

> industry would explode and market competition would drive down

> the price of services.

Highly unlikely. The pay range for microbiologists is fairly well set.. If

you want to try to lower it most would bail for the medical sector or the

educational sector. I suppose you could then " dummy down " the field with

unqualified people. In addition prices for microbiological media and

equipment are already obscenely high...greater demand will not reduce the

costs in a capitalist society. Yeah...this sounds good....

> Readers take note: It is very conspicuous that no one here yet

> has tried to argue against this particular Libertarian contention

> (the far-reaching effect of uncapped civil judgments).

It's a moot point to me. I think capitalism is basically an immoral system

to start with. The Left libertarian system of co-ops and non-ownership of

business is my preferred system. Neither your Right-libertarian nor my

Left-libertarian system is going to prevail in the US, so I find debating

the finer points of it to be rather a waste of time. As I stated elsewhere,

my preference comes from my spirituality (Buddhism) and not from political

theory.>

>

>

> The beauty of freedom-based plans (vs. legalism-based ones) is

> that they put the responsibility squarely where it belongs, but

> do it in a fair and consensual way (without violating rights and

> without force). Not to mention the improved efficiency and

> improved protection for everyone.

Yawn. Business is basically non-transparent to the public. That is neither

fair nor consensual. The only way for full conceptuality would be for a free

layer to every man, woman, and child to drag info out of business and sue

them. I'd rather vote and write my representative. Actually, I'd rather be

part of a co-op that is truly responsive to me.>

>

> Freedom is not perfectly safe, but it is safer than any

> alternative.

Freedom for people, not business. They are not the same thing.

[Guest guest]

On Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 14:18:28 EST ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote

>

> [Chris's Reply]

>

> I fail to see how a inspections done by a third party which are imposed by

> means of a voluntarily entered contract would be any less useful than

> those

> imposed by means of universal decree.

And I fail to see how they would be in any way better. Other than that they

fit in your philosophy of society.

> The inspections aren't necessarily

> " voluntary " in the sense that all is left to the sole discretion of the

> inspectee.

> The only thing that's voluntary is entering the contract.

Which invalidates the entire concept of regulation.

>Once the

> contract is entered into, for the duration of its validity the company is

> bound by

> whatever the contract stipulates, which could conceivably require

> inspection

> on the demand of the inspector.

It had better. You never inspect someone who is " waiting " for it.

>Where you got the idea that the results

> wouldn't be made public is beyond me.

Because it is entirely in private. Private business contracting with private

business. Why would it be made public? Business never makes public anything

it isn't forced to make public. Does the word " proprietary " mean anything to

you?

> ____

>

>

>

>> Instead, the inspected firm is given a " mark " , the meaning of which may

>> be

> of

>>no use to the public since the standards vary among each inspecting

>>organization and the results are not made public.

> ____

>

> [Chris's reply]

>

> How does diversity of standards offer no use to the public?

Lets see. When you go to the market do you want to have to have a chart for

every food showing that " CorruptLab " gives its mark for Salmonella below

100cfu/g, that " BuyOffLab " gives it's mark for below 75cfu/g, and that

" RipOffLab " doesn't test for Salmonella but gives a presence/absence test

for L.mono? Jut how much info do you want to process for each item you buy?

> ____

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>[Chris's reply]

>>

>>You are no doubt exaggerting by a considerable order of magnitude in

>>implying that certified products would only be available to the " wealthy "

>>(you don't

>>have to be rich to say, buy organic food),

>>

>>

>

>[seaOrca] Ah, YEAH a large part of the population can't afford organic

food. I

>can't afford to buy all organic even remotely. Some folks can't afford it

>hardly at all.

>

>

I think both experience in buying food for a family and location of

purchase considerations are necessary to fully comprehend the costs of

organic, pastured foods for the average American (outside US will be

different). With the looming oil crisis, growing your own will be the

only affordable means besides local, in season stuff that may or may not

be certified. This summer will be a real test on the affordability of

shipping pristine organic agribusiness foods nationwide. But I think

WAPF is coming out against such big business groups anyway. I wonder

what qualms may have about this sort of restriction on the

private, flowing marketplace by WAPF.

See below.

Deanna, who says grow your own

WESTON A. PRICE FOUNDATION

ACTION ALERT

February 28, 2005

SIGN PETITION TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

TO STOP FACTORY FARM ORGANICS

http://en.groundspring.org/EmailNow/pub.php?module=URLTracker & cmd=track & j=220253\

70 & u=200918

Now that organic agriculture is a $15 billion industry and growing, it is

squarely in the crosshairs of multinational corporations. Major food

manufacturers are entering organic production, cutting corners, inflating

prices, and endangering the integrity of organic agriculture (factory farms,

nonorganic inputs, and imported ingredients with questionable certification).

Some large corporations, along with a complacent USDA, have become masters at

creating loopholes for corporate organic farming, such as:

* Importing vegetables or feed grains from Third World countries without USDA

site certification visits.

* Raising chickens without access to the outdoors.

* Including unapproved preservatives in products.

* Buying replacement dairy heifers shot-up with antibiotics and from nonorganic

sources.

* Operating a factory farm with 70,000 chickens or 5000 cows.

" Organic " Factory Farms?

After years of inaction, the USDA's National Organic Program has recently been

forced to address a number of large, industrial dairy farms-without adequate

pasture that are producing " organic " milk. These factory farms range in size

from approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cows and are basically confinement feedlots

without legitimate access to pasture for feed and exercise, as required by the

federal organic regulations. Milk from most of these mega-farms is being

distributed by Dean/Horizon, the largest milk bottler in the United States, and

under a number of private-label brands that are available at natural food and

conventional grocers.

These corporate farms and their wealthy investors are jeopardizing the

livelihoods of organic family-scale dairy farmers throughout the United States,

along with the more modest-sized companies and cooperatives that market their

milk.

Turf War

Recently, The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based advocacy group that

supports family farmers, filed formal complaints against three of these farms

operating in Idaho, California, and Colorado. This issue will come to a head at

the semiannual meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) in

Washington, D.C., March 1-3.

Farmers and consumers will make their voice heard at this meeting. Many farmers

in the Northeast, and others as far away as California, will be coming to

testify in support of enacting strong rules requiring access to pasture for

dairy cows, sheep, goats, and beef cattle. They will also call for enforcement

of the requirement for access to the outdoors for other species such as poultry.

Make Your Voice Heard

1. Please share this action alert with your circle of friends and colleagues.

2. E-mail, fax, or mail a letter to the USDA. If you email all your comments to

The Cornucopia Institute by February 28, we will hand carry your message and

deliver it formally at the Washington, D.C., NOSB meeting.

3. Please consider coming to the meeting in person. This is especially important

if you are an organic livestock producer. For meeting information, directions,

and accommodation options contact organic@....

4. If you are an organic livestock producer or processor and cannot make it to

the meeting, we will do our best to partner you with another farmer/rancher or a

consumer from the Washington area who will read your three-minute written

testimony. Again, please contact The Cornucopia Institute, preferably via

e-mail, for full instructions on preparing your (proxy) testimony.

You Have the Power

Whether it is livestock raised in industrial conditions, imported organic

soybeans from Brazil, or name-brand organic vegetables from China (burning down

rain forests and shipping food around the world in not sustainable!), a lot is

on the line right now for family-scale farmers. All the hope that organic

agriculture has offered is at risk. If successful, this first action concerning

organic livestock production will demonstrate to the agribusiness lobbyists,

USDA bureaucrats, and members of Congress that the organic farming community is

going to fight to maintain the ethical reputation we have earned in the eyes of

the consumer. Please join us!

SIGN PETITION TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD TO STOP FACTORY FARM

ORGANICS

It will be hand delivered at the National Organic Standards Board meeting in

Washington D.C., March 1-3, 2005.

http://en.groundspring.org/EmailNow/pub.php?module=URLTracker & cmd=track & j=220253\

70 & u=200919

*******************************************************

Bill Sanda

Executive Director

Weston A. Price Foundation

westonaprice_bill@...

----------------------------------------

You are subscribed to this list as wapf@.... To unsubscribe, send

email to

unsubscribe.25665.22025370.296514835650760836-wapf_salvonix.com@....\

org.

Our postal address is

PMB #106-380

4200 Wisconsin Avenue, NW

Washington, District of Columbia 20016

United States

[Guest guest]

RE:

> SIGN PETITION TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

> TO STOP FACTORY FARM ORGANICS

> Some large corporations, along with a complacent USDA, have become

masters at creating loopholes for corporate organic farming, such as:

>

> * Importing vegetables or feed grains from Third World countries

without USDA site certification visits.

How can the USDA carry out site certification visits to vegetable

farms in third world countries? Surely this is the job of IFOAM

accredited or similar certifying organisations in the countries

concerned. If there is a problem with their certification procedure

there are avenues that can be taken to pursue this. I do hope this is

not veiled protectionism. Free access to markets is essential to

overcomeing third world poverty and a whole lot more, please don't

allow the organic movement to perpetuate exploitation of the third

world.

[Guest guest]

> I think both experience in buying food for a family and location of

> purchase considerations are necessary to fully comprehend the costs of

> organic, pastured foods for the average American (outside US will be

> different). With the looming oil crisis, growing your own will be the

> only affordable means besides local, in season stuff that may or may

not

> be certified. This summer will be a real test on the affordability of

> shipping pristine organic agribusiness foods nationwide. But I think

> WAPF is coming out against such big business groups anyway. I wonder

> what qualms may have about this sort of restriction on the

> private, flowing marketplace by WAPF.

>

> See below.

We are certainly going to focus on growing our own. Up here in the

Northwest it's a little harder than in sunny Calif where I could grow

any and everything over a long season, but I think we'll be OK for a

lot of stuff. Going to focus on produce that tastes best fresh and

that we love (tomatoes, jalapenios, etc) and what we can ferment

(cucumbers, cabbage,etc). We only have a little space in our rented

back yard, but I'll bet we can crank it up!

[Guest guest]

>We are certainly going to focus on growing our own. Up here in the

>Northwest it's a little harder than in sunny Calif where I could grow

>any and everything over a long season, but I think we'll be OK for a

>lot of stuff. Going to focus on produce that tastes best fresh and

>that we love (tomatoes, jalapenios, etc) and what we can ferment

>(cucumbers, cabbage,etc). We only have a little space in our rented

>back yard, but I'll bet we can crank it up!

>

>

>

Absolutely! And you'll find what works and what doesn't. Potted stuff

is great too. Especially herbs, tomatoes and hot peppers, because you

can move them to maximize sun, bring them in if too much rain/pests

persist. I am a California native and miss the cheap produce as well,

but not the spiraling prices, population and pollution. And it seems

that global warming is hitting the state hard with fires, floods and now

tornadoes in the Southland. I grew up there and it is jaw dropping to

see such major changes.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Sea Orca [mailto:seaorca@...]

>

> On Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 14:18:28 EST ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote

> >

> > [Chris's Reply]

> >

> > I fail to see how a inspections done by a third party which are

> > imposed by means of a voluntarily entered contract would be

> any less

> > useful than those imposed by means of universal decree.

>

> And I fail to see how they would be in any way better. Other

> than that they fit in your philosophy of society.

The difference is the presence of consumer choice.

> > The inspections aren't necessarily

> > " voluntary " in the sense that all is left to the sole discretion of

> > the inspectee.

> > The only thing that's voluntary is entering the contract.

>

> Which invalidates the entire concept of regulation.

Not at all. Most people would choose to purchase only inspected goods.

> >Where you got the idea that the results

> > wouldn't be made public is beyond me.

>

> Because it is entirely in private. Private business

> contracting with private business. Why would it be made

> public? Business never makes public anything it isn't forced

> to make public. Does the word " proprietary " mean anything to you?

If consumers are willing to buy without seeing this information, then they

should have the freedom to make that choice. If not, businesses will be

forced to comply if they want to sell their products..

> > How does diversity of standards offer no use to the public?

>

> Lets see. When you go to the market do you want to have to

> have a chart for every food showing that " CorruptLab " gives

> its mark for Salmonella below 100cfu/g, that " BuyOffLab "

> gives it's mark for below 75cfu/g, and that " RipOffLab "

> doesn't test for Salmonella but gives a presence/absence test

> for L.mono? Jut how much info do you want to process for each

> item you buy?

Those names so clever that I almost missed the problem with your argument,

namely that consumers wouldn't have to know all that. They'd find out from

the media and from consumer advocates (i.e., Consumer Reports) which

standards were the most trustworthy. In fact, this is exactly how many

people choose among products on the market now.

Retailers could also do research to screen out the worst products. If you

ran a store, wouldn't you be willing put some effort into making sure that

the local papers didn't carry a front-page story about some guy who died

from eating something he bought from you?

> > You are no doubt exaggerting by a considerable order of

> magnitude in

> > implying that certified products would only be available to

> the " wealthy "

> > (you don't

> > have to be rich to say, buy organic food),

>

> Ah, YEAH a large part of the population can't afford

> organic food. I can't afford to buy all organic even

> remotely. Some folks can't afford it hardly at all.

Be that as it may, much of the added cost of " organic " food is due to the

rejection of cost-efficient (but potentially harmful) production methods,

not due to the cost of certification. Besides, we already pay for

inspection.

> > [Chris's reply]

> >

> > Yes there record in these areas is almost as pitiful as the FDA's

> > record in regulating the pharmaceutical industry.

>

> I'll challenge you on the FDA and the pharmaceutical

> industry. I contend that the track record of automobile

> manufacturer's and food producers is MUCH WORSE that the FDA

> record and that the record of the pharmaceutical industry

> only proves that business can't be trusted to police itself.

To focus on the track record of the automobile, food, and pharmaceutical is

to miss the point entirely. Obviously, in an industry with no oversight,

some businesses are going to try to cheat. You keep trying to reframe this

as a question of whether there should be independent oversight. That's not

the issue. The issue is *who* should be doing the oversight: a monopoly

agency whose policy is determined by the political process, or several

competing agencies subjected to the pressures of consumer choice?

The essence of our disagreement, I think, is that you believe that consumer

choice is not a sufficiently powerful force to ensure the production of safe

products, but that the political process is, whereas we believe the

opposite. Why is that? Is it simply that you believe that consumers are

simply not well-enough informed, or is it that you believe that the

political process is somehow superior to market processes when it comes to

enforcing the preferences of consumers with respect to safety? Why?

By the way, what *nonfiction* sources do you recommend for an unbiased view

of the history of regulation?

[Guest guest]

_____

From: Sea Orca [mailto:seaorca@...]

Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 7:46 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICS Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

Digest Number 3425)

I'll challenge you on the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry. I

contend

that the track record of automobile manufacturer's and food

producers is

MUCH WORSE that the FDA record and that the record of the

pharmaceutical

industry only proves that business can't be trusted to police

itself.

Challenge accepted. The pharmaceutical industry is a perfect

example of what happens under strong gov regulation: products

with prices and profit margins higher than street-drugs.

Absolutely nothing else has higher margins than prescription

drugs. Why? Because the industry is so over-regulated that small

business can not afford to enter the market to supply healthy

competition and drive down the prices. (See " poverty " : the cause

of most bad health.) Not to mention other attendant factors such

as illegal payoffs, collusions, price gouging/fixing, suppression

of competition (herbs, vitamins, natural drugs), etc.

-Mark

[Guest guest]

,

I thought 's reply was essentially sufficient and entirely agreeable

to me, so I won't duplicate his points, but I'll add a few things.

___

[]

>>> The firms getting

>>>their " mark " will no doubt increase their prices to the public,

>>>resulting in a 2 tiered system of inspected products for the wealthy

>>>and uninspected products for the poor.

>> [Chris]

>>

>> You are no doubt exaggerting by a considerable order of magnitude in

>> implying that certified products would only be available to the " wealthy "

>> (you don't

>> have to be rich to say, buy organic food),

[]

>Ah, YEAH a large part of the population can't afford organic food. I

>can't afford to buy all organic even remotely. Some folks can't afford it

>hardly at all.

____

My point was not that there aren't people who can't afford organic food, but

that you don't need to be " wealthy. " I use almost all organic food and am

not remotely wealthy. I couldn't if I had a family on my current income of

course.

___

>I'll challenge you on the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry. I contend

>that the track record of automobile manufacturer's and food producers is

>MUCH WORSE that the FDA record and that the record of the pharmaceutical

>industry only proves that business can't be trusted to police itself.

____

I don't see how " business policing itself " is relevant to this discussion.

I am not suggesting that any business regulate itself, but that there be a

market for certification/regulation.

___

>>

>> How is the good faith of the producer even remotely relevant? I'm not

>> proposing that any business would certify *itself,*

>So business can't be trusted, in other words.

___

Neither can individuals, or non-profits, or churches, or governments, or

anything else. No system can depend merely on the good will of its members,

but

must account for all contingencies, including lack of good will, even wide

spread lack of good will.

____

>So a *not-for-profit* certification industry would bloom? Why?

____

For the same reason non-profits like Public Citizen bloom, or any other

non-profit. I'm not suggesting that there would be an exclusively

not-for-profit certification industry, I'm just suggesting that there is no

reason to

assume it be exclusively for-profit.

___

>BTW, congratz on your new job! Sounds WAY better!

___

Thanks!

Chris

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

-

>Once again I see a 2 tiered system. Those that can afford privately

>inspected foods and afford lawyers get the safe food, those that can't get

>by on whatever undisputed crap remains.

I think that's sort of the point, at least for some people. I can't speak

for any particular propertarians, but in a property uber alles world in

which all rights derive from property rights, he who has the most property

is effectively uber alles.

>The notion that businesses would line up for private inspection because they

>might get sued is pure fantasy. Right now a business which violates public

>health laws runs the risk of being shut down as well as fines by the

>government. Some of these fines have amounted to over $500 million dollars.

>Yet many still risk it.

This is a key point, but there's a further ramification: in a

government-free propertarian world, there'd be no fines and there'd be no

punitive damages, not to mention no shutdowns. Civil awards would be

damages only. And yet punitive damages, as flawed a measure as they are,

were instituted specifically because damages-only awards weren't proving

sufficient disincentive for many harmful business practices.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>I'll challenge you on the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry. I contend

>that the track record of automobile manufacturer's and food producers is

>MUCH WORSE that the FDA record and that the record of the pharmaceutical

>industry only proves that business can't be trusted to police itself.

Not only that, most of the FDA's deficiencies result from what has

effectively been an industry takeover.

-