
One of biggest frauds in U.S. farm history - evilsimon
https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article239079858.html
======
tasty_freeze
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.

~~~
eikenberry
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".

~~~
75dvtwin
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
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
What does this have to do with democracy, pro- or anti-?

------
downrightmike
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.

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

~~~
pintxo
Taxes != punishment

~~~
AdrianB1
They are more than punishment. You are punished for living in a place, you are
punished for earning money, the excuse is that taxes are a payment for
services but taxes are the only "service" where you pay a percent of your
proerty value or income and not a fixed amount. Just imagine you pay groceries
a percentage of income, not a fixed dollar amount per product and you can see
why taxes are not what they say they are.

~~~
pintxo
I am happy for anyone proposing a better option to finance a modern society
than taxes. As long as this is not the case, I find it hard to understand to
see anyone, surely enjoying the benefits of a working modern society,
describing the means to finance those benefits as a punishment.

------
cprayingmantis
I wouldn’t be surprised if during the next few years you saw a number of
stories like this come out. From my talks with folks there isn’t as much
oversight in the organic sector as we’re led to believe. That’s all hearsay so
take it with a grain of salt.

~~~
rblatz
Being from Ohio I knew quite a few farmers, or people that grew up on farms.
They all laugh at organic and say it’s bullshit. There is typically no way to
tell after the fact if something is or isn’t organic. Same with rBGH free
dairy products.

Farmers have known for years that the label is only as good as the word of
farmer, and with economic pressures to cheat, it’s not surprising to find
cheaters.

~~~
gniv
> There is typically no way to tell after the fact

Consumer Reports (and others) did studies that showed non-organic food have
lots more pesticide residue than organic food. That of course doesn't mean
they are better for you or that they are tastier.

~~~
bad_user
No, non-organic has more residue of _expected pesticides_.

The often unspoken truth however is that many chemicals aren't tested for. For
example copper sulfate, used as organic fungicide.

In other words conventional agriculture uses far more substances that the USDA
tests for, a vast majority of them, whereas organic agriculture uses
substances that aren't covered by USDA tests. Which should be obvious.

This doesn't mean that:

1\. Organic agriculture uses less pesticides (bullshit, unless you're talking
about GMOs, another hot subject)

2\. Organic produce is in any way healthier

Both of these statements lack credible evidence. And we might actually find
instances in which the substances used in organic agriculture are more
unhealthy than their conventional equivalents.

~~~
markdown
> For example copper sulfate, used as organic fungicide.

Why would one need to test for copper? The trace amounts of it that one would
find are good for you. I mean, it's used for water piping in homes even.

~~~
ceejayoz
That's silly, like saying breathing chlorine is safe because it's a component
in table salt.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper(II)_sulfate#Toxicologic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper\(II\)_sulfate#Toxicological_effects)

~~~
markdown
No, it's like saying eating trace amounts of copper is safe as proven by the
fact humans have been doing that since forever, and by the fact that health
authorities endorse it (hospitals have copper piping).

~~~
ceejayoz
The enormous and simple point you're missing: just like chlorine versus
_sodium chloride_ , copper _sulfate_ is not the same thing as plain old
_copper_.

------
Animats
From the article: _“They can test for GMO (genetically modified organisms) …
but corn that’s not GMO, you can’t tell whether it’s been sprayed or not
sprayed.”_

 _" Technically, you can, but you’re not likely to get a positive result
unless the inspector hits it just right and collects a plant sample before the
residues wash away."_

Yes. See this Forbes article. By the time it reaches retail, you can't
tell.[1]

Non-organic food is probably healthier. Less insect residue. Also cheaper.

[1]
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2016/02/08/inconve...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2016/02/08/inconvenient-
truth-there-are-pesticide-residues-on-organics/#77b077dd683b)

~~~
hedora
You certainly can test for some non-organic foods at retail.

For example, non-organic oats are often sprayed with roundup at harvest time,
so cereals made from them routinely have unsafe levels of carcinogens in them:

[https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/monsanto-weedkiller-
stil...](https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/monsanto-weedkiller-still-
contaminates-foods-marketed-to-children/)

Organic oats have less than 1/10th as much roundup in them on average:

[https://gimmethegoodstuff.org/pesticides-in-organic-
oatmeal-...](https://gimmethegoodstuff.org/pesticides-in-organic-oatmeal-oat-
products/)

Also, the more farms go organic, the less contamination there will be in the
organic crops.

~~~
saalweachter
Note the use of glyphosate as a dessicant is highly regional -- it's common in
the Dakotas, Saskatchewan and UK because they have growing seasons that are
too short for the crops being grown, but nearly unheard of in places like Iowa
and Indiana, because the growing season is long enough for grains to mature
and dry before the weather turns.

------
Jedd
> ... 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 & worms.

In either case, forcing an exclusively grain-based diet on either of these
animals is anything but natural and consequently, unsurprisingly, extremely
bad for their health.

It's only that they're typically slaughtered before the effects of these
decisions properly manifest that growers get away with this.

~~~
bumby
Just to add a little clarity, beef cattle all start eating grass and generally
continue for a large portion of their life. It’s just whether or not they are
“finished” on grass or grain. I’m not aware of farms using an “exclusively
grain-based diet”

~~~
cmmeur01
I thought all feed lots were exclusively grain only? When driving past one in
Colorado I didn't see any grass anywhere the animals could access, just a ton
of muddy ground.

~~~
BenjiWiebe
Speaking of dairy farms with muddy lots and no grass in sight, they feed TMR
(total mixed ration). It's a mixture of ground hay (dried grass!), corn silage
(chopped fermented grass!), grain, and trace minerals and vitamins, adjusted
on a regular basis by a nutritionist.

------
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?

------
fnord77
> Constant scammed grain buyers, meat producers and millions of American
> consumers for a decade or more. The organic beef and poultry countless
> Americans were eating during those years wasn’t organic after all.

Uh, no - the only people scammed by him were consumers. All the middlemen and
downstream producers unwittingly resold the product as organic. They didn't
really lose anything.

~~~
MR4D
Trust.

They lost trust.

Not the same as money, but it will cause them lower profits in the future.

~~~
phendrenad2
Exactly. A sinking tide lowers all boats. Why would I buy organic if this kind
of thing can happen?

~~~
k_amnell
Why buy organic at all? _There’s no proof that the meat is any better for you_
from the article. And unless there is more regulation of what is considered
organic, I would argue that there is little environmental or philosophical
reason to buy organic either. At least in the US, the standards for being
organic are absurdity low.

------
blazespin
I suspect many of his buyers weren't particularly concerned that he was
'defrauding' them. He probably sold at a discount and it gave them the label
that they were consuming organic.

Also, the article is very hyperbolic. It's pretty standard in the industry to
fudge when it comes to organic.

------
diogenescynic
I suspect similar organic frauds are going on all over. I know someone who was
fired for not going along with faking the statistics that a food service
vendor was using for marketing. There need to be more regulations to verify
something labeled as organic actually is.

------
mianos
Down here in Australia, we have had a few similar incidents with 'free range'
eggs. It really needs the quotes as the more demand there is for free range
eggs the more that are available. The farmers move them from batteries so pens
that have similar area.

~~~
markdown
It's not a "few similar incidents", it's that "big poultry" has corrupted govt
to the point that free range no longer means what laymen think it means. The
label itself is now just a con.

Which is why small farmers who really care have taken to calling what they
sell something else completely: pastured eggs.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=can8xFpZKRs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=can8xFpZKRs)

------
jelliclesfarm
Soil, environment and flora/fauna, insects and farm workers benefit from
organic methods. It’s the failure of certification bodies in that they haven’t
communicated that enough and only focused on the $ spending end consumer.

------
ars
I wonder how many studies there have been of Organic food during that time
period, that are now invalidated and need to be withdrawn.

------
rashthedude
Dark Grains...there you go Hollywood now go on and make a movie about it.

~~~
caseysoftware
No, have a ridiculously handsome farmhand as an undercover agent, a hot
daughter who is torn between loyalties, and a helicopter chase to stop the
villain from escaping on his private jet.

"Field of Schemes" coming 2021 from Michael Bay.

------
umvi
> To earn the National Organic Seal, the plants from which organic grain is
> harvested cannot have been genetically modified

Does this include selective breeding?

------
erikig
"There’s no proof that the meat [from animals fed from fraudulently marked
"organic" produce] is any better for you, but some people believe it is and
others have philosophical or environmental reasons for preferring it."

Makes me wonder - who is the victim of this fraud?

~~~
Thorrez
The customers who paid a higher price for something because it was falsely
advertised.

Just because there's no proof that organic is healthier doesn't mean it isn't
healthier. And people buy organic for reasons other than health, such as the
idea that it's better for the environment (e.g. no pesticides seeping into the
ground).

~~~
ourmandave
_Just because there 's no proof that organic is healthier doesn't mean it
isn't healthier._

USDA certified cringey statement.

~~~
Thorrez
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_absence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence)

[2]
[https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc2014148](https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc2014148)

~~~
ourmandave
Yes, and the dragon in my garage only eats organic knights.

[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage)

~~~
Thorrez
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.

