Actually, there are good reasons not to lie about that kind of thing. There are large costs associated with setting up a food production business, and as a result it is important to maintain a good reputation. If you are falsely advertising that you have been inspected to meet standard X, then the owners of standard X will eventually find you, sue you, and you will suffer large losses, both in legal damages and lost business due to reputation damage. Because of the large expense for getting started, it's hard to start over with a clean slate.
Also, I didn't make the claim that there is no role for government, only that inspections should be more diverse and voluntary. If government enforced a truth-in-advertising kind of regulation, where there are penalties for claiming false certifications beyond just reputation damage, I think that would be a much more beneficial arrangement.
"If you are falsely advertising that you have been inspected to meet standard X, then the owners of standard X will eventually find you, sue you, and you will suffer large losses, both in legal damages and lost business due to reputation damage."
Yet fears like these didn't stop massive fraud from companies like Enron,[1][2] companies in China adulterating milk with melamine,[3] and plenty of other companies making and growing food in unhygenic conditions and causing disease outbreaks.[4]
Time and again, some people will try to get away with the most eggregious crimes to make a quick buck, and damn the consequences. Relying on corporate self-regulation and the magic hand of the free market is incredibly naive.
You are correct, but I'd point out that the fear of regulatory consequences didn't stop them either, as evidenced by the fact that their actions were illegal. Regulation from the top is one way to approach this problem, which is neither perfectly effective (ref. your links) nor free of negative side effects. No solution is perfect, including the voluntary inspections I'm talking about. My point is merely that there are other reasons to distrust regulation as a one-stop solution for all food problems, as seemed to be the contention of the parent of my original post.
The government inspectors and agencies are just people, just like any other inspection agency would be. As such, they are subject to the same sets of errors and failures. They are likely neither more nor less effective than a private counterpart playing the same role would be. What I'm attempting to advocate is that consumers should have a say in what is being inspected, and how, and by whom, and that I think the best way to accomplish that is through a diverse, voluntary inspection program with labeling requirements. If you believe that is "incredibly naive" that's okay with me. I would say the same thing about trusting a single, central authority to create a one-size-fits-all set of best practices for a food system that feeds hundreds of millions of people.
"I'd point out that the fear of regulatory consequences didn't stop them either"
I wouldn't rely on regulatory consequences to keep them from trying to defraud the consumer or trying to get away with unsafe and unhygenic practices. Though such regulatory consequences would still be far preferable to self-regulation or relying on the free market to do the job.
But what I would like rely on (if we had it) is thorough, randomized, mandatory inspections of food before it makes it on to the grocery shelves.
If rice had to be inspected for the presence of unsafe levels of heavy metals before it could be sold in the US, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
Clear labeling of heavy metal content on that rice which does pass inspection would also be a big help.
"What I'm attempting to advocate is that consumers should have a say in what is being inspected, and how, and by whom, and that I think the best way to accomplish that is through a diverse, voluntary inspection program with labeling requirements."
I don't see why we couldn't have both.
Foods should have to meet basic safety standards (like not containing unsafe levels of heavy metals) before being sold. In addition, if independent agencies, consumers, and corporations want to do additional inspection and labeling, that would be great! I'm all for it.
"If you believe that is "incredibly naive" that's okay with me. I would say the same thing about trusting a single, central authority to create a one-size-fits-all set of best practices for a food system that feeds hundreds of millions of people."
The reason centralized regulation in the US doesn't work as well as it could is because the ideological "pro-business" stance of many US politicians and their constituents have allowed the regulators to get in bed with the industries they're supposed to be regulating. On top of that, anti-regulation ideologues have tried to hobble the regulators at every turn by depriving them of funding, eliminating regulations, and lowering safety standards. Finally, corporations have way too much say in what safety standards and regulations they have to meet -- so they usually lobby for the lowest levels possible. The mess we're in is a direct result of that, and not of centralized regulation being inherently unworkable.
Getting rid of centralized regulation entirely would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What centralized regulation needs is more funding, stricter safety standards, more consumer advocate involvement, and greater distance from the industries they're regulating. Banning corporate lobbying would also be a big help.
Also, I didn't make the claim that there is no role for government, only that inspections should be more diverse and voluntary. If government enforced a truth-in-advertising kind of regulation, where there are penalties for claiming false certifications beyond just reputation damage, I think that would be a much more beneficial arrangement.