@bryan_johnson Totally agree with this take. But to actually fix the problem (not just throw another label on it), test-based certification needs 3 things: (1) Scalable testing: It must be cheap and easy enough for anyone to use (brands, regulators, even consumers). No labs, no PhDs. No $500 test per sample. Think COVID test simple. And testing once a year or even once a month isn’t enough. Every batch or statistically relevant per-animal test needs to be tested. And “batch” needs to be clearly defined and transparent. Anything less just opens the door to fraud (the world we live in today). (2) Real sensitivity: A lot of companies say they’re testing, but if you're only detecting things at 0.1 ppm, you are so far away from actually testing effectively. You need to get down to parts per billion or trillion, depending on the contaminant. (3) Full coverage: For example, “pesticide-free” or “antibiotic-free” is meaningless if you’re only testing for a handful of contaminants. There are over a hundred antibiotics used in animal ag. If you don’t test broadly, you're just certifying a narrow slice. And ultimately calling it clean/free is just misleading. To actually solve this problem, we need to test more often, test more deeply, and test the full range of what is used.