I was referring to posts like this -That's not how labs work. They report what the find. If they manipulated results, their creditably goes to 0 immediately. Many universities work HEAVILY with the agricultural sector and may well have been contracted by chemical companies to do research on the products being used. Does that same assumption that they are too biased to give honest results apply to them too? (I don't think that is the case...but given they are tied to the ag industry, if you doubt the results from private labs why not universities?)
Columbia Labs is not an "agriculture" lab, FWIW. They are one of a few labs able to test for pesticide residue and metabolites.
Any facility that accepts lots of money from the major pharmaceutical companies should be suspect.With chemical trespass that curls leaves the best outcome is the authorities will levy a fine on the applicator. Unless they are repeat offenders. I live in TN this is not CT the good old boys club is live and well. The county ag station guys are pro farm.
How would you know if the testing had been skewed in the farmers favor unless you take precautions? You'd need to use split samples and have independent testing of those samples done by more than one lab, which would be prohibitively expensive.
Also, this is why I suggested taking the problem outside of the agricultural sector to a lab where people don't care about the big pharma influence and a complete XRF analysis of the samples can be done without prejudice.