Not at all. I'm simply disagreeing that the government is the most reliable institution to provide that sort of information. For example, Certified Humane has a special seal of approval that is meant to help consumers who eat things like eggs and meat make the choice to only buy from providers who treat the animals involved in a reasonably humane fashion. One could argue government could mandate this, but given the influence of agribusiness on politicians and bureaucrats, that solution is not realistic. Fortunately, we see that this private labelling system can do the same job to provide information to those who want it.
Now, you evidently disagree that non-profit groups are ideal for this, and if that's the case, well, we're each entitled to our own observations. But come on, does that really mean that either of us are doing mental gymnastics, making unreasonable justifications, moving goalposts, or violating core principles (routinely or otherwise)?