Dear David
It is quite easy to make a montain out of an ant hill, but seriously, go back, take a look at your initial post and the contents of your complaint, and tell me this is not a petty matter.

Real maple syrup V immitation maple syrup!

How much did you pay, $2.50?

The costs of compliance in labeling is costing businesses millions every year and, while some things are important, others are simply there due to harrassment from people trying to make a big deal out of small issues.

Now while some info is important, much is the result of an over reaction to petty issues much like the one you have raised.

Wow, I recon most of the posters on OLO would agree with me when I say again, 'WHO CARES'!

Dear rehctub,

I am bewildered. You write, "WHO CARES?" and, "Good luck with your thread, but I'm out." Obviously, you care enough to stay. Welcome back to the thread. Forum and against 'um.

Bronwyn,

I don't wish to support Kevin 0 anything specifically (all parties and the current political system sucks big time).

However, as far as I was concern, with likes of the Liberal cabal that was, Kevin even if a fizzer, was/is a better choice. Albeit a choice between a government more concerned about 'face' and legacy that real foresight and a cardboard media created face (labeling). At least his choice of political instrument is spin rather than a plumb bob in the nation's septic tank (lowest denominator).
My biggest dream is that the public start assessing the parties by policy not personality. Do we want choice or another father?

Practically speaking the current focus loses the point of REPRESENTATIVE power and making one person's self administered bowl (aka gut feel)examination the primary means of decision making.

With all the pressure being on the PM is there any wonder he/she is cautious to the point of galloping inertia ridden, symptomatic of irritable bowl syndrome. Producing policies with the substance of flatulence.

Naughty corner?

Rehctub,
Who cares? What a bad attitude for a retail butcher! Customers care!
Weren't you the one who complained about the rorts in the butchery game?

David f

What you're talking about is the common practice of 'puffing a product'. Sadly it's allowed for commercial reasons.
To me more proof that we are giving commercial interests Too much latitude.
Take all these homeopathic cures (sic) most at best have elements of benefit but cures or absolute benefits, hardly.
They don't test rigorously 'it would be too expensive to be commercially viable'. In truth the proof doesn't match the claims but it's OK for the ignorant public to waste squillions for the benefit of the vendor? Where do we draw the line between good for people and a plain rip off, for profit?

The problem is that the general public has the attitude of "aww she'll be right"

If you complain you're a whinger or a trouble maker. Well as far as I'm concerned "she'll be right" is tantamount to death of fairness by a thousand cuts. The same goes for politics to not being prepared to aim higher in attitudes. "aw it's PC or Nanny state on crystal meths and out of control". But, look what happens when they are the recipients of unfair treatment. No more nanny state "why doesn't the government do something".

The complaint arises out of the alleged incorrect menu at the local Bowls Club for goodness sakes.

Doubtless the maker of the maple flavoured syrup did not mislead the consumer and most likely the farmer who grew the spuds labelled the bag correctly, but the cook at the Bowls club ought be forgiven for a little poetic licence trying to make the pensioners supper sound more posh and appetising. It is not the same as a five star restaurant selling you a bit of a fish raised in a fish farm in Asia and calling it NQ barra is it?

Maybe to be exact the Bowls Club should have added that all meals were heavily subsidised by the pokies and priced to give their age pensioner clients a feed on their night out.

Next there will be a complaint that the number one club dish for pensioners, the fish fingers and fries is false advertising because fish do not have digits and the fries are usually chips.

There is no justification at to dump on all Australian business,viz., "I wish Australians would stop the false and inadequate labelling."

Cornflower,

sure but the issue was (deceptive) labelling. (the heading)
He's not suing anyone just raising fair, theoretical point.

I'm curious to know how you'd react if you went into a pub asked for a Scotch on the rocks and received a Bourbon on the rocks ... Do you complain over a $3.00 drink After all they are both 'whiskey'? is near enough good enough for you to be a whinger?

To someone who is used to maple syrup to be given imitation maple same argument except the meal is more expensive.

Suppose the person is allergic to a chemical in imitation syrup?
Can you guarantee that there isn't one? Good luck finding out exactly whats in one. Maple syrup on the other hand is maple syrup.

The issue is 'false' advertising where do YOU draw the line .
A commercial operation is a commercial operation whether it is a car or a bloody sauce you have a right to expect what you were promised.

Just for interest I sued a restaurant because I explained to them that my mum was allergic to all pork. They served her a dish fried in the same fat as they fried pork. Within 10 minutes her throat swelled and a MICA ambulance had to revive her on the way to the hospital.

The point is near enough is not good enough. Unless you agree that eating out should be a life or death decision. Or you don't mind being misled, cheated. It costs nothing to be accurate.

As for your comment about 'subsidy', totally irrelevant