Besides, if the only authentic maple syrup comes from Thailand
Yes, I am sorry for that, I thought you mentioned it.

You seem to have an obsession with fund raising. I don't understand why it is ok to lie about a product if it is for fund raising.

Simple. Because fund raisers are for raising funds (usually for kids) and any dollars spent over and above come directly from the profits that would be made for the fund intended. You will not find to many supporters on your side when it comes to 'real maple syrup' V the cheaper version, when the additional costs comes from the funds raised mate!

KH
Agree David- but sadly I don't think morals will be enough to stop dodgy practices, and I believe that accurate labelling and clear mention of ratio of ingredients, trans-fats and the such SHOULD be mandatory- considering we already have general content and nutrition ratings already in practice.

So, please explain to me, that if labelling is so important in peoples decision making, why then has obesity increased in the past 10 years while labelling laws, pointing out what is in the products, have been strengthened?

Simple- most people don't excercise. And certainly there are lots of people don't care about the content.
I do care, and I deserve the right to know regardless.

It would be like voting (in another country), and saying "if voting is SO important, why do so many people not bother?"
It's a strawman.

But under this context, then there is even LESS to fear from more comprehensive labelling as there are enough consumers willing to eat it. So the hypothetical fundraisers who feel that the public don't consider their cause worthy enough if they honestly stated they were making non-authentic products can sleep easy.

Oh, and just to clarify- the only mention of Thailand was by myself- and was a purely fictional, hypothetical case of IF 'authentic' maple syrup coming from there and ALL domestic industries only manufacturing imitation stuff, I would happily buy it from them instead.
But as far as I'm aware Thailand does NOT actually make it.

And certainly there are lots of people don't care about the content.
I do care, and I deserve the right to know regardless.

We are getting off track now but yes I agree that you deserve to know if you require that info, but, why go to the expense of placing this info on every label. Why not simply have the info available at the consumers request if they so desire. It works well with sausages from the butcher.

Imagine the costs involved if we had to sample every batch of sausages made just so a nutritional pannel could be printed each time.

Again, copliance costs are huge in the food industry and much of the requirements are not neccesary as you say yourself, many people simply don't care!.

I seriously hoped you would not make such an absurd statement "If some people don't care, it shouldn't be necessary".
You know, some people ignore the warning signs on the road too- so let's not waste money installing them in the future, right?

And you ignore the fact that compliance costs are already implemented- are you saying that these will SKYROCKET if a few extra bits of information were added on top?

To compare aroad safety sign with the contens of a can of food is quite 'out there' I must say. And no, of cause I don't think road signs are not important.

What I am suggesting is that there is more to compliance costs than simply printing, or adding to, a label.

How do you think a nuti-panel is derived. By advanced testing that all costs money and ultimately adds to the cost of food.

Just remember, we are talking about 'real maple syrup' V fake. There is a huge difference between this issue and the incorrect labeling you keep bringing up.

No, it's the same issue- honest labelling of content. Whether its transfats, mostly using water instead of ingredients or maple-flavoured vs actual maple syrup, the consumer has a RIGHT to know.

The testers would simply add a more tests or write a few extra notes- hardly a big deal.

It's barely more of an inconvenience on an honest maker (or seller) compared to the testing and labelling they are already subject to- the only people that are heavily inconvenienced are those that couldn't sell an honest product.