http://www.truefood.org.au/newsandevents/?news=98

“US biotech companies are currently lobbying the Australian Government not to label GE products, asserting this would be an undue restriction on trade with the US.”

Regardless of one's position on GE products, of concern is interference and undue influence from foreign interests over self determination with regards to domestic legislation.

If consumers demand honesty in labelling including country of origin, food content and presence of GE ingredients those demands should be of greater value than the interests of any one nation regards free trade. It is laughable that some US companies are going down this route while within US borders generous subsidies in some agricultural sectors continue to make a mockery out of free trade.

The US is well known for its powerful lobbying of other governments to change environmental, health or cultural policies they see as barriers to trade including price controls for medicine under the PBS, Australian content laws and rules in the media and rules governing government purchasing. I remember when it was not a dirty word for governments to purchase products or services with a majority Australian content or ownership. Surely taxpayers money should be invested in assisting Australian companies rather than going offshore.

As outlined in this document: http://law.anu.edu.au/StaffUploads/236-TPPA.pdf

“The US government also wanted an investor-state dispute process, which would give US companies the right to sue Australian governments for damages if health or environmental laws harmed their investments.”

You can read in the second link about Philip Morris International and the claim filed against Uruguay in February 2010 challenging tobacco advertising restrictions introduced by health authorities.

These are not minor concerns but go to the heart of sovereignty issues and the democratic rights of citizens to determine the nature and rules of commerce and regulation within their borders.

It is about time we said trade by all means as long as you meet the standards set for any other business or Get Out - take it or leave it.

Pelican, the way I understand it, this really comes down to what we
have agreed with other countries over the years. One would need to
study the details of our free trade agreements with the USA and other
countries, also our agreements under WTO etc. We cannot make it up
as we go along, but do indeed have to comply with what we have agreed
to.

What I find interesting is this: If I decide that I need some
genetic variation, I am free to use potent dna altering substances
on a seed variety. The result is all sorts of interesting plants, due
to the dna distortion, for they might in fact have a mutant dna
alteration, which can be useful to my breeding plan. This is in
fact part of traditional plant breeding technology, used in the past
right here in Australia, to create genetic variation.

Clearly that does not bother you and will never appear on any label,
for it is not considered as GM technology. But if Monsanto want to
include the so called Roundup ready gene in a variety, which is a gene that
already occurs naturally in Australia from persistant use
of glyphosate over time, then you think that Australia should throw
a hissy fit, if its not on the label?

Yabby, your background and mine are similar regarding primary industry. A difference though is that you appear to be an Exporter of sheep or cattle. I plead with you to run and look after your cattle, selling to local markets, or get into the fine merino wool market or run cross breds. Keeping them long term is more humane to sheep and cattle than setting them up for torture on ships and at the receiving end kicked and further tortured [if still alive]. Put yourself in their hooves. Q:How can you sleep of a night Yabby? May your dreams be filled with bleating sheep and 'The Good Shepherd' in a ray of white light peering at you. The most %$$#@$ cruelest plight any animal could ever have bestowed upon them.

Setting aside your livelihood via torturing sheep and/or cattle, many of your points I find logical and factual regarding certain aspects of the economy and learn from these; with the exception of the corporation thread.

Do you not see that certain Australian politicians sold our country's interests and commodities out to both the USA and China, which resulted in the USA playing by their own rules, reneging on trade agreements regarding our lamb beef and other commodities, shortly after giving them the green light, and at the same time, we allowed USA imports, with one major difference: adhering and honouring our Trade Agreements with them [the USA]. We as Australians have more integrity in one little lamb, than the US would have in their W.H.

Where is your loyalty, fairness and more importantly, clear vision, to face and acknowledge the history and facts regarding our imbalance and rip-off in trade from the U.S with us

Pelican,

The WTO rules are very clear, labeling can be enforced when there are health issues involved, and as of yet, the GM food products are tested and shown to be nutritionally identical to non GM foods.

Enforcing the labeling would be a de facto trade barrier, which would invoke retaliatory action.

However, it is legal to label domestically grown foods as GM free, which imported GM food could not.

PS the issue with Phillip Morris and tobacco advertising is completely unrelated and a pathetic attempt to link GM with tobacco.

Pelican

>>> Regardless of one's position on GE products, of concern is interference and undue influence from foreign interests over self determination with regards to domestic legislation.<<<

>>> These are not minor concerns but go to the heart of sovereignty issues and the democratic rights of citizens to determine the nature and rules of commerce and regulation within their borders. <<<

I agree with you completely (quelle surprise). If GE products are as beneficial and safe as their proponents claim, there should be no issue with honest declaration on labels and the products will stand the test of time.

There is a lot of hot-air about consumers' rights to choose - if labels do not correctly identify a product's components, consumers are being mislead and, in fact, treated with contempt.

we are unique
You echo my thoughts.

Shadow Minister
Try to ascertain what I am on about. I am not trying to link GE products with tobacco only to produce another example of where local laws, expectations and rules are ignored under trade obligations. I also pointed out the PBS example. You are reading what you want to read rather than addressing the main concern. Linking GE with tobacco as a similar product (I think that was your issue) was not my intention at all.

This thread is not about the pros and cons of GE, we have been over that many times on OLO, but about labelling laws and notions around the consumers' rights to know. It does not only pertain to GE but other concerns hence the second link and the use of other examples.

Yabby
Understand what you are saying in regard to obligations and agreements, my position is don't enter into those agreements unless the products meet our standards and expectations not those of other nations where regulatory processes may be weak in regard to hygiene, consumer knowledge, use of chemicals, advertising and media issues etc.

For example, in Australia we do not allow cigartette advertising or sponsorship. Do you think we should waive these standards to appease the interests of trading partners.

Severin
Exactly. Regardless of one's views on GE, the fact remains many people do not want to purchase the product. On that basis consumers need to be able to make an informed choice.