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.

Pelican

I subscribe to the Truefood newsletter also - in order to remain informed.

If any group is arguing against full disclosure about their product(s), consumers are wise to question whether the product is of a high standard and worth purchasing. Ironic that those who love to claim that consumers have the advantage via the "wallet" to determine a products success, have difficulty in supporting honest, open and informed labelling on items whether they be food or the source and farming method of a timber product.

As you say the issue is not so much about the quality, but whether or not the consumer is in a position to determine whether they believe a product is worth their hard-earned dollars.

Traders have nothing to fear from full disclosure unless they have something to hide.

Well put Severin. The 'wallet' or consumer-power argument becomes superfluous in debates about competition without the benefits and empowerment of full disclosure.

Pelican, labeling laws do indeed need to be practical in the end.
Given the fact that most corn, soy, canola today are gm and they
are commonly used as base ingredients in just about all processed
foods and ingredients of processed foods, it would be virtually
impossible for most manufacturers to guarantee that their foods
are free of any gm contamination.

So you as a consumer do have a choice. Some foods are starting to
be labelled as gm free, where a manufacturer and growers can see
niche markets for those products and provided you are prepared to
pay a premium, they will grow and produce them for you.

Free trade agreements come down to what was negotiated, there were
good reasons why Howard went to so much trouble to sign one with
the US. Australia is alredy locked out of many trading blocks
and the US guaranteed us at least one huge market for our exporters.

Unique, the US is our largest market for both beef and lamb. They
have played the trade game rather tamely, compared to the EU or
some Asian countries. Perhaps you are simply not aware of the
realities of the big bad world out there.

Completely off topic, no I don't export sheep or cattle, but I do
sell some lambs to exporters of various types. When I was
exporting directly and around the world, it was seafood.

Yabby
Doesn't that ring alarm bells, the fact we have had GM products foisted on us without honest labelling in light of lack of consensus on this issue (regardless of one's point of view)

It should in practice be easy to source GM and non-GM product just as it is easy to separate pink lady from fuji, or red delicious apples. The are all the same colour and can be kept separate.

Why not corn, canola or soy etc. The biotechs just don't want it, because it is not desirable for many consumers and they don't give a toss about consumer choice.

Pelican, I guess they will be kept separate, if somebody pays for
them to be kept seperate, as with apples. This very argument went
public, before the first farmers in WA started growing GM canola.

WA canola has so far been GM free, but when it came to who will pay
a premium for GM free canola, nobody put their hand up. Keeping
varieties separate costs significantly more, then it does with
apples.

Given the fact that hundreds of millions of tonnes of GM crops are
grown, hundreds of millions of consumers are eating them and
apparently not falling over poisoned, there is no scientific evidence
to suggest that they are dangerous.

But if enough consumers want GM free food, I am sure that somebody
will do it for a price, as we have with organic food

"Given the fact that hundreds of millions of tonnes of GM crops are
grown, hundreds of millions of consumers are eating them and
apparently not falling over poisoned, there is no scientific evidence
to suggest that they are dangerous."

You cannot possibly summise they are safe only on that basis when we have seen significant rise in immunological diseases and inexplicable increase in allergies. I don't know why this is occurring but more study is needed. I do know that one cannot always trust the biotechs with regard to transparency and integrity in marketing the product when profits are at risk.

"Who will be paying a premium for GM free canola". Who was paying for it prior to GM? Why are we being forced to eat GM products if we don't want to - I am happy for those who wish to buy it to buy it, just don't foist it on us who don't want it.

There is plenty of scientific evidence about the change in some proteins in some GM crops and other research if you care to have a wider look.

Despite our differences about GM, my only point here is competition is not served by failures in labelling and we should not be dictated to by trading partners on issues the citizenry deem important.

*Who was paying for it prior to GM? Why are we being forced to eat GM products if we don't want to*

Pelican, GM is now simply part of new farming technology. Just
like herbicides as invented, become part of new farming technology.
Just as fertilisers became part of new farming technology. We
don't list them all on labels.

You pay a premium for organics, you are free to pay a premium for
GM free.

Has it ever occured to you, that you are most likely eating
various genetic mutations, nearly every single day? For of course
mutations are part of nature. DNA is distorted in nature. It happens
in every kind of crop, GM or not.

When it comes to the huge list of industrial chemicals included in
processed foodstuffs, then there are indeed questions about health.

But what is also being shown is that devoted housewives have been
so busily cleaning spotlessly with every known chemical compound
imaginable, that their kids immune systems don't develop properly.
Unlike farm kids, who play and eat a bit of good old dirt :)

Dear Severin, Pelly,

I agree 100%!

"Traders have nothing to fear
from full disclosure unless
they have something to hide!"

cont'd ...

I question the motives of the
US biotech firms. The Australian
Government should not put the interests
of its citizens before the profits of
the American - multi-national corporations.

Free-trade indeed.

At whose expense?

Yabby

>>> Has it ever occured to you, that you are most likely eating
various genetic mutations, nearly every single day? For of course
mutations are part of nature. DNA is distorted in nature. It happens
in every kind of crop, GM or not. <<<

Yes, we know. We are not stupid.

The human race has been eating naturally occurring and deliberately bred produce for millenniums. What we haven't been eating is food altered at a molecular level. Just as we like to know whether food has been produced free of antibiotics, artificial fertilisers and the like, we, as consumers have right to information regarding how, where, when and even why something has been produced. I really don't get why you have a problem with people wanting information.

If you are buying a car, don't you find out as much as you can about it?

Man, you must have a major share portfolio full of dubious companies to protest so much against basic rights for the individual person.

Food that does not contain any GM product is rapidly becoming a niche market.

Forcing food items from other parts of the world to label their products for a tiny Australian market is essentially causing to incur huge costs for very little return.

Organic food growers could then ask for non organic food to be labelled, thus pushing the cost of niche market onto the 99% of food otherwise produced.

If people really want non GM product, then there is a niche market willing to pay for this.

The label "Containing no GM product" would then be a selling point.

However, the anti GM activists know that this is not so, and are attempting to make the cost of GM products uncompetitive.

The law is simple, forcing the labeling will automatically incur a trade tariff on all our food exports which will vastly out weigh the minuscule benefits to the minority that want the labeling.

SM
How can it make the product uncompetitive. This is just not true given all the other conditions now placed on companies to make accurate claims about country of origin and ingredient content (over a certain %).

Why is GM labelling any different?

The organic argument cannot be used in the same way because mass produced food has always been non-organic for the most part, we are not asking a large contingent of consumers to change their habits and expectations.

I agree that those companies labelling as GM free will benefit in the market but what is the difficulty in an OS company simply adding to an already busy label whether there is GM content. It can easily be included in the ingredients panel.

*Just as we like to know whether food has been produced free of antibiotics, artificial fertilisers and the like, we, as consumers have right to information regarding how, where, when and even why something has been produced. I really don't get why you have a problem with people wanting information.*

Severin, there is a limited amount of space on those containers.
We don't list what fertilisers were used, we don't list what
herbicides were used. As I'm pointing out to you, few manufacturers
today can give your your GM free guarantee, because globally
traded commodities used in manufacture, could easily contain
GM. So you might as well label the lot as GM, just in case,
which makes little sense.

The dna that codes for glyphosate resistance occurs naturally.
We already have 86 cases of natural ryegrass resitance, all created
by mother nature. All that GM does is move that gene from one
species to another.

Nope, I have no shares in those companies, but I do have common
sense.

On the surface, I would agree pelican, severin and foxy.

Consumers should have a right to information if they want it. However, information generally does not come free of cost. To ensure accuracy on a 'quality assurance' basis requires quite complex segration and certification type policies to be enacted by not just food processing companies but bulk handling companies, merchants and farmers. The grains industries, which handle products and seed such as soy and corn and canola, operate under quite tight profit margins and storages are expensive and difficult to maintain. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find recently built storages (ie < 15-20yrs old) that aren't in a port. I have been told by people in the industry that they believe that segragting GM product is possible, but expensive and that they would be willing to do this if it was required and the expensive could be recovered. Which what it really boils down to: recoverable expenses.

To date, a labelling of GM free or organic has worked fine, the consumers who buy these products pay a premium for this certification and assurance and this works fine for that small market.

But you want consumers to have the same level of information on all products, but to date, noone seems to have indicated that they want to pay for it, they just want to legislate for it and squeeze the profit margins of just about everyone in the supply chain. I am fairly sure that this is what the American companies are on about.

Well, I can make a prediction right now: if labelling legislation passes, everyone will be paying much more for food.

So, as long as you make it very clear what people will be paying for, and they will be paying for it one way or another, then I say go for it.

Pelican,

For processed food as long as the recipe for a product remains the same, the ingredient listing as to salt, fat, energy, etc content will remain the same from year to year.

For GM components, the GM content will vary from supplier to supplier, this would thus require a detailed compliance documentation procedure, buying procedures, and may require regular updating of the printing on the cans etc to change. The cost difference between the two systems is vast.

So to protect the consumer's pocket, where do you enforce labeling? On the 95% of products which may or may not contain GM, or on the 5% that are specifically non GM and already track it?

The US market is not going to relabel all their products for the tiny consumption of Aus, and enforcing it here would result in a US embargo or heavy levy on food products (which under WTO regulations they would be entitled to), which would hurt Aus far more.

"The law is simple, forcing the labeling will automatically incur a trade tariff on all our food exports which will vastly out weigh the minuscule benefits to the minority that want the labeling."
So let's get this straight
-Even though a 'minority' of people are concerned about GM food, the labelling will somehow hurt the companies if most people don't care?
-That the supposed unfair disadvantage is because one company is honest and makes products people actually want while the other is forced to admit it's making something people don't want but passing it off as something else? Tough for them.
-That America (the country) would 'punish' us for applying the same labelling on our own products to imports (ignoring that all NON-GM producers would not incur a label)? Like what? Applying the same GM/non-GM standards on us and themselves? Fine- I'm sure the American consumer will be thankful.
-A 'premium'?!?! Not if we label the GM foods themselves as such- even less so if hardly anyone buys it.

Sorry, this is a capitalist society and consumer information MUST be a right- or better yet, put it to refererendum.
(in short, agree with Pelican, Severin and Foxy)

King Hazza,

The question is why the 95% of the population should have to pay the cost of the onerous bureaucracy required for GM labeling when the 5% could simply buy "organic" food, or buy food that is labeled "non GM"

This is given that GM food has been shown to be as safe as non GM food.

Would you have our food with a Organic content label, or Kosher content label, or rain forest friendly coefficient label, and double the grocery bill of Joe public, because a few activists feel it is a good idea?

I think if you were to do a referendum on who would be prepared to add 5% to their food bill for GM labeling, you might get a surprise.

SM

As Pelican stated this is not a forum about the hazards or safety of GM food.

It is about honesty.

Remember that word?

Don't you prefer making an informed decision? So do the rest of us. It doesn't matter if GM is produced by a tribe of angels. The consumer is not being treated with anything approaching respect when not fully informed about a product.

As for your ranting about $ cost - so much obfuscation

Severin, it all comes down to what sort of labeling requirement should there be?

If you don't think there will be a dollar cost, then the only requirement should be to label organic produce and GM free that have quality assurance auditing in place as such and every other product that contains soy, corn or canola as "may contain ingredients derived from GM crops".

It won't be really informative, but it will at least be honest eh?

Would this sort of labeling be acceptable though?

Severin,

Your whole argument on honesty is more of an obfuscation.

Do you want an entire run down on all the ingredients, preparation methods etc. By your reckoning, anything that is left out is dishonest. The requirements for labeling include everything that has an identified health impact. To include everyones preferences would require a user manual for a dozen muffins.

Labeling food that is GM free means that everything else may contain some GM components. This is not too much for the consumer to understand.

Get out of the WTO. It is nothing but an undemocratic, elitist, collection of multinational companies intent on undermining the sovereignty of governments, and their voters, in a vicious campaign of litigation and one sided negotiations. GM is the least of what these scum would foist on us if we let them.

Exactly so mikk. This is not just about GE.

The Government looks like it will be letting in Chinese apples despite the quarantine risks, use of toxic chemicals on arrival and new concerns about Chinese fruit fly.

SM
GE is new, it has been foisted on the public whether we want it or not. It should be easy enough to separate the GE corn from the non-GE corn via different suppliers, afterall those companies who wish to source the non-GE product have to go to a supplier that deals in non-GE crops. eg. such as those in the TrueFoods Guide:

http://www.truefood.org.au/documents/TFG2010-fullguide.pdf

If a company doesn't give a toss whether they use GE or not and get a variable supply then YES, definitely labelling such as "this product may contain some GE ingredients" should be added to the label. It is a one time change to labelling.

Those who wish to avoid GE can then make an informed choice about whether they wish to support those companies that refuse to use GE in their products.

What could be simpler.

GE aside for the moment - none of the anti-GE labelling crew have responded to the cigarette advertising scenario - a pressure being experienced by other nations wishing to trade with the US as in the first post.

Yes, pelican, it is all about market access. It has nothing to do with anything else really. The line in the original link you provided says what it is about:

"The US biotech industry group's submission on TPPFTA calls for no GE labelling that could restrict trade of biotech products with the US."

You will notice the "that could restrict trade" bit. If 'one time' change to the label does not provide any restriction to trade, then that qualifies doesn't it? If however there are draconian reporting laws that require the exact amount of GE content in any given product, then that would certainly become a trade barrier. Trade is a very delicate business sometimes, and going in with the attitude "meet the standards set for any other business or Get Out - take it or leave it", is an arrogant attitude that assumes that we are more necessary to their producers than they are to ours. It would also ensure that you would not be the Trade minister, at least not for very long.

I cannot comment on Uruguayan tobacco laws, as I don't much about that and am unsure as to it's relevance to Australia.

Yeah, I just took proper read of your second link pelican. I would support the submission by AFTINET, as it certainly appears reasonable.

We don't need an investor-state dispute process. Agreeing to one does certainly sound like making a rod for your own back.

Are there any submissions as to what (if any) potential benefits might be for this investor-state dispute process?

Bugsy
The Uruguayan example was just to highlight the potential impacts of some trade agreements on domestic policy and rights of the citizenry who elect their representatives. Australians do not elect US politicians, we put our trust in those we elect to government to do what is in the best interests of Australia. Sometimes this may involve compromise granted.

There is win-win, lose-win, win-lose in many trade agreements and it is a bit swings and roundabouts, but some issues (like cost of medicines and advertising standards) should not be held to ransom by trade deals and we should certainly not be opening legal gaps for OS corporate interests to dictate domestic policy IMO.

We would be heading down a slippery slope with an investor-state dispute process and opening up opportunities for legal claims against the national interest.

It might sound arrogant but personally I think this is a dangerous possibility and one that comes up in every negotation about trade agreements. Happier to leave it to the state-state dispute process to sort it out at the diplomatic/political level than the private sector.

The following might shed some light on the rights of investors in cases where nationalisation may impact some investors.

http://www.minterellison.com/public/connect/Internet/Home/Legal+Insights/Newsletters/Previous+Newsletters/A-D-Investor-state+dispute

From my view, these matters would still be best resolved in state-state discussions if they can be resolved at all. Many countries where industry sectors have been nationalised would ignore any legal challenge at best and at worst could potentially create international tensions.

Free trade agreements often include clauses like:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/usafta/report/chapter4.pdf

"Governments are free to enact laws, regulations or policies they consider are necessary, for example:

- protect public morals or maintain public order

- protect human, animal or plant life or health

- protect national treasures of artistic, historical or archaeological value

-conserve exhaustible national treasures."

(This is an example from a 2004 APH TA document)

I think such clauses are the sovereign right of any nation in trade agreements, and should never be slackened for some misplaced FT ideology.

Amazingly enough I agree pelican. It is not arrogant to simply say "no, I don't think so", to clauses that restrict what we can domestically legislate.

It is arrogant to walk in with the attitude "meet our standards or Get Out - take it or leave it."

Of course, since labeling clauses were a part of the submission, and certainly not the most important part, I think we got a bit sidetracked from the actual issue. You should have led with the second link and properly discussed that and not bothered with the first.

Well Bugsy we at least have come to a level of agreement despite my choice of language. (I do get a bit passionate at times) :)

The GE issue is important in context of the sovereignty issue but I understand others are less enamoured with criticism of GE as a debate in itself. As I see it the anti-GE group has already lost the battle sadly as far as Australian agriculture is concerned and I do advocate consumer choice aided by honest labelling.

The main point is as you rightly point out, not confined to GE, but the potential impact of state-investor dispute processes.

And to answer everyone's question, YES, I would like a comprehensive list of ingredients, thankyou very much, I have found it very helpful as my household have very particular dieting requirements (and no, they aint 'lifestyle' requirements).

Anyway, Bugsy, it is NOT "arrogant to walk in with the attitude "meet our standards or Get Out - take it or leave it." when negotiating a binding transnational contract.
It's basic common sense.
Only the very lamest of businessmen need to compromise their interests just for the sake of "getting a contract at all"- which really answers the question of why politicians are NOT businessmen to begin with.

To think- we're debating this issue when most of the US and most of Western Europe have probably already held these standards already.

Rubbish Shadow- we ALREADY incur the costs of product info labelling and the difference was trivial. Explain how the costs of adding a single extra tag to join the rest of the information is going to cause the price to spiral out of control?

Thanks KH for asking my question to SM. If changing labels was so expensive the appearance of graphics on products would remain as they have been for decades. Such a facile attempt at argument.

And kudos to Pelican for her extensive research into the topic. Comprehensive information regarding anything a person buys, whether it is for eating or other use, is a matter of common sense. Not arrogance. Arrogance is corporations foisting products onto an misinformed public.

There is a valid argument to be made for the right to information that effects our health, well being and environment. As KH pointed out people do not all have identical dietary requirements. Free trade ain't free if it is subject to censorship.

http://www.cancer.org.au/policy/Publications/Food_Labelling_report.htm

*Arrogance is corporations foisting products onto an misinformed public.*

Severin, corporations are hardly misleading consumers about GM.
The information is freely and openly discussed, no secrets.
Fact is with hundreds of millions of people eating roundup
ready crops for 20 years or so now and no deaths that we
know of, the majority are simply not throwing your kind
of hissy fit about this.

IIRC around 90% of the US corn crop is GM. So is 70%
of the soy crop. So is most of the Canadian canola crop.
In one way or another, these base ingredients are in most
processed foods.

But let me explain to you the practical problems of your
request. My neighbour is this year growing GM canola for
the first time. Seeds invariably move across fencelines,
so at some point some of his canola seeds will be in
my wheat crop and will be harvested, delivered as part of
my wheat delivery. The guy who uses my wheat to make
bread, would have to test every load of wheat, even if
its non GM, to ensure that his label is accurate. If
traces of GM were found, he would have to have his
labels reprinted to comply. All these costs are huge
and make no sense, because frankly most of the population
simply don't care. They prefer cheaper food.

Most of the small % of people complaining about GM are
organics shoppers anyhow. Given that you are not being
mislead and openly told that GM is right through the
food supply chain, the onus is on you to find products
that comply with your wishes, at your cost

No problem Severin, I'm amazed that so many people are so vigorously trying to make a case against it- out of even the flimsiest scenarios which are ALREADY in place and didn't impact a thing.
(where the passion comes from I really don't understand- I don't believe they're all in lobbyist positions, they can't all seriously believe half the stuff they write, maybe they fear some kind of hippy greeny social movement getting a foothold from this?)

Yabby, if there is no misleading and no secrets, then these companies would have no qualms about complying with labels and categorizing standards of the countries they export to (Same way we might comply with countries that want halal meat), instead of trying to resist such proposals through the FTA.

It's sad because this is otherwise a very good thread, especially with Pelican going to the trouble of doing the homework and putting the implications into discussion.

You can calm down there Hazza, pelicans main point on state-investor dispute processes has already been agreed to (at least by me). I agree that we should be free to make whatever legislation we as a nation want without foreign corporations restricting those processes through legal mechanisms.

The food labeling we have, as you have already pointed out, is adequate and already in place. No problem there. I don't see a need for it to be removed. What I may have misconstrued here is that I perceived (perhaps wrongly?) an expression of the need for MORE labeling, or a labeling requirement that would effectively constitute an unnecessary trade barrier.

King Hazza, Severin, et al,

I am familiar with several certificate systems including ISO 9000. While tracking GM inputs is theoretically easy, due to commodification of food and wheat where purchased product from all sources is mixed in transport etc, the tracking of GM food would require separate shipping, special documentation, auditing, all from the producer, buyer, wholesaler, retailer etc.

When you buy a loaf of bread, do you know where the wheat came from? NSW, Victoria, France? as long as it is health checked, you don't care.

If there is a requirement for GM labeling (assuming you want to be reasonably certain the information is correct) you need to be able to track the pedigree of every component.

To determine the approximate fat/protein/salt contents of meat etc, all you need to know is that it is Grade A rump.

If the next batch of flour you get comes from somewhere slightly different, the pedigree changes, and so do your labeling requirements.

The anti GM has no idea of what it is asking and is quite happy to inflict the cost of this on everyone else.

The end result is that for the small portion of people willing to pay for non GM food, there will be suppliers who can label their food GM Free. For those of us who don't care, I don't intend to pay for your idiosyncrasies.

SM and others
I have no real issues with GM per se.
However, the argument that "it's health tested" ergo it's fine, is only valid if the approval(testing) process is credible and uncorrupted.

Sadly there are far too many instances of external/internal, influences/abuses and general perversion of the system to engender the above required confidence.

- one must take into account specifically what is meant by GM. Inter species is one thing but one needs to be cautious of food that has non cross species additions.
- We should be very wary of blanket exclusions on liabilities and special rights.

I find it unacceptable that a product like seeds should come with an enforceable obligation to use a specific branded product.

Likewise, I find suicide genes and saving seed for next years sewing in some circumstances unacceptable.

I don't accept that the above "gatekeeping" contract have anything to do with development cost recuperation but an anti competitive marketing tactic. As is the need for vertical marketing.

I would also raise the issue of sovereign food security and national interests.
I am opposed to our food security being dominated/controlled by.
- (amoral)gatekeepers corporations.(Described above).
- a foreign governments that don't offer the same access to all their markets.

Both of these have interests that conflict with ours.
I am a firm believer that each country must remain/strive for self sufficient in all the basics.
It makes no sense for Australia to be simply a source of raw material and all other aspects dependent on other countries/corporations.

In essence a Corporation makes a product (i.e. GM seed) but can manipulate it's dominance in the market place thus reducing competition and independence and choice.

I argue that relying on amoral entities to behave in moral ways is naive its extreme....alliances are never permanent and are subject to rapid demise in the face of either parties better interests

Shadow, again no. Wrong.

Funnily enough, all the things you described are too, already into place to a considerable extent. Monitoring receipts for purchases (of GM seeds), tracking origin of produce and adding to labeling, also on the shipment forms and connecting these to "Purchases GM" status, methods of separation of different seeds and organic products to stop cross-contamination, and occasionally getting samples checked in a lab by inspectors is not new.

These have been standard practices for decades and nobody seems to have a problem with it- even when new labeling was applied on top- all such measures would simply be applied to GM with the addition of a GM sticker- a terrifying change.

It's more like you're trying to pretend it is radically new than sincerely not knowing it's not, and you're trying to spin the issue for all its worth.

And please, stop trying to make a case out of 'the cost'- it's rubbish, and you know it. The accumulated evidence of every single system you're pretending to be dreading being in existence already for ages speaks for itself.

King Hazza,

An initial study by the government indicated that the cost of implementing labeling for GM products in Aus/NZ would be in the order of $3bn.

A subsequent study has shown it to be lower than this, but still more than $1bn. This is by no means chicken feed. This is all for a minority who want some information that is irrelevant to their health.

http://www.acci.asn.au/text_files/issues_papers/Genetically_Modified_Foods/GMF02.pdf

Please try to be informed before you babble.

Examinator, GM is by far the most stringently tested food on the planet. In spite of trillions of servings, not one credible case of harm has been recorded to any individual.

All food we eat has been genetically modified from its original form. What we call GM food has simply followed a different path.

Yes Shadow, "informed"- that article you posted (not the most neutral on the issue)) contained the same 'arguments' of expenses that you clearly cut-and-pasted your own from in your last post- that one I pointed out (and to an extent so did the article) required mechanisms already in place to address.

Nice try though.

King Hazza,

That was probably one of the most feeble replies I have ever seen. The article was from the Australian chamber of commerce, but the study it was commenting on was commissioned by the government intent on implementing the labeling.

I challenge you to provide any proof, link, etc that you have that this is a cheap and simple process to implement. So far you have provided Zip.

Otherwise I can only conclude that your sole weapon of debate is to nay say everything, which requires the IQ of a hamster.

Please prove me wrong.

SM,

you (deliberately?)misinterpreted my point. I said that the testing procedure is far from being beyond extraordinary corruptions.
One also needs to be careful in that the food industry often provides LEGAL (as opposed to moral) justification for Big Chem, Big Pharma.
Pelican's reference to Big tobacco is clear evidence of how corporations develop an attitude of amoral indifference to individuals.
They are well known for techniques of deliberately muddying (popular opinion)water and (ab)using dubious lobbing/marketing techniques to allow them to continue making profit. All this regardless of what they know or the consequences.

Likewise as I have said innumerable times 'self serving, amoral, gatekeepers on the essentials of life is unacceptable. The gatekeepers should in a democracy be the elected government. At least they can be (changed) with in 3 years. Corporate wise it takes 10 Plus i.e. Hardie industries et al.

Because we are such an internationally small market we have
limited power to force control. US multinational will simply enlist the US to bully us.

SM it is simply applying the "reduction to the ridiculous" (divide and conquer ) strategy to simply dismiss the other issues and argue only on one spun aspect. To do this devalues you argument to Political spin.

Out side a very high powered interference ridden system GM foods needs to be controlled so they don't adversely effect the people ...and I also mean their practices and there effects on a 'level' (joke) playing field.

Examinator,

I went down this line in an earlier thread. The testing labs are independent, and certified. The lapses in testing that the greens fervently point to are minuscule gaps in information not published as they were not required for certification.

If you would put your money where you mouth was and provide any proof of this you might have a leg to stand on.

As I said there have been trillions of servings of GM food and no instances of ill health resulting. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

What do you mean "what evidence" shadow?
I gave it to you THREE TIMES.
It's the CURRENT PRICE we pay for foodstuffs
You listed all the "reasons" why adding a GM label would be more expensive- I described in detail the existing applications of ALL of these things, as we already apply the quarantining, invoice tracking, content/quality-analyzing and labelling to them.

Now freely try to prove that those things do NOT exist, and describe to me why GM is so different.

I can read a title thankyou very much- I also can't help but notice that the majority of the report was promoting GM and trying to portray people who only want LABELING as some kind of irrational NGO.

IQ of a hamster indeed- and integrity of Malcolm King to match by your poor attempts to obscure the basic points others have been making.
The point is labeling a product accurately of anything PAYING consumers may be concerned about, regardless of reason is a basic right- and your petty attempts to make it sound like an apocalyptic recession-causing policy is getting sillier.

All you have to do for me to apologize, is provide more concise data to contradict what I stated above next post- if not, I'll rest my case.

King Hazza,

Again you have failed to provide any thing other than your own opinion. I once again challenge you to provide any credible link.

The fact that the cost of labeling is already included, does not mean that additional information is free.

The issue with labeling is not just changing the type face, but verifying that the information is correct and the values do not change from day to day.

For normal food labeling, simply following a standard recipe and quality control is sufficient. For GM content, the pedigree of every single component from every supplier needs to be tracked and recorded.

One is simple and requires minimal paper work, the other is not. At what point

In spite of clear evidence that it would cost billions you continue your hamster like nay saying.

In the interests of moving this love fest along a bit, what GM labeling would people be seeking over and above the current standard (if any)?

Recommended reading:
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Standard_1_5_2_GM_v116.pdf

Sorry Shadow, you missed your opportunity. I'll stick around once more to see your answer to WHAT "clear evidence"?

You have so far only provided me in any way indicating "that it would cost billions you continue your hamster like nay saying" is to simply SAY it would cost billions, with a source that simply SAYS it costs billions- and neither elaborate HOW the protocols that supposedly bump up the cost differentiate from those already in place to warrant the 'billions'.

And how exactly is the current food price despite existing protocols in place 'not evidence, but my opinion'?
No, do tell. Am I lying that the food as of present isn't costing us "billions" too much? or that the protocols I listed don't actually exist?

Last chance- provide me a source or personal explanation as to HOW the current protocols are "billions" of dollars short of applying a "GM" sticker on GM foods? Or for that matter, that consumers are not allowed to accept the existing standards onto GM labeling but a special Shadow Minister model as the only option?

Bugsy- actually those specifications are quite satisfactory to me personally.
The inclusion of Genetically-modified as part of the label is fine, as would be further information of what type of alteration/additive to be included on the back of the packet, and any potential allergens whose genetic information was incorporated into the product.
Which it seems to do.

So, Hazza, you aren't actually arguing for any changes to current policy?

Fine by me. I have not heard any submissions that current labeling policy constitutes a trade barrier.

Anyone else arguing for changes to current labeling policy?

Pretty much Bugsy, based on the criteria it laid out, the propositions of labelling it laid out (and further details it seems to imply) it's quite a good model of what I want.

King Hazza,

Yet again you were incapable of providing any evidence that the costs of GM labeling are insignificant.

If you don't like a business council link try

www.foodstandards.gov.au

There are several articles, I will let you browse, but I warn you that they use big words.

The first estimate from KPMG was $A3bn for the first year cost of tracking and labelling GM food.

Later estimates on a far reduced scope were still greater than $300m p.a. based on a simpler occasional final testing scenario. With undetermined set up costs. This requirement is so weak and easy to avoid, that as I know there are no foods with GM labels.

The government does not have the stomach to implement the more stringent and expensive ($3bn) protocols.

You have also completely failed to answer my question of:

If it is cheaper and simply to label foods GM free, and it achieves the same end, why can this path not be followed?

The Australian Cancer foundation is funded by primarily public donations. They managed to achieve the inclusion of a red tick on the graphics of food products.

SM continues to make claims for which s/he has provided no evidence (billions of $?) all in support of current measures which keep the public ignorant of the products they buy.

Next SM will claim that s/he is balanced and rational.

After some thought, the penny finally drops. Please forgive, the point that SM is making is that money is more important than an informed public.

OK I may take a while, but I get there eventually.

:P

Severin,

What more do you want? I have shown the mechanism that determines the pricing, and I have provided links to sites that refer to the same pricing mechanism and the KPMG study that determined the cost.

Do you need certified copies of the study? The directors of KPMG to explain it to you? (PS KPMG is a major accounting and auditing company who also specialize in such scenarios). Maybe the food standards authority and KPMG are unbalanced too, and you are the only sane one?

But Severin, perhaps you could provide some information to the contrary, as you seem awfully cocky, but as I remember, you never back up your convictions with even an ounce of evidence.

I bet you are totally incapable of doing so, and also rely on the simplistic nay saying that requires no grey matter.

Please prove me wrong.

Oh Shadow I was hoping you'd walk into this one- especially since Bugsy's source was provided:

Funny thing about the link you gave, because when i followed it to the main page and typed in "GM Label", I got a link saying "Part 3- labelling of GM products"- one of the first sentences written was:

"This is a mandatory requirement under Standard 1.5.2 Food Produced using Gene Technology for GM foods to be labelled. These requirements came into effect in Australia and New Zealand in December 2001 and are intended to provide information to consumers to facilitate choice, assisting consumers to purchase or avoid GM foods depending on their own views and beliefs."

The best part is it's the same source Bugsy showed us the precise labelling requirements imposed, to which I said was satisfactory- which means "my" system has in fact been in practice for a long time.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong but it's now 2010- over 8 years since the labelling had already been introduced, and the cost of this system has been, and is being paid right now.

I think Severin, that we've given Shadow more than enough attention to have made his case (and I think this is perfectly satisfying evidence of minimal economic hardship- even when the recession came and went elsewhere more substantially than here).

Anyway, sorry Bugs for the OT, to further your own question, what do you and Severin make of the standards you provided?
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Standard_1_5_2_GM_v116.pdf

As I mentioned earlier Hazza, I am fine with the labeling requirements as they stand. They came in to force in 2001, and the US-Aus Free Trade Agreement mentioned in pelicans original post came in to force in 2005.

However, I would not be in favour of any further labeling requirements that would effectively present a trade barrier or require costly reporting mechanisms and auditing procedures to be in place.

However, to relate this to the original post, I agree with pelicans point in that I think that an investor-state dispute resolution process is unnecessary to add to the FTA at this present time, unless someone can show clear benefits for our citizenry.

That is, the decision to be made as to whether further labeling is required or not should be made by our elected representives, regardless of whether I agree on the outcome, not by corporations or overseas investors looking to protect their capital.

As this is the current status quo, I would not be advocating any change in policy.

SM,
What you have shown is SOME of the pricing mechanisms.
I do love the way how you always leave out the not so friendly side of the equation.

i.e. the way it really works.

Thanks for all the comments. My main concern was the potential risks in regard to any change to a investor-state dispute process - labelling being one of them.

GE labelling is just one area and a personal bugbear of mine which is why I used it in the opening, but of course the impacts of such a process comes up from time to time in trade negotiations and the implications much are much broader than just labelling.

If the provenance of an ingredient cannot be guaranteed as regards GE, it would be pertinent to label a product "may contain genetically modified ingredients" which is a similar caveat to "made from local and imported ingredients", The consumer gets to make a choice.

Certainly, as raised above, producers who are dedicated to GE free can label as such in any case, and consumers can refer to the True Food Guide should they wish. However, many people are concerned about GE for a number of reasons including overuse of pesticide with resistant strains, patent rights as well as inconclusive scientific research, which is disputed even among scientists.

http://www.ethicurean.com/2009/06/03/lotter-gmopaper/

However, I did not want this to turn into a GMO argument only to use it as an example in terms of labelling and risks of undue interference in trade negotiations. Regardless of one's own view about GE crops, the fact remains the issue is not put to bed, and consumers should be able to make an informed choice and certainly not be dictated to by OS interests.

Agree Bugsy and Pelican.
You've summed up my concerns quite nicely.

King Hazza,

You obviously didn't bother to read my previous posts or even the links.

"Later estimates on a far reduced scope were still greater than $300m p.a. based on a simpler occasional final testing scenario. With undetermined set up costs. This requirement is so weak and easy to avoid, that as I know there are no foods with GM labels. The government does not have the stomach to implement the more stringent and expensive ($3bn) protocols"

Which is what exists presently in Aus, and which the greens are attempting to get changed to the more expensive European protocols.

The thread is about food imported from the US, which is not labeled, and an imposition of the labeling requirement would invite retaliation as it did in Europe.

Forget it Shadow. You tried to insist a system that is already in existence was 'going' to cost us 'billions' due to the need to implement measures that you could not explain otherwise, had also been long in existence, until we wasted the time repeatedly pointing this out, then you pretend it's a different system we were talking about all along as opposed to "A labeling system" in general- but this one "doesn't work" (explain in specific terms what gaps there are) and the one "we" were talking about is currently being used in Europe- to which the 'billions' should already been paid, again.

I've actually read through a few crops in the crtiical report “The Global GM Market: Implications for the European Food Chain. An analysis of labelling requirements, market dynamics and cost implications”", and the consequences of GM Labelling are largely conventional marketing trends and transfer of business connections between suppliers depending on local demand (in other words, what always happens when new trading laws come into place)- nothing SM billiony at all.

But anyway, show me the "not working at all" of our system, or the "billions" already incurred by Europe.

>> If the provenance of an ingredient cannot be guaranteed as regards GE, it would be pertinent to label a product "may contain genetically modified ingredients" which is a similar caveat to "made from local and imported ingredients", The consumer gets to make a choice. >>

Exactly, Pelican.

I started reading KH's pdf and came to the same conclusion. GM ingredients are very pervasive and the best that can be done on labelling is something akin to "may contain traces of peanuts."

SM

I have demonstrated that:

The Cancer Council successfully implemented changes to food labelling, and the food industry did not self destruct.

As ingredients change so does labelling for such as food colourants, MSG and the like, I haven't heard of factories closing due to labelling updates.

Also labels simply change as a part of advertising and promotion. Again the food industry has not imploded.

Finally, I think it is a bit rich of you to claim what the theme of this thread is given it was authored by Pelican who was using imports from the USA AS AN EXAMPLE for the topic of informative labelling in general.

Pelican you are welcome to correct me if I am wrong.

I suffer allergies to pollens and insects bites, fortunately not to food, however having experienced the occasional anaphylaxis reaction, I can well understand people concerned for their own lives and the lives of their children with regard to food allergies. They must find the thought that such a common allergen as peanuts can now turn up as a DNA molecule in anything from processed to fresh food as a result of GM.

I guess SM is of the mind that if you don't know about it, it can't hurt you.

PS

If Shadow Minister wishes to start a thread on the pros and cons of GM, s/he is welcome to do so.

My point in the my last post was that labelling ingredients does occur quite successfully (disagree with Bugsy that it is sufficient) and there is no reason for GM not to be included

Severin, why is the current labeling standard not sufficient?

Also, I have to correct you with your comment "They must find the thought that such a common allergen as peanuts can now turn up as a DNA molecule in anything from processed to fresh food as a result of GM."

DNA is NOT an allergen, even peanut DNA. The allergen in peanuts is caused by proetins found within them and they are not inserted as traits into GM products. I mean honestly, why? As far as I know, no trait or gene found in peanuts is used in GM products at all. In fact, the protein products of the single genes that are inserted into GM crops are not known to be allergenic at all, and yes they have been tested. This is merely scare.

King Hazza,

I am sorry if you struggle to follow the logic and the links use words that are too big. I have provided links to estimates for Australia for two different testing regimes, the simplistic version of which is used in Australia, and the more complicated in Europe.

The fact that this cost is already included in the price we pay for food, does not mean that it is negligible. The tax on petrol is also successful but adds about 50% to the pump price.

Even the most expensive regime could be implemented "successfully" the cost is simply passed to the consumer.

The entire objective of labeling GM food is not to inform the consumers, but to put a cost barrier in place.

Food for thought. Canola oil does not contain any genetic material, and thus the GM product would not be testable under the current regime. Similarly there is no way of testing which livestock have been fed GM.

Severin- really? What particulars would you improve? ("may contain" being an obvious good one aside).

Bugsy- an interesting point about the peanut proteins. That being the case, what kind of labelling would be appropriate? (saying that it may contain peanuts might unnecessarily throw off customers if has been proven that the allergenic part is not added- though the customers still aught have right to know- although a possible answer might be to analyze dairy product information (different forms of milks and milk treatments/milk-based products like cream, cheese, yoghurt may trigger allergenic reactions or not in different people despite being based on the same thing).

Shadow, the reason nobody cares about your 'source' anymore is that they are outlandish GUESSES based on false pretenses of implementing infrastructure that already exists in a practice that also already exists- that if remotely true, would have already happened by now- as both ourselves and the EU have already implemented the systems.
In short, any hypothesis beyond the consequences of my report have been proved WRONG not only by my own, as well as Severin and Bugsy's sources (and your own second link), but by current prices in Australia and the EU for foodstuffs.
If they were true, then you had about eight chances to show a present article stating that these costs are currently occurring.

Also, why are you avoiding Severin?

What sort of labelling would be approriate for what exactly Hazza?

Peanut genes are not used as GM insertions. GM insertions are for specifically useful gene additions, they are not hybrids. "May contain peanuts" is already in place for foods that may contain peanuts, as is the case for milk products. These have nothing at all to do with GM

Bugsy

Peanut allergy is not fully understood. I do know that often proteins are a trigger, however, I would not be prepared to offer often food that has a component of peanuts to a susceptible person. Would you?

"Peanut allergy occurs when your immune system mistakenly identifies peanut proteins as something harmful. When you have direct or indirect contact with peanuts, your immune system releases symptom-causing chemicals into your bloodstream. It isn't known exactly why some people become allergic to peanuts and others don't.

Exposure to peanuts can occur in different ways:

* Direct contact. The most common cause of peanut allergy is eating peanuts or peanut-containing foods. Sometimes direct skin contact with peanuts can trigger an allergic reaction.
* Cross-contact. This is the unintended introduction of peanuts into a product. It's generally the result of a food being exposed to peanuts during processing or handling.
* Inhalation. An allergic reaction may occur if you inhale dust or aerosols containing peanuts, such as that of peanut flour or peanut oil cooking spray."

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/peanut-allergy/ds00710/dsection=causes

I suffer from myalgic encephalomyelitis and become very ill and lethargic if my diet is inadequate. I try to buy food that is not processed, cooking most things from fresh ingredients, currently fresh produce does not have to carry a label of GM. Yet you claim labelling is adequate.

Fresh unprocessed food is mandatory for cancer sufferers - people have achieved longer lives by taking care with their diet.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ped/content/ped_3_2x_common_questions_about_diet_and_cancer.asp

Finally, if a product contains ingredients or components that a customer does not wish to consume - for whatever reason, such as GM food, then this information needs to be provided on the label. I am really not getting your position that labels don't require updating. Like anything there are changes, but I have already explained that in previous posts.

King Hazza

Not entirely sure what you are getting at. I was using "may contain traces of peanuts" as an example. I rather like Pelican's "may contain genetically modified ingredients". Is that what you meant?

And perhaps, all apples should be sold with "does not contain peanuts" stickers on them.

Severin, if you require strict dietary requirements, I would suggest that you shop at your local organic food grocer. The great majority of us have no such requirements.

Besides, the vast majority of fresh produce in Australia is not GM. I would only worry if you were consuming soy or corn, and even then the GOX gene that confers glyphostae resistance is not allergenic, nor distinguishable from any other protein to your digestive system. The Bt toxin protein found in most GM corn is also not allergenic and does not cause reactions in animals other than specific orders of insects.

In fact, the protein would be found on many organically produced vegetables, as it is expressed by the microbe Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) which is the main ingredient of Dipel, an organically approved insecticide.

Perhaps you should try and be informed as to why exactly you don't want consume particular products?

My position is that while labels can be updated, the standard is adequate and does not need revision. Although I think most people are unaware that it even exists.

KH,

In all your posts you have yet to submit even one iota of proof of your position. Considering that I have provided several links to government sponsored studies on the cost estimates, your strident calls for high level proof are more than a little hypocritical.

That there has been no subsequent study by Food standards, (likely to draw criticism to its recommendations) is no great surprise.

You comparison with labeling for peanut extracts is actually more of a proof of my argument, as peanut allergies are a serious health threat from which many people die. Whereas from trillions of people eating GM food, there is yet to be a single substantiated case of harm.

I started to read the report you mentioned, and in it contained the estimate of 16% or 85m euro p.a. for the margarine manufacturers alone.

Done and dusted.

Severin- I'm merely curious as to any alterations of standards you would make to the labelling procedures is all. The mention of 'may contain GM' is simply my agreement of a good point.

Bugsy- I was asking if a product contained foods that included genes from a peanut- even lacking the proteins and chemicals so far know to cause allergies- if it is good in principle to express this purely for the consumer's choice benefit, and if so there should be a different label to further express the lack of known allergen components?
I would have to side with Severin on the principle.

Shadow- here's proof of the economic consequences of labeling.
http://grocery.bestpricedirectory.com.au/coles_m154.html
Let me know if there's anything you don't like that came into effect 2002 and later.
Also, you might want to check what you wrote- because you conveniently left out the rest of the information that the report was detailing.
The report was describing the costs of replacing already predominantly GM products with limited organic substitutes and alternatives if there were implemented a NON-GM POLICY- not as a result of 'labelling'. That is, such a prospect would only come in if conusmers consentually boycotted the cheaper GM margarine and were willing to pay the extra 16% themselves to buy "organic" margarine. As it is, the 16% only applies to those who choose to pay such a price for organic alternatives of these particular products.
All the products listed are predominantly only possible through GM, and the cost of lower-nutrient non-GM animal feed.

Nice try though.

Hazza, it's impractical to label foods with a lack of known allergen components.

Peanut genes are not used for genetic engineering. Theoretically it's possible, but not practically, unless peanuts contain some trait which would be exceptionally beneficial. And I do mean beneficial. Bt traits are used because they reduce the rate that 'hard' residual insecticides, eg. organophosphates (and others I'm sure cancer-conscious people would be interested in) are used on those crops. There are particular reasons that GM genes are used and very selective criteria that they are picked for that specific use. Genes from common allergenic organisms, would not be used for GM traits. I use the word common, because some rare person could be allergic to just about anything, some people are allergic to sunlight. So your 'principle' is purely hypothetical, and the practicality has been worked out in the real world.

Known allergens are also covered under the standard under section 7.

KH

A link to Coles? You really couldn't find anything could you?

I also notice that you simply ignore the difficult questions I ask you.

The major GM crop in Australia presently is cotton. The waste of which is a feed stock to cattle, the meat of which requires no testing.

Canola is the next big GM crop in Australia. The oil of which has no requirement for labeling. (check the regulation)

Similarly any food stuff processed in such a way that the genetic material is changed is not testable, and is permitted without labeling.

You could buy a product with a significant quantity of GM without the requirement for labeling.

Considering that in Europe GM raw materials have not been approved for preparation of food for human consumption, they cannot calculate the costs directly. The 16% extra cost of the margarine is calculated indirectly, based on input costs. Perhaps you could suggest a better way?

As the yields from conventional strains fall, due to insect and other resistance growing, the proportion of GM crops is growing. The estimate of cereal and rape seed is approaching 25% of world production.

Within a few decades non gm foods are as likely to be as quaint and expensive as "organic" foods.

Bugsy

'Peanuts' were an example of how things may go very badly for people who suffer from allergies. It could just as easily be kiwi-fruit or strawberries (both known as allergenic for some people). You are creating the good old-fashioned straw-man argument in order to justify not updating the labelling of ingredients as they change.

Why don't you believe that labels should reflect a comprehensive list of all components that go into food?

SM

Your straw-man argument is that if we identified ALL ingredients on food packaging, civilisation as we know it will collapse in an economic melt-down.

I and others have demonstrated that changing labels does not cause a GFC. Do I REALLY have to refer (again) to the highly significant success of the Cancer Council? And that accurate labelling is simply for the provision of informing customers (as I have reiterated, ad nauseum).

Your question is, why do you believe that hiding information is beneficial to customers?

Severin,

Believe it or not I understand the peanuts example is merely an example. What I am telling you is that in all the GM foods, allergenic organisms are not generally used as source genes. Strawberries or kiwifruit or whatever are far more likely to be the target of GM, rather than the source of the inserted gene. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if someone somewhere was working on making these foods less allergenic, and thus safer, by use of GM. But probably only as an academic exercise, because good luck to them bringing it to market, with all the regulation and hoops that have to be jumped through.

"Why don't you believe that labels should reflect a comprehensive list of all components that go into food?"

Your own strawman that already makes an assumption within the question.

The difference between you and I, is that I believe that the comprehensive listing of all components (i.e. the ingredients) that go into food is already covered in the standard. Known potential allergens are already covered under the standard. It is also highly impractical to require food labels to have what ingredients they do not contain.

You have read the labeling standard? What specific parts do you think require updating?

Fair enough Bugs but it is still a strong hypothetical. My point about Milk was that many products (lactose free, Cheese) extracted from the same animal but treated differently loses many (though not all) of its known allergens, and to inform customers of what components or treatments it had undergone to ensure the allergens relevant to them.

Don't bother Severin he's just trying to troll the thread and act dumb so we get sick of repeating ourselves (latest internet debating trick for dummies perhaps?).
There comes a point where someone is simply beyond help and has lost the argument. If he:
-refuses even to acknowledge either systems to which he associated "billions" to be lost, are in place already and have been for years,
-refuses to acknowledge that logically, any forecasts he has used as evidence would have come true by now if they were in fact accurate
-And by continuation, pretending otherwise that the current pricing IS the proof that his claim is bull because the prices have changed little (really, how is it not?)- but he refuses to link a single grave, profound consequence that has actually happened.
-and asks questions that had been answered two pages ago
...While all our points are floating around for the world to see he has not one, I feel its safe to say we've given him enough. Even his latest question about a labeling shortcoming was answered by you guys already and repeated a few times by me.

But until then, as you said, it's now up to him to show us where the economic meltdown happened- although he's clearly trying to change the subject now.

KH

I too tire of this game of rounders. Bugsy has forgotten this topic was prompted by Pelican questioning the lack of full declaration of ingredients such as GM substances.

Bugsy's claim: "My position is that while labels can be updated, the standard is adequate and does not need revision. Although I think most people are unaware that it even exists."

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/

The above link IS well worth a read. However, that Bugsy believes the standards are set in concrete is just his opinion. The one thing we can count on is that all things change. It is 10 years since the Food Standards were reviewed, given that Australia started selling GM Canola in 2008, it is time to review those standards to ensure they are adequate.

It is my opinion that labelling is currently inadequate for reasons already expressed by myself, Pelican, King Hazza.

Nor have I missed the wilful misinterpretation of my question:

"Why don't you believe that labels should reflect a comprehensive list of all components that go into food?"

>>> I believe that the comprehensive listing of all components (i.e. the ingredients) that go into food is already covered in the standard. Known potential allergens are already covered under the standard. It is also highly impractical to require food labels to have what ingredients they do not contain. <<<

I never suggested that labels should display ingredients not contained in the product. Sheesh!

Bugsy has also deliberately avoided the fact that fresh food (imported fresh food from countries which grow GM produce) do not currently require labelling as GM any more than they should contain labels when food has been irradiated.

PS

I am not going to be drawn into an argument whether food should be irradiated or not, simply that the buyer should be informed of such.

Game of rounders indeed, Severin. You still have not specified what parts of the standard you have issue with, although you pretend you have.

I have not avoided anything. Import of GM foods, including fresh produce is covered under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. Simply, you have to have permission to import fresh GM produce. The GM product has to be approved by the OGTR. Fresh produce imported into Australia is not GM, and thus does not require labeling. I believe that labeling of fresh produce would still be covered under the standard, as it is a food derived from GM strain that would have had to have had a submission to the OGTR and would be listed under Table 2. However if there needs to be an extra clause to explicitly state a requirement for fresh GM produce being sold in Australia, i.e. the current standard does not cover this, then sure, why not?

My point about ingredients or components not present, was really directed at Hazza. Labels can reflect the fact that they do not contain specific allergens, this is a good marketing strategy, I don't believe there should be an explicit requirement for everybody to state what processes were used, nor should they be required to state they the food is non-allergenic or low allergenic if they don't want to. Actual dangers, such as allergenicity or containing potential allergens are already covered under a couple of standards.

And besides Severin, this topic was NOT "prompted by Pelican questioning the lack of full declaration of ingredients such as GM substances."

It WAS about the FTA, "sovereignty issues and the democratic rights of citizens to determine the nature and rules of commerce and regulation within their borders". That is, the "investor-state dispute resolution process" proposed by the US, the one we already declined to include in the FTA, and should probably do into the future.

GM labeling was just an example of what could be affected by such a dispute resolution process, but you seem to think that it is the topic.

That you have not said one word about this actual original topic is irritating but expected, because of where your real interest lay.

Severin,

I think much of the entire point of the argument has passed over your head. The cost of the labeling exercise is to get and verify the information in the label.

What the cancer council did is simply push for the same information to be presented in a different way, and the cost to the producer and consumer did not change. With tracking GM content this is fundamentally different.

If GM labeling was as simple and cost free as the cancer council example, my objection would fall away. But I do object to having to pay more for food because some greens want information that is irrelevant to my health indicated on the labeling.

As Bugsy outlines correctly my concern was over "sovereignty issues and the democratic rights of citizens to determine the nature and rules of commerce and regulation within their borders".

It is the rights of citizens that (potentially) might be at risk in some aspects of FTA negotiations.

GM is one of the areas where a large number of consumers hold concerns, but there are many other policies and expectations at-risk in FTA negotiations.

Both Severin and KH have responded to that point.

Discussion around labelling requirements in Australia should be encouraged. The emphasis is these decisions are not overlty and unduly influenced by FTA pressures and vested interests of corporations. It should always be a decision for nations and their citizenry.

Agree Pelican- and I would also add that the imposition of such labeling and demand upon overseas importers, along with investigating their materials, is by no means a new practice (especially not for Australia with heavy quarantining laws).