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.