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?