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?