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.