*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