Severin, it all comes down to what sort of labeling requirement should there be?

If you don't think there will be a dollar cost, then the only requirement should be to label organic produce and GM free that have quality assurance auditing in place as such and every other product that contains soy, corn or canola as "may contain ingredients derived from GM crops".

It won't be really informative, but it will at least be honest eh?

Would this sort of labeling be acceptable though?

Severin,

Your whole argument on honesty is more of an obfuscation.

Do you want an entire run down on all the ingredients, preparation methods etc. By your reckoning, anything that is left out is dishonest. The requirements for labeling include everything that has an identified health impact. To include everyones preferences would require a user manual for a dozen muffins.

Labeling food that is GM free means that everything else may contain some GM components. This is not too much for the consumer to understand.

Get out of the WTO. It is nothing but an undemocratic, elitist, collection of multinational companies intent on undermining the sovereignty of governments, and their voters, in a vicious campaign of litigation and one sided negotiations. GM is the least of what these scum would foist on us if we let them.

Exactly so mikk. This is not just about GE.

The Government looks like it will be letting in Chinese apples despite the quarantine risks, use of toxic chemicals on arrival and new concerns about Chinese fruit fly.

SM
GE is new, it has been foisted on the public whether we want it or not. It should be easy enough to separate the GE corn from the non-GE corn via different suppliers, afterall those companies who wish to source the non-GE product have to go to a supplier that deals in non-GE crops. eg. such as those in the TrueFoods Guide:

http://www.truefood.org.au/documents/TFG2010-fullguide.pdf

If a company doesn't give a toss whether they use GE or not and get a variable supply then YES, definitely labelling such as "this product may contain some GE ingredients" should be added to the label. It is a one time change to labelling.

Those who wish to avoid GE can then make an informed choice about whether they wish to support those companies that refuse to use GE in their products.

What could be simpler.

GE aside for the moment - none of the anti-GE labelling crew have responded to the cigarette advertising scenario - a pressure being experienced by other nations wishing to trade with the US as in the first post.

Yes, pelican, it is all about market access. It has nothing to do with anything else really. The line in the original link you provided says what it is about:

"The US biotech industry group's submission on TPPFTA calls for no GE labelling that could restrict trade of biotech products with the US."

You will notice the "that could restrict trade" bit. If 'one time' change to the label does not provide any restriction to trade, then that qualifies doesn't it? If however there are draconian reporting laws that require the exact amount of GE content in any given product, then that would certainly become a trade barrier. Trade is a very delicate business sometimes, and going in with the attitude "meet the standards set for any other business or Get Out - take it or leave it", is an arrogant attitude that assumes that we are more necessary to their producers than they are to ours. It would also ensure that you would not be the Trade minister, at least not for very long.

I cannot comment on Uruguayan tobacco laws, as I don't much about that and am unsure as to it's relevance to Australia.

Yeah, I just took proper read of your second link pelican. I would support the submission by AFTINET, as it certainly appears reasonable.

We don't need an investor-state dispute process. Agreeing to one does certainly sound like making a rod for your own back.

Are there any submissions as to what (if any) potential benefits might be for this investor-state dispute process?