Bugsy
The Uruguayan example was just to highlight the potential impacts of some trade agreements on domestic policy and rights of the citizenry who elect their representatives. Australians do not elect US politicians, we put our trust in those we elect to government to do what is in the best interests of Australia. Sometimes this may involve compromise granted.

There is win-win, lose-win, win-lose in many trade agreements and it is a bit swings and roundabouts, but some issues (like cost of medicines and advertising standards) should not be held to ransom by trade deals and we should certainly not be opening legal gaps for OS corporate interests to dictate domestic policy IMO.

We would be heading down a slippery slope with an investor-state dispute process and opening up opportunities for legal claims against the national interest.

It might sound arrogant but personally I think this is a dangerous possibility and one that comes up in every negotation about trade agreements. Happier to leave it to the state-state dispute process to sort it out at the diplomatic/political level than the private sector.

The following might shed some light on the rights of investors in cases where nationalisation may impact some investors.

http://www.minterellison.com/public/connect/Internet/Home/Legal+Insights/Newsletters/Previous+Newsletters/A-D-Investor-state+dispute

From my view, these matters would still be best resolved in state-state discussions if they can be resolved at all. Many countries where industry sectors have been nationalised would ignore any legal challenge at best and at worst could potentially create international tensions.

Free trade agreements often include clauses like:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/usafta/report/chapter4.pdf

"Governments are free to enact laws, regulations or policies they consider are necessary, for example:

- protect public morals or maintain public order

- protect human, animal or plant life or health

- protect national treasures of artistic, historical or archaeological value

-conserve exhaustible national treasures."

(This is an example from a 2004 APH TA document)

I think such clauses are the sovereign right of any nation in trade agreements, and should never be slackened for some misplaced FT ideology.

Amazingly enough I agree pelican. It is not arrogant to simply say "no, I don't think so", to clauses that restrict what we can domestically legislate.

It is arrogant to walk in with the attitude "meet our standards or Get Out - take it or leave it."

Of course, since labeling clauses were a part of the submission, and certainly not the most important part, I think we got a bit sidetracked from the actual issue. You should have led with the second link and properly discussed that and not bothered with the first.

Well Bugsy we at least have come to a level of agreement despite my choice of language. (I do get a bit passionate at times) :)

The GE issue is important in context of the sovereignty issue but I understand others are less enamoured with criticism of GE as a debate in itself. As I see it the anti-GE group has already lost the battle sadly as far as Australian agriculture is concerned and I do advocate consumer choice aided by honest labelling.

The main point is as you rightly point out, not confined to GE, but the potential impact of state-investor dispute processes.

And to answer everyone's question, YES, I would like a comprehensive list of ingredients, thankyou very much, I have found it very helpful as my household have very particular dieting requirements (and no, they aint 'lifestyle' requirements).

Anyway, Bugsy, it is NOT "arrogant to walk in with the attitude "meet our standards or Get Out - take it or leave it." when negotiating a binding transnational contract.
It's basic common sense.
Only the very lamest of businessmen need to compromise their interests just for the sake of "getting a contract at all"- which really answers the question of why politicians are NOT businessmen to begin with.

To think- we're debating this issue when most of the US and most of Western Europe have probably already held these standards already.

Rubbish Shadow- we ALREADY incur the costs of product info labelling and the difference was trivial. Explain how the costs of adding a single extra tag to join the rest of the information is going to cause the price to spiral out of control?

Thanks KH for asking my question to SM. If changing labels was so expensive the appearance of graphics on products would remain as they have been for decades. Such a facile attempt at argument.

And kudos to Pelican for her extensive research into the topic. Comprehensive information regarding anything a person buys, whether it is for eating or other use, is a matter of common sense. Not arrogance. Arrogance is corporations foisting products onto an misinformed public.

There is a valid argument to be made for the right to information that effects our health, well being and environment. As KH pointed out people do not all have identical dietary requirements. Free trade ain't free if it is subject to censorship.

http://www.cancer.org.au/policy/Publications/Food_Labelling_report.htm