*Arrogance is corporations foisting products onto an misinformed public.*

Severin, corporations are hardly misleading consumers about GM.
The information is freely and openly discussed, no secrets.
Fact is with hundreds of millions of people eating roundup
ready crops for 20 years or so now and no deaths that we
know of, the majority are simply not throwing your kind
of hissy fit about this.

IIRC around 90% of the US corn crop is GM. So is 70%
of the soy crop. So is most of the Canadian canola crop.
In one way or another, these base ingredients are in most
processed foods.

But let me explain to you the practical problems of your
request. My neighbour is this year growing GM canola for
the first time. Seeds invariably move across fencelines,
so at some point some of his canola seeds will be in
my wheat crop and will be harvested, delivered as part of
my wheat delivery. The guy who uses my wheat to make
bread, would have to test every load of wheat, even if
its non GM, to ensure that his label is accurate. If
traces of GM were found, he would have to have his
labels reprinted to comply. All these costs are huge
and make no sense, because frankly most of the population
simply don't care. They prefer cheaper food.

Most of the small % of people complaining about GM are
organics shoppers anyhow. Given that you are not being
mislead and openly told that GM is right through the
food supply chain, the onus is on you to find products
that comply with your wishes, at your cost

No problem Severin, I'm amazed that so many people are so vigorously trying to make a case against it- out of even the flimsiest scenarios which are ALREADY in place and didn't impact a thing.
(where the passion comes from I really don't understand- I don't believe they're all in lobbyist positions, they can't all seriously believe half the stuff they write, maybe they fear some kind of hippy greeny social movement getting a foothold from this?)

Yabby, if there is no misleading and no secrets, then these companies would have no qualms about complying with labels and categorizing standards of the countries they export to (Same way we might comply with countries that want halal meat), instead of trying to resist such proposals through the FTA.

It's sad because this is otherwise a very good thread, especially with Pelican going to the trouble of doing the homework and putting the implications into discussion.

You can calm down there Hazza, pelicans main point on state-investor dispute processes has already been agreed to (at least by me). I agree that we should be free to make whatever legislation we as a nation want without foreign corporations restricting those processes through legal mechanisms.

The food labeling we have, as you have already pointed out, is adequate and already in place. No problem there. I don't see a need for it to be removed. What I may have misconstrued here is that I perceived (perhaps wrongly?) an expression of the need for MORE labeling, or a labeling requirement that would effectively constitute an unnecessary trade barrier.

King Hazza, Severin, et al,

I am familiar with several certificate systems including ISO 9000. While tracking GM inputs is theoretically easy, due to commodification of food and wheat where purchased product from all sources is mixed in transport etc, the tracking of GM food would require separate shipping, special documentation, auditing, all from the producer, buyer, wholesaler, retailer etc.

When you buy a loaf of bread, do you know where the wheat came from? NSW, Victoria, France? as long as it is health checked, you don't care.

If there is a requirement for GM labeling (assuming you want to be reasonably certain the information is correct) you need to be able to track the pedigree of every component.

To determine the approximate fat/protein/salt contents of meat etc, all you need to know is that it is Grade A rump.

If the next batch of flour you get comes from somewhere slightly different, the pedigree changes, and so do your labeling requirements.

The anti GM has no idea of what it is asking and is quite happy to inflict the cost of this on everyone else.

The end result is that for the small portion of people willing to pay for non GM food, there will be suppliers who can label their food GM Free. For those of us who don't care, I don't intend to pay for your idiosyncrasies.

SM and others
I have no real issues with GM per se.
However, the argument that "it's health tested" ergo it's fine, is only valid if the approval(testing) process is credible and uncorrupted.

Sadly there are far too many instances of external/internal, influences/abuses and general perversion of the system to engender the above required confidence.

- one must take into account specifically what is meant by GM. Inter species is one thing but one needs to be cautious of food that has non cross species additions.
- We should be very wary of blanket exclusions on liabilities and special rights.

I find it unacceptable that a product like seeds should come with an enforceable obligation to use a specific branded product.

Likewise, I find suicide genes and saving seed for next years sewing in some circumstances unacceptable.

I don't accept that the above "gatekeeping" contract have anything to do with development cost recuperation but an anti competitive marketing tactic. As is the need for vertical marketing.

I would also raise the issue of sovereign food security and national interests.
I am opposed to our food security being dominated/controlled by.
- (amoral)gatekeepers corporations.(Described above).
- a foreign governments that don't offer the same access to all their markets.

Both of these have interests that conflict with ours.
I am a firm believer that each country must remain/strive for self sufficient in all the basics.
It makes no sense for Australia to be simply a source of raw material and all other aspects dependent on other countries/corporations.

In essence a Corporation makes a product (i.e. GM seed) but can manipulate it's dominance in the market place thus reducing competition and independence and choice.

I argue that relying on amoral entities to behave in moral ways is naive its extreme....alliances are never permanent and are subject to rapid demise in the face of either parties better interests

Shadow, again no. Wrong.

Funnily enough, all the things you described are too, already into place to a considerable extent. Monitoring receipts for purchases (of GM seeds), tracking origin of produce and adding to labeling, also on the shipment forms and connecting these to "Purchases GM" status, methods of separation of different seeds and organic products to stop cross-contamination, and occasionally getting samples checked in a lab by inspectors is not new.

These have been standard practices for decades and nobody seems to have a problem with it- even when new labeling was applied on top- all such measures would simply be applied to GM with the addition of a GM sticker- a terrifying change.

It's more like you're trying to pretend it is radically new than sincerely not knowing it's not, and you're trying to spin the issue for all its worth.

And please, stop trying to make a case out of 'the cost'- it's rubbish, and you know it. The accumulated evidence of every single system you're pretending to be dreading being in existence already for ages speaks for itself.