GTBTW184

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

1/27

www.wtocenter.org.tw/SmartKMS/fileviewer?id=11516

WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATION

G/TBT/W/184

4 October 2002

(02-5345)

Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade

SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS RELATED TO LABELLING

BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE

SINCE 1995

Note by the Secretariat

This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own

responsibility and without prejudice to the positions of Membersand to their rights and obligations under the WTO

At the 20-21 June 2002 meeting of the Committee, the Secretariat was requested to prepare a

factual paper containing two lists. The first one compiles notifications (made since 1995) related to

labelling by date, indicating the Members concerned, the products covered, the stated legitimate

objectives and the periods provided for comments. A second list contains a factual reference to the

specific trade concerns related to labelling brought to the attention of the Committee under the

Agenda item "Statements on Implementation and Administration of the TBT Agreement" since 1995.

This list would describe the Members involved, the issues, the concerns raised and references to the

relevant notifications. This paper would be taken up at the next informal meeting in October 2002.

This document contains the second list. It was prepared based on the minutes of the first to

twenty-eighth Committee meetings (G/TBT/M/1-27), identifying the measures related to labelling

brought to the attention of the Committee by Members who raised concerns about the potential

adverse trade effects or inconsistencies with the Agreement of those measures. This document

summarizes all the concerns raised but does not reflect individual Member's concerns, nor the

responses provided; nor does it reflect the further development of the measures.

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

2/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

II. 1995.....................................................................................................................................5

1. KOREA: Marks of Origin System....................................................................................5

2. MEXICO: Characteristics, Requirements and Conditions for Use of the Official Seal 5

3. MEXICO: New Meat Regulations ...................................................................................5

4. UNITED STATES: Motor Vehicle Content Labelling.....................................................6

III. 1996...................................................................................................................................6

1. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Registration of Geographical Indications and

Designations of Origin...............................................................................................6

2. UNITED STATES: Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labelling of Textile Wearing

Apparel and Certain Piece Goods.............................................................................7

3. UNITED STATES: Tea Importation Act; Tea Standards..............................................7

IV. 1997....................................................................................................................................7

1. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Technical Regulations relating to Genetically

Modified Organisms (GMOs): Commission Regulation Concerning the

Compulsory Indication on the Labelling of Certain Foodstuffs Produced from

Genetically Modified Organisms of Particulars other than those Provided for in

Directive 79/112/EEC; and Commission Directive 97/35/EC of 18 June 1997

Adapting to Technical Progress for the Second Time Council Directive

90/220/EEC on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically

Modified Organisms .................................................................................................7

2. MEXICO: Labelling on Industrial Products, including Food Products; andNon-alcoholic Beverages............................................................................................8

3. MEXICO: Textiles............................................................................................................. 8

4. THAILAND: Labelling of Cigarettes ...............................................................................9

V. 19989

1. BRAZIL: Proposed Technical Regulation for Labelling of Textile Products.............. .9

2. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Regulation Concerning the Compulsory Indication

on the Labelling of Certain Foodstuffs Produced from Genetically Modified

Organisms of Particulars other than those Provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC

.....................................................................................................................................9

3. EGYPT: Labelling of Meat.............................................................................................12

4. EGYPT: Labelling of Textile Products..........................................................................12

5. JAPAN: Agricultural Standards for Organic Agricultural Products..........................13

6. MEXICO: Labelling of Natural Hides and Tanned Skins, and Artificial Leather

having the Appearance of Natural Leather, of Footwear and Leather Goods, and

of other Articles Made from these Materials.........................................................13

7. THE NETHERLANDS: Bill of Parliament Amending the Act on Environmental

Protection (Sustainability Produced Timber)........................................................13

I. 1999 14

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

3/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 3

1. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: EC Regulation 881/98 "Traditional Terms" adopted

in April 1998, effective 1 October 1999...................................................................14

1. NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIA: Labelling Food Produced Using Gene

Technology (Foods Commonly Referred to as Genetically Modified Foods)......15

VI. 2000..................................................................................................................................16

1. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Proposal for a European Parliament and Council

Regulation Establishing a System for the Identification and Registration of

Bovine Animals and Regarding the Labelling of Beef and Beef Products...........16

1. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Proposal for a Council Regulation Amending

Regulation (EEC) N 1907/90 on Certain Marketing Standards for Eggs...........16

2. INDONESIA: Regulation of Government No. 69/1999 on Food Labelling and

Advertisement and Draft Decree of the Ministry of Health on Implementation

Guide of the Regulation of Government No. 69/1999 on Food Labelling and

Advertising ..............................................................................................................17

3. JAPAN: Standards for Labelling on Quality of Processed Foods, Fresh Foods;

Husked (Brown) Rice and Milled Rice and Marine Products..............................17

4. UNITED STATES: Country of Origin Mark on Imitation Jewellery.........................18

5. UNITED STATES: Dolphin-Safe Tuna Labelling; Official Mark..............................18

VII. 2001................................................................................................................................19

1. BRAZIL: Labelling Registration Requirements for Packed Food Products

Containing or Produced by Genetically Modified Organisms..............................19

2. CHILE: Amendment to the Decree of Ministry of Health N 977 of 1996 on

Transgenic Foods (Labelling System for Transgenic Foodstuffs)........................19

3. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES/BELGIUM: Draft Law Aiming to Promote Socially

Responsible Production...........................................................................................19

4. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: EC Regulation N 1493 on the Common

Organisation of the Market in Wine.......................................................................20

5. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Proposal for a Regulation of the European

Parliament and of the Council on Genetically Modified Food and Feed and

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council

concerning Traceability and Labelling of Genetically Modified Organisms and

Traceability of Food and Feed Products Produced from Genetically Modified

Organisms and Amending Directive 2001/18/EC..................................................21

6. INDIA: Mandatory Label Requirements for Pre-packaged Imports for Retail Sale

and Revision of the Indian 1955 Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules............22

VIII. 2002...............................................................................................................................23

1. BRAZIL: Ruling on Criteria and Procedures for the Import of Wines and Beverages

Derived from Grapes and Wines............................................................................23

1. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Commission Regulation (EC) N 753/2002 of

29 April 2002 Laying Down Certain Rules for Applying Council Regulation

(EC) N1493/1999 as Regards the Description, Designation, Presentation and

Protection of Certain Wine Sector Products..........................................................24

2. KOREA: Notification of the Delegated Order Pertaining to the Use of Liquor Labels...................................................................................................................................25

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

4/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 4

3. PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Public Notice of General Administration for

Quality Supervision and Inspection and Quarantine............................................26

4. UNITED STATES: Country of Origin Labelling Provisions........................................26

5. WORKS OF THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMITTEE ON FOODLABELLING (CCFL)............................................................................................26

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

5/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 5

I. 1995

1. KOREA: Marks of Origin System

ProductsRaised by Japan and Switzerland

Meeting/Dates raised 21 April 1995 (G/TBT/M/1)

Notification

Other relevant documents

Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory

Concerns raised

1. No satisfactory solution had been offered to any of the problems raised.

2. It was not clear if the information had any bearing on the practical implementation of the

measure.

3. Its labelling requirements were inconsistent with Article XI of the GATT 1994 and theAgreement.

4. The burdensome application of the origin regulations for various goods and the mandatory

marking in Korean language created problems.

2. MEXICO: Characteristics, Requirements and Conditions for Use of the Official Seal

Products Official countermark

Raised by New Zealand


Notification G/TBT/Notif.95.37

Other relevant documents Mexican Official Standard NOM-106-SCFI-1994


Concerns raised

5. The rationale, necessity and coverage of the regulation required an explanation.

6. An explanation was required on whether the Regulation met the obligations for conformity

assessment under Article 5.1 of the Agreement with respect to issues such as import suppliers'

access to the mark and the possibility for conformity assessment to be undertaken at the site of the

exporter's facilities.

7. Clarification was needed of the necessity of the procedures in order to give Mexico confidence

that imported products conformed with regulations.

3. MEXICO: New Meat Regulations

Products Meat and carcasses

Raised by New Zealand


Notification

Other relevant documents Mexican Official Standard NOM-030-ZOO-1994


7/28/2019 GTBTW184

6/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 6

Concerns raised

8. To clarify whether adhesive labels were acceptable.

9. To clarify whether the Spanish language label could be affixed in Mexico.

10. To clarify whether a provision stating that carcasses would only be accepted if properly identifiedwith the seal of the approved establishment meant that a carton seal had to be applied to each

carcass or whether the brands printed on the carcass itself met the requirement.

4. UNITED STATES: Motor Vehicle Content Labelling

Products New motor vehicles

Raised by European Communities and Japan


Notification TBT/Notif/93.458



Concerns raised

11. The final text was published, but concerns remained as to whether comments made had been

taken into consideration.

12. No information had been received despite the fact that a reminder had been sent.

13. Further information was sought.

II. 1996

1. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Registration of Geographical Indications and

Designations of Origin

Products 133 products, amongst others, wines

Raised by Australia; Canada and New Zealand

Meeting/Dates raised 28 June 1996 (G/TBT/M/5); 16 and 22 October 1996 (G/TBT/M/6)

Notification

Other relevant documents EC Regulation (EC) No. 1107/96; Council Regulation (EEC) No.

2081/92


Concerns raised

14. Written comments had been sent. However, no response had been received; further informationwas requested.

15. The Regulation had not been notified; confirmation about the intention to notify was sought.

16. No opportunity had been provided for advance knowledge of it "at an early appropriate stage

when amendments can still be introduced and comments taken into account".

17. Its status and the process by which concerns could be registered required clarification.

18. The scope of the impact was difficult to determine in the absence of a complete list of products

that it would cover. This could prevent the export of products from other Members.

19. It was an immediate concern for some cheese exporters. Given its development, it would have

more widespread implications.

20. The EC geographical indications went beyond those adopted in any other countries and those

provided under the TRIPs Agreement.

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

7/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 7

2. UNITED STATES: Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labelling of Textile Wearing

Apparel and Certain Piece Goods

Products Textile wearing apparel and piece goods (HS Chapters 62, 63)

Raised by European CommunitiesMeeting/Dates raised 28 June 1996 (G/TBT/M/5); 16 and 22 October 1996 (G/TBT/M/6)

Notification G/TBT/Notif. 96.20



Concerns raised

1. Why relevant ISO Standard 37.58 was not used in the draft regulation.

3. UNITED STATES: Tea Importation Act; Tea Standards

Products Tea (HS Chapter 0902)Raised by European Communities

Meeting/Dates raised 28 June 1996 (G/TBT/M/5); 16 and 22 October 1996 (G/TBT/M/6)


Other relevant documents Federal Register 61 FR 4597, 7 February 1996; Federal Register 21 CFR

Part 1220


Concerns raised

21. To clarify why the existing ISO standard 37.20 was not used in the Regulation.

III. 1997

1. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Technical Regulations relating to Genetically Modified

Organisms (GMOs): Commission Regulation Concerning the Compulsory Indication on

the Labelling of Certain Foodstuffs Produced from Genetically Modified Organisms of

Particulars other than those Provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC; and Commission

Directive 97/35/EC of 18 June 1997 Adapting to Technical Progress for the Second Time

Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of

Genetically Modified Organisms

Products Foods and food ingredients produced from genetically modified soya and

genetically modified maize (various tariff headings) and productscontaining or consisting of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

Raised by Canada and United States

Meeting/Dates raised 20 June 1997 (G/TBT/M/8); 3 October 1997 (G/TBT/M/10)

Notification G/TBT/Notif.92.355; G/TBT/Notif.97.151; G/TBT/Notif. 97.382

Other relevant documents Regulation (EC) 258/97 O.J. No. L 43, 14 February 1997

Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the Deliberate Release into the

Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms


7/28/2019 GTBTW184

8/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 8

Concerns raised

22. The EC Regulations had been implemented without notification under Article 2.9.2

23. They were covered by the Agreement and subject to its disciplines.

2. MEXICO: Labelling on Industrial Products, including Food Products; and

Non-alcoholic Beverages

Products Industrial products; food products; textiles and non-alcoholic beverages

Raised by European Communities

Supported by

Meeting/Dates raised 13 and 18 November 1997 (G/TBT/M/9); 27 March 1998 (G/TBT/M/11)

Notification

Other relevant documents Mexican Official Standards NOM-050-SCFI-1994(Commercial

information general provisions for products); NOM-051-SCFI

(General specifications for the labelling of prepackaged foodstuffs and

non-alcoholic beverages)Mandatory/voluntary Voluntary

Concerns raised

24. The justification of the Regulations required explanation.

25. To clarify whether the provisions of the Agreement had been respected.

26. Comments had been submitted but no response had been received.

27. Obligations under Article 2.9.4 to provide opportunities for discussion and under Article 2.9 to

notify were recalled.

28. Further information and progress would be needed to avoid any possible discriminatory treatment

and unnecessary obstacles to trade.

3. MEXICO: Textiles

Products Textiles


Supported by

Meeting/Dates raised 13 and 18 November 1997 (G/TBT/M/9); 27 March 1998 (G/TBT/M/11)

Notification

Other relevant documents Mexican Official Standard - NOM-004-SCFI-1994 (Commercial

Information Labelling of Textiles, Articles of Clothing and

Accessories)


Concerns raised

29. The justification of the Regulation required explanation.

30. To clarify whether the provisions of the Agreement had been respected.

31. Comments had been submitted but no response had been received.

32. Obligations under Article 2.9.4 to provide opportunities for discussion and obligations under

Article 2.9 to notify were recalled.

33. Further information and progress would be needed to avoid any possible discriminatory treatment

and unnecessary obstacles to trade.

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

9/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 9

4. THAILAND: Labelling of Cigarettes

Products Cigarettes


Meeting/Dates raised 20 June 1997 (G/TBT/M/8); 3 October 1997 (G/TBT/M/10)Notification G/TBT/Notif.97.768; G/TBT/Notif.97.769

Other relevant documents Tobacco Products Control Act B.E. 2535 (1992), Notification of the

Public Health (No. 2) B.E. 2535 (1992) Criteria, Procedures and

Conditions for Labelling of Cigarettes and the Statement therein issued

under Tobacco Product Control Act B.E. 2535 (1992).


Concerns raised

34. To clarify whether the Regulation would be notified under the Agreement.

35. Since its content was not known, it was not possible to judge whether it was relevant to other

international agreements.

IV. 1998

1. BRAZIL: Proposed Technical Regulation for Labelling of Textile Products

Products Textiles products


Meeting/Dates raised 15 September 1998 (G/TBT/M/13)




Concerns raised

36. Comments had been sent. However, no response had been received.

37. The justification of the requirements which could create trade barriers required explanation.

2. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Regulation Concerning the Compulsory Indication on

the Labelling of Certain Foodstuffs Produced from Genetically Modified Organisms of

Particulars other than those Provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC

Products Foods and food ingredients produced from genetically modified soya and

genetically modified maize (various tariff headings)Raised by Argentina; Brazil; Canada; New Zealand and United States

Meeting/Dates raised 1 July 1998 (G/TBT/M/12); 15 September 1998 (G/TBT/M/13);

20 November 1998 (G/TBT/M/14); 31 March 1999 (G/TBT/M/15);

11 June 1999 (G/TBT/M/16); 6 October 2000 (G/TBT/M/21);

10 November 2000 (G/TBT/M/22); 30 March 2001 (G/TBT/M/23);

29 June 2001 (G/TBT/M/24)


Other relevant documents G/TBT/W/78; G/TBT/W/94; G/TBT/W/104


7/28/2019 GTBTW184

10/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 10

Concerns raised

38. The Regulation would create unnecessary obstacles to trade in corn and soybeans.

39. The steps that would be taken to comply with the TBT Agreement should be clarified.

40. The claimed legitimate objective to provide "proper information to the final consumer" requiredclarification.

41. It was necessary to explain how the objectives and practical aspects of its provisions were to be

addressed.

42. A clarification was needed of whether the regulation was promulgated to address any particular

risk to human or animal health.

43. It would not provide consumers with meaningful information and would not achieve its objective.

It could confuse rather than inform consumers and could increase the cost of food for consumers.

44. It was unclear whether the approach was based on science. Risk assessments based on scientific

data should form the basis of any distinction between genetically modified foods and

conventional varieties.

45. There was no empirical basis which demonstrated that the presence of protein or DNA resulting

from genetic modification would render the food different such as e.g., "composition, nutritionalvalue or nutritional effect from like products that were not genetically modified/conventional

counterparts.

46. It was unclear how the European authorities had arrived at the conclusion that genetically

modified soybeans or maize were not equivalent to conventional varieties, and how consumers

would be informed of the differences through the regulation.

47. It constituted a de facto requirement to segregate GMO from non-GMO products (in storage,

transportation and processing systems). It would be burdensome and costly for suppliers and

difficult to justify.

48. There was no indication of what procedures were established to ensure compliance on a

non-discriminatory basis.

49. The difficulties involved in securing compliance, and how the regulation would be enforced

required an explanation.50. It discriminated against the use of certain technologies. The "differential treatment" of GMOs

could cause unjustified concern among consumers, which could ultimately penalize trade in these

products without scientific justification. If "genetically different" foods were not to be considered

equivalent, then there would be a need to label every variety of food or food ingredient, whether

produced through genetic modification or traditional breeding (e.g. radiation, genetic mutation,

cell cultivation, etc.).

51. There was no indication of the kind of the tests to be used to determine if genetically modified

protein or DNA was present, nor was there indication of when and how often tests would be

required. These tests were primarily for research purposes, and were time-consuming and

expensive.

52. It proposed the development of a test to detect genetically modified DNA or protein. Under

current trade rules, countries were encouraged to use internationally accepted testing methods.

53. It was unclear whether the EC would follow practices such as holding international meetings to

study the methods in question, since DNA and protein detection methods (as applied to

genetically modified foods) were still at an early stage of development.

54. It was not specified which protein or which specific part of the DNA had to be monitored (i.e. to

provide a guideline for conducting tests).

55. Six months had passed since the regulation came into effect. Neither the announced "negative"

list nor the commercially practical test existed. Without the list, exports to the EU had to be

segregated, tested, certified for whether or not they contained GMOs.

56. The criteria to be used to determine acceptable GMO thresholds and tolerances, as well as the

mechanisms used to develop them, were still unclear.

57. The lack of set detection limits could inevitably lead to a shifting and unpredictable standard fortesting, and to the potential need for re-testing.

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

11/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 11

58. The lack of guidance on the analytical methods made it impossible to implement the regulation,

and was causing confusion and unnecessarily disrupting trade. Without the analytical methods

and a de minimus threshold to test for the presence of DNA or protein resulting from genetic

modification, the certification of GMO-free products to the EU had been impossible.

59. It would require third country producers to establish a system similar to that used for tracing theorigins of products. This would include a mechanism for the identification of the plots of land

used or farms, the storage and transportation systems employed, packaging, labelling, and sales

requirements, etc., and would inevitably increase the cost of the final product.

60. It would require a restructuring of the production and marketing processes, with a direct effect on

costs in exporting countries. The increased costs of production due to labelling would ultimately

be transferred to consumers (without providing information on greater food safety).

61. The number of genetically modified foods on the market would increase in the next few years.

The variety and number of "sequences" and the complexity and difficulty of tests to monitor DNA

would constitute a growing burden if the measures were to serve as a model for future food

labelling requirements.

62. The rapid increase in variety and traits introduced into crops through modern biotechnology

would increase the complexity and difficulty of testing and make it burdensome.63. It created uncertainty for other genetically modified foods being assessed for approval in the EU;

it was unclear whether the newly approved genetically modified foods or food ingredients would

be subjected to more detailed criteria.

64. The rationale for identifying protein and DNA resulting from genetic modification through

mandatory labelling should be clarified.

65. The labelling statements "contains genetically modified soya" or "contains genetically modified

maize" did not inform consumers about specific characteristics with regard to composition,

nutritional value, nutritional effects or the intended use of a food, as the labels did not contain

such information.

66. There were other ways of providing valuable information about genetically modified foods to the

public.

67. Treating genetically modified foods as a class of products would further encourage incorrectconsumer perceptions about biotechnology. Consumers were already confused and misinformed.

68. There was no indication on when to use the label.

69. The proposed labelling provisions were vague; information was needed on whether labelling

requirements would apply to other genetically modified foods and food ingredients, and if so,

when this would occur.

70. It was not clear what specific "documentary information" had to be provided which would be

sufficient to fulfil the regulation's objectives.

71. It was necessary to explain how the statement "produced from genetically modified soya" could

provide information about composition or characteristics of a food.

72. It was not clear how a complicated and technical production tool, such as biotechnology, could be

explained in a five-word label. The text did not provide any criteria for determining why the

presence of protein or DNA resulting from genetic modification might alter the properties of a

given food.

73. The label wording did not indicate the qualitative and quantitative make up of foods which had

already gone through safety reviews.

74. Labelling was not the most practical way of attaining the objectives particularly in the case of

processed foods containing various ingredients from different sources.

75. Compulsory labelling schemes could disadvantage GMO exporting countries. The requirements

could easily act as disguised barriers to trade in favour of non-GMO products.

76. Closer scrutiny was needed with regard to the scientific grounds for distinguishing GMOs, the

need to keep consumers informed, and possible discrimination against GMO products.

77. It was unclear whether comments had been taken into account in the adoption of the measure.

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

12/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 12

78. A biosafety protocol was being negotiated under the Convention on Biological Diversity, which

would address trade in foodstuffs produced from GMOs. Any labelling requirement for GMOs

was premature; it would be wise to wait for outcome of ongoing negotiations.

79. It would create precedents for the future regulation of other food and agricultural products.

80. Updated information was required.

3. EGYPT: Labelling of Meat

Products Meat, slaughtered poultry and chickenRaised by European Communities and United States

Meeting/Dates raised 15 September 1998 (G/TBT/M/13); 20 November 1998 (G/TBT/M/14);

31 March 1999 (G/TBT/M/15)

Notification G/TBT/98.127

Other relevant documents Minister of Trade and Supply Decree No. 465/1997Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory

Concerns raised

81. The Regulation was a technical barrier to trade; it was costly, technically difficult to comply with,

and was not in conformity with international practice.

82. Clarification was required on whether labels had to be placed both on the inside and outside of

packaging containers.

83. Comments had been sent but no reply had been received.

84. The relevant provisions should be amended and brought into conformity with the Agreement.

85. The labelling requirements decreased the opportunities for trade in beef livers, meat and poultry,

in particular for small producers.

4. EGYPT: Labelling of Textile Products

Products Textiles

Raised by European Communities and United States

Meeting/Dates raised 15 September 1998 (G/TBT/M/13); 20 November 1998 (G/TBT/M/14);

31 March 1999 (G/TBT/M/15)


Other relevant documents Egyptian Decree 1/1998


Concerns raised

86. Unnecessarily disproportionate labelling and marking requirements which could create tradebarriers.

87. The nature of the information required was excessively detailed.

88. The way in which the labels were to be applied to products was exaggerated and costly for

producers.

89. The number of labelling requirements in Egypt had increased.

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

13/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 13

5. JAPAN: Agricultural Standards for Organic Agricultural Products

Products Organic plant products and processed foods made from organic plant

products

Raised by Australia; Canada; New Zealand and United StatesMeeting/Dates raised 15 September 1998 (G/TBT/M/13); 20 November 1998 (G/TBT/M/14);

1 October 1999 (G/TBT/M/17)

Notification G/TBT/Notif. 99.539; G/TBT/Notif. 99.540

Other Relevant documents The Law Concerning Standardization and Proper Labelling of

Agricultural and Forestry Products


Concerns raised

90. The draft Regulation should be notified when ready.

91. The extended comment period would allow other Members to consider the Regulation with

sufficient time and to hold consultations.

6. MEXICO: Labelling of Natural Hides and Tanned Skins, and Artificial Leather having

the Appearance of Natural Leather, of Footwear and Leather Goods, and of other Articles

Made from these Materials

Products Hides and tanned skins, footwear, leather goods


Meeting/Dates raised 27 March 1998 (G/TBT/M/11)


Other relevant documents Draft Mexican Official Standard (NOM-020-SCFI-1997)


Concerns raised

92. Comments had been made but no reply had been received.

7. THE NETHERLANDS: Bill of Parliament Amending the Act on Environmental

Protection (Sustainability Produced Timber)

Products Wooden products

Raised by Brazil; Canada; Ecuador; Malaysia and the Philippines (ASEAN);

Norway and Poland

Meeting/Dates raised 15 September 1998 (G/TBT/M/13); 20 November 1998 (G/TBT/M/14),30 March 2001 (G/TBT/M/23); 29 June 2001 (G/TBT/M/24)




Concerns raised

93. The Bill contravened the obligation of the Netherlands and the European Union (EU) under the

WTO Agreements and GATT rules.

94. It went against the non-discriminatory principle of the WTO and was inconsistent with Article 2.1

of the Agreement.

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

14/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 14

95. It would treat wood products from "primary forests" less favourably than like wood products from

other forests. This would prejudice products of countries that had maintained primary forests.

96. The justification for the proposed Bill.

97. It would create obstacles to international trade and was inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the

Agreement.98. It targeted perceived environmental concerns in the territory of other WTO Members, since there

was no consensus on definitions regarding "an area where wood production takes place on a

sustainable basis" and on "primary forest". It attempted to impose a Dutch definition and criteria

on other national jurisdictions.

99. It would also treat wood products less favourably than like products made from other materials.

If its objective was environmental protection, some of these other products and their process and

production methods (PPMs) could prove to be far less environmentally benign if assessed on the

basis of life-cycle analysis. It contained a de facto requirement for traceability throughout the

supply chain which was not a standard practice.

100. It would not meet its declared objectives of sustainable forest management nor combat

deforestation in the tropics, but would create an unreasonable burden on industry.

101. It imposed a certification requirement without the recognition of capacity building that mightbe needed to develop a certification regime appropriate to local circumstances and to achieve

certification.

102. Certification should be market based, independent, and voluntary.

103. Mandatory labelling was not a step which the majority of suppliers would be ready to

implement in the time-frame proposed.

104. It would not enhance consumer choice, since consumers would not be able to distinguish

between good or bad wood based on the marking. The label would only indicate whether a

formal certification had been adopted, ignoring the fact that wood products could be sustainably

produced without being certified.

105. It contradicted a number of multilateral arrangements, such as the WTO Agreement, the

process being undertaken by the United Nations Intergovernmental Forum on Forest (IFF), and

the International Tropical Timber Agreement (ITTA).106. Neglected to give effect to Article 12 of the Agreement, particularly with respect to

paragraphs 2 and 3. It discriminated against developing countries unable to achieve certification,

and as a result would reduce their market access and harm their economies.

107. The Dutch authorities should reconsider the proposed Bill and instead support multilateral

efforts towards a market-driven acceptable solution.

108. Several ASEAN countries have provided comments to the EC Enquiry Point and to the

European Union (EU).

109. Further information about the status of the Bill was requested.

I. 1999

1. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: EC Regulation 881/98 "Traditional Terms" adopted in

April 1998, effective 1 October 1999

Products Wines with labels or packaging containing any of a number of labelling

terms; certain wines sector products

Raised by Argentina; Australia; Canada; Chile; Egypt; Mexico; New Zealand;

Uruguay and United States

Meeting/Dates raised 1 October 1999 (G/TBT/M/17); 25 February 2000 (G/TBT/M/18);

9 October 2001 (G/TBT/M/25)

Notification



7/28/2019 GTBTW184

15/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 15

Concerns raised

110. The Regulation was far-reaching. It would restrict the use of commonly used wine labelling

terms describing colour, processing methods and other characteristics of wine which were not

recognized internationally as an intellectual property right or dealing with geographicalindication. In many cases, these terms acted as a verification of the particular quality of wine

produced in other parts of the world.

111. It was unlikely that the use of these terms would create consumer confusion.

112. It could create barriers to trade.

113. Instead of utilizing traditional terms, registered trademarks could be used to protect

consumers.

114. Wines with labels or packaging containing any of the "traditional terms" would be denied

entry into the EC, unless originating from a country with which the Commission had a bilateral

agreement.

115. The objective of preventing consumer deception was effectively met in many jurisdictions

through general consumer protection laws.

116. There was no evidence of consumer deception in relation to traditional terms.117. It had not been notified and no opportunity had been given to interested Members to provide

comments before adopting the final text. Sought information on when notification could be

expected.

118. No implementation date had been set; information was sought on whether a delay in

implementation was planned for consultations to develop a WTO-consistent approach in order to .

119. The justification of the Regulation and explanation of its objective were required in order to

clarify the scope and nature of the protection it envisaged.

120. It could create a precedent for other agricultural products (such as cheese) in which Members

took a significant trade interest.

1. NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIA: Labelling Food Produced Using Gene

Technology (Foods Commonly Referred to as Genetically Modified Foods)

Products Foods derived from gene technology; foods produced using gene

technology

Raised by Canada

Meeting/Dates raised 11 June 1999 (G/TBT/M/16); 1 October 1999 (G/TBT/M/17)

Notification G/TBT/Notif.99.134; G/TBT/Notif.99/244; G/TBT/Notif.99.275



Concerns raised

121. The need of the Regulation and its objective.

122. An explanation was needed of how the proposed labelling scheme would be made consistent

with international trade obligations.

123. The discrimination among like products needed an explanation.

124. How it would be verified and enforced required clarification.

125. It was unclear what methods of analysis and sampling would be used to ensure the accuracy

of the labelling.

126. To clarify how and when all the necessary methods of analysis would be developed, and

whether all methods of analysis and sampling schemes should be subject to international scrutiny

and verification.

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

16/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 16

V. 2000

1. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Proposal for a European Parliament and Council

Regulation Establishing a System for the Identification and Registration of BovineAnimals and Regarding the Labelling of Beef and Beef Products.

Products Beef (CN Codes 0201; 0202; 0206 10 95 and 0206 2991)

Raised by Brazil; Canada; Egypt; New Zealand; South Africa and United States

Meeting/Dates raised 21 July 2000 (G/TBT/M/20); 6 October 2000 (G/TBT/M/21);

10 November 2000 (G/TBT/M/22)

Notification G/TBT/Notif.00/289

Other relevant documents European Commission proposal for a European Parliament and Council

Regulation establishing a system for the identification and registration of

bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and

repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97


Concerns raised

127. To clarify whether only the country of origin of the animal and the slaughterhouse labels

information would apply to beef exported to the EC.

128. To consider if it might not be more appropriate to notify the measure under the SPS

Agreement given the objective of establishing a labelling system in view of the BSE crisis to

prevent consumer deception.

129. The proposed system could represent a serious impediment to trade from developing

countries.

1. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Proposal for a Council Regulation Amending

Regulation (EEC) N 1907/90 on Certain Marketing Standards for Eggs

Products Table eggs (HS: 0407.00.30)

Raised by Canada; India and United States

Meeting/Dates raised 6 October 2000(G/TBT/M/21); 10 November 2000 (G/TBT/M/22)


Other relevant documents Proposal for a Council Regulation Amending Regulation (EEC) N

1907/90 on Certain Marketing Standards for Eggs


Concerns raised

130. The consistency of the labelling scheme under WTO Agreements was questioned.

131. The justification of the measure, including information about the conditions that would

govern the farming methods.

132. The justification of the change from a voluntary to a mandatory scheme.

133. It was a labelling requirement related to non-product related PPMs.

134. Compulsory labelling, as well as labelling based on non-product related PPMs, were matters

of strong systemic concerns.

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

17/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 17

2. INDONESIA: Regulation of Government No. 69/1999 on Food Labelling and

Advertisement and Draft Decree of the Ministry of Health on Implementation Guide of

the Regulation of Government No. 69/1999 on Food Labelling and Advertising

Products Food in general , food labelling and advertisingRaised by Egypt; European Communities and United States

Meeting/Dates raised 21 July 2000 (G/TBT/M/20); 6 October 2000(G/TBT/M/21);

10 November 2000 (G/TBT/M/22); 29 June 2001 (G/TBT/M/24)

Notification G/TBT/Notif.00/478; G/TBT/Notif.00.507

Other relevant documents Regulation of Government No. 69/1999 on Food Labelling and

Advertisement and Draft Decree of the Ministry of Health on

Implementation Guide of the Regulation of Government No. 69/1999 on

Food Labelling and Advertising; Indonesian Regulation N 8 of 1999


Concerns raised

135. The measure had not been notified even though it would have an impact on trade and

Members did not have the chance to comment.

136. Businesses did not have sufficient time to adjust to the new requirements.

137. The justification of the use of local language on labelling.

138. Written comments had been submitted but there had been no reply.

139. Certain general requirements imposed on food should not be applied to wines and spirits, in

particular labelling.

140. Requirements involving labelling could have future negative impacts on the flow of trade to

the Indonesian market, especially from other developing country Members.

3. JAPAN: Standards for Labelling on Quality of Processed Foods, Fresh Foods; Husked

(Brown) Rice and Milled Rice and Marine Products

Products All food and beverages on sale for consumers

Raised by Australia, Egypt and New Zealand

Meeting/Dates raised 17-19 May 2000 (G/TBT/M/19); 21 July 2000 (G/TBT/M/20);

10 November 2000 (G/TBT/M/22); 30 March 2001 (G/TBT/M/23)


Other relevant documents The Law Concerning Standardization and Proper Labelling of

Agricultural and Forestry Products (1950 Law No. 175)


Concerns raised

141. The country of origin labeling requirement appeared to be considered as an intrinsic

determinant of product quality for fresh foods. However, there was no scientific or proven link

between origin and quality.

142. The requirement added unnecessary costs to producers, distributors and consumers,

inconsistent with Article 2.2.

143. Quality assurance was an issue already provided in the health and safety tests that products

had to meet in order to be marketed in Japan.

144. To explain the justification of the additional costs arising from the scheme when the scheme

did not meet its stated objective.

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

18/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 18

145. To clarify whether alternative measures of a less trade restrictive nature e.g., voluntary

labelling schemes, had been considered and the reasons why those alternatives had been

disregarded.

146. To clarify whether the risks of non-fulfilment of the objective (i.e. to provide consumers with

information through the country of origin labelling) had been considered and to explain thescientific and technical information that had been used to determine the risk of non-fulfilment.

147. The labelling requirements had been proposed and developed in the context of revisions to the

Basic Agriculture Law which aimed at increasing demand for domestic agricultural products.

148. Country of origin labelling should remain voluntary, allowing distributors and producers the

right of use when considered justified, including in response to consumer wishes for information.

149. To clarify whether the consequences on developing country Members and the costs related to

compliance by SMEs had been taken into consideration.

4. UNITED STATES: Country of Origin Mark on Imitation Jewellery

Products Imitation jewellery, of base metal, whether or not plated with precious

metalRaised by Korea and Thailand

Meeting/Dates raised 25 February 2000 (G/TBT/M/18); 17-19 May 2000 (G/TBT/M/19)

Notification

Other relevant documents Africa Growth and Opportunity Law


Concerns raised

150. The proposed measure and its exceptions were inconsistent with Article 2.1 and Article 2.2 of

the Agreement.

151. It posed an additional burden on foreign jewellery manufacturers, despite the fact that there

was no sign that the current marking practices were insufficient.

152. It would undermine foreign competition.

153. It required indelible marking on the products rather than on the packaging.

154. It was difficult for foreign jewellery manufacturers to ask for the exceptions allowed by the

regulation; this would add the cost to imported jewellery.

155. A justification of the proposed measure was required.

5. UNITED STATES: Dolphin-Safe Tuna Labelling; Official Mark

Products Tuna Labelling

Raised by Brazil; Egypt; Mexico and Thailand

Meeting/Dates raised 25 February 2000 (G/TBT/M/18); 17-19 May 2000 (G/TBT/M/19);21 July (G/TBT/M/20); 6 October 2000 (G/TBT7M/21); 10 November

2000 (G/TBT/M/22)


Other relevant documents Federal Register 64 FR 71722, 22 December 1999; 50 CFR Part 216.

Mandatory/voluntary Voluntary

Concerns raised

156. To clarify whether the requirement was mandatory or voluntary.

157. The justification of the nature of the draft.

158. Eco-labelling should be applied on a voluntary basis, otherwise it could result in trade

barriers.

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

19/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 19

159. The importance of the information on tuna labelling was underscored.

160. Doubts existed on which views would prevail within the US given that there were differing

positions but only some were compatible with WTO obligations.

161. To clarify whether a corrigendum would be made to the notification.

VI. 2001

1. BRAZIL: Labelling Registration Requirements for Packed Food Products Containing

or Produced by Genetically Modified Organisms

Products Packed food products for human consumption

Raised by United States

Meeting/Dates raised 9 October 2001 (G/TBT/M/25)

Notification G/TBT/N/BRA/27

Other relevant documents Government Act N 3.871, 18 July 2001, published in the Federal

Official Journal (Dirio Oficial da Unio), Section I, page 1, 19 July 2001


Concerns raised

162. The proposed Decree had not been notified.

163. It was not clear whether it was a final Decree.

2. CHILE: Amendment to the Decree of Ministry of Health N 977 of 1996 on Transgenic

Foods (Labelling System for Transgenic Foodstuffs)

Products Transgenic Foods

Raised by Canada

Meeting/Dates raised 9 October 2001 (G/TBT/M/25)Notification/ G/TBT/CHL/18



Concerns raised

164. The Regulation created unnecessary barriers to trade.

165. It needed scientific justification.

166. The practicability of its measures and their enforceability should be clarified.

3. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES/BELGIUM: Draft Law Aiming to Promote Socially

Responsible Production

Products Goods and services, including substances, preparations, biocides and

packaging

Raised by Argentina; Brazil; Canada; Cuba; Egypt; Hong Kong,China; India;

Malaysia (ASEAN); Mexico; Pakistan; Thailand ant United States

Meeting/Dates raised 30 March 2001 (G/TBT/M/23); 29 June 2001 (G/TBT/M/24); 9 October

2001 (G/TBT/M/25); 15 March 2002 (G/TBT/M/26)

Notification G/TBT/N/BEL/2


Mandatory/voluntary Voluntary

Concerns raised

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

20/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 20

167. The Singapore Ministerial Declaration which rejected the use of labour standards for

protectionist purposes had been ignored. The ILO (and not the WTO) was the competent body to

set and deal with labour standards.

168. Linking social concepts with trade would create an obstacle to international trade.169. The scheme was based on non-product related PPMs. The WTO consistency of such

measures had been intensively debated and consensus had not been reached.

170. The linkage between trade and core labour standards was a concept that developing countries

had been resisting.

171. The measure was discriminatory and would create unnecessary obstacles to trade.

172. It was unilateral, against the use of prescribed multilateral rules set up on the basis of balance

and mutual benefits for all parties.

173. To clarify whether it was mandatory or voluntary and if it was an EC-wide initiative.

174. To clarify the criteria and whether it was to be applied to services.

175. To clarify the precise language of the label.

176. To clarify whether importers have been consulted and if assessments have been made on the

competitiveness of products and services bearing or not bearing the label.177. The delay in replying caused concern since efficient information exchange on notifications

was important.

178. To notify more, rather than less, was useful for Members so as to provide them with

opportunities for comments, disregarding the voluntary nature of a measure.

179. It could not provide an incentive for developing countries to develop socially responsible

enterprises.

180. It should be reconsidered taking into account the negative trade effects on developing

countries' exports.

181. Constructive and positive measures, raising living standards, ensuring full employment,

expanding trade in goods and services and in a manner consistent with needs and concerns of

countries at different development levels should be introduced instead.

4. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: EC Regulation N 1493 on the Common Organisation

of the Market in Wine

Products Wine products

Raised by Argentina; Australia; Canada Chile; New Zealand; Uruguay and United

States

Meeting/Dates raised 9 October 2001 (G/TBT/M/25); 15 March 2002 (G/TBT/M/26)

Notification



Concerns raised

182. The proposal violated the national treatment requirement of the Agreement and had a

significant impact on trade.

183. It provided special favourable treatment to products of European origin and was an attempt to

gain a competitive advantage for EC-produced wines and spirits by imposing an unnecessary

restriction on trade of imported ones.

184. To prohibit the use of traditional expressions in connection with imported goods could

constitute unnecessary obstacles to trade. It violated Article 2.2; the objective could be achieved

in a less trade-restrictive manner, e.g. by using country-of-origin requirements.

185. It restricted import of wines with labels bearing descriptive or generic matter, if considered as

"traditional expressions" by the EC. Most of the prohibited terms were adjectives, such as the

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

21/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 21

colour or the age of wines (e.g. "vintage" and "ruby"). The prohibition went beyond current

intellectual property protection provided in the TRIPs Agreement (i.e. geographical indications).

186. To prohibit others from using certain containers or bottles raised trade barriers.

187. It contributed to consumer deception as there was no factual basis to assert that the use of

certain descriptive or generic terms identified by the EC would deceive or confuse consumers.188. It violated Article III or Article XI of the GATT 1994.

189. No reason had been provided for exceptions which would justify GATT inconsistencies.

190. The definition of labelling appeared to cover packaging as well.

191. The draft regulation should have been notified so that interested Members could provide

comments before its final adoption.

192. Information on the status of the draft and on plans to notify was needed.

193. The potential impact on other product sectors, such as cheese and other food products should

be considered.

5. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament

and of the Council on Genetically Modified Food and Feed and Proposal for a

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning Traceability andLabelling of Genetically Modified Organisms and Traceability of Food and Feed

Products Produced from Genetically Modified Organisms and Amending Directive

2001/18/EC

Products Geneticallymodified organisms (GMOs) for food or feed use, food and

feed containing or consisting of GMOs, food produced from or

containing ingredients produced from GMOs, and feed produced from

GMOs and Products consisting of, or containing genetically modified

organisms (GMOs), food and food ingredients, feed materials, compound

feeding stuffs and feed additives produced from GMOs

Raised by Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada and United States

Meeting/Dates raised 9 October 2001 (G/TBT/M/25); 15 March 2002 (G/TBT/M/26);20-21 June 2002 ((G/TBT/M/27)

Notification G/TBT/N/EEC/6; G/TBT/N/EEC/7

Other relevant documents G/TBT/W/171


Concerns raised

194. It was not clear how the Regulations were reconciled with the TBT and the Marrakesh

Agreements.

195. They discriminated against imported products based on methods of production

(i.e. biotechnology) rather than on products' characteristics and risks. They sought to imposeadditional traceability and monitoring requirements only on biotechnology products. To impose

the requirements for products or ingredients that could not be differentiated from their traditional

counterpart would constitute an unjustified discrimination between them. This would go beyond

the principles of MFN treatment and national treatment, contrary to Article 2.1 of the Agreement,

as well as Articles I and III of the GATT 1994.

196. They were believed to be more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective,

and went against Article 2.2 .

197. An explanation on the substantive reasoning behind each of the stated objective was needed.

Traceability and labelling requirements were not the ideal measures to fulfil the declared

objectives.

198. They had no scientific basis.

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

22/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 22

199. They required the traceability and labelling of highly processed products such as oils derived

from GMOs even though there was no detectable DNA protein. The enforceability of labelling

requirements on these highly refined products raised concerns.

200. The lack of scientific support of the measures could lead to the possible introduction of other

non-science based elements in regulatory decision-making processes.201. The means to effectively implement the Regulations required clarification. Without the

means for testing, its requirements would be unenforceable, could lead to fraudulent practices and

could fuel consumers' distrust in regulatory regimes, which was not in any country's interest.

202. Their nature was discriminatory: labelling requirements could apply to food or feed which

consisted of or were produced from GMOs, but not to food produced with genetically modified

enzymes (i.e. in the case of cheese).

203. It was unclear how exporters could comply with the Regulations' requirements at a reasonable

cost.

204. The cost that would be involved to develop, maintain and enforce their proposed regulatory

system was unclear.

205. They were unworkable and unenforceable. An effective verification mechanism was not

foreseen.206. They attempted to respond to unidentified risks and unspecific hazards.

207. Their requirements applied to biotechnology derived products which had been approved for

human and animal consumption and environmental release. These products had undergone risk

assessment and had been approved for years.

208. Their labelling requirements were imposed on products with no identified handling, usage,

safety or compositional distinctions. Consumers would be left without accurate information.

209. There was no justification of expanding the mandatory traceability and labelling requirements

to animal feeds.

210. Any regulation of GM foods should be based on science; should be enforceable as well as

commercially feasible (i.e. not prohibitively costly).

211. The wording "containing or coming from GMO" showed a lack of impartiality, and would not

provide consumers with the information needed to make purchasing choices in an objective way.212. They would lead consumers not to choose GM products even though both the traditional and

GM products had been analyzed, tested and authorized for marketing as safe products.

213. There existed a reasonable variety of less trade restrictive alternative measures which could

fulfil the objectives (e.g. the use of batch numbering or the identification of new breeds of plants).

214. Foodstuffs and feed containing GMOs could retain less agro-chemical residues and could

result in less environmental contamination.

215. An explanation was necessary of how the comments made would be taken into account.

216. They also fell under the SPS Agreement, and had been notified under that Agreement.

217. Further clarification on the decision-making process was needed.

6. INDIA: Mandatory Label Requirements for Pre-packaged Imports for Retail Sale and

Revision of the Indian 1955 Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules

Products All prepackaged consumer products are covered under the labelling

requirements; the list of 133 products if available in the notifications no.

44 dated 24 November 2000 (All packed and/or bottled food items) and

notification no. 7 (Vegetarian Food) dated 31 March 2001.

Raised by Australia; Canada; European Communities; Japan and United States

Meeting/Dates raised 30 March 2001 (G/TBT/M/23); 9 October 2001 (G/TBT/M/25);

15 March 2002 (G/TBT/M/26); 20-21 June 2002 (G/TBT/M/27)

Notification G/TBT/N/IND/1

Other relevant documents Indian 1955 Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules; Standards of

Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

23/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 23


Concerns raised

218. Members' rights under the Agreement had been denied, since the proposals had entered into

force but had not been notified. Transparency requirements of the Agreement should be observed

(e.g. to notify and provide opportunities for comments).

219. A reasonable period of time for suppliers to adapt to the new requirements had not been

granted.

220. Its requirements would impede exports of distilled spirits to the Indian market.

221. Its objective required clarification.

222. Its rationale for requiring labels on non-perishable products to indicate the month and year of

packaging as well as the maximum retail price needed and explanation.

223. An explanation was needed for the justification of additional costs imposed on manufacturers

and consumers.

224. To explain the justification of the coverage of the labelling requirements.225. To explain the role of the Bureau of Indian Standards BIS- and why manufacturers and

exporters must register with BIS.

226. An explanation of the scientific or technical basis for proposing maximum concentration

levels for a variety of naturally occurring substances in distilled spirits (certain chemicals and

metals).

227. The alcohol content requirements should be revised.

228. The geographical indications for "bourbon whisky" and "Tennessee whiskey" should be

recognized, and the sale of such products should be prohibited unless they had been legally

produced.

229. To explain whether relevant international standards, guides or recommendations have been

considered.

230. To clarify whether India has considered accepting existing international or nationalcertification that are equivalent.

231. To clarify whether other less burdensome and trade-restrictive means have been considered.

232. To inform whether the regulations would be notified to the WTO.

233. The compliance procedures were neither clear nor transparent.

VII. 2002

1. BRAZIL: Ruling on Criteria and Procedures for the Import of Wines and Beverages

Derived from Grapes and Wines

Products Wines and beverages derived from wines and grapes, like brandy, grappa,

sangria, grape juice and others


Meeting/Dates raised 20-21 June 2002 (G/TBT/M/27)

Notification G/TBT/N/BRA/29


Mandatory/voluntary

Concerns raised

234. Comments had been provided but no replies had been received.

235. The registration of producers of exporting countries with Brazilian authorities as well as with

certain labelling requirements was unclear and required clarification.

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

24/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 24

1. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Commission Regulation (EC) N 753/2002 of

29 April 2002 Laying Down Certain Rules for Applying Council Regulation

(EC) N1493/1999 as Regards the Description, Designation, Presentation and Protection

of Certain Wine Sector Products

Products Certain wine sector products

Raised by Argentina; Australia; Bolivia; Brazil; Canada; Mexico; New Zealand;

Paraguay; Peru; Uruguay and United States;


Notification G/TBT/N/EEC /15



Concerns raised

236. The proposed Regulation contained technical provisions that would have a significant effecton the importation of wine into the EU. The trade impacts for non-EU wine producers could be

significant; there was an attempt to provide a competitive advantage for EU wines.

237. Its approach should be reconsidered keeping in mind obligations under Article 2.1 (on

national treatment and MFN provisions), Article 2.2 (on avoiding the creation of unnecessary

obstacles to international trade), Article 2.3 (on addressing objectives in a less trade-restrictive

manner), and Article 2.8 (on basing regulations on performance rather than descriptive

characteristics).

238. It discriminated against non-EU wine, contrary to the national treatment obligations under

Article III of the GATT 1994.

239. Its overall approach was in conflict with the TBT principle to ensure that technical regulations

and standards did not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade. The objective could be

achieved in a less trade-restrictive manner.

240. The need for a prescriptive approach in an area where serious health, safety or environmental

risks did not seem to apply required clarification. It was more stringent than necessary to address

any perceived risk, and was taken much further than was required for other food products.

241. The protection of "traditional expressions" as identified by the EU had no counterpart in the

law of any other country outside the EU.

242. Descriptive and/or generic terms had no specific connection with a geographical source of a

given class of goods. "Traditional terms" did not constitute intellectual property. To reserve

generic descriptive terms and phrases exclusively for EC producers raised serious concerns about

WTO obligations. There was an attempt to broaden the definition of geographical indications

(GI) beyond the definition as contained in the TRIPs Agreement. This was in conflict with TRIPs

and GATT provisions on national treatment.243. There was no factual basis to assert that the use of such terms on imported wines would

deceive or confuse consumers.

244. The objective of consumer information was undermined to the extent that the measure

prevented the use for imported wines of generic descriptors used commonly in global wine trade.

It could also contribute to consumer deception.

245. There was no basis for the restrictions on the use of certain grape variety names on wine

labels based on country of origin. Wondered how information on grape variety might "confuse"

consumers.

246. The approach of granting labelling flexibility to those countries that agreed to adopt certain

regulations or signed bilateral agreements with the EU would induce countries to adopt certain

regulations that otherwise they would not accept, or would be used as leverage to extract

concessions in negotiations on unrelated matters. The preferential treatment afforded to countries

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

25/27

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

26/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 26

3. PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Public Notice of General Administration for

Quality Supervision and Inspection and Quarantine

Products Food and cosmeticsRaised by European Communities


Notification (G/TBT/N/CHN/2)

Other relevant documents Public Notice of General Administration of Quality Supervision and

Inspection and Quarantine [2002] No.21; Decree of State Administration

for Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine [2000] No.19; Decree of State

Administration for Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine [2000] No. 21.


Concerns raised

264. The legislative text and an extension of the comment period were requested.

4. UNITED STATES: Country of Origin Labelling Provisions

Products

Raised by Canada


Notification

Other relevant documents US Farm Security and Role Investment Act

Mandatory/voluntary

Concerns raised

265. To explanation the objectives of the requirement.

266. To clarify the intention to notify.

5. WORKS OF THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMITTEE ON FOOD LABELLING

(CCFL)

Products Labelling of Food derived through biotechnology

Raised by Canada, United States, Egypt and Chile

Supported by

Dates raised 6 October 2000 (G/TBT/M/21); 10 November 2000 (G/TBT/M/22); 30 March

2001 (G/TBT/M/23); 29 June 2001 (G/TBT/M/24)Relevant documents G/TBT/W/115; G/TBT/W//115. Add.1; G/TBT/W/134; G/TBT/W//134.

Add.1; G/TBT/W/155

267. A drafting group had been established under CODEX to elaborate a guideline for the labelling

of foods derived through biotechnology. The CCFL had considered the options of either

mandatory labelling based on health and safety considerations or mandatory labelling based on

health and safety considerations and the method of production. Codex, as an international

intergovernmental standards body for food safety, undertook to develop a standard on what

appeared to be a TBT issue; there were the potential trade implications of this work. Members

were encouraged to participate in it.

7/28/2019 GTBTW184

27/27

G/TBT/W/184

Page 27

268. Article 2.1 of the Agreement and Article III of the GATT ensured that imported products be

accorded treatment no less favorable than that accorded to like products of national origin. A

mandatory labelling scheme based on non-product-related PPMs, such as biotechnology, could be

considered a technical barrier to trade as it treated similar products differently based on methodsof production.

269. The issue of non-product related PPM labelling was generally held to be a like product issue.

The use of non-product related PPM labelling schemes with respect to GMOs could have much

broader trade implications. This type of labelling could be used to mark items for environmental,

social and even ethical considerations.

270. Supported the development of a GMO labelling standard that could be applied by the private

sector on an internationally consistent voluntary basis.

271. The work being done in the CCFL could lend creating to the adoption by governments of

mandatory labelling requirements on bio-engineered food.

272. Governments should not take such action without, inter alia , due consideration to alternative

approaches, e.g. public awareness campaigns or voluntary labelling.

273. Governments should also take into account the following elements: the feasibility ofimplementing such requirements, how to verify through end-product testing as well as what

would be the costs and the infrastructure needed in order to adequately implement such

requirements; and what would be the implications of a government taking actions in an area not

related to health and safety, and what would be the likelihood of consumers being misled.

Wondered if the above concerns had been taken into account by the CCFL when developing the

guidelines.

274. Guidelines on the labelling of foods derived from biotechnology would be helpful; however,

mandatory labelling requirements might be troublesome. The guidelines should not be binding,

and countries should not be required to abide by them unless they proved to be consistent with

countries' needs and abilities.

__________

GTBTW184

Documents