www.wtocenter.org.tw/SmartKMS/fileviewer?

id=11516

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade

G/TBT/W/184 4 October 2002

(02-5345)

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 Members and 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.

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; and Non-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

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

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 FOOD LABELLING (CCFL)............................................................................................26

G/TBT/W/184 Page 5 I. 1. 1995 KOREA: Marks of Origin System Japan and Switzerland 21 April 1995 (G/TBT/M/1) Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary 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 the Agreement. 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 Official countermark New Zealand 21 April 1995 (G/TBT/M/1) G/TBT/Notif.95.37 Mexican Official Standard NOM-106-SCFI-1994 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary 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 Meat and carcasses New Zealand 21 April 1995 (G/TBT/M/1) Mexican Official Standard NOM-030-ZOO-1994 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary

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 identified with 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 New motor vehicles European Communities and Japan 21 April 1995 (G/TBT/M/1) TBT/Notif/93.458 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary 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. 1. 1996 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Designations of Origin Registration of Geographical Indications and

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary Concerns raised

133 products, amongst others, wines Australia; Canada and New Zealand 28 June 1996 (G/TBT/M/5); 16 and 22 October 1996 (G/TBT/M/6) EC Regulation (EC) No. 1107/96; Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 Mandatory

14. Written comments had been sent. However, no response had been received; further information was 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.

G/TBT/W/184 Page 7 2. UNITED STATES: Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labelling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods Textile wearing apparel and piece goods (HS Chapters 62, 63) European Communities 28 June 1996 (G/TBT/M/5); 16 and 22 October 1996 (G/TBT/M/6) G/TBT/Notif. 96.20 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary Concerns raised

1. Why relevant ISO Standard 37.58 was not used in the draft regulation. 3. UNITED STATES: Tea Importation Act; Tea Standards Tea (HS Chapter 0902) European Communities 28 June 1996 (G/TBT/M/5); 16 and 22 October 1996 (G/TBT/M/6) G/TBT/Notif.96.46 Federal Register 61 FR 4597, 7 February 1996; Federal Register 21 CFR Part 1220 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary Concerns raised

21. To clarify why the existing ISO standard 37.20 was not used in the Regulation. III. 1. 1997 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 Foods and food ingredients produced from genetically modified soya and genetically modified maize (various tariff headings) and products containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) Canada and United States 20 June 1997 (G/TBT/M/8); 3 October 1997 (G/TBT/M/10) G/TBT/Notif.92.355; G/TBT/Notif.97.151; G/TBT/Notif. 97.382 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 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary

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 Industrial products; food products; textiles and non-alcoholic beverages European Communities 13 and 18 November 1997 (G/TBT/M/9); 27 March 1998 (G/TBT/M/11) 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) Voluntary

Products Raised by Supported by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents

Mandatory/voluntary Concerns raised 24. 25. 26. 27.

The justification of the Regulations required explanation. To clarify whether the provisions of the Agreement had been respected. Comments had been submitted but no response had been received. 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 Textiles European Communities 13 and 18 November 1997 (G/TBT/M/9); 27 March 1998 (G/TBT/M/11) Mexican Official Standard - NOM-004-SCFI-1994 (Commercial Information Labelling of Textiles, Articles of Clothing and Accessories) Mandatory

Products Raised by Supported by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary Concerns raised 29. 30. 31. 32.

The justification of the Regulation required explanation. To clarify whether the provisions of the Agreement had been respected. Comments had been submitted but no response had been received. 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.

G/TBT/W/184 Page 9 4. THAILAND: Labelling of Cigarettes Cigarettes European Communities 20 June 1997 (G/TBT/M/8); 3 October 1997 (G/TBT/M/10) G/TBT/Notif.97.768; G/TBT/Notif.97.769 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). Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents

Mandatory/voluntary 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. 1. 1998 BRAZIL: Proposed Technical Regulation for Labelling of Textile Products Textiles products European Communities 15 September 1998 (G/TBT/M/13) G/TBT/Notif. 98.276 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary 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 Foods and food ingredients produced from genetically modified soya and genetically modified maize (various tariff headings) Argentina; Brazil; Canada; New Zealand and United States 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) G/TBT/Notif.97.766 G/TBT/W/78; G/TBT/W/94; G/TBT/W/104 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised

Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary

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" required clarification. 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, nutritional value 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 for testing, and to the potential need for re-testing.

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 the origins 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 incorrect consumer 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.

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 Meat, slaughtered poultry and chicken European Communities and United States 15 September 1998 (G/TBT/M/13); 20 November 1998 (G/TBT/M/14); 31 March 1999 (G/TBT/M/15) G/TBT/98.127 Minister of Trade and Supply Decree No. 465/1997 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary 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 Textiles European Communities and United States 15 September 1998 (G/TBT/M/13); 20 November 1998 (G/TBT/M/14); 31 March 1999 (G/TBT/M/15) G/TBT/Notif. 98.206 Egyptian Decree 1/1998 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary Concerns raised

86. Unnecessarily disproportionate labelling and marking requirements which could create trade barriers. 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.

G/TBT/W/184 Page 13 5. JAPAN: Agricultural Standards for Organic Agricultural Products Organic plant products and processed foods made from organic plant products Australia; Canada; New Zealand and United States 15 September 1998 (G/TBT/M/13); 20 November 1998 (G/TBT/M/14); 1 October 1999 (G/TBT/M/17) G/TBT/Notif. 99.539; G/TBT/Notif. 99.540 The Law Concerning Standardization and Proper Labelling of Agricultural and Forestry Products Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other Relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary 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 Hides and tanned skins, footwear, leather goods European Communities 27 March 1998 (G/TBT/M/11) G/TBT/Notif.97.611 Draft Mexican Official Standard (NOM-020-SCFI-1997) Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary 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) Wooden products Brazil; Canada; Ecuador; Malaysia and the Philippines (ASEAN); Norway and Poland 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) G/TBT/Notif. 98.448 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary 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.

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 might be 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. 1. 1999 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: EC Regulation 881/98 "Traditional Terms" adopted in April 1998, effective 1 October 1999 Wines with labels or packaging containing any of a number of labelling terms; certain wines sector products Argentina; Australia; Canada; Chile; Egypt; Mexico; New Zealand; Uruguay and United States 1 October 1999 (G/TBT/M/17); 25 February 2000 (G/TBT/M/18); 9 October 2001 (G/TBT/M/25) Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary

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 geographical indication. 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) Foods derived from gene technology; foods produced using gene technology Canada 11 June 1999 (G/TBT/M/16); 1 October 1999 (G/TBT/M/17) G/TBT/Notif.99.134; G/TBT/Notif.99/244; G/TBT/Notif.99.275 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary 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.

G/TBT/W/184 Page 16

V. 1.

2000 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. Beef (CN Codes 0201; 0202; 0206 10 95 and 0206 2991) Brazil; Canada; Egypt; New Zealand; South Africa and United States 21 July 2000 (G/TBT/M/20); 6 October 2000 (G/TBT/M/21); 10 November 2000 (G/TBT/M/22) G/TBT/Notif.00/289 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 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents

Mandatory/voluntary 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 Table eggs (HS: 0407.00.30) Canada; India and United States 6 October 2000(G/TBT/M/21); 10 November 2000 (G/TBT/M/22) G/TBT/Notif.00/428 Proposal for a Council Regulation Amending Regulation (EEC) N 1907/90 on Certain Marketing Standards for Eggs Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary 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.

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 Food in general , food labelling and advertising Egypt; European Communities and United States 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) G/TBT/Notif.00/478; G/TBT/Notif.00.507 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 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents

Mandatory/voluntary 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 All food and beverages on sale for consumers Australia, Egypt and New Zealand 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) G/TBT/Notif.99/668 The Law Concerning Standardization and Proper Labelling of Agricultural and Forestry Products (1950 Law No. 175) Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary 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.

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 the scientific 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 Imitation jewellery, of base metal, whether or not plated with precious metal Korea and Thailand 25 February 2000 (G/TBT/M/18); 17-19 May 2000 (G/TBT/M/19) Africa Growth and Opportunity Law Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary 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 Tuna Labelling Brazil; Egypt; Mexico and Thailand 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) G/TBT/Notif.00.5 Federal Register 64 FR 71722, 22 December 1999; 50 CFR Part 216. Voluntary

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/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.

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 Packed food products for human consumption United States 9 October 2001 (G/TBT/M/25) G/TBT/N/BRA/27 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 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary Concerns raised 162. 163. 2.

The proposed Decree had not been notified. It was not clear whether it was a final Decree. CHILE: Amendment to the Decree of Ministry of Health N 977 of 1996 on Transgenic Foods (Labelling System for Transgenic Foodstuffs) Transgenic Foods Canada 9 October 2001 (G/TBT/M/25) G/TBT/CHL/18 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification/ Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary Concerns raised 164. 165. 166. 3.

The Regulation created unnecessary barriers to trade. It needed scientific justification. The practicability of its measures and their enforceability should be clarified. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES/BELGIUM: Draft Law Aiming to Promote Socially Responsible Production Goods and services, including substances, preparations, biocides and packaging Argentina; Brazil; Canada; Cuba; Egypt; Hong Kong,China; India; Malaysia (ASEAN); Mexico; Pakistan; Thailand ant United States 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) G/TBT/N/BEL/2 Voluntary

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary Concerns raised

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 Wine products Argentina; Australia; Canada Chile; New Zealand; Uruguay and United States 9 October 2001 (G/TBT/M/25); 15 March 2002 (G/TBT/M/26) Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary 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

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 and Labelling of Genetically Modified Organisms and Traceability of Food and Feed Products Produced from Genetically Modified Organisms and Amending Directive 2001/18/EC Genetically modified 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 Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada and United States 9 October 2001 (G/TBT/M/25); 15 March 2002 (G/TBT/M/26); 20-21 June 2002 ((G/TBT/M/27) G/TBT/N/EEC/6; G/TBT/N/EEC/7 G/TBT/W/171 Mandatory

Products

Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary 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 impose additional 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.

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 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. Australia; Canada; European Communities; Japan and United States 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) G/TBT/N/IND/1 Indian 1955 Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules; Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977

Products

Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents

G/TBT/W/184 Page 23 Mandatory/voluntary 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 national certification 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. 1. 2002 BRAZIL: Ruling on Criteria and Procedures for the Import of Wines and Beverages Derived from Grapes and Wines Wines and beverages derived from wines and grapes, like brandy, grappa, sangria, grape juice and others European Communities 20-21 June 2002 (G/TBT/M/27) G/TBT/N/BRA/29 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents 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.

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 Certain wine sector products Argentina; Australia; Bolivia; Brazil; Canada; Mexico; New Zealand; Paraguay; Peru; Uruguay and United States; 20-21 June 2002 (G/TBT/M/27) G/TBT/N/EEC /15 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary Concerns raised

236. The proposed Regulation contained technical provisions that would have a significant effect on 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

G/TBT/W/184 Page 25 that had bilateral wine agreements with the EU was inconsistent with respect to MFN obligations in Article 2.1 of the Agreement and Article I of the GATT 1994. 247. It was necessary to clarify whether the EC permitted certain countries, but not others, to inform EU consumers of certain grape varieties used to produce wines. 248. Bottle configurations reserved for exclusive EU use was inconsistent with the TRIPs Agreement; bottle configurations could not be considered sufficient to identify a product as originating in a certain geographical area. The EC's compliance with WTO obligations on its restriction on certain bottle configurations and shapes was questioned. 249. Notification was made only after the adoption of the proposal. The transparency obligations had not been fulfilled, in particular, there was a failure to notify at an appropriate early stage so as to allow other Members to comment, and to provide an opportunity for amendments to be made on the basis of those comments. 250. Its interpretation and application required clarification. 251. Its enforcement should be reconsidered in the light of the obligations under the GATT and the TBT Agreements; instead an opportunity for consultations and appropriate amendment should be provided. 252. The need to legally define every term on wine labels related to a "production method" or quality descriptor so as not to mislead consumers was unclear. Consumer preferences could not be harmonized. 253. Its requirement of common adjectives to describe wine went beyond what would be considered a reasoned response to the risk of deceptive practices in labelling. 254. It would prohibit certain wines from entering the EU, if their regulatory system did not provide legal definitions for words used to describe wines on labels. 255. A WTO Member could not reserve common adjectives and other descriptive words for the exclusive use by its industries. 256. There was no connection between prevention of deceptive practices and the measures set out. 257. To reserve the exclusive use of common English language words was not the least trade-restrictive means of achieving the objective. 258. Its application should be refrained pending full consultations with interested Members since both the product and the subject matter involved had an important systemic impact on world trade. 2. KOREA: Notification of the Delegated Order Pertaining to the Use of Liquor Labels Spirits; liquors; wine; beer etc. Canada; European Communities and United States 20-21 June 2002 (G/TBT/M/27) G/TBT/N/KOR/34 Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary Concerns raised

259. Comments made should be considered. 260. The labelling requirements would oblige producers to establish a specific line of production and storage for exports to Korea. It would have time and cost implications. 261. A less trade-restrictive solution should be assessed. 262. The policy objective did not appear to be a matter of serious health, safety or environmental risk. 263. To provide information on the one-year transition period.

G/TBT/W/184 Page 26

3.

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Public Notice of General Administration for Quality Supervision and Inspection and Quarantine Food and cosmetics European Communities 20-21 June 2002 (G/TBT/M/27) (G/TBT/N/CHN/2) 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. Mandatory

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents

Mandatory/voluntary Concerns raised 264. 4.

The legislative text and an extension of the comment period were requested. UNITED STATES: Country of Origin Labelling Provisions Canada 20-21 June 2002 (G/TBT/M/27) US Farm Security and Role Investment Act

Products Raised by Meeting/Dates raised Notification Other relevant documents Mandatory/voluntary Concerns raised 265. 266. 5.

To explanation the objectives of the requirement. To clarify the intention to notify. WORKS OF THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMITTEE ON FOOD LABELLING (CCFL) Labelling of Food derived through biotechnology Canada, United States, Egypt and Chile 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) G/TBT/W/115; G/TBT/W//115. Add.1; G/TBT/W/134; G/TBT/W//134. Add.1; G/TBT/W/155

Products Raised by Supported by Dates raised Relevant documents

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.

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 methods of 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 of implementing 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. __________