RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/TBT/M/26
6 May 2002
(02-2554)
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15 MARCH 2002
Chairman:  Mr. Joshua Phoho Setipa (Lesotho)
1. The Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade held its twenty-seventh meeting on
15 March 2002.
2. The following agenda, contained in WTO/AIR/1734, was adopted:
I. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS IN THE COMMITTEE BY THE
OFFICE INTERNATIONAL DE LA VIGNE ET DU VIN (OIV), THE
BUREAU INTERNATIONAL DES POIDS ET MESURES (BIPM) AND THE
GULF ORGANIZATION FOR INDUS TRIAL CONSULTI NG (GOIC)...........................2
II. SEVENTH ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND
OPERATION OF THE TBT AGR EEMENT UNDER AR TICLE 15.3..............................2
III. SEVENTH ANNUAL RE VIEW OF THE CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR
THE PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND APPLICATION OF STANDARDS
IN ANNEX 3 OF TH E AGREEM ENT...................................................................................2
IV. STATEMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE
AGREEM ENT ...................................................................................................................... ....3
V. FOLLOW-UP OF THE MEETING ON PROCEDURES FOR INFORMATION
EXCHANG E ....................................................................................................................... ....12
VI. UPDATING BY  OBSERVERS .............................................................................................15
VII. FOLLOW-UP OF THE SECOND TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE
OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TBT AGREEMENT
UNDER ARTICLE  15.4 .........................................................................................................16
VIII. TECHNICAL ASSIST ANCE ................................................................................................21
IX. OTHER BUSINESS.............................................................................................................. ..24G/TBT/M/26
Page 2
I. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS IN THE COMMITTEE BY THE OFFICE
INTERNATIONAL DE LA VIGNE ET DU VIN (OIV), THE BUREAU
INTERNATIONAL DES POIDS ET MESURES (BIPM) AND THE GULF
ORGANIZATION FOR INDUSTRIAL CONSULTING (GOIC)
3. The Chairman said that further consultations among WTO Members on observer status in the
context of the General Council were still needed, and proposed to come back to these requests at the
next meeting.
4. The Committee took note of the statement made.
II. SEVENTH ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION
OF THE TBT AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 15.3
5. The Committee concluded its Seventh Annual Review of the Agreement on the basis of the
background document G/TBT/11/Rev.2.
III. SEVENTH ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR THE
PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND APPLICATION OF STANDARDS IN ANNEX 3
OF THE AGREEMENT
6. The Chairman drew attention to document s G/TBT/CS/1/Add.6, G/TBT/CS/2/Rev.8 and the
Seventh Edition of the WTO TBT Standards Code Directory.  In 2001, 14 standardizing bodies from13 Members had accepted the Code, which made up a total of 138 standardizing bodies from 94
Members having accepted it up until the end of 2001.
7. The representative of Japan noted that the Code of Good Practice was an important element of
the TBT Agreement, in particular in terms of ensuring transparency in standardization.  Japanese
standardizing bodies had been positively accepting the Code, and he encouraged standardizing bodiesin the territories of other Members to do the same.
8. The representative of Malaysia informed the Committee that the current standardizing body in
Malaysia was Department of Standards Malaysia.
9. The representative of Mexico informed the Committee that all the standardizing bodies in
Mexico had accepted the Code.
10. The representative of Indonesia clarified that the name of the national standardizing body of
Indonesia was BUDAN.
11. The representative of the People's Republic of China informed the Committee that the
Chinese government standardizing body was ready to notify its acceptance of the Code.
12. The representative of Korea informed the Committee that the standardizing body of his
country was Korean Agency for Technology and Standards.
13. The Committee took note of the statements made.  Document G/TBT/CS/2/Rev.8 would be
revised according to the above information.G/TBT/M/26
Page 3
IV. STATEMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE
AGREEMENT
14. The Chairman drew attention to a Ministerial Decision on Implementation-related Issues
(WT/MIN(01)/17) which stated that "subject to the conditions specified in paragraph 12 of Article 2
of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, the phrase "reasonable interval" shall be understoodto mean normally a period of not less than 6 m onths, except when this would be ineffective in
fulfilling the legitimate objectives pursued".
15. The Committee took note of the Ministerial Decision and agreed to include it in document
G/TBT/1/Rev.7.
16. The Chairman recalled that Ministers in Doha "confirmed the approach to technical assistance
being developed by the Committee, reflecting the results  of the triennial review work in this area, and
mandated this work to continue".  They also "urged  Members to provide, to the extent possible, the
financial and technical assistance necessary to enable least-developed countries to respond adequately
to the introduction of any new TBT measures which may have significant negative effects on their
trade; and to ensure that technical assistance is provided to least-developed countries with a view to
responding to the special problems face d by them in implementing the Agreement".
17. With the Ministers' mandate in mind, he believed that it was important for the Committee to
expedite its process to further develop its technical cooperation programme, following the steps
agreed at the Second Triennial Review (i.e. to ca rry out the survey to assist developing countries
Members to identify and prioritize their needs before the Committee reassessing the needs and to
consider the existing technical assistance activities by multilateral, regional and bilateral
organizations, as well as to identify the technical assistance partners and financial consideration).  Hereminded the Committee that at the Second Triennial Review, it had agreed to assess the progress
made in implementing the technical cooperation programme in the context of the Third Triennial
Review in 2003.
18. He further drew attention to the Ministerial Decision concerning outstanding implementation
issues.  It had been agreed that the following tw o TBT related issues should be addressed by the
Committee (Job(01)/152/Rev.1):  (i) Article 11 shall be made obligatory so that technical assistance
and cooperation is provided to developing countries;  and (ii) Acceptance by developed-country
importers of self-declaration regarding adherence to standards by developing-country exporters.  This
provision should be introduced in Article 12.  The Committee should report to the Trade Negotiations
Committee for appropriate action by the end of 2002.
19. The representative of Malaysia believed implementation issues were important and proposed
to hold informal discussions on them at the June Committee meeting.
20. The representative of India supported the Malaysian view.
21. The representative of Brazil proposed to invite the proponent(s) to present the two
outstanding issues to the Committee, in particular the justification of the proposals, to facilitate
discussions.
22. The Chairman concluded that the Committee would hold informal discussions on the
outstanding implementation issues at its June meeting, and requested the Secretariat to approach the
proponent(s) of the two outstanding issues to make the presentation at the meeting.
23. Concerning the accession of the People's Republic of China, he recalled that at the Ministerial
Conference, a Decision had been made on a "Tra nsitional Review Mechanism" (WT/L/432).  It
provided that those subsidiary bodies of the WTO (including the TBT Committee) "which have aG/TBT/M/26
Page 4
mandate covering China's commitments under the WTO Agreement shall, within one year after
accession … review, as appropriate to their mandate, the implementation by China of the
WTO Agreement and of the related provisions of the Protocol.  China shall provide relevant
information, including information specified in Annex 1A, to each subsidiary body in advance of the
review…  Each subsidiary body shall report the re sults of such review promptly to the relevant
Council …"  "The review provided for will take place after accession in each year for eight years.
Thereafter there will be a final review in year 10 or at an earlier date decided by the General Council."
24. He welcomed the Chinese statement on implementation and administration of the Agreement
under Article 15.2 (G/TBT/2/Add.65), and invited Chin a to provide the additional information listed
in Annex 1 A of document WT/L/432 in order that the Committee could carry out the Review and
report back to the Goods Council before the end of the year.
25. The Committee took note of the statements made.
26. The representative of Argentina drew attention to document G/TBT/W/171 (of 17 January
2002) containing Argentinian comments on the European Communities (EC) notifications
G/TBT/N/EEC/6 and 7 on draft regulations of the European Parliament and the Council on
"Genetically Modified Food and Feed" and "Traceability and Labelling of Genetically Modified
Organisms (GMO) and Traceability of Food and Feed Products produced from Genetically ModifiedOrganisms and Amending Directive 2001/18/EC" (C OM2002/182).  He noted that the objectives
cited for these proposals were for the protection of human health or safety, animal or plant life or
health, or the environment and consumer protection.   Supervision and authorization procedures were
established for the labelling and traceability of feed and foodstuffs which were genetically modified
(GM).  This would require, in addition to the normal labelling specifications, the insertion ofwordings stating that they were genetically modified or produced by GM ingredients.
27. He raised questions about how these proposals reconciled with the TBT and the Marrakesh
Agreements.  He was concerned about the lack of scientific support for these measures, and that it
could lead to the possible introduction of other non-science based elements in regulatory decision-
making processes.  He believed the EC traceability and labelling requirements were not the idealmeasures to fulfil the declared objectives, and went against the principle of Article 2.2 of the
Agreement.  They were more trade restrictive than necessary and would not take into account the risks
of non-fulfilment would create.  The labelling word ings "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.  He point ed out that foodstuffs and feed containing GMOs
could retain less agro-chemicals residual and could result in less environmental contamination.  The
EC proposed labelling 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.
28. He believed there existed a reasonable variety of less trade restrictive alternative measures
which could fulfil the EC declared objectives (e.g. the use of batch numbering or the identification of
new breeds of plants).  To impose labelling and traceability requirements for products or ingredients
that could not be differentiated from the traditional counterpart would constitute an unjustifieddiscrimination between them.  This would go beyond the principles of MFN treatment and national
treatment, contrary to Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, as well as Articles I and III of the
GATT 1994.  His delegation reserved its right to broaden the comments on this issue in other fora.
29. The representative of Canada recalled that his delegation had raised the EC GMOs labelling
and traceability issues at the previous meeting.  In December 2001, Canada had provided official
comments to the EC's enquiry point on these two dr aft regulations stating that they appeared to be
discriminatory, costly, unworkable and unenforceable.  Canada was particularly concerned about the
following aspects of the regulations:  (i) the attemp t to respond to unidentified risks;  (ii) the
requirement for bio-tech derived products, which have been approved for human and animalG/TBT/M/26
Page 5
consumption and environmental release, to go through well established pre-market assessments;  and
(iii) the inconsistency in the application of the proposed regulations, since they would apply only to
food and feed produced from GMOs but not foods produced with GMOs.  He looked forward to
receiving a response from the EC on the Canadian comments.
30. He drew attention to a related issue - the EU 's GM approval moratorium.  Canada had been
denied access to the EU market for GM canola for five years.  (In 1994, Canadian canola exports to
the EU amounted to 425 million dollars).  He questioned the justification to block GM canola from
the EU market without any health, food safety or environmental reasons, of which had been
confirmed by two EU's independent scientific committees on plants.  Canada had raised this issue at
various levels with the EU for several years, including via the Prime Minister.  He believed the
EU moratorium had no basis on science and should be lifted immediately.
31. The representative of the United States (US) associated her delegation with the statements
made by Argentina and Canada.  She said that the US had submitted comments to the EC notifications
in December 2001 (of which she was willing to make available to interested Members).  She raised
concerns on the fact that the EC proposals did not attempt to identify specific risks or hazards, and
that the requirements were to be implemented on products that had already undergone risk assessment
and had been approved for years.  She agreed that products should be assessed for safety before beingput on the market, and that bio-tech products should be determined to be as safe as their conventional
counterpart.  However, she could not understand wh y the EC sought to impos e additional traceability
and monitoring requirements only on bio-tech products.
32. Regarding the proposed labelling requirements, she believed that they were imposed on
products with no identified handling, usage, safety or compositional distinctions.  Consumers wouldbe left without accurate information.  Without the means for testing, the 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.  She did not see the justification of expanding the
mandatory traceability and labelling requirements to animal feeds, and that the requirements could
enhance public health.  She noted that the EC proposals also fell under the SPS Agreement, and hadbeen notified under that Agreement.  Sh e looked forward to the EC's response.
33. The representative of Australia associated her delegation to the comments made by Argentina
Canada and the US.  Australia had raised concerns about the two EC proposals at the previous
meeting and had submitted comments to the EC's enquiry point in January 2002, expressing concerns
and seeking explanation on the following:  (i) the substantive reasoning behind each of the stated
objectives;  (ii) the EC's obligations under Article 2.2 of the Agreement, since the proposals were
believed to be more trade restrictive than necessa ry to fulfil a legitimate objective;  (iii) the
traceability proposal was not founded on scientific basis;  (iv) the cost that would be involved to
develop, maintain and enforce the proposed regulatory system;  (v) the scientific or other explanation
behind the EC's proposal to discriminate betw een foods produced from GMOs and foods produced
with GM enzymes;  (vi) the inclusion of foods with  little or no novel DNA and protein in the labelling
regime;  (vii) the reason to include GM feed in the proposed regulations;  and (viii) how thecomments made on the proposed regulations would be taken into account.
34. The representative of the European Communities recalled that in the second half of year 2001,
discussions among Member States in the Council had progressed well on the traceability proposal.  In
the last months, discussions were focussed on the GM food/feed proposal.  At the present moment, the
two proposals from the European Commission were being studied by the European Parliament led bythe Environment and Human Health Committee.  The first meeting had been held in February, and
work was being done to produce its report, including possible amendments.  He did not expect the
first reading of the Parliament to be finalized before summer 2002.  Member States would attempt to
arrive at a common position after that.  The common position would then be sent back to theG/TBT/M/26
Page 6
Parliament again for its second study.  A second reading of the Parliament would be made before the
final adoption of the proposals.
35. He said that the objectives of the proposals were:  (i)  to ensure a high level of protection;  (ii)
to have an efficient and transparent authorization procedure;  and (iii) to extend the labelling
requirements to facilitate consumer choice and ultimately to ensure social acceptance on theapplication of bio-technology in agri-food production.  He argued that the present criteria and the
scope for authorization of GM foods had not been changed. They had been in place since 1997 when
the EC adopted the novel food regulation EC 258/97 which laid down that food containing, consisting
of and produced from a GMO had to be authorized prior its placing on the market.  What was new
was to establish an authorization procedure for feed derived from GMOs.  He believed the proposed
procedures would be more efficient, since the newly established European food safety authority
would be carrying out the risk assessment.  It woul d be more transparent because the summary of the
applications, the opinion and the conclusions of the risk assessments would be made public, and the
public would be provided opportunities to respond.
36. The labelling requirement for foods consisting of and produced from GMOs had been in place
since 1997 in the novel foods regulation, and had been made mandatory in 1998 by EC Regulation
1139/98.  The new proposed labelling requirement did not change its scope, but extended its coverageto facilitate consumer choice.  It required all foods produced from GMOs to be labelled irrespective if
DNA or protein could be detected in the final products.  The reasons behind the traceability proposal
were to ensure accurate labelling and to enable control authorities to verify whether or not GMOs had
been used in the production of a food product via paper trail.  Traceability was a recognized concept
in the Codex Alimentarius, and a paper concerning traceability (CX FICS 02/inf.2) had been produced
in the Codex Committee on Food Export Inspection and Certification Systems in January 2002.
37. He noted that traceability had already been a requirement in EC legislations for GMOs as well
as for food and feed in general.  In January 2002, the Council and Parliament had adopted a proposal
for a general food law laying down general requirements of traceability in the food and feed sector
(EC Regulation 178/2002).  All food and feed busin ess operators had to put in place systems that
enabled them to identify from whom they had received a product (substance or ingredient) and to
whom they had sold a product.  This enabled operators  to identify one step back and one step forward
in the chain.  The regulation did not require operators to identify all that were involved in the product
chain from farm to table.  The new proposal was to apply traceability to GMOs as well as foods and
feeds derived from GMOs.  One of the reasons for the proposal was to avoid risk.  He noted that a
general traceability requirement for GMOs had been adopted by the Council and Parliament in 2001
(Directive 2001/18) on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment.  This Directive (notifiedin February 2001 and would enter into force on 17 October 2002) required Member States to ensure
the traceability at all stages of GMOs to be placed on the market.  As a result of this Directive, there
could be 15 different traceability systems in place in the European Union (EU).  However, the new
proposal would provide one single traceability system in the EU.  He believed it would be
advantageous for EU operators as well as those importing to the EU.
38. He promised that written responses would be provided to all the written comments made by
other Members before the first reading of the European Parliament and the common position made.
The comments would be made public and submitted to Member States and the European Parliament
for their consideration.
39. The representative of Brazil shared some of the concerns expressed about the EC proposals.
She sought further clarification on the EC decision-making process.  She understood that the first step
which was the approval by the Commission had been completed.  She also sought explanation on why
a distinction was made between foods produced from GMOs and foods produced with GM enzymes.G/TBT/M/26
Page 7
40. The representative of the European Communities expected that the Parliament would finalise
its first reading by summer 2002.  The results of th e first reading would be sent to the Council and
would be discussed among Member States aiming at reaching a common position.  This would then
be submitted to the Parliament for a second reading.  The second reading would go back to the
Council to seek its agreement with the final amendments suggested by the Parliament.  If anagreement was reached, the proposal could be adopted.  If that was not the case, a conciliation
procedure would be needed between the Council and the Parliament.  He predicted that an adoption
could be made by the end of 2002, if the process went smoothly.  However, a more realistic view
would be some time in year 2003.
41. Concerning the distinction between foods produced from GMOs and foods produced with
GMOs, he explained that the existing proposal required the labelling of ingredients, e.g. additives and
contents of product.  At present, in the EU a nd most parts of the world, there was no labelling
requirements on processing aids.  That was why the Commission did not want to start extending the
general labelling requirements to processing aids such  as enzymes.  However, this had been identified
in the EC white paper on food safety (published in January 2000), and the green NGOs were
interested in the issue.  He expected an EU internal debate would take place to examine whether this
approach was a right one or should be extended.
42. The representative of Australia asked the reason as to why the EC decided to ban canola and
to propose requirements on traceability and labelling on GM products in the interest of consumers, but
in the case of wine and cheese, no such information was provided to consumers, even the same things
were involved.  She raised the question of whether there was a double standard involved.
43. The representative of the European Communities explained that there were two separate
issues, i.e. the moratorium and the two proposals under consideration.  He did not agree that the
labelling requirements involved double standards, since there was no EU labelling requirement on
processing aids in general.  It would be a double standard, if there existed a labelling requirement on
processing aids, and that it was not extended to cover GM processing aids.
44. The representative of Slovenia drew attention to certain measures taken by the government of
Croatia in connection with road transit on certain goods.  The measures had been introduced in
January and modified in February without prior notice, although they affected border regimes
concerning the transit, importation and exportation of goods by road (including international road
carriage).  The measures covered a wide range of chemical products, such as liquid natural gas and
household paints, which were classified as dangerous substances internationally.  He believed Croatia
did not act in accordance with its obligations under  the TBT Agreement, in particular Article 2.  The
measures had effected trade of Slovenia and other Members, and had caused a down-turn in economicactivities in the region.  Croatia had neither publish a notice of the measures in a publication nor
notified to the WTO in an early appropriate stage, when amendments could still be introduced and
comments taken into account.  He stressed the importance of the implementation of such obligations
under the TBT Agreement, and urged Croatia to act in accordance with the Agreement.
45. The representative of Croatia believed the measures taken were in accordance with the
TBT Agreement as well as other relevant WTO Agreements, and did not impose any unnecessary
obstacles to trade.  They related to the road carriage of hazardous materials and goods considered
internationally as dangerous.  The legitimate objectives of such measures were:  (i) for ecological
concerns to protect the environment and to protect the safety of road transportation, since in the past
years, Croatia had experienced accidents where dangerous materials were transported on roadswithout adequate safety infrastructure.  The objective of the measures was to set up adequate transit
corridors (i.e. good  quality highways) for such materials in order to avoid incidents;  (ii) to prevent
deceptive practices relating to the black-market sale of such goods, especially oil and petroleum
products.  This was done by designating specific equipped border crossing for the import of such
products.  He believed such practice was not unusual internationally.G/TBT/M/26
Page 8
46. The representative of the European Communities recalled that at the previous meeting, he had
raised concerns about certain mandatory certification and registration requirements for 133 products
(including steel and steel products) in India.  These requirements had been published in the Gazette of
India.  However, they had not been notified to the WTO.  He sought clarification on the following:
(i) the objectives of the regulations;  (ii) the role of the Bureau of Standards and the justification of therequirement to register with the Bureau as well as the registration fee;  (iii) whether relevant
international standards, guides or recommendations had been considered;  (iv) whether India had
considered accepting existing equivalent international or national certifications;  (v) whether other
less burdensome and trade restrictive means had been considered;  and (vi) when would the
regulations be notified to the WTO.
47. The representative of Japan associated his delegation with the concerns expressed, in
particular the fact that the Indian mandatory certification system covered a broad spectrum ofproducts and could  constitute unnecessary obstacles to trade.  He was also concerned about the lack
of notifications.  He sought further information from India.
48. The representative of the United States recalled that she had raised concerns on the Indian
system at the March 2001 meeting (paragraphs 19-21 of G/TBT/M/23), and reiterated the importance
of India to provide a response either bilaterally or at the upcoming meeting.
49. The representative of India ensured that the concerns expressed would be conveyed to his
authorities, and a response would be provided.
50. The representative of Malaysia reiterated her delegation's concerns about the Belgian
labelling scheme related to social responsibilit y (G/TBT/N/BEL/2), and noted that the scheme had
been recently approved.  Companies could affix labels to their products, if they met certain criteriaand standards recognized by the ILO.  Social audit firms approved by the Belgian Ministry of
Economy would undertake the relevant conformity assessment.  She could not comprehend the need
for such a labelling requirement, although this was a voluntary standard.  She found it WTO-
inconsistent and could lead to the discrimination against products from developing countries.  It
would nullify the WTO's work to strengthen the multilateral rules based trading system and itsdevelopment agenda to assist developing countries.  She believed there were other ways to achieve
social goals which would not create adverse trade impacts.  She urged Belgium to delay and
reconsider the implementation of the measure until all implications had been assessed.
51. The representative of Egypt associated his delegation with the statements made by Malaysia.
He was concerned that this law would create unprecedented obstacles to trade and would discriminate
against developing countries.  He believed it inconsistent with the TBT Agreement.
52. The representatives of Thailand and Hong Kong, China shared the concerns expressed by
Malaysia and Egypt.
53. The representative of the European Communities noted that the Belgian proposal had been
adopted and would enter into force later in 2002.  He underlined that it was a voluntary labelling
scheme and was non-discriminatory since it applied to both domestic and foreign firms and was based
on relevant international ILO standards.  He recalled that the notification procedure had beendiscussed in previous meetings, and since it was a voluntary measure it should not have notified to the
WTO.  He ensured that transparency provisions were observed by the EC and opportunities for
comments were provided.  Copies of the text of the measure were available to interested delegations.
He took note of the comments made, and would convey them to the relevant authorities in Belgium
and the European Commission.
54. He drew attention to an Indian regulation (published in the Gazette of India) that banned the
import of edible food products which had at the time of their importation, passed 40 per cent of theirG/TBT/M/26
Page 9
shelf-life.  He found the regulation discriminatory, and sought information on the following:  (i) the
date of entry into force of the regulation;  (ii) the products to be covered;  (iii) the rationale for such a
regulation;  (iv) whether other less trade restrictive means had been considered;  and (vi) when the
regulation will be notified to the WTO.
55. The representative of India would convey the EC's concerns to his authorities.
56. The representative of Canada recalled that his delegation had raised concerns on the New
Zealand ban on import of trout in previous meetings.  He was disappointed to be informed that the ban
had been extended for three more years until November 2004.  He found the measure unjustified, and
requested for an indication on when it would be lifted.
57. The representative of New Zealand reassured that the Canadian comments would be
conveyed back to her capital.  She explained that the measures in place related to the commercial sale
of trout.  Under section 26 ZQ of the New Zealand Conservation Act of 1987, the purchase or sale oftrout was prohibited.  This was one of the measures designed to ensure the conservation of trout stock
in New Zealand due to the concerns regarding problems caused by poaching and as a consequence,
unsustainable pressure on the stock.  In October 2001, his authorities extended the law to ensure that
in the absence of a more comprehensive legislation, the integrity of the domestic conservation
framework, including the sales regime contained in the Conservation Act, would not be undermined.The law and its entity did not prohibit the importation of all trout into New Zealand.  It provided for
the importation of trout in non-commercial quantities for personal consumption, so as to ensure that
both domestic and imported trout were subject to the same treatment.
58. The representative of the European Communities drew attention to certain Korean emission
standards for automobiles which he believed could prohibit vehicles designed to comply withEuropean emission standards to enter into the Kor ean market.  In particular, the Korean limit for
hydrocarbon was significantly lower than that in Eur ope and other parts of the world.  He believed the
measure more trade restrictive than necessary, and if imposed, would create barriers to trade.  His
delegation had submitted written comments in June 2001, and he sought a response from Korea.
59. The representative of Korea ensured that the comments made by the EC would be conveyed
back to his capital and a response would be provided.
60. The representative of the European Communities raised concerns on a notification from
Korea (G/TBT/N/KOR/26) on miniature fuses on automatic electric controls.  He noted that the safety
criteria for these devices referred to various standards.  He sought clarification if these standards
deviated from the relevant IEC standards, and if it was the case, what would be the justifications.
61. The representative of Korea requested further details about the EC's concerns, so that he could
convey them back to his capital for a response.
62. The representative of the European Communities drew attention to a Japanese notification
(G/TBT/N/JPN/20) concerning standards of vehicle emission, of which his delegation had provided
comments to Japan.  He said that the EC supported efforts to reduce pollution and was committed to
the development of technologies in this area.  Ho wever, he believed it would not be possible for
producers to comply with the Japanese new requirements at the proposed date.  For certain vehicletypes, it would require the replacement of diesel engines by gasoline ones.  The proposal called for
emission levels which would be attainable in future technology.  He sought from Japan an estimation
as to when such levels could be achieved by diesel technology.  He believed if unrealistic targets were
set and insufficient time was provided for manufacturers, it might have the effect of diminishing
possible future use of diesel technologies.  It could eliminate the positive impact of diesel technologyon CO2 emissions, which could play a positive role in reducing global warming.  He noted that inG/TBT/M/26
Page 10
Europe, work was being done to further reduce the sulphur content in fuel to achieve environmental
goals.  He encouraged Japan to give such research a high priority.
63. The representative of Japan assured that a response would be provided to the EC from his
authorities.
64. The representative of Canada welcomed the notification made by China under Article 15.2 on
the implementation and administration of the Agreement and China's indication on the acceptance of
the Code of Good Practice (Annex 3 of the Agreement).  He informed the Committee of the recent
bilateral discussions between Canada and China on biotechnology.  He was pleased that China had
recognized the need to provide a transition mechan ism for agricultural GMOs.  Canada was working
with China officials on how to apply the interim procedures announced on 11 March 2002.  He
believed this might not have been necessary, if the measure had been developed in a transparent way.
He asked if China intended to notify the GMOs regulations to the Committee, particularly thosepromulgated on 7 January 2002.  He not ed that biotechnology was an important sector to both Canada
and China.  His authorities would continue to work with Chinese officials to further clarify China's
agricultural GMOs regulations and the interim procedures.
65. The representative of the United States welcomed the statement on implementation by China
which was comprehensive and made promptly.  It indicated an understanding of the obligations underthe Agreement.  She shared the Canadian concerns with the Chinese GMO labelling requirements,
and appreciated the announcement of interim measures to facilitate trade.  The US had had a number
of bilateral discussions with China and would continue to further cooperate in this area.  She
understood that the labelling requirements took effect on 20 March 2002.  She reminded that
exporters and producers needed a reasonable implementation period to comply with new regulations,and believed that advance notification would have been useful.
66. The representative of Argentina echoed the concerns of Canada and the US.  He requested
China to notify the interim measures under the Agreement, so that information could be obtained.
67. The representative of the People's Republic of China ensured his delegation's cooperation and
participation in activities of the Committee.  He confirmed that consultations with Canada and the USon GMO labelling had taken place and was expected to continue.  The mandatory labelling
requirements had been adopted in June 2001 by the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture to implement the
Regulations of Agriculture GMOs Safety promulgated by the State Council of the People's Republic
of China.  He noted that mandatory labelling requirements were nothing new to the Committee, and
believed the Chinese regulations were in compliance with the TBT Agreement.  These regulations had
not been notified as they were adopted before China's accession, and China did not have an obligation
to notify before becoming a WTO Member.  He understood that notifications should be made at anearly appropriate stage, when amendments could still be introduced and comments taken into account.
He welcomed the comments made, and looked forward to the discussions on labelling issues in the
Committee and other relevant WTO Committees.
68. The representative of the European Communities drew attention to an US notification
(G/TBT/N/USA/12) concerning fire resistance and qua lity of mattresses and bedding.  He noted that
relevant ISO standards existed, and sought clarific ation if standards other than those of the ISO were
used.  His delegation had sent written comments to the US, and waited for a response.
69. The representative of the United States took note of the comments made and would come
back to the EC.
70. She recalled that at the previous meeting, the US and a number of other delegations had raised
concerns about wine labelling requirements and EC Regulation 1493/99.  The EC had indicated that a
notification would be made when a draft existe d.  She sought further clarification on this.G/TBT/M/26
Page 11
71. The representative of Australia recalled that her delegation had expressed concerns on the
draft EC labelling regulation 1493/99.  She believed it would have significant effects on trade, and
asked if the EC had chosen the least trade restrictive means to achieve the objectives.  She was also
concerned about the possible extension of this approach to other products and sectors.  At the
October 2001 meeting, the EC had indicated that it would notify its proposed wine labellingregulation to the Committee, and she asked when it would be done.
72. The representative of New Zealand supported the concerns raised by the US and Australia.
73. The representative of the European Communities confirmed that the Commission was in the
process of drafting the proposal on wine, including those parts relating to labelling and traditional
expressions.  He took note of the transparency obligations under the Agreement.
74. The representative of Korea drew attention to a Japanese notification G/TBT/N/JPN/8 on the
promotion of effective use of resources.  He recalled that Korea had raised this issue at previousmeetings and had delivered concerns to Japan bilaterally, in particular, about the difficulties faced by
small and medium companies, and that the regulation might result in discriminatory effects on
importing electronic products.
75. The representative of Japan believed the regulation was not discriminatory to foreign
producers nor to small and medium enterprises, and neither did it create unnecessary trade barriers.He noted that certain provisions in the regulation did not apply to SMEs and foreign manufacturers.
However, he would convey the concerns raised back to his capital, and a response would be provided
to Korea.
76. The representative of Malaysia shared the Korean concerns and invited Korea to make known
to this Committee the outcome of its bilateral consultations with Japan.
77. The representative of Japan was not aware of any bilateral consultations between Japan and
Korea on this law for the promotion of effective use of resources.  Concerns had been raised by Korea
at the Committee meetings.
78. The representative of the European Communities emphasized the importance of the
transparency provisions of the Agreement, and believed the notification system worked well.However, he raised a general concern about the lack of response to questions posed during the
notification procedures.  He gave the examples of  Korean notification G/TBT/N/KOR/4 for which the
EC had provided comments in June 2001, as well as the US notification on fibres for which comments
had been sent in February 2001.  He regretted that in both cases, no response had been received.  He
noted that his authorities tried to respond systematically to every written question posed to the EU.
He found it disappointing for those in capitals, who spent time studying notifications and preparing
relevant questions, if no response was received.
79. The representative of the United States appreciated what was done in the EU.  She explained
that the US did not always respond to individual comments.  However, as a matter of procedure and
law, US regulatory agencies had to dispose of the comments received at the final publication of a
regulation.  This was the same for the case of the Textile Fibre Products Identification Act.  She
recalled that the EC had made relevant comments in February 2001.  The Act had been adopted on 1February 2002 and published in the Federal Register.  She was willing to assist the EC to obtain the
information.
80. She recalled that at previous meetings, she had raised questions concerning the rules of origin
in the Agreements (PECAs) being negotiated by the EC and acceding counties to the European Union.
She considered these rules restrictive, and questione d the justification to include rules of origin in
those agreements.G/TBT/M/26
Page 12
81. She further recalled her concerns raised in previous meetings on the EC's organic regulation.
Questions remained regarding its implementation a nd its criteria for establishing equivalency with
third countries (i.e. whether there existed guidance for EC's Member States to enforce the
requirements).  She regretted no response had been received.
82. The representative of the European Commun ities, referring to the PECA Agreements,
informed the Committee that the EC was in the pr ocess of examining the issue of rules of origin
within the context of both the PECA Agreements and mutual recognition agreements (MRAs).  He
noted that rules of origin existed in some of th e MRAs and the PECA Agreements, but not in certain
others.  Given the design of the agreements dated back before the Uruguay Round and given the
changes in circumstances, the EC was looking into this issue.  He took note of the US comments and
would keep the Committee informed of the outcome.
83. On the issue of organic products, he believed the EC's Rule was in line with international
standards.  Under the Rule, there were two sy stems for recognizing organic products from third
countries.  The first system provided for ad hoc applications by private importers, and these
applications were processed by the relevant Member State.  The second system was in terms of
bilateral agreements, whereby the EC recognized third countries domestic systems (i.e. certification
and control) as being equivalent to the EC system.  The EC had reached such agreements withsix countries (Argentina, Australia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Switzerland and Israel).  He
understood that negotiations were being held with Japan and there were discussions with the US.  He
emphasized that the EC system was open to imports from third countries, and in particular the ad hoc
procedures, which was valid up until 2005, thus allowing for a considerable variety of products from a
large number of countries.  The system was currently under review, and the US comments had beenreflected.
84. The representative of Switzerland recalled that she had raised questions on notification
G/TBT/10.7/N/33 concerning a MRA concluded am ong Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and
Venezuela on technical regulations and conformity assessment at the previous meeting (e.g. how the
agreement would apply to non-members and whether third party certificates would be accepted).
85. The representative of Colombia informed the Committee that on 7 February 2002, a
communication had been sent to the permanent representative of Switzerland to the WTO, replying to
the concerns raised by Switzerland at the meeting of 9 October 2001.  It had provided information on
the criteria for certification and how certification with third party countries would serve to avoid
discrimination.
86. The representative of Switzerland welcomed the reply from Colombia.  Referring to
notifications made by Thailand, she welcomed the replies and clarifications received on certainquestions which had been posed by her delegation.  However, she noted that Thailand had submitted
more than a dozen notifications on mandatory standards prepared by the standardization body.  These
notifications did not indicate whether there existed relevant international standards.  She believed in
order to improve transparency, it would be useful to provide such information.
87. The representative of Thailand took note of the Swiss comments and would provide a reply.
88. The Committee took note of the statements made.
V. FOLLOW-UP OF THE MEETING ON PROCEDURES FOR INFORMATION
EXCHANGE
89. The Chairman recalled that at the special meeting on procedures for information exchange
held on 28 June 2001, a number of proposals had been made, and at the previous meeting, theCommittee had held further discussions on them.  One of the proposals involved the creation of aG/TBT/M/26
Page 13
central depository for notifications on the WTO web site to enable Members to fill in notification
forms on the Internet and send them instantly to the Secretariat and other Members.  Another proposal
involved placing the list of TBT enquiry points on -line to enable Members to update it themselves.
Subsequently, Canada had contacted the WTO Documentation Division to study the practicality of
such an approach and its implications on the work of the Secretariat.
90. The representative of Canada recalled that his delegation had met with the Secretariat to
discuss the proposals aiming at simplifying and speeding up the notification procedures.  Few options
had been identified for further exploration.  He sa id that the proposed approach would not take away
the current paper-based or electronic-based method for submitting notifications.  It was meant to offer
a faster alternative which over time could become the norm.  His delegation would continue to work
with the Secretariat to develop a more concrete proposal for the consideration of the Committee.
91. The representative from the Language Services and Documentation Division of the
Secretariat informed the Committee that he had had a discussion with the Canadian delegation and
that the proposal seemed technically feasible.  It would be useful to continue consultations in order to
further understand the Committee's requirements and potential solutions.  There were several options,
each of which had different implications for the working methods, costs, development time and
available facilities.  He drew attention to the Secretariat's application "Documents Online" availableon the Internet which contained a number of features that had facilitated notification procedures.  The
Secretariat had plans to modernize the software for the management of the Central Registry of
Notifications in the second half of 2002.
92. The representative of Brazil thanked Canada and the Secretariat for their work on the
proposals which she considered important to all Members, and particularly to developing countryMembers.  She informed the Committee that Brazil had currently created a new web site designed to
facilitate information exchange.  It served not only Brazilian producers and exporters to improve their
access to TBT notifications, but also improved the access to draft and adopted Brazilian regulations.
She would provide the electronic address to intere sted Members, and welcomed any comments on that
web site.  She regarded the exchange of information and access to data on-line useful, and could alsoimprove the implementation of the Agreement.  The Committee should coordinate this part of its
work with the issue of technical cooperation being discussed in the WTO, since a lot of work could be
explored in this area to improve the access to notifications and draft regulations of Members.
93. The Chairman supported the view that ways shoul d be sought to integrate this work with the
overall WTO technical assistance programme to assist developing countries Members to improve
their notification system and to utilise information technology.
94. He drew attention to the proposal on a booklet on transparency provisions of the Agreement
and document JOB(02)/24, the draft booklet prepared by the Secretariat.
95. The representative of New Zealand supported the Secretariat draft booklet, and found it
comprehensive and factual.  She drew attention to  a similar handbook developed recently in APEC as
part of its technical assistance project.  The work had been led by the New Zealand national standards
body (Standards New Zealand) with the assistance  of other APEC Members and the WTO Secretariat.
The handbook covered both TBT and SPS transparency provisions.  She believed it could be read in
conjunction with the Committee's booklet to supplement Members' understanding.  The APEC
handbook could be obtained from the APEC web site, and there was no particular APEC intellectual
property associated with it.  She was ready to provide an electronic copy to any interested Members.
96. The representative of Switzerland supported the booklet on transparency provisions, and in
particular the part regarding the handling of comments on notifications.  She found it useful to receive
written responses after written comments had been made.  She shared the EC's concerns about the
lack of responses to comments.G/TBT/M/26
Page 14
97. The representative of Australia echoed the comments made by New Zealand and Switzerland.
She provided the following comments on the draft:  (i) on page six, to clarify that in addition to the
possibility of transmitting notifications by electronic mail to the WTO CRN, Members could choose
to transmit notifications through their permanent missions;  and (ii) on page 20, to clarify the
obligation to designate a single central government authority responsible for notification procedures.She thought this obligation was not the same as the one concerning the establishment of a
TBT enquiry point.  The enquiry point (to be established under Article 10.1) which was a centralized
information centre, should not necessarily be the authority responsible for notification procedures
(to be designated under Article 10.10 of the Agreement).
98. The representative of Japan thanked the Secretariat for the draft booklet and New Zealand for
introducing the APEC handbook on TBT and SPS transparency matters.  Japan believed the
APEC handbook could be a good reference to non-APEC Members.
99. The representative of Malaysia believed the booklet could provide a convenient reference and
improve the operation of enquiry points.  She supported the Australian comments on the draft.
100. The representative of Egypt welcomed the booklet, and in particular, its possibility to assist
developing countries.  He supported the comments made by Australia.
101. The representative of Canada welcomed the draft and found it useful.  He proposed before
publishing the booklet, time should be provided to Members for further comments on the draft.
102. The Committee agreed with the Chairman's proposal that Members should provide further
comments, if any, to the Secretariat on the draft in the following week, before the Secretariat
published the booklet as contained in JOB (02)/24, taking into account the comments made.
103. The Chairman drew attention to the proposal related to languages to be used on requests and
responses in enquiry points.  He recalled that at the previous meeting a number of Members had
expressed concerns that this proposal could lead to a change in obligations under the Agreement.
104. The representative of Japan reiterated that the proposals should not involve a change in rights
and obligations of Members under the Agreement.  In this case, he referred to Article 10.8.
105. The Chairman drew attention to the proposal related to the handling of replies to comments
on notifications.  He recalled that it had been a request from Chile to invite other Members to share
their relevant experiences.  He suggested that Chile could do that bilaterally.
106. The representative of Chile agreed to consult other Members bilaterally.
107. He made a new proposal related to the Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption
and Application of Standards (Annex 3 of the Agreement).  He recalled that the Committee had
adopted a Decision on Paragraph J of the Code conc erning the preparation every six months of work
programmes by standardizing bodies.  The Decision allowed for the communication of workprogrammes via the Internet as another possibility  to comply with the obligations laid down in
Paragraph J.  However, the Decision stated that  hard copies of such work programmes would be
available if requested.  He proposed the Committee to consider a similar decision in relation to
Paragraph L of the Code.  Paragraph L obliged the provision of at least 60 days for comments on draft
standards.  Standardizing bodies had to announce the comment period in the publication referred to inParagraph J.  Considering the advantages of info rmation technology (which involved less cost and
could provide quicker and larger coverage of servi ces, as well as simplify and speed up standardizing
procedures), a recommendation should be made that the obligation under Paragraph L (i.e. to
announce the comment periods) could be done electronically as an option.G/TBT/M/26
Page 15
108. The Committee took note of the statements made.
VI. UPDATING BY OBSERVERS
109. The representative of the OIE updated the Committee on OIE's activities.  He informed the
Committee that the OIE which comprised of 158 me mbers was an inter-governmental organization
established in 1924.  There were four main objectives of the organization:  (i) to disseminate diseaseinformation via the OIE web site, email and periodicals (immediately or periodically depending on the
seriousness of the disease);  (ii) to collect and analyse the scientific information on animal disease
control (the information was available to OIE Members through reports and periodicals to assist them
to improve the methods used to control and eradicate diseases);  (iii) to develop normative documents
and standards for use of its Members to protect against disease;  and (iv) to provide its Members with
technical support on animal disease controls and eradication operations (including diseases
transmittable to humans).  OIE also contributed to improve the legal framework and resources ofveterinary services of its Members.
110. The International Committee was the highest authority of the OIE.  It comprised of delegates
(usually veterinary officers) from all Members.  The general session of the Committee was held once
a year in Paris to adopt resolutions, to adopt or revise standards and to discuss current scientific
issues.  The operation of the OIE was managed by a Central Bureau consisting of five departments
(Administrative and Financial, Scientific and Technical, Information, International Trade as well as
Publication).  The Specialist Commissions in the OIE (e.g. the International Animal Health Code
Commission and the Fish Disease Commission) developed international standards for the safe trade in
animals and animal products.  The Commissions  were supported by ad hoc working groups
(comprising of scientists from around the world chosen for their expertise) to provide advice onspecific issues.  The OIE designated 152 collaborating centres and reference laboratories around the
world to provide its Members with scientific and technical assistance (e.g. training courses,
workshops, scientific meetings and expert advice on topics linked to disease surveillance and control),
as well as to facilitate standardization of diagnostic tests.
111. OIE standards (particularly the International Animal Health Code) provided trade guidelines
followed by its Members and set out criteria by which countries could claim that they were free from
particular diseases. The manual of standards for diagnostic testing and vaccines aimed at contributing
to the improvement of animal health services world-wide.  Its objective was to harmonize important
elements of animal disease prevention surveillance and control. OIE draft standards were discussed
in specialist commissions and opportunities were provided for comments by experts from Members.
The drafts would become OIE international standards once they were adopted by the International
Committee.  He noted that the WTO SPS Agreement made reference to the OIE standards, guidelinesand recommendations.  OIE coordinated its work with other international organizations (e.g. WHO,
WTO, IPPC and CODEX).
112. The future work of OIE included the following:  (i) the development of animal welfare
standards for international trade;  (ii) food safety and food born diseases involving public health and
food continuum (including diseases that were transmitted from animals to people via food);  (iii) thecreation of a system by which all chapters could be reviewed, updated and modified as new scientific
information became available.  He stated that the OIE would remain a scientific based organization.
113. The representative of Canada welcomed the information provided and sought clarification on
the distribution of work between the OIE and CODEX.
114. The representative of the OIE noted that the Codex Alimentarius developed food safety and
quality standards.  However, when an animal disease could have an influence on the food products for
consumption, OIE would intervene and propose norms, guidelines and recommendations.G/TBT/M/26
Page 16
115. The representative of the FAO informed the Committee that the FAO and CODEX
collaborated with OIE in a number of matters (e.g. meat hygiene and anti-microbial resistance).
OIE would provide input to the works of relevant  Codex committees, and the inputs would be taken
into account.  It was important to ensure that all areas were covered and there was mutual exchange of
information.
116. The Committee took note of the statements made.
VII. FOLLOW-UP OF THE SECOND TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TBT AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 15.4
117. The representative of Canada introduced a Canadian paper on Labelling (G/TBT/W/174).  He
recalled that the Committee had held an informal discussion on the paper the previous day.  At the
previous meeting, Canada had requested the Committee to start a structured discussion on labelling
issues based on common themes.  He emphasized th at Canada was not contemplating to develop
guidelines or recommendations for labelling nor to re-n egotiate existing rules.  The idea was to hold a
substantive discussion on the issues aimed at obtaining a better understanding on both the
subject-matters of labelling and how the existing TBT disciplines applied to those matters.
118. He noted that there existed two types of labelling requirements (mandatory and voluntary).
The Canadian paper listed out the following approaches (one might call them good regulatorypractices) related to labelling:  the choices of policy instruments, the question of mandatory versus
voluntary measures, the TBT requirements for technical regulations, the issues of transparency and
conformity assessment, the issue of standards, harmonization and equivalency.  These subjects were
well known to the Committee in past discussions, but did not necessarily focussed on labelling issues.
119. The paper also highlighted the following two elements which Canada believed important:
(i) process and production methods related to labelling, in particular non-product related process and
production methods (npr PPMs) labelling schemes which often related to certification;  and (ii) how
labelling measures specifically and generally affect developing countries.  He acknowledged that
there were other WTO areas related to labelling (i.e. rules of origin and geographical indicators as
well as food safety labelling).
120. The aim of the paper was to seek progress in the discussion of labelling requirements that
were subject to TBT disciplines.  For the next steps, the paper proposed the following:  (i) to prepare a
taxonomy of recent notifications or implementation issues raised under the Committee meetings, and
possibly, cases which came under the dispute settlement process.  The aim was to categorise the
labelling issues that had arisen in the WTO in the last few years to obtain an understanding of what
was involved.  The Committee might wish to hold an informal discussion on how this paper could be
prepared.  He suggested that the base work could be done by the Secretariat, then the Committeewould be in a position to decide how to proceed with its learning process (to better understand from
the point of views of regulators, industry, developed countries, developing countries, conformity
assessment bodies as well as the range of issues involved in a particular type of labelling activities);
and (ii) to hold an informal workshop as a "learning event".
121. The Chairman recalled that the informal discussion on the Canadian paper was positive.  A
number of Members had indicated that more time was needed for further reflections.  He proposed
that the Committee could consider the Canadian proposals as well as any other proposals by Members
at the forthcoming informal meeting in June.
122. The representative of Argentina emphasized that the Committee should not go beyond its
competencies and mandate in the discussions on labelling.  If the Committee was to request the
Secretariat to prepare a paper on labelling, the Committee should define its focus.G/TBT/M/26
Page 17
123. The representative of Switzerland believed the Canadian paper provided an important new
step forward in the work on labelling.  The Doha Ministerial Conference made reference to labelling
related to consumers, environment and agriculture.  Labelling was a cross cutting issue and touched
upon the work of the TBT Committee.  The issues involved were broad (both theoretical and
practical) and should be regrouped under different categories for a constructive debate.  Switzerlandfound it useful to request the Secretariat to prepare a factual synthesis paper, and supported the
proposal to organize a workshop on labelling as a learning event.
124. The representative of Colombia saw a need to structure the informal discussions on labelling,
but was against any formal work programme on the subject.  The Canadian paper contained elements
which could be taken into account in order to move the Committee's debate forward in an organised
and practical way without prejudging the results.  A structured discussion would provide a "road map"
to enable the Committee to focus on the different ideas.  It would be useful to request the Secretariatto prepare a paper as well as to organize a workshop on labelling.  This would enable Members to
better understand the relevant notifications and the practices of different Members in labelling, as well
as how these matters related to other Agreements and regulatory issues.
125. The representative of the European Communities found the Canadian paper constructive and
provided the basis for a focussed discussion in the Committee.  The EC had been active on the issue
of labelling in the past, and had submitted a paper at the end of the year 2000 (G/TBT/W/150).  His
delegation had had in-depth reflections on labelling over recent months.  He emphasized the
importance of ensuring consistency between the work in this Committee and other WTO Committees,
in particular the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE), given the mandate provided at the
Doha Ministerial Conference.  The EC had made a submission on food labelling to the Agricultural
Negotiations.
126. While labelling was important for consumers' information, he believed that the key focus of
the discussion in the Committee should be to ensure that labelling did not result in unnecessary
barriers to trade.  The EC would like to discuss the following labelling issues:  (i) international
standards - the TBT obligations for Members to use international standards as a basis for technicalregulations and standards where appropriate.  The Committee could attempt to identify the relevant
international standards in the field of labelling to  facilitate their use.  Regional standards had the
potential to facilitate trade in the absence of in ternational standards.  Members could be invited to
share their experience on regional standards for labelling;  (ii) equivalency – equivalency agreements
on labelling could have the potential to facilitate trade where no international standard existed or
when an international standard was not likely to be concluded soon.  For mandatory technical
regulations, there existed the TBT obligation to consider equivalency.  However, for voluntarystandards, there was no such provision under the Agreement.  The committee could consider the
potential impact of equivalency agreements on labelling;  (iii) developing country concerns:  the issue
of technical assistance and how to assist developing countries to comply with labelling requirements
in their export markets, as well as to ensure th at developing countries were informed of and had
opportunities to comment on draft labelling measures.
127. Developing countries could identify their particular labelling concerns, and the survey of the
TBT technical cooperation programme would provide useful input;  (iv) transparency:  the Committee
could focus on the importance of ensuring that all interested parties had opportunities to comment on
the development of labelling schemes.  The Committee's discussion on labelling at the First Triennial
Review (G/TBT/5, 1997), stated "the importance of ensuring the transparency of such measures, andthat they should not become disguise d restrictions to trade".  The Comm ittee's Decision on labelling
adopted in 1995 (G/TBT/1/Rev.7) underlined the transparency obligations for labelling that
"Members are obliged to notify all mandatory labelling requirements that are not based substantially
on a relevant international standard and that may have a significant effect on the trade of other
Members.  That obligation is not dependent upon the kind of information which is provided on thelabel, whether it is in the nature of a technical specification or not".  The Committee could exchangeG/TBT/M/26
Page 18
experience in the implementation of these decisions;  and (v) non governmental bodies:  a number of
labelling schemes were developed and applied by non-governmental bodies subjected to the Code of
Good Practice (Annex 3 of the Agreement).  The Code provided disciplines for the transparency of
these schemes.  Another important issue was to keep labelling schemes under review, and under the
Agreement, such obligation was provided for mandatory labelling.  However, no such provision wascontained in the Code of Good Practice for voluntary labelling.  The Committee could consider
discussing these.
128. He supported the Canadian proposal for a taxonomy paper to provide an inexhaustible list.
This could be based on geographical and yearly breakdowns, papers on labelling submitted by
Members, relevant Committee Decisions as well as results of the triennial reviews.  The paper should
be a broad, factual and descriptive one.  He also supported the idea of the workshop, but believed that
Members would need more time to reflect on the agenda and scope of the workshop (e.g. issues suchas compliance with labelling standards, particularly by developing countries, transparency issues and
international standards).  He welcomed further informal discussions on labelling at the June meeting.
129. The representative of Mexico appreciated the Canadian paper and supported paragraph 5 of
that document.  Mexico was open to a factual and educational informal discussion on labelling, since
it was an important issue and raised concerns from developing countries.  However, the discussionshould not prejudge any result.  Concerning the proposal for a Secretariat paper, he would consult
with his authorities on that.  Regarding the works hop, he was open to the idea provided that it would
be informal, separated from the Committee's work and without any recommendations or conclusions
coming from it.
130. The representative of India welcomed the Canadian paper.  His authorities would study it, and
would come back with further comments.  He agreed to discuss the labelling issue in an informal way
with a view to better understand the issues.  The Committee should consult on what exactly to entrust
to the Secretariat for the preparation of a paper.  He was open to considering a factual informal
educational workshop on labelling.
131. The representative of Malaysia thanked Canada for the paper.  She reiterated that any
discussion on labelling in the Committee was undertaken on an informal basis and without prejudging
the outcome.  The discussion was mainly for educational purposes and no formal work programme
was needed.  The discussion should be progressive, starting with fact finding and focussed on the
consistency with TBT disciplines, the impact on market access and the effective implementation of
the Agreement.  With that in mind, further reflections on the list of issues proposed in the Canadian
paper might be useful for the future.  As an initial step, the proposal for a compilation of notifications
and issues raised in the Committee regarding labellin g would be useful.  She believed an information
event outside the Committee meeting to examine the works of international bodies on labelling and
national experience sharing could be useful.  Further consultations on these proposals would be
needed.
132. She did not see the need to link the Committee's discussions on labelling with the work of the
CTE.  She believed the CTE had its own mandate, while the TBT Committee's informal discussionshad the objective of examining the implementatio n of TBT disciplines in relation to labelling.
133. The representative of the United States found the Canadian paper a constructive contribution
to the labelling discussions.  She made preliminary reactions to the proposals made.  She agreed with
Argentina that further thoughts were needed to clearl y define the paper foreseen to be prepared by the
Secretariat.  She noted the suggestions made with re gard to focussing on notifications, issues raised at
Committee meetings as well as disputes.  A factual paper could be prepared to draw up a limited
range of information from notifications and statements made in meetings to start the process.  She had
doubts about bringing in the element of disputes since so far there had not really been a ruling
concerning the Agreement.  It might be difficult to apply analysis of specific case to generalise allG/TBT/M/26
Page 19
different labelling requirements.  She preferred to await the Committee's decision on a Secretariat
paper as a basis for informal discussions before deciding the structure and agenda of a workshop on
labelling.
134. She noted the papers and proposals put forward by other delegations.  The EC had raised the
issue of international standards and suggested that the Committee could identify relevant internationalstandards.  She found this a difficult task for the Committee to take on.  Even if a number of
international standards could be identified, whether they were relevant, effective and appropriate for
particular regulators could only be decided on a case by case basis.  It might be difficult at the
multilateral level, in the absence of a specific issue or context, to engage in this type of exercise.  She
agreed with the view expressed in paragraph 5 of the Canadian paper that at this juncture, there was
no compelling argument for the developing of guidelines or questioning the application of the existing
TBT rules to labelling requirements.  She was willing to hold further informal discussion on labelling.
135. The representative of Egypt endorsed the views expressed by Colombia, Mexico, Malaysia
and Canada that the discussion on labelling should be on an informal basis and of an informative
nature without prejudging the outcome, and should not be linked to any formal work of the
Committee.  He welcomed the proposal for the prep aration of a factual note that would not contain
general conclusions or recommendations.
136. The representative of New Zealand found the Canadian paper helpful.  She broadly supported
the approach taken and agreed with the statement made in paragraph 5 of that paper.
137. The representative of the Philippines expressed appreciation of the Canadian paper, and made
some preliminary remarks.  The Philippines took careful note of paragraph 5 of the paper, and did not
see any compelling reason to develop guidelines on labelling.  The discussion on labelling in theCommittee should be on an informal basis without prejudging its outcome, and the same should apply
to any relevant workshop or event to be held for an educational purpose.  She shared the Malaysian
view, and did not find an adequate basis to link the labelling discussion in this Committee with the
work undertaken in the CTE as well as in the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.
There was no such mandate in the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
138. The representative of Singapore thanked Canada for its paper, and noted in paragraph 5 of the
paper that Canada's intention was not to develop guidelines nor renegotiate the existing TBT rules.
Singapore shared the view that the discussions on labelling should continue in an informal mode and
should be focussed on the consistency with TBT disciplines and the impacts on market access.
139. The representative of Australia reiterated her delegation's position that the existing
TBT provisions covered sufficiently the issues re lating to labelling.  She appreciated the Canadian
paper and echoed the previous speakers' sentiments outlined on paragraph 5 of that paper.  She did notsee any evidence nor justification for clarifying, interpreting or creating guidelines on existing
provisions.  She noted the interests of some Members in the issue of labelling.  She broadly associated
her delegation with the comments made by the US, including those on the Canadian proposals.  She
welcomed further discussion on the content of the Secretariat paper at the June informal meeting.  She
believed that any relevant workshop should be viewed as a learning event for better understanding ofthe issues.  It should serve as an information exchange exercise and an opportunity for consideration
of case studies.  It would be appropriate to hold discussions on labelling in an informal mode.
140. The representative of Japan thanked Canada for its paper.  Japan recognized the mounting
importance of labelling issues in the Committee as seen in the increased number of notifications
related to labelling.  Labelling could be a useful policy tool to respond to the interests of society(e.g. consumers' needs and information).  However, labelling could create unnecessary barriers to
trade.  These trade barriers could be experienced in the context of other technical regulations,
conformity assessment procedures and standards.  However, some of them could be specificallyG/TBT/M/26
Page 20
related to labelling.  He believed it would be meaningful to deepen the discussion on labelling, but the
process should not prejudge the outcome of the discussions.  Members should be encouraged to share
their national experience concerning labelling based on realities faced by domestic interested parties
(e.g. industries and consumers) to provide factual ground for the discussion.  Japan intended to
contribute to this exercise in future meetings.
141. The representative of Korea appreciated the Canadian paper.  He agreed that the discussion on
labelling should be conducted in an informal mode, regarded as an educational process, and should
not prejudge the outcome.  At this stage, it should be opened to all issues relating to labelling.  It
should take into account the two aspects regarding labe lling, i.e. consumer interests, as well as the
interests of importers and exporters.
142. The representative of Canada thanked delegations for their positive reactions to the Canadian
paper.  He believed the Committee could move forward in informal discussions over the next few
months to gain a better understanding on labelling.  His delegation might contribute an additional
non-paper for the coming meeting to assist the process.
143. The Chairman concluded that the June informal  meeting would provide an opportunity for the
Committee to further elaborate the proposal for a Secretariat paper, in particular to clarify its scope
and content, as well as define whether it would be a factual one or would contain certain judgementsor conclusions.
144. The representative of the European Communities presented an EC paper (G/TBT/W/173 and
Add.1) on "A Policy Framework for the Facilitation of Trade in the Fields of Standardization and
Conformity Assessment: a Toolbox of Instruments"  which was originally a working paper of the
European Commission.  It was submitted to the Committee with the intention of building on thediscussion that had been started by the Canadian paper (G/TBT/W/167) on "A Policy Framework for
Mutual Recognition Activities".  He noted the incr eased interest in recent years in international
cooperation in the field of standards, conformity assessment and the elimination of trade barriers.  The
EC, in its paper, attempted to examine the topic of technical requirements of products and their effects
on trade.  Its aim was to consider possible cost-effective, efficient and less trade restrictive measuresand tools to facilitate trade as well as to develop priorities for action in this field.  Within the EU,
trade objectives in this field had been pursued on four fronts:  (i) multilaterally, in the
WTO TBT Committee;  (ii) the inclusion of bilateral agreements consisted mainly of MRAs for
conformity assessments;  (iii) the provision of technical assistance to ensure that regulatory regimes in
other Members were transparent and trade friendly, and that appropriate infrastructures in the areas of
testing and certification were put in place;  and (iv) in the field of regulatory cooperation aimed at
harmonizing regulations or achieving a good understanding of best regulatory practice.
145. The first part of the paper dealt with the conditions for open trade.  In EC's opinion, the best
situation was a fully-developed common market, such as the one in the EU internal market, whereby
products placed in the market of the territory of one member State could be freely marketed in the
territory of the other's and vice versa.  This would require the support of a strong institutional
framework.  Pages 6-8 of the paper provided other situations for trade facilitation:  (i) compatibility ofapproach;  (ii) coherence of regulations;  (iii) coherence of standard;  (iv) transparency;
(v) appropriate level of regulation;  (vi) transparency and impartiality in obtaining certification;
(vii) recognition of certificates,  (viii) compatibility of market surveillance; and  (ix) development of
infrastructure.  Over the last few years, the EC had tended to focus on the negotiations and
implementations of MRAs.  Six MRAs were in place and another one was ready to enter into force.These agreements had not always been easy to implement, in particular in certain sectors.  The
EC would fulfil its obligations to implement these MRAs, and at the same time, would study the costs
and benefits of such agreements.G/TBT/M/26
Page 21
146. The second part of the paper dealt with the following tools that could be used to facilitate
trade:  (i) regulatory cooperation: it encompassed multilateral initiatives for harmonizing regulatory
requirements and mandatory standards as well as to develop best practices in conformity assessment
and technical regulations, harmonizing standards as well as regulatory reform;  (ii) harmonization:  a
maximal option to draw up common or identical rules by a group of authorities, with the intention thatthe rules on a product would be the same among them  (such as in the EU);  (iii) recognition of
equivalence even where regulations or standards differed.  He recalled that this approach had been
discussed at the previous triennial reviews, based on a New Zealand paper.  He believed the
recognition as equivalent of standards could be envisaged in situations where no relevant international
standards existed or their completion was not imminent.  It could be used as an interim measure until
suitable international standards were developed;  (iv) mutual recognition agreements:  with its
experience, the EC believed that MRAs were worth negotiating when the certification systems of theparties involved were not too different.  There should exist substantial regulatory, standards and
certification infrastructure, as well as sufficient trad e between the parties to justify the cost in setting
up the MRAs;  (v) partial, voluntary, reduced or less formal types of mutual recognition
(e.g. agreements between accreditation bodies, certifiers and testing laboratories);  (vi) international
standardisation;  and (vii) technical assistance.
147. He concluded that there was a wide range of instruments available to address different
problems in a bilateral or regional setting, and one could choose the most appropriate instruments
according to the characteristic of the market, th e regulatory environment and the willingness of
industries and relevant parties to achieve the objectives.  He hoped this paper would stimulate
discussion in the Committee, in particular in the field of regulatory cooperation.
148. The representative of Canada said that his delegation would study the EC paper and would
provide comments in the future.
149. The representative of Japan provided preliminary comments on the EC paper.  He agreed with
the general view of selecting the right instruments for regulatory framework or regulatory
cooperation, and shared the EC's view on MRAs.  He believed the EC paper would contribute to
stimulating discussions in the TBT Committee on regulatory cooperation or good regulatory practices.
150. The representative of the United States noted that the first paragraph of the EC paper stated
that "The objective of this document is to share with other WTO Members the EC's experience in
external trade in the fields of standards and conformity assessment, and present a framework for our
future work in this area".  She sought clarification on whether this paper was prepared with the aim of
stimulating debate for the future work within the EC or the future work of this Committee.
151. The representative of the European Communities clarified that it was a working document of
the European Commission, and not even an official European Community policy paper, since it had
not gone through the process of discussions within the European Council and the Parliament.  It was
not meant to present a framework of discussions for the Committee.  However, it could be read that
way, since the paper covered nearly all aspects of regulatory cooperation.
152. The Committee took note of the statements made.
VIII.  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
153. The Chairman recalled that at the Second Triennial Review, the Committee had agreed to
develop a demand driven TBT related technical cooperation programme.  The programme would
evolve on the basis of a number of elements, the first step being to design a survey questionnaire to
assist developing countries in identifying needs.   He drew attention to the draft questionnaire
(JOB(02)/Rev.1) revised by the Secretariat  on 6 March 2002.G/TBT/M/26
Page 22
154. The representative of Canada believed the draft could be adopted. The Committee should
move forward to the broader question of how the technical cooperation programme should be
managed.
155. The representative of Colombia supported the adoption of the draft questionnaire.  He
reiterated the importance of moving forward, and taking care of the follow-up work in the coming
months so that the programme could be carried out.
156. The representative of India appreciated the efforts made to finalize the questionnaire.
157. The representative of Mexico proposed adding a paragraph to the last page of the
questionnaire in which any other issues to be addressed could be identified.
158. The representative of the United States supported the suggestion made by Mexico, and
believed that the survey should be flexible enough for developing countries to identify their specific
needs, even if they might not have been identified  in the questionnaire.  She looked forward to seeing
the results of this effort bilaterally or in the Committee.
159. The representative of Brazil supported the proposal made by Mexico.
160. The representative of the European Communities supported the adoption of the draft, and that
the Committee should move to the next stage, since there was still a great deal to be done for the
technical cooperation programme.  He shared the concern expressed by Colombia about ways toensure that the next phase of the work would be ca rried out successfully and that useful replies would
be received.  He believed that assistance should be provided if developing countries needed help to
complete the questionnaire, either through the good offices of the Secretariat, or bilaterally and
regionally.  The June meeting would be an opport unity to review the progress of this exercise.
161. The Chairman agreed that assistance should be provided to developing countries, if requested,
from the Secretariat, or bilaterally from other Members to complete the questionnaire.  He added that
the Secretariat could introduce the questionnaire at regional TBT seminars in which it participated and
could offer assistance to those who attended the seminars.  He believed the survey was an important
step for the development of the technical cooperation programme, and emphasized the need for
developing countries to provide timely, comprehensive responses.
162. The representative of Egypt regarded the role of the questionnaire as important, to provide
technical assistance to developing countries.  He hoped that replies would be received soon, so that
the Committee could move its technical cooperation programme forward.
163. The representative of Chile found the draft questionnaire agreeable.  He appreciated the
insertion of the footnotes which provided the li nkage between the issues with the Agreement and
other documents.  It enabled Members to better understand what was entailed in each of the questions.
164. The representative of Japan appreciated the draft and shared the view that it was important for
the Committee to follow up and to move on to the next step.
165. The representative of New Zealand supported the adoption of the draft questionnaire.  Her
delegation would share with other Members New Zealand's capacities, experiences and skills in
supplying technical assistance.  She noted that in the post-Doha Ministerial environment, a lot of work
related to technical assistance was being carried out.  Mechanisms, including a technical assistancedatabase, were being examined at the broader level in the WTO.  These projects were consistent with
the Committee's objectives to improve coherence in the delivery of technical assistance activities.
The Committee should keep this in mind when furthering its work.G/TBT/M/26
Page 23
166. The Chairman shared the view of New Zealand that the Committee could consider the
possibility of utilising the proposed WTO database to improve coordination in technical assistance
activities in the TBT field.  He believed the information supplied by observer organizations could also
be useful to provide a global picture of TBT-related technical assistance activities provided bilaterally
or multilaterally.
167. The Committee agreed to adopt the questionnaire with the inclusion of the Mexican proposal.
168. The Chairman recognized that time would be needed for developing countries to identify their
TBT-related needs and to respond to the questionnaire.  He suggested that the replies should be
submitted to the Secretariat no later than 30 June 2002, so that they could be compiled and be
assessed by the Committee at its October meeting.  The success of this exercise would depend on the
responses from developing countries.  Without a comprehensive response, the Committee would not
be able to draw up a programme that would reflect the prioritized needs of developing countries.  Heencouraged all developing countries Members to respond to the questionnaire.
169. The representative of Canada welcomed the Ministries' Decision on Implementation Issues at
Doha, reaffirming the approach taken by this Committee on technical assistance.  He believed the
work undertaken to develop a comprehensive survey to identify and prioritize needs in the TBT field
demonstrated the Committee's commitment to this pr ocess.  In order to maintain the momentum, the
Committee had to seek acceptable ways to follow through for the delivery of technical assistance.  It
would be unrealistic to expect the Committee to become the delivery mechanism for identified
technical assistance priorities.  The Committee should act as an advisor or advocate on TBT trade-
related technical assistance matters.  With this in mind, the Committee should strengthen its
coordination with other WTO bodies responsible for the development of the broader framework ontrade-related technical assistance responding to the Doha Decisions.  The Committee could influence
the identification of TBT-related activities in the context of the WTO Secretariat technical assistance
plan.  This would address the administrative aspects of the technical cooperation programme of the
Committee.  He invited other Members to reflect on this as the Committee moved on to the next steps
of its technical cooperation programme.
170. The Chairman shared the Canadian view, and believed that there was a need to ensure
consistency with the overall technical assistance programme that was being evolved in the WTO and
to keep revisiting the programme agreed in the Committee to ensure consistency with the overall
strategy.  He drew attention to the current WTO technical assistance programme in the TBT area, and
invited Members to take into account the type of activities that had been planned for the near future.
171. The representative of the European Commun ities agreed with Canada that the Committee
should move to the second phase of the technical cooperation programme in the coming months.  He
suggested that at the June meeting, the Committee should hold a discussion to obtain an
understanding on how the programme would work.  He noted the range of existing technical
assistance activities.  In order that the Committee had a better understanding on how its work could fit
in, a briefing on the existing WTO technical assistance activities would be useful.
172. The Chairman proposed that at the informal meeting in June, the Committee could have a
look into the overall WTO technical assistance programme.  In order to enhance the discussion, an
expert from the Technical Cooperation Division would be invited to the meeting to explain the overall
WTO plan, the scope and objective of the TBT-related activities as well as how these activities had
been planned and undertaken. The Committee could then decide its input to the WTO programme.
173. The representative of Egypt drew attention to his delegation's statement delivered at the
meeting in March 2001 (paragraphs 99-107 of G/TBT/M/23) providing information on Egyptian
technical assistance needs and relevant technical assistance provided by international and regional
bodies.  He recognized that technical assistance activities in Egypt and other developing countries hadG/TBT/M/26
Page 24
improved the awareness of TBT matters and the implementation of the Agreement.  He requested that
the Egyptian statement be reflected in docum ent JOB (01)128.  Egypt would respond to the
questionnaire and provide further information on its needs, priorities and proposed solutions.
174. He drew attention to document G/L/471 (T he Chairman's report on problems faced by
developing countries in international standards and conformity assessment - discussions of theTBT Committee in the context of the Second Triennial Review).  The report revealed the constraints
developing countries faced to effectively participate in international standard setting.  It underlined
the importance of seeking tangible ways to address such problems and suggested some of the feasible
solutions.  He noted that the FAO/WHO/Codex Alimentarius had initiated the establishment of a trust
fund to support developing countries' participation in Codex works.  He looked forward to additional
similar initiatives.  He drew attention to document G/TBT/W/172 and thanked the international
organizations listed for their efforts to increase participation of developing countries in internationalstandard setting activities.
175. The Chairman said that a further addendum to document JOB(01)128 would be issued to
reflect the Egyptian statement.
176. The representative of the ITC informed the Committee that ITC had organized a regional
workshop for Benin, Burkina Faso and Côte d'Ivoire in January 2002 on the TBT and SPS matters.
Under the joint integrated technical assistance prog ramme, technical assistance had been provided to
Côte d'Ivoire regarding the implementation of the TBT Agreement (i.e. the operation of the enquiry
point and the creation of a national database on standards and technical regulations).
177. The representative of the UNIDO recalled that at the WTO Pledging Conference for the
Doha Development Agenda Global Trust Fund, the Director-General of the WTO had expressed the
willingness of the WTO to establish a partnership with UNIDO.  He had met with the Director of the
WTO Technical Cooperation Division, and arrangements had been made to conclude a joint
programme in the fields of trade facilitation, technical barriers to trade as well as sanitary and
phytosanitary measures.  He said that the UNIDO initiative in the field of facilitating access to
markets for the Central American countries (in co-operation with the ITC, UNCTAD and WTO)would be launched in April.  A side event on trade facilitation, TBT and SPS measures had been
organized in the context of the Conference on Fina ncing for Development to be held in Monterrey.
UNIDO would continue its efforts to support the coordination with international organizations
working in the fields of standardization, confor mity assessment and metrology (e.g. the IAF, ILAC,
ISO, BIPM and OIML).  A meeting had been scheduled in April to strengthen the co-operation
between UNIDO and these organizations.  UNIDO was ready to make contributions to support the
work of the Committee.
178. The representative of El Salvador, also speaking on behalf of Guatemala and Honduras
thanked UNIDO for its project in Central America to facilitate market access, since these countries
suffered from limitations in market access.  The project was important for the development of these
countries and a high level official would be following up on this.  She supported the coordination and
joint efforts between the UNIDO and WTO.
179. The Committee took note of the statements made.
IX. OTHER BUSINESS
180. The representative of the FAO provided an upd ate on the activities of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission.  She informed the Committee that a meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Import
and Export Inspection and Certification Systems had been held on 25 February - 1 March 2002 tofinalize a guideline for food import control systems.  That text would be forwarded to the next Session
of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 2003 for final adoption.  That Committee also discussedG/TBT/M/26
Page 25
guidelines for the judgement of equivalence (equivalence of sanitary measures associated with food
inspection and certification and of technical regulations), and further discussions would be held in
February 2003 to finalize these guidelines.  The question of traceability was also under discussion in
that Committee, and different views had been expressed.  It would be further discussed.
181. In the area of biotechnology, a meeting of the Codex Intergovernmental Task Force on Food
Derived from Biotechnology had been held on 4-8 March to finalize the texts relating to risk analysis
and risk assessment of food derived from biotechnology.  One of the texts related to the principles for
risk analysis of food derived from modern biotechnology, included provisions for product tracing to
facilitate withdrawal of foods from the market when there was a risk to human health.  On risk
analysis, it had been recognized that the relevant applications should be consistent with the SPS and
TBT Agreements.  The Task Force also worked on the draft guideline for the conduct of food safety
assessment of foods derived from recombinant DNA plants and the text on food safety assessment of
recombinant DNA microorganisms.  These texts would be forwarded to the Codex Commission for
adoption when finalized by consensus.  The work in this Task Force was useful for Members if they
wished to establish national regulations in this area.  The next Session of the Task Force would be
held in February 2003.  Another area of work related to food produced from biotechnology was the
identification of methods of analysis for the detection of genetic modification in foods.  A discussionrelated to microbiological risk management was held in the Committee on Food Hygiene.
182. Concerning food labelling, a number of standa rds and guidelines in the framework of Codex
had been adopted (e.g. general requirements for labe lling and requirements relating to specific claims,
including on organically produced foods).  The Committee on Food Labelling would meet in May
2002 to revise certain guidelines.  This Committee also discussed matters on the labelling of foodsfrom biotechnology (with different views of Members) and matters related to nutrition claims or
health claims.
183. The Chairman requested that if in the future, comprehensive information was to be delivered
by observers, written statement would be appropriate.
184. The representative of the United States recalled that in previous meetings, the UN Economic
Commission for Europe (ECE) had provided information on its Working Party 6 to develop an
international model for the implementation of good regulatory practice for the preparation, adoption
and application of technical regulations via the use of international standards.  She reiterated the
following concerns she had regarding that model:  (i) the legal perspective (i.e. in terms of the
relationship of this model to the binding obligatio ns under the WTO TBT Agreement);  and (ii) the
policy approach in UN/ECE.  She noted that the US representative in that Working Party had
expressed opposition to the model, nevertheless it had been adopted and its text had now beenproduced with a UN cover and was called "international model".  The US did not support that model,
and did not believe it was workable at an international level.  She continued to have questions about
the relationship between the application of that model and the obligations of Members under the
TBT Agreement.
185. The representative of Canada associated his delegation with the comments made by the US.
He recalled the concerns he had raised about the comprehensiveness of consultations on the
preparation of that model.  He understood that rather than the global community, it had been
developed by a restricted group of individuals.  He was not convinced that it was "international".
186. The representative of Japan shared the concerns expressed by the US and Canada.
187. The representative of the UN/ECE recalled that  the TBT Committee had been informed of the
development of the model for technical harmonization and had been requested for comments.  He
confirmed that the model had been adopted as an UN/ECE recommendation in October 2001.  He
believed the model would not go against WTO Members' obligations under the TBT Agreement.  ItG/TBT/M/26
Page 26
was open to the implementation of countries, if they so wished.  It was welcomed by the business
community.  The development of the model had been done in a transparent manner, and more than
30 countries had participated.  He confirmed that the US had expressed reservations on its adoption,
but according to UN rules, voluntary recommendations did not require unanimous support by
participants.  He was ready to provide fu rther information to interested Members.
188. The representative of the European Commun ities believed that since the TBT Agreement
provided rules to prevent technical regulations from constituting unnecessary trade barriers, and in
particular, Articles 2.4 and 2.6 referred to the use of international standards as a basis for technical
regulations, the UN/ECE model offered a concept of how international standards could be used for the
purpose of harmonization.  He understood that the model was a voluntary one for those
Members/countries who wished to be associated wi th it.  He could not see any reason why solutions
should not be pursued to assist international technical harmonization in specific areas.
189. The Chairman informed the Committee that th e consultations for chairmanship in the
Goods Council had not been concluded.  The agenda item "Election of Officers" would be taken up at
the coming meeting on 20-21 June 2002.
190. The Committee took note of the statements made.
__________