RESTRICTED  
  
G/TBT/M/78  
 
 
23 September 2019  
(19-6111) Page: 1/54 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF 20-21 JUNE  2019  
CHAIR MAN: MR SUNG HWA JANG  
Note by the Secretariat1 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGE NDA ................................ ................................ ........................  1 
2  ELECTION OF THE CHA IRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ................  1 
3  IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF TH E AGREEMENT  ................................ . 1 
3.1  Statements from Members under Article 15. 2 ................................ ................................ . 1 
3.2  Specific Trade Concerns  ................................ ................................ ...............................  2 
3.3  Exchange of Experiences  ................................ ................................ ............................  52 
3.4  Follow -up on Committee Decisions and Recommendations  ................................ ..............  52 
3.5  Other recommendations from the 8th Triennial Review  ................................ ...................  52 
4  TECHNICAL COOPERATI ON ACTIVITIES  ................................ ................................ .... 52 
5  UPDATING BY OBSERVE RS ................................ ................................ ........................  53 
5.1  Updates from Observers  ................................ ................................ .............................  53 
5.2  Pending requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 53 
6  OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 54 
7  DATE OF NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ ...........................  54 
 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
The Committee  adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/TBT/ 14. 
2  ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON  
The TBT Committee elected Mr. SUNG HWA JANG  (Republic of Korea) as Chairman in 2019.  
3  IMPLEMENTATION AND A DMINISTRATION OF THE  AGREEMENT  
3.1  Statements from Members under Article 15.2  
The Chair man reminded the Committee of Members' notification obligation under  Article  15.2 
of the TBT Agreement and further informed the Committee that the latest list of statements on 
implementation submitted under this provision was contained in an annex to the Annual Review of 
the Implementation and Operation of the TBT Agreemen t (G/TBT/42 ), issued on 25 February 2019. 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility  and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Information on the list of stateme nts is available on the TBT Information Management System  (TBT 
IMS). 
3.2  Specific Trade Concerns  
3.2.1   New concerns  
China - Regulation on Cosmetic Inspection in Registration and Filing  (IMS 
ID 5842) 
The representative of Japan  requested further consideration of two points his delegation had 
made in comments submitted on China's TBT notification of 22 February 2019, concerning proposed 
amendments to "Regulation on Cosmetic Inspection in Registration an d Filing". Regarding Testing 
Laboratories: Article 7 in the draft provided that the testing laboratory should have an independent 
corporate status and obtain China Inspection Body and Laboratory Mandatory Approval (CMA) prior 
to conducting registration tes ting on cosmetic products. Furthermore, under China's regulation, only 
laboratories in China could obtain CMA,  therefore Article 7 would reject test results obtained by in -
house and foreign laboratories. Japan requested a more flexible framework in order t hat test results 
obtained by in -house or foreign laboratories through internationally recognized practices such as 
ISO be accepted.  
Concerning the Animal Testing Requirement: in Appendix 1, animal testing was required for 
imported non -special use products , however domestic non -special use products did not require such 
testing. His delegation considered that this created discriminatory treatment without a safety 
justification, forcing importers to engage in animal testing on products. It was Japan's underst anding 
that the "Regulation for Notification of Non -special Cosmetics", notified by China on 6 June 2019, 
exempted imported non -special use products from animal testing under specific conditions. Japan 
approved of this text and repeated its request that Ch ina accord equal treatment to imported 
products regarding animal testing. Japan further requested that China take into account Members' 
comments on the notification and that the regulation be no more trade restrictive than necessary.  
The representative of the Republic of Korea  appreciate d the opportunity to comment on the 
draft Regulation on Cosmetic Inspection in Registration and Filing ( G/TBT/N/CHN/1311 ) of 
2 February 2019 . Concerns did remain. Firstly, Korea believed that Article 14 of the draft regulation 
placed a restriction on the remaining shelf life of the sample su bmitted for inspection  and that this 
would result in an unnecessary barrier to trade ; China was t herefore request ed to remove this 
requirement.  The provision also allow ed submission of prototypes as samples only for domestic 
special use cosmetics, a discriminatory treatment according to the WTO rules. Korea t herefore ask ed 
China to apply this rule both for domestic and imported special use cosmetics.  
Second, Annex 1 of the  proposed regulation establishe d different items for inspection for 
domestic and imported non -special use cosmetics. Her delegation therefore request ed China to 
inspect imported non -special use cosmetics equally to domestic ones to prevent the establishmen t 
of a discriminatory measure.  Third, China was asked to provide a sufficient transition period to allow 
time for industry to prepare for th e new regulation.  Lastly, Korea request ed China to explain the 
current state of play including the date of entry int o force of the draft and to provide a response to 
its comment s on the regulation.  
The representative of the United States  expressed support for the concerns raised by Japan 
and Korea and noted her own delegation's concerns with the measure as raised under previously -
raised STC 6 below .3  
The representative of China  explained that t he purpose of th e regulation was to stipulate the 
inspection works in cosmetics registration and filing, in order to guarantee the openness, fairness, 
justice and sound ness of those works. As the regulation was currently still under drafting, Members' 
                                                
2 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  584 (under dates raised and references) . 
3 China - Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulation (Draft) G/TBT/N/CHN/1310 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1311  G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 3 - 
 
  comments were welcomed. As concerns were being raised in the TBT C ommittee  for the first time , 
her delegation would study Members' concern s and revert later.  
European Union - Explanatory memorandum of unmanned aircraft systems and 
third -country operators of unmanned aircraft  (IMS ID  5854) 
The representative of China  raised concerns with this measure. The full statement is contained 
in G/TBT/W/646 . 
The representative of the European Union  thanked China for its comments on the draft 
Commission Delegated Regulation5 on unmanned aircraft systems, and on third -country operators 
of unmanned aircraft systems, for which the EU had consulted all the relevant stakeholders. As 
already mentioned in it s reply to China's comments, she explained that the EU had adapted the 
wording of its requirement on the light identification device to enable industry to develop appropriate 
solutions without banning the use of red, green and white lights.6 The EU had als o adapted the 
definition of the "follow -me mode" to one where the unmanned aircraft (UA) followed only the pilot 
and not any other person or device, as suggested by China.  
On the range limitation imposed to unmanned aircraft (UA) when the "follow -me" mode  was 
on, the EU considered, however, that the range limitation must be maintained at 50 m for safety 
reasons until reliable autonomous UA were available. Indeed, she added, the UA should stay in close 
vicinity of the remote pilot in order to allow him to s tay aware of the flight environment of his UA 
and to be able to quickly intervene and regain control of his UA in case of necessity. The requirement 
on the maximum attainable range from the remote pilot station for class C0 unmanned aircraft had 
been intro duced to address privacy risks potentially caused by these unmanned aircrafts. This 
product requirement had been removed according to China's suggestion and replaced by the 
obligation7 for the operator to register himself when operating an unmanned aircraf t of less than 
250 gr equipped with a sensor able to capture personal data, unless this unmanned aircraft was a 
toy in the meaning of Directive 2009/48/EC on the safety of toys. In addition, following China's 
suggestion, the EU had established a three -year transition period in the Commission Implementing 
Regulation8 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircrafts complementing the 
Commission Delegated Regulation and that had been published at the same time as the notified 
regulation.  
India - Notification of 2018 draft cosmetic rules, amending provisions of the India 
Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1940  (IMS ID  5869) 
The representative of the United States  thanked India for the bilateral meeting and 
understood that there would soon be a notific ation on the measure. She said that cosmetics was an 
area of rapid bilateral growth in US -India trade, increasing by 9% annually, with India exporting 
over $288 million in 2018. US cosmetics exports to India had reached $71 million in 2018, with an 
average  annual growth rate of 11% over the previous three years. Given this vibrant trade, her 
delegation was disappointed that following India's response to the US TBT enquiry point request in 
December 2018, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had not notified India's new draft 
Cosmetics Rules to the TBT Committee.  
Despite the lack of a notification, the US Government (in December 2018) and US industry 
(in January 2019) had separately submitted questions and comments to India's enquiry point and 
to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to which there had been no  substantive responses. 
Would India notify this draft measure to the TBT Committee and/or share an update with the US 
delegation as to its plans for the measure? At the March 2019 TBT  Committee  meeting, India's 
representative had noted that he would follow  up with India's enquiry point and Ministry of Health 
                                                
4 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  585 (under dates raised and references) . 
5 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 of 12 March 2019 on unmanned aircraft systems 
and on third -country operators of unmanned aircraft systems  
6 CEN is currently developing a Europ ean harmonised standard based on the use of the 3 classical 
aeronautics colours (green, red and white) . 
7 Article 14.5 (a) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 . 
8 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 of 24 May 2019 on the rules and procedures for 
the operation of unmanned aircraft  
9 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 586 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 4 - 
 
  and Family Welfare to ask why the measure had not been notified to the WTO. Additionally, and 
consistent with the TBT Agreement, would India provide 60 to 90 days for interested parties to 
submit writte n comments and consider those comments when preparing the final rules?  
In reviewing the draft rules, the US was concerned that India was continuing its prior practice 
of requiring imported products to submit a product specification and testing protocol, re quiring 
products to be tested in India, in line with local standards developed by the Bureau of Indian 
Standards (BIS). The US was concerned that this practice would hinder the growth of its bilateral 
trade, since it did not provide for conformity assessme nt in product testing, nor reference ISO or 
other international standards in the cosmetics sector, which were quite developed. She encouraged 
India to consider the request to notify the draft Rules and to consider the comments submitted 
directly to the Min istry of Health and Family Welfare by the Personal Care Products Council.  
The representative of the European Union  supported the comments expressed by the US, in 
particular the hope that India would soon notify the measure to the TBT Committee.  
The represe ntative of India said that the draft Cosmetics rules 2018 ha d been submitted  to 
the WTO Secretariat on 19 June 2019 for notification, with a 60-day comment period.  He informed 
the US that  concerning queries to the enquiry point, the y had been forwarded for  appropriate action.  
India - Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2019  (IMS ID  58710) 
The representative of the United States  asked India to clarify how the 2019 draft Quality 
Control Order (QCO) for toys related to "Amendment in Policy conditions No. 2 to Chapter 95 of ITC, 
2017-Schedule on Import Policy " notified to the WTO as G/TBT/N/IND/68 . She said that the US had 
been the seventh largest exporter of toys to India in 2017, primarily specialty toys from small and 
medium -sized manufacturers. The US was also home to two of the world's largest toy companies, 
of which the 2016 value of the Indian toy market was estimated at $75 -100 million. As such, her 
delegation viewed the amendment's potential detrimental effect on trade to be deeply concerning. 
Did India have a planned timeline for notification of the draft Toys (Quality Con trol) Order, 2019 to 
the WTO Secretariat? Did India have a tentative timeline for the implementation of the draft Toys 
(Quality Control) Order, 2019?  
She noted her delegation's continued serious concerns with the burdensome nature of India's 
requirements for imported toys, underlining that prior to regulatory changes, India employed what 
many considered the "gold standard " of toy regulatory regimes – toy manufacturers could test to 
either the ASTM, ISO, or EN toy safety standards in the country of manufact ure by a lab accredited 
under the ILAC system. India had not offered a credible explanation for departing from this prior 
practice. For example, India had noted that the 2017 measure (Amendment in Policy conditions No. 
2 to Chapter 95 of ITC (HS), 2017 -Schedule - 1 (Import Policy)) was put into place immediately due 
to issues concerning safety of children but had not provided important information regarding the 
evaluation of specific toy hazards despite numerous requests.  
The representative of the European U nion expressed support for the US in relation to the 
concerns being raised and requested India to notify the proposed measure to the TBT Committee.  
The representative of Canada  expressed concern about the recent draft decree issued by India 
regarding qual ity control for toys. Without wishing to question the right of India or any other Member 
to implement measures to ensure the safety of children, his delegation considered that the draft 
Order included multiple levels of accreditation, tests, registration f ees and approvals necessary for 
a single product to be sold in the Indian market. Moreover, after a long approval process, companies 
would have no certainty that they would ultimately be allowed to sell their product on the market. 
Canada encouraged India to notify the measure to the TBT Committee as soon as possible and to 
provide Members with a reasonable period of time to provide comments.  
The representative of India informed the Committee that the matter was still under 
stakeholder consideration process  at domestic level and that on issuance, the draft QCO 2019 would 
be notified to the WTO.  
                                                
10 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  587 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 5 - 
 
  
Republic of Korea - Package Recycle Classification Regulation  (IMS ID  58811) 
The representative of the United States  expressed appreciation for Korea 's objective to 
promote recycling and reduce unnecessary waste. However, she was disappointed that Korea had 
not responded to their requests to notify the draft regulation in February nor April of 2019. She 
urged Korea to d o so and allow stakeholder comments with a sufficient notice and period. She was 
concerned that Korea's classification regulation may not succeed if Korea did not consider current 
efforts to promote recycling in other countries, so as to encourage scale in  the classification, 
labelling, and use of recyclable materials. The US wanted to ensure that this was not a Korea -unique 
packaging requirement that would  disrupt trade. She said, for example, that the proposed 
classification d id not reference relevant int ernational standards for classifying resins such as ASTM 
D7611/D7611M -18 Standard for Resin/Plastic Coding.  Her delegation asked if Korea had considered  
the potential costs and benefits of the measure . She noted that w hile the measure may encourage 
the use  of materials that were easier to recycle, these materials may not have a net environmental 
benefit if substantial natural resources were required for production.  She asked Korea to consider 
partnerships with consumer product and waste recycling companies to identify best practices. She 
also asked about the expected timeline for implementation and what charges Korea would levy for 
non-compliance, because US industry was concerned that the scale of the potential changes in 
packaging may result in withdrawal of affected products from the Korean market .  
The representative of Canada  acknowledge d Korea's efforts to protect the environment, 
particularly with respect to the management of waste and recyclables . However, he echoed the 
comments made by the US . He not ed that this measure could affect a wide range of products, from 
plastics to consumer products. He was concerned that Korea had not notified the measure nor offered 
opportunity for stakeholder comments, as this may create uncertainty for exporters and undu ly 
disrupt trade. Canada believed that there were international standards on which Korea could build 
on to achieve the same policy objective as provided for in the TBT Agreement, and he welcomed 
any clarifications from Korea.  
The representative of the Republic of Korea  respon ded that  a draft o f "Package Recycle 
Classification Regulation " had been  finalized on 17 April 2019 , but this was only for establishing the 
classification criteria of packaging materials and ha d no mandatory requirement . There were 
therefore no criteria for prohibition of sales for the product s that did  not meet this regulation. 
However, Article 9 -2 of the "Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resource s", which 
contained regulations on quality and structure of packaging ma terials for a grade evaluation and 
mandatory requirement to indicate the results , would be implemented in December 2019. The 
operational plan for the draft sub -regulations was still in process, as Korea was still consulting with 
experts . Hence, after confirmation of the  draft sub -regulations, Korea would make an official 
WTO/TBT notification and provide  adequate opportunity for stakeholder comments. His delegation 
would  also provide a sufficient transitional period before enforcement . Korea would respon d to the 
requests made by relevant ministries and keep consultations on this issue in a transparent manner.  
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - Added Sugar Upper Limit in Some Food Products  (IMS 
ID 58912) 
The representative of the United States  expressed appreciation for  the opportunity to speak 
with Saudi Arabia on her delegation's very strong concerns regarding the Saudi Food and Drug 
Authority's (SFDA) draft regulation that all food and beverage products could not exceed maximum 
added sugar limits established by SFDA ( G/TBT/N/SAU/1108  and Add.1). The US also appreciated 
that since initial notification, Saudi Arabia had informed Members that implementation would be 
suspended until further notice. Her delegation was concerned that if implemented, the measure 
would disrupt the export of a  wide range of popular food and beverage products to the Kingdom of 
Saudi Arabia, making most forms of popular carbonated beverages, ice cream, jams and preserves, 
confectionary, chocolate candy, energy drinks, and many juices unavailable to consumers ther e, as 
many of these products required a certain level of added sugar as a preservative or stabilizer. She 
warned that as in many cases there was no viable alternative, the product would not be able to enter 
Saudi Arabia through authorized channels. Moreove r, she said, the sudden removal of these products 
from the market would negatively affect Saudi producers, retailers, importers, and consumers and 
                                                
11 For previous statements follow the thre ad under IMS ID  588 (under dates raised and references) . 
12 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS I D 589 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 6 - 
 
  if implemented, the regulations would cause several companies to shut their Saudi Arabian food 
production ope rations and lay off their employees.  
Whilst appreciating Saudi Arabia's desire to address obesity and non -communicable diseases 
(NCDs), such as diabetes, as part of its Healthy Food Strategy, the US nevertheless questioned the 
sufficiency of the scientific  evidence used as justification for the regulation, the limits prescribed, 
the specific objectives of the regulation, and the process by which this draft would meet those 
objectives. The US was also concerned about how the draft regulation aligned with Sau di Arabia's 
proposed new regulations on Front of Package Nutrition Labelling (FOPNL) and yet to be notified 
regulations on maximum limits on salt. Her delegation asked Saudi Arabia to notify these regulations 
to the WTO and added that they were unclear and  did not reflect consultation with private -sector 
stakeholders, noting the cumulative effect of increasing uncertainty and unpredictability for a range 
of US and multinational companies. Whilst appreciating the suspension of implementation of the 
draft reg ulation, the US requested Saudi Arabia to work with stakeholders and trading partners to 
ensure that measures took into account scientific and technical information for meeting specific 
health objectives while minimizing potential negative economic impacts . She flagged that her 
government would be providing technical comments in response to the April 2019 notifications of 
the regulation to the TBT and SPS Committees, a process industry groups would be actively involved 
in, and urged Saudi Arabia to take tho se comments into account.  
The representative of Switzerland  pointed to the ample scientific evidence demonstrating  the 
effects on human health of too much sugar over a prolonged period  and therefore support ed Saudi 
Arabia 's objective in principle. He drew attention to Switzerland 's "Nutrition Strategy 2017 -2024" 
which sought to improve public health awareness through a variety of measures, including through 
the engagement of foodstuff producers and suppliers, a better education, and the promotion of a 
varied and balanced diet with less sugar. His delegation also welcome d initiatives to develop relevant 
international standards with the view to reduc ing sugar content in day -to-day diet s, in particular for 
added sugar.  Switzerland was concerned, however, with the lack of scientific evidence to support 
the draft regulation , for example, concerning the quantity of added sugar in food products. Saudi 
Arabia was asked to provide more information on the scientific basis of th e measure . 
Also of concern were the econom ic implications if the regulation was implemented. It was 
unclear to Switzerland to what extent food producers could  adjust the recipes and production lines 
to meet the upper sugar limits for foodstuffs  and asked whether Saudi Arabia had received feedback 
from private sector stakeholders on this particular aspect . He then asked if Saudi Arabia ha d 
considered other less trade -restrictive measures to reach its policy objective , questioning why 
private sector stakeholders had not been more widely engaged in the consultation process. Bearing 
in mind the important technical knowhow  of producers and suppliers of foodstuff, which could  help 
design effective regulations , Saudi Arabia w as encouraged to engage  with private sector 
stakeholders to ensure a transparent process.  
The representative of the European Union  raised some of the most important points included 
in written comments on the measure that would be sent to Saudi Arabia, i n particular the expected 
compliance difficulties due to the lack of an analytical method to distinguish naturally present and 
added sugar. The EU also note d that Foods for Special Medi cal Purposes and Infant formula and 
Follow -up formula should be excluded f rom the scope of the draft. In addition, her delegation 
enquire d whether the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ha d considered alternative, less trade -restrictive 
policies to reduce the sugar content in foods placed on the national market, such as economic 
measures f acilitat ing healthier food choices and restrict ing consumption of added sugar or control of 
food advertising and marketing.  Finally, the EU consider ed that the limits currently proposed may 
be technically challenging, particularly within the short timefram e proposed. Consequently, some 
key product categories currently exported from the EU to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would no 
longer be able to access the market on 1 January 2020  and in this context, the EU invite d Saudi 
Arabia to consider a transition per iod of at least three years for the notified provisions.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  expressed support for public health concerns 
that may be caused by unhealthy diet but believed that such concerns could be addressed in a less 
trade -restrictive manner. His delegation considered that the upper limit for added sugar required in 
the draft of the technical regulation of Saudi Arabia was more trade restrictive than necessary. 
Specifically, sugar content requirements set out in the document were  not technologically achievable 
with regard to confectionery, for instance for chocolate and candies, among others. These 
requirements would therefore constitute a de facto  ban, severely disrupting international trade in G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 7 - 
 
  confectionary. It was noted that th e document developed by the WHO, referred to by Saudi Arabia, 
only set recommendations for daily sugar consumption and did not lay down any requirements for 
sugar content in food products. Saudi Arabia was therefore requested to specify the scientific basi s 
for such requirements in general and more specifically the basis for sugar content requirements in 
particular food products. Without such scientific data, he said, the measure could not be considered 
as justifiable, and based on international standards, practices and recommendations, his delegation 
was inclined to consider it as arbitrary. The Russian Federation remained open for consultations with 
the delegation of Saudi Arabia to discuss ways to revise the draft measure.  
The representative of the Kingdo m of Saudi Arabia  clarified that the technical regulation on 
the upper limit for added sugar in some food products would be reviewed by Saudi Arabia and would 
not come into force until further notice. He indicated his delegation's willingness to engage bil aterally 
with any interested delegations.  
Uruguay - Analysis of Imported  Products - Resolution of the Board of the National 
Grape -Growing and Wine Production Institute (INAVI) of 14 February 2019. Resolution 
of the Board of INAVI postponing implementation until 1 May 2019) - exogenous water in 
wine G/TBT/N/URY/27/Rev.1  (IMS ID  59013) 
The representatives of the United States , Chile and South Africa  raised concerns with the 
measure. The full statements are contained in G/TBT/W/668 , G/TBT/W/647  and G/TBT/W/643 , 
respectively.  
The representative of Australia  expressed support  for the concerns of other Members 
regarding Uruguay's implementation of new certification requirements for exogenous water in wine.  
He emphasi zed the importance of compliance with WTO obligations, in particular the requirements 
that measures be implemented in  a non -discriminatory manner and in a way that was no more trade 
restrictive than necessary.  He explained that i n Australia, wine producers were permitted under the 
Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code to add water to dilute high sugar musts to aid in  
fermentation. The addition of water was done in minimal circumstances, for technical necessity, in 
small volumes to aid fermentation during periods of difficult seasonal conditions.  Australia  asked 
Uruguay to clarify the term 'exogenous water' and whether  the use of water, permitted in Australia 
under the Food Standards Code, would be considered 'exogenous water'.  Noting that the objective 
of the new measure was the 'prevention of deceptive practices and consumer protection' , his 
delegation sought clarific ation on how the proposed measure would  contribute to th ose objectives.  
The representative of New Zealand  expressed concern that Uruguay's measure may be more 
trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective. His delegation requested that Uruguay 
reconsider its new regulation so that it did not become an unnecessary barrier to trade, as per 
Article  2.2 of the TBT Agreement. He pointed out that his country, like Uruguay, had a cooler climate, 
arguing that the addition of exogenous water was not necessary for New Zealand winemakers at 
that time, although it was acknowledged that climate change may eventually mean reviewing that 
decision. Whilst New Zealand did not allow this practice in the winemaking process, his delegation 
recognized that ot her countries may require this process due to differing climates and underlined 
that New Zealand made no restrictions in imported wine based on the practice. Moreover, it was 
recognized  that countries permit ting this practice through climatic necessity had strict controls over 
its use.  
In the Board of the National Grape -Growing and Wine Production Institute (INAVI) Resolution 
of 14 February, Uruguay referenced the OIV's method of determining isotopic ratios of oxygen in 
wine as the basis for its new requirements. Many WTO Members were no t members of the OIV, and 
New Zealand did not recognize the OIV as an international standard setting body, as outlined in TBT 
Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and 
Recommendations with relation to Articles 2, 5 a nd Annex 3 of the Agreement. Whilst acknowledging 
that Uruguay had re -notified the draft regulation to the WTO to allow for a longer comment period, 
his delegation remained concerned that the proposed date of entry into force was 1 June, which New 
Zealand considered gave Uruguay insufficient time to take comments into account, as well as 
exporters to readjust practices. Uruguay was requested to delay the entry into force in accordance 
with Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement, providing at least a six -month tr ansition period between the 
                                                
13 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  590 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 8 - 
 
  date of final publication of a technical regulation and entry into force, so that comments submitted 
to the Uruguay TBT enquiry point could  be taken into account.  
The representative of Uruguay  responded to the concerns raised. T he full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/676 . 
Europe an Union - Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR)  (IMS 
ID 59114) 
The representative of Indonesia  raised concerns about the development of the Product 
Environmental Footprint (PEF) Category Rule (CR) for intermediate paper products. Indonesia note d 
the EU's effort to standardize Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) conduct and to share PEF information 
with the public. His delegation request ed an  update on the final draft of Product Environmental 
Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) as circulated in 2016.  He recalled that t he draft PEFCR state d that 
around 88.5% of the timber used for EU pulp came from EU -27 countries, while the rest was 
imported mainly from Russia, Belarus and Norway. The majority of tree species in Europe consist ed 
of pine, spruce and fir , for which the planting and harvesting cycle in the temperate and boreal 
regions was significantly longer than 20 years, exceed ing the maximum period for inclusion in the 
Land Use Change (LUC) impact assessment stated above.  On the other hand, he said, in tropical 
countries like Indonesia, the plantation trees used for the pulp and paper industry were fast-growing 
species such as Acacia Sp . and Eucalyptus Sp , with planting and harvesting cycles rang ing from five 
to seven  years.  In his delegation's view, t his constitute d unfair discrimination against pulp and paper 
products from tropical countries like Indonesia.  
The currently proposed accounting standard for LUC effectively exempt ed the European 
plantation industry from having to factor in LUC in the LCA for their products. By contrast, since the 
plantation industry for pulp and paper in Indonesia and in many other developing countries had only 
begun in the early 1990s, almost all of Indonesian  timber sources would  be included i n emissions 
due to LUC under the current criteria. This create d a fundamental disadvantage for the pulp and 
paper industry in Indonesia and other developing countries which had established plantations in the 
1990s compared to the industry in Europe, where most plantations had been  established more than 
20 years previously  and before January 2008. Indonesia request ed clarification on how the reference 
date of January 2008 and the cut -off period of 20 years had been  chosen and argued that they 
appear ed to be arbitrary and unfair. Indonesia claimed that the values had been developed based 
on the circumstances of the European pulp and paper industry, where LUC emissions would not be 
required, and that the pulp and paper products coming from tropical developing c ountries, where 
LUC emissions were likely to be included, would not be able to achieve those values. Indonesia  
believed t his was an area in which the PEFCR could become a non -tariff trade barrier for Indonesian 
pulp and paper products entering the EU marke t. Indonesia urged the EU to respond to their concern 
accordingly, including on the status of PEFCR.  
The representative of the European Union  underlined that the use of the PEFCR for calculating 
the Environmental Footprint profile for products was voluntar y and therefore did not fall under the 
scope of the TBT Agreement. Nevertheless, her delegation wished to provide some information on 
the context of the document.  The PEFCR  for Intermediate Paper Products had been  developed in a 
pilot process with voluntar y participation of stakeholders, in the framework of the Commission 
Recommendation of 9  April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the 
life cycle environmental performance of products and organizations. The voluntary use of the 
comm on environmental footprint methods, she explained, should reduce the current proliferation of 
different methods and initiatives to assess and communicate environmental performance and 
therefore help addressing confusion and mistrust in environmental perfor mance information. The 
methods used in the document were based on international standards and guidelines, including ISO 
14067 and International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas 
Inventories. The final version and detailed information on stakeholders ' input were available of the 
website of the European Commission.15 The EU remained available to exchange information with 
Indonesia bilaterally in a more appropriate forum.  
                                                
14 For previous statements follow the thread  under IMS ID  591 (under dates raised and references) . 
15 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/PEFCR_ OEFSR_en.htm  
 G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 9 - 
 
  
European Union - Concerns on regulations with r egard to eco -design 
requirements for various products in EU  (IMS ID  59216) 
The representative of China  raised concerns with this measure. The full statement is contained 
in G/TBT/W/651 . 
The representative of the European Union  recalled the notifications submitted under the TBT 
Agreement: (i) on 5 July 2018 ecodesign requirements  on enterprise servers and data storage 
products ; (ii) on 8 October 2019 ecodesign requirements for light sources and the energy labelling 
light sources  (G/TBT/N/EU/606  and G/TBT/N/EU/607 ); on 22 October 2019 ecodesign requirements 
for household washing machines and household washer -dryers ( G/TBT/N/EU/615 ); and (iv) o n 
15 October 2019 ecodesign requirements for household dishwashers ( G/TBT/N/EU/611 ). She 
underlined that all the notifications had provided a 60-day comment period for interested Members , 
to which Brazil, J apan, China, the US and Korea had responded . She stated that between December 
2018 and January 2019 the Ecodesign Regulatory Committee had met to discuss the proposed 
ecodesign regulations; every proposed measure had been voted favourably by the member States, 
sometimes with changes to the text. This process, she explained, was based on Regulation (EU) 
182/2011, under which committee members representing member States had the opportunity to 
suggest amendments to the Commission draft implementing a cts; the chair might present amended 
versions, as it endeavoured to find solutions commanding the widest possible support within the 
committee. After the vote, each Ecodesign Regulation had been subject to a three -month scrutiny 
period with the European Pa rliament and the Council. This period was now over without any objection 
and the draft measures would soon be adopted by the Commission and published in the Offici al 
Journal of the European Union. Only the Ecodesign Regulation on servers and data storage p roducts 
had been already published on the Official Journal of the European Union (on 15 March 2019). The 
regulations would repeal the previous legislation on the same product groups. The reviews for 
ecodesign also included, on top of energy efficiency requ irements updated to the technology 
evolution, new "circular economy" requirements for increasing durability, for improving reparability 
and the efficiency of the recycling process at end of life.  
European Union - Regulation of the European Parliament and o f the Council on 
the definition, description, presentation, labelling of spirit drinks, the use of the names of 
spirit drinks in the presentation and labelling of other foodstuffs, the protection of 
geographical indications of spirit drinks, the use of eth yl alcohol and distillates of 
agricultural origin in alcoholic beverages, which repeals Regulation (EC) No. 110/2008  
(IMS ID  59317) 
The representative of Guyana  raised concerns with this measure. The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/640 .  
The representative of the European Union  clarified that the reservation of the term 
"agricultural" (in all languages) for rum under geographical indications of the French Overseas 
Departments and the autonomous region  of Madeira was not new, as it was already provided for in 
current Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 regarding spirit drinks. She a dded that the issue had not been 
introduced through the recast of the spirit drinks Regulation, which just clarified the formulation of 
that provision. The reservation of that term for rum had existed in the EU since 1989 and was based 
on prior French legi slation and on a tradition dating back many decades. The recently adopted new 
Regulation (EU) 2019/787 on spirit drinks had entered into force on 25 May 2019 (even if not yet 
applicable). The EU noted that the draft text of the new spirit drinks Regulation  had been notified to 
the TBT Committee in December 2018 and that, even though the deadline for comments had been 
extended until 19 February 2019, the EU had received no comments on the issue at stake. Her 
delegation had therefore widely shared the text co mplying with EU transparency standards and 
legislative practices. She recalled that, in the spirit of transparency and partnership, the EU had 
discussed the measure in detail, in particular the contested issue, with the relevant third countries 
in different fora, as well as bilaterally.  
                                                
16 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  592 (under dates raised and references) . 
17 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  593 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 10 - 
 
  
European Union - Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic 
Medical Devices Regulation (IVDR)  (IMS ID  59418) 
The representative of the United States  expressed support for the development and 
enforcement o f a well -defined medical device regulatory system assuring the safety and performance 
of medical devices. However, her delegation had serious concerns regarding the implementation of 
the MDR and IVDR, and US industry was worried about its continued access to the EU's $125 billion 
medical device market, $20 billion of which was supplied by US products. She stated that the 
implementation of MDR/IVDR was behind schedule, raising two particular concerns for industry: 
(i) the insufficient number of Notified Bodi es (NBs) performing certification activities under the 
MDR/IVDR; and (ii) the insufficient number of implementing acts drafted by the EU, needed to 
provide details to industry about how to ensure compliance of their products with the new product 
standards.  She asked for an update on how many of the 58 NBs accredited to test and certify 
products under old directives were currently designated as operational under the new MDR and 
IVDR, and how many were expected to be designated as operational by the end of 20 19. It was her 
delegation's understanding that DG GROW expected no more than 12 NBs to be designated as 
operational by the end of 2019, a number the US deemed inadequate to provide sufficient capacity 
to ensure continued regulatory approvals by May 2020 an d May 2022.  
The US was concerned that as only two of the eighteen implementing regulations had been 
issued, EU standardizing bodies could not begin work on developing the standards industry may use 
to comply with the MDR/IVMDR. Given this backlog, US indu stry maintained that the product 
standards necessary for compliance with the MDR could not be completed before the deadline. The 
US considered that the MDR and IVDR provisions for warehousing and a grace period, intended to 
provide transitional relief, wer e insufficient. The warehousing provision was insufficient because 
buyers and producers could not predict demand, making it difficult to warehouse the right amount 
of product to meet that demand through the implementation delays. Moreover, warehousing was 
expensive, degradation was common with medical technology, and the technology itself could 
quickly become obsolete. She added that the grace periods were insufficient because CE mark 
product registrations compliant with the old directives may expire before  the end of the grace period, 
in 2024. Given these concerns, the US urged the EU to delay implementation by three years to allow 
for US exporters to adapt to the new requirements. If not possible, the EU was urged to allow for 
legacy products currently dee med safe to be sold on the market until 2024 and to ask NBs to provide 
new products, requiring testing for the first time, with priority access to testing and CE marking 
certification over products being re -certified to the new requirements.  
The represent ative of Canada  echoed the points raised by the US related to the 
implementation of this measure, notably the insufficient number of Notified Bodies (NBs) and 
expressed interest in hearing any additional information and clarification the EU could provide. 
Representatives of the Canadian medical devices industry had also informed his delegation of their 
concerns with regard to certain aspects of the measure.  
The representative of the European Union  responded to the concerns raised. The full 
statement is cont ained in  G/TBT/W/654 . 
India - Moisture content for Cassia Vera (Cinnamomum  Burmani)  (IMS ID  59519) 
The representative of Indonesia  raised  concerns on the regulation on Food Safety & Standards 
(Food Product Standard & Food Additive) Regulations , specifically on the requirements of moisture 
content for Cassia Vera (Cinnamomum Burmani). Her delegation recalled that India ha d stipulated 
the regulation back in 2011 , setting the moisture content of Cassia Vera to not more than 12% by 
weight, both for whole product and ground/powder product. There was concern, however, that  since 
early 2019 Indonesian  exporters were no longer able to export Cassia Vera to India, even though 
they ha d complied with the maximum moisture content set in the regulation. The c ustoms authorit ies 
in the ports of Cochin and Tuticorin require d that the moisture content for Cassia be lower than 
12%; Indonesia therefore request ed that India be consistent in implementing the regulation. In 
addition, Indonesia request ed scientific evid ence of related food safety risk assessment s in setting 
                                                
18 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  594 (under dates raised and references) . 
19 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  595 (unde r dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 11 - 
 
  a more stringent limit of moisture content than the existing international standard (ISO 6538:1997) 
and, hence, more trade restrictive than necessary.  
The representative of India informed Members that  the quality parameters for Cassia  
(Whole/Powder)  had been laid down in Food Safety & Standards (Food Product Standard & Food 
Additive) Regulations, 2011 and notified to WTO on 7  July 2010 . The regulation  stipulated that  the 
moisture content in Cassia should  not be more than 12% by weight mean ing that  a maxim um 12% 
moisture by weight was acceptable. She underlined that t his requirement ha d been specified taking 
into account the geographical conditions of India and ultimately to prevent the formation of 
aflatoxins.  Recalling its response to the Indonesian TBT enquiry point in May 2019 r egarding alleged 
refusal of Cassia Vera at customs in Cochin and Tuticorin  ports, Indonesia said that this issue was 
relevant to trade facilitation and not to the TBT Committee ; her delegation made itself available to 
discuss with  Indonesia bilaterally.  
3.2.2   Previous ly raised concerns  
Indonesia — Technical Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adoption and 
Supervision of Indonesian National Standards for Obligatory Toy Safety, 
G/TBT/N/IDN/64 , G/TBT/N/IDN/64/Add.3  (IMS ID  32820) 
The representative of the United States  noted that dialogue on Indonesia's toy standard dated 
back to 2012. It was her delegation's understanding that Indonesia's Ministry of Industry (MOI) had 
been working with stakeholders to address outstanding issues so as to resolve the long-standing 
conce rns. She requested an update on the timeline for issuance of implementing measures to MOI 
Regulation 29/2018.  
The US recognize d that the recent introduction of Scheme 5 for importers was an attempt to 
ease the burden on importers . However, industry was re porting that factory inspections were 
required every six months.  She asked what the rationale was for this.  US toy industry ha d noted 
that a limited amount of toy testing was being conducted  at branches of international labs affiliate d 
to LSPro  or Ministry  of Industry appointed labs.  She asked if the Ministry of Industry would  consider 
allowing these testing facilities to conduct the factory inspections rather than flying inspectors from 
Indonesia to each factory . 
US toy industry noted that Scheme 5 d id not provide relief to toy importers.  The cost and 
frequency of factory inspections would most likely deter toy importers from using this option  and 
would lead to toy importers choos ing to consolidate shipments and opt for per shipment testing.  
This could resu lt in fewer quality toys being imported from reputable manufacturers and more black -
market goods that circumvent testing.  
3.52.   The representative s of the European Union  and Japan  reiterated  concerns  raised at the 
previous TBT Committee meeting .21  
3.53.   The representative of Canada  support ed the concerns raised by other delegations . As 
previously  stated under  the new STC 422, Canada support ed informed regulations by any WTO 
Member, including Indonesia, that ensure d the safety of children. However,  Canadian stakeholders 
continue d to have concerns regarding the revised safety requirements included in the measure, 
namely:  domestic products continue d to enjoy a more favourable testing frequency;  only 
certification in a limited number of Indonesian faci lities was permitted; and , the requirements were 
more trade restrictive than necessary.  At the March 2019 TBT Committee meeting, Indonesia noted 
that the development of implementation guidelines for Regulation Number 29/2018 was underway. 
He asked Indonesi a to provide an update on the status of these guidelines and when  WTO Members 
and stakeholders c ould expect to review and provide comments  on them.  
The representative of Indonesia  informed the Committee that t he current MOI Regulation 
29/2018 included the guidelines for the option of type 1 and 5 for product certification procedures . 
imported products and domestic products  were treated equally . Indonesia w ould continue to observe 
how these measures worked in practice  and would see whether it was necessary to update th e 
                                                
20 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  328 (under dates raised and references) . 
21 G/TBT/W/627  and G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.59, respectively.  
22 India - Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2019 . G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 12 - 
 
  regulation with the latest toy standards. As set out in the MOI regulation 29/2018, Indonesia 
recognized foreign testing laborato ries under the framework of international accreditation 
arrangement on ILAC  and MRA on a reciprocal basis.  
Europea n Union — Draft Implementing Regulations amending Regulation 
(EC) No. 607/2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation 
(EC) No  479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical 
indications, traditional terms , labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products, 
G/TBT/N/EEC/264 , G/TBT/N/EEC/264/Add.1  (IMS ID  34523) 
The represe ntative of the United States  voiced her delegation's disappoint ment that this STC 
continued to be raised . The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/669 . 
The representative of Argentina  reiterate d concerns expressed at previous TBT Committee 
meetings . Argentinian wine continued to suffer discrimination through the ban on the inclusion of  
the terms "reserva" and "grand reserva" on labels. This continued,  despite the fact that Argentina 
had concluded the procedure for the adoption of these terms in 2018 . Once again Argentina  urged 
the EU to activate all th e applications for the registration of traditional terms by third countries such 
as Argentina which were currently paralysed without any legal justification. This constitute d a 
technical barrier to trade. He thanked  the EU for the recent bilateral meetings  and hope d that this 
issue w ould finally proceed smoothly.  
The representative of Brazil  reiterated concerns raised at the previous TBT Committee 
meeting.24 
The representative of the European Union  repeated the response provided at the previous 
TBT Committee  meeting.25 
European Union — Quality Schemes for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, 
G/TBT/N/EU/139 , G/TBT/N/EU/139/Add.1  and G/TBT/N/EU/593  (IMS ID  51226) 
The representative of the United States  raised two issues with regard to the EU 's registration 
process for protected geographical indicatio n (PGI) – first regarding the applications for "danbo " and 
"havarti " cheese, and second regarding the notification of G/TBT/N/EU/593 . The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/670 . 
The representative of Uruguay  said his delegation regretted having to refer once again to 
previous statements made in the TBT Committee27 and Council for Trade in Goods, on the lack of 
progress in the dialogue with the European Union in resolving  this issue. With respect to the process 
for the registration of the term "havarti" as a geographical indication protected in the European 
Union, for the benefit of Denmark, Uruguay requested an update on the  status of the process,  and 
noted Uruguay would  closely follow its development.  
The representative of Argentina  thanked the EU for th e bilateral meeting . However, concerns 
remained with the registration of the term danbo as a prote cted GI by the EU, despite it being a 
generic name of a type of cheese including in the Codex standard 126. This constitute d a precedent 
which undermine d the work of harmonization and establishment of international standards by Codex 
to which the EU adhere s to. 
The representative of New Zealand  reiterated  concerns raised at the previous TBT Committee 
meeting.28 He also said that any suggestion that the term "Havarti " should be registered only 
amplifie d New Zealand 's concern as it was  a further example of the integrity of the Codex Standard 
being disregarded.  
                                                
23 For previous statements fo llow the thread under IMS ID 345 (under dates raised and references) . 
24 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.64 . 
25 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.65. 
26 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 512 (under dates raised and references) . 
27 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.67 . 
28 G/TBT /M/77 , para. 3.68. G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 13 - 
 
  
The representative of Australia  informed the Committee that Australia's  dairy industry was 
one of a number of international stakeholders that objected to the protection of Havarti  in the EU.  
There was c ontinue d concern  about  EU decisions to grant cheese GIs where there was also  a Codex 
standard for cheese.  It was important to continue to support the integrity of international standards 
and to maintain access to common names when ma king decisions on GIs.  
The representative of the European Union  said that t he procedure for granting of protection 
to the term "Danbo" as a Geographical Indication in the European Union had been  finalised and the 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1901 of 18 October 2017 was publicly available.  
The procedure for the adoption of a measure as regards the term "Havarti " was on-going.  As the EU 
had stated at previous TBT Committee meetings, any issues strictl y concerning intellectual property 
rights  should not be discussed under the TBT Committee or through TBT notification channels.  
The representative of the United States  took the floor to clarify that, as indicated at a previous 
TBT Committee meeting , the EU prefer red to discuss this issue in a GI -focused forum.  The US 
disagreed with this and said it was a TBT matter.  The EU had correctly notified its quality schemes 
regulation under the TBT Agreement precisely because of the TBT implications, such as  the label ling 
elements and relevant international standards.  
European Union - Chlorothalonil (pesticide active substance) G/TBT/N/EU/625  
(IMS ID  57929)  
3.66.   The representative s of Colombia , the United States  and Ecuador  raised concerns with this 
measure. The full statements are contained in G/TBT/W/661 , G/TBT/W/671  and G/TBT/W/649 . 
3.67.   The representative of Brazil  shared the concerns raised by Colombia and the US and  regretted 
the EU's decision to base this measure on a hazard -based approach, without a proper risk analysis 
and compliance with long -standing scientific principles. The non -renewal of approval for 
chlorothalonil did not take into consideration that it was currently authorized in 109 countries and 
that the MRLs allowed by Codex could reach up to 70 mg/kg, depending on the product.  
3.68.   This issue had negative impacts on Brazil' s exports of agricultural produc ts, such as banana, 
coffee, citrus fruits, papaya, watermelon, amongst others, which use d this substance for pest 
control. For all these commodities, Brazil adopted MRLs below those established by Codex, in line 
with concerns related to consumer safety. Br azil reiterated concerns with the fact that some hazard -
based analyses conducted by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) had led to the non -renewal 
of certificates and subsequently to the reduction of MRLs.  
3.69.   Finally, in line with the presentations made b y Brazil during the June 2019 thematic session 
on transparency, he reinforced Brazil's systemic concern with the fact that issues related to the non -
renewal of agricultural pesticides were being dealt with firstly in the TBT Committee. In many cases 
the co mmunication of non -renewal of approval of important substances for trade of agricultural 
commodities was notified in the TBT Committee as an announcement of the future reduction of MRLs 
in the SPS Committee. As this situation stands, Brazil would continue to raise and support these 
concerns in both committees.  
3.70.   The representative of Panama  continued to raise concerns expressed at past meetings of the 
TBT and SPS Committees regarding the reduction of the maximum levels of active substances by 
the EU, specific ally the active substances chlorothalonil and buprofrezin. Since 1987, Panama had 
adopted the maximum levels of active substances recommended by Codex, which were 
internationally recognized by WTO Members as the standards for world food safety and the 
prom otion of fair trade. Although every Member was free to take measures necessary to ensure the 
safety of its citizens, these measures should not be unnecessarily strict, to the point of adversely 
affecting trade.  
3.71.   He said the effects of this measure were wid e reaching, including the impact on vulnerable 
groups such as indigenous peoples, whose employment and incomes may be abruptly reduced or 
eliminated, in disregard of the principle of raising the standard of living of all of inhabitants of 
Members. The EU's  decision to reduce the maximum levels of these active substances to 0.01, 
                                                
29 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  579 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 14 - 
 
  essentially correspond ing to undetectable traces, was equivalent to prohibiting their use. This could 
interrupt the trade in bananas, among other products which might be affected, a nd do serious harm 
to the well -being and employment of thousands of families belonging to the Ngobe Buglé indigenous 
people, the main source of labour for the banana plantations of Changuinola and Puerto Armuelles. 
In 2017, the trade in bananas between Pan ama and the European Union exceeded 17 million boxes, 
equivalent to $180 million, bananas being the main income -producing product in the region.  
3.72.   Panama said the levels of active substances used in these products were meticulously 
monitored by Panamanian i nstitutions and by international organizations, such as the FLO (Fairtrade 
Labelling Organizations International) and other American regional health authorities, and in line 
with Codex standards and recommendations. Moreover, he said they were essential to ols for 
combat ting plant diseases such as black sigatoka, caused by the fungus Mycosphaerella fijiensis 
Morelet, which affected the banana and had proliferated with the rise in global temperatures, due to 
the release of contaminants such as carbon dioxide by the large economies which were now bent on 
doubly punishing the inhabitants of developing countries with trade -restrictive measures. Panama 
considered it of vital importance to defend the use of chlorothalonil for controlling black sigatoka; 
otherwise t here would be a risk of the fungus becoming resistant, imperilling the commercial 
production of bananas in Panama by reducing the weight of the bunch by some 50% and causing 
100% production losses due to the deterioration in clarity. This fungus was found only in the tropics, 
he said, so that it was understandable that the European Union should not need to use chlorothalonil.  
3.73.   In line with Panama's previous statements in th e Committee and in response to the proposal 
by the EU to improve the dialogue in order to resolve trade concerns, Panama called the EU to set 
up technical talks with the Members affected. Panama also invited the EU to reconsider taking a risk 
analysis approach in order to adopt measures that do not go beyond international standards and 
scientific studies, nor adversely affect international trade, without having any additional advantages.  
3.74.   The representative of Costa Rica  supported the concerns raised by Colombia and the United 
States in relation to the draft implementation regulation proposed by the European Union, under 
which approval for the use of the active substance chlorothalonil would not be renewed. He reiterated 
that the use of this active substance was of fundamental importance for agricultural production in 
Costa Rica. Non -renewal would cause serious problems for the Costa Rican productive sector, since 
currently there were no substitutes or similar phytosanitary products with a better environmental or 
toxicological profile.  
3.75.   He explained that Chlorothalonil was used to combat  pests of economic importance, 
particularly in banana production. Costa Rica was the world's second ranking exporter of bananas, 
with sales valued at approximately USD 1 billion, accounting for around 2% of GDP and 38.6% of 
agricultural GDP and generating 40 thousand direct and some 100 thousand indirect jobs. The main 
destination for exports was the European Union to which more than 50% of the fruit produced in the 
country was shipped, which illustrated even more clearly the impact that would result from t he 
implementation of th e measure.  
3.76.   The measure proposed by the European Union was based on the alleged risk that could be 
posed by chlorothalonil at both health and environmental levels. In this connection, Costa Rica 
highlighted that its domestic producers  were applying good agricultural practices based on widely 
recognized certifications such as Global Gap, Rainforest Alliance and Fair Trade. In addition, the 
State Phytosanitary Service's Agrochemical Residues Analysis Laboratory had carried out extensive 
sampling of bananas, which revealed an absence of chlorothalonil residues, thereby confirming the 
good practices being employed and the absence of risks for health and the environment.  
3.77.   Finally, he noted that the non -renewal of chlorothalonil proposed by th e EU was not based on 
a risk assessment required in conformity with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. The non -renewal 
was based on concerns and questions with regard to which it had not been possible to arrive at 
conclusive results, as indicated by the EU in the notification of the measure.  
3.78.   In conclusion, Costa Rica strongly urged the EU that the non -renewal of the use of 
chlorothalonil be made subject to the prior implementation of a risk analysis. Furthermore, any 
discussion concerning the possible effect s on public health related with this substance should be 
conducted within a multilateral framework, through the work in Codex, which had established 
permissible chlorothalonil tolerances for various agricultural products.  G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 15 - 
 
  3.79.   The representative of Paraguay  continued to raise concerns on the measure, stating that 
chlorothalonil was a low risk pesticide and was available  for free sale in Paraguay. It was part of the 
rotation of substances to avoid resistance to other main substances. The studies that ha d been 
carried out were not conclusive , and he stated that the risk assessment should be carried out in 
accordance with international principles . 
3.80.   The representative of Guatemala  support ed concerns raised by other Members.  
3.81.   The representative of Honduras  shared  the concerns expressed by  the US and Colombia.  
Honduras was closely following discussions on this matter in this and other Committees.  
3.82.   The representative of the European Union  responded to the concerns raised. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/655 . 
European Union - Transitional periods for MRLs and international consul tations 
(IMS ID  58030) 
3.83.   The representative of the United States  continued to raised concerns shared by seven other 
Members regarding the EU's transitional measures. Specifically, the US was concerned that transition 
measures did not provide adequate time for legally -produced commodities to clear the channels of 
trade. The US was also conc erned that the EU appeared to allow for EU products produced prior to 
the entry into force of the new standard to continue to be sold, while imported products were 
required to comply with the new standard at the point of entry, regardless of compliance at the date 
of production.  
3.84.   The uncertainty created by the insufficient transition period created a burden for growers who 
may need to make crop protection decisions a year or more in advance of their final product reaching 
a foreign market's border. This was  particularly challenging for commodities with longer storage and 
distribution cycles, such as dried fruits, dried nuts, canned products, frozen products, juices, wines, 
and spirits. For these products, the EU's short transitional arrangements were creatin g situations in 
which goods produced in accordance with the EU standards in effect at the time of production may 
no longer be eligible to enter the EU in the future.  
3.85.   When the concern about transition periods had been  raised in the previous TBT Committee, 
the EU responded that the concern would be better aligned with the SPS Committee. While the US 
agree d that the establishment and enforcement of MRLs was an SPS issue, the EU had indicated 
that TBT notifications should be considered by agricultural producers  when making crop protection 
decisions. Therefore, the US supported the concerns raised by other Members, and requested that 
the EU consider their collective concerns.  
3.86.   The representative of Brazil  reiterated  the concerns raised at the previous TBT Committe e 
meeting.31 
3.87.   The representative of Panama  shared concerns raised by other Members.  
3.88.   The representative of Colombia  raised concerns with this measure. The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/662 . 
3.89.   The representative of Costa Rica  associate d itself with the concern s expressed by the US, as 
well as with the request for an extension of the period for compliance with the new tolerance 
established for buprofezin in view of its enormous impact on Costa Rica's banana exports to the 
European market.  
3.90.   The EU's review of the tolerances for variou s substances used in agricultural production was 
a source of huge concern for Costa Rica. As mentioned by other Members , he explained that it was 
impossible for agricultural production to adjust to new requirements or tolerances within a period of 
                                                
30 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  580 (under dates raised and references) . 
31 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.43 . G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 16 - 
 
  six mont hs when the registration of new molecules alone ha d to be subjected to a complex 
assessment process lasting much longer than that.  
3.91.   Costa Rica  reiterate d the request made by other Members to extend the period for the 
application of the new tolerance for bup rofezin in bananas . At the same time , Costa Rica  strongly 
urged the EU to enter into a dialogue with the agricultural product -exporting countries which found  
themselves seriously affected by the changes in the MRLs unilaterally introduced by a trading 
partner. Costa Rica hoped  that studies, analyses and decisions be adopted at multilateral level within 
the framework of Codex, in accordance with the spirit of the WTO rules.  
3.92.   The representative of Paraguay  shared concerns expressed by other Members. Paraguay 
considered that the transitional period granted for the implementation of the modified MRLs was 
insufficient for its producers to be able to adjust their mode of production. Moreover, these new EU 
requir ements ran counter to the principle of harmonization, as they were not adjusted to 
internationally established standards . 
3.93.   The representative of El Salvador  shared concerns expressed by other Members and continued 
to follow the policy of review of MRLs appl ied by the EU, given to the current and future economic 
impact of this policy on the exports of El Salvadorian agricultural products. In addition to concerns 
related to the scientific basis of this measure, she said the six months transition period did not  
respond to the reality of this production and the possibilities of farmers to substitute for another 
registered substance and be allowed in trade with the EU.  
3.94.   The representative of Ecuador  supported concerns with this measure, which was of special 
interest to developing countries.  Ecuador consider ed that prior to the entry into force of a standard 
that involve d a change in the use of a substance or a reduction in the MRL, the EU should serio usly 
consider the possible effects on agricultural production. In particular, the EU  should take into account 
that the registration of a new substance as a replacement require d an assessment period of at least 
24 months for the purpose of evaluating its pe rformance and verifying its efficacy. In addition, she 
said it was necessary to consider a period of not less than 12 months for the issuance of the 
registration, and therefore  a minimum of 36 months was needed to approve the use of a new 
substance.  Ecuado r said that e xcessively short periods ha d a profound impact on developing countr y 
producers, many of whom were farmer s with few resources and no access to other sources of 
income.  
3.95.   The representative of Canada  shared the concerns expressed by other Members.  It was 
essential that the EU's deferred application date and transition period for MRLs take into account the 
need for exporters to adapt to new requirements and ensure a level playing field between domestic 
producers and foreign exporters. She said that failure to do so could have a significant impact on 
international trade.  
3.96.   The representative of Guatemala  support ed concerns raised by other Members.  
3.97.   The representative of the European Union  repeated the response provided at the previous 
TBT Committee meeti ng.32 
China - Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulation (Draft) 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1310 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1311  (IMS ID  57633) 
3.98.   The representative of Japan  expressed appreciation with respect to the classification on 
management of new ingredient application procedures in th e Draft Regulation,  as notified by China 
on 18  December 2018  (G/TBT/N/CHN/1310) . On the other hand, some of the concerns which Japan 
had continued to express ha d still not been improved or clarified in this revision.  In particular, Japan 
maintained concerns on five poi nts, as elaborated in its comments at the previous TBT Committee 
meeting:  (i) Disclosure of new ingredients ; (ii) Disclosure of efficacy testing materials ; (iii) Labelling 
content requirements ; (iv) Responsible persons for products ; and (v),  National treatment for animal 
testing.34 Furthermore, Japan request ed that China provide an adequate transition  period for 
implementation, of at least one year, to avoid confusion in the market. Japan underst ood that certain 
                                                
32 G/TBT/M/77 , paras 3.47 -3.48. 
33 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  576 (under dates raised and references) . 
34 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.14.  G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 17 - 
 
  elements  would be stipulated in  the detailed regulations. Regarding those detailed regulations, Japan 
also request ed that China provide sufficient time prior to entry into force as well as a sufficient time 
period for comments from Members.  
3.99.   The representative of the United States  commen ded China on its efforts to develop a 21st 
century cosmetics regulation and for its WTO notifications of the draft Cosmetics Supervision 
Authorization Regulation ( G/TBT/N/CHN/1310)  and the draft Measures for Cosmetics Registration 
and Filing ( G/TBT/N/CHN/1311) . 
3.100.   The US was nevertheless concerned that via the Registration and Filing measures 
(G/TBT/N/CHN/1311) , China would  require that all products, imported and domestic, be tested in 
country by local agents  before product filing, with no options for utilizing an international conformity 
assessment scheme.  
3.101.   In the US comments on G/TBT/N/CHN/1311 , submitted to China's enquiry point, the US 
asked if China would  consider, in lieu of the required tests listed in the draft measure, self -
certification to ISO standards for cosmetics good manufacturing practices and with the guidelines 
for product safety assessment, published by the International Cooperation on Cosmet ics Regulations 
(ICCR). She noted that ICCR represent ed cosmetics regulators from peers of China's National Medical 
Products Administration (NMPA) , including from the US, EU, Japan, South Korea and Brazil. The US 
also asked, in its comments, for China to e xplain why the required testing specified in 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1311  differe d for importers versus domestic manufacturers.  
3.102.   The US was also concerned that China may not sufficiently protect companies' confidential 
business information. The US understood that cosmetics filings must include product formulations, 
and that these filing s and the associated tests would  be published on a public website. This raised 
concerns about how that information would  be protected. While the US applauded China's efforts to 
promote consumer transparency, she questioned whether the aforementioned measur es could be 
refined to provide consumers with the required  information, without compromising companies' 
proprietary information, including product formulations.  
3.103.   The US asked that China give full consideration to comments on G/TBT/N/CHN/1310  and 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1311  submitted by the US government and industry, as well as to continue to notify 
the Cosmetic Supervision and Administration Regulation  implementing standards and guidance, so 
that all WTO Members and other stakeholders could  provide comments. The success of China's 
cosmetics and personal care industry was important to the US, given both the number of Chinese 
products used daily by Americ an consumers, as well as the economic opportunity China represent ed 
to US companies seeking to serve China's growing consumer base. The US trusted that China would  
recognize that these comments were provided in a spirit of mutual cooperation.  
3.104.   The represent ative of the Republic of Korea  reiterated  the concerns raised at the previous 
TBT Committee meeting.35 
3.105.   The representative of China  recalled that it had  notified the Cosmetic Supervision and 
Administration Regulation  to the TBT Committee in December 2018. She explained that the  purpose 
of the revision of this regulation was to regulate production and trading, strengthen management, 
guarantee the quality and safety of cosmetics, protect c onsumer  health and promote the 
development a nd innovation of the industry. China strictly complie d with the rules of business secret 
protection. China had notified the Regulation on Cosmetic Inspection in Registration and Filing on 
22 February  2019 and other implementing regulations and rules were under drafting. Presently, this 
regulation was being revised, and China welcomed M embers' comments.  
Uruguay – Labelling of Packaged Food (IMS ID  57836) 
3.106.   The representative of the United States  reiterated the various concerns raised by her 
delegation at the previous TBT Committee  meeting.37 She also recalled Uruguay's clarification in the 
bilateral meeting that positive health claims would be allowed for foods such as yogurts, cereals, or 
oatmeal which were required to carry the warning label but may also contai n other beneficial 
                                                
35 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.15. 
36 For previous statements  follow the thread under IMS ID  578 (under dates raised and references) . 
37 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.22.  G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 18 - 
 
  nutrients, be fortified, or make other positive contributions to an overall diet. This was a positive 
development. The US asked whether Uruguay had reviewed evidence -based international and 
regional standards to determine if they would fulfil Uruguay's public health objectives . The US 
recalled that its most recent comments on the Decree and draft Law included a list of international 
standards that should be considered when drafting a nutrition labelling regulation. In the original 
draft document, there was no mention, for instance, of Codex standards being utilized or evaluated, 
while the final decree only mentioned the Pan American Health Organization's (PAHO) Nutrient Profile 
Model. Standards developed by the Codex Alimentarius we re considered "international standards" 
by WTO Members and were frequently raised as examples of "international standards" in the TBT 
Committee. The US further asked whether Uruguay had consider that the required black and white 
octagonal "stop sign" symbo ls, as well as the Decree's new requirement that the symbols must 
contain the initials "MPH" in addition to the statement that the product was in "excess of" a specified 
nutrient, may cause consumers to avoid products that could be part of a balanced diet.  Uruguay was 
also asked  to indicate what studies ha d demonstrated that this interpretive approach was more 
effective than labelling presenting nutrient and calorie information based on serving size portions of 
the product. Had Uruguay evaluate d any alterna tive labelling schemes, or consider ed whether a 
voluntary approach could provide consumers with similar information in a manner less burdensome 
and costly for producers while still achieving Uruguay's valid health objective?  
3.107.   The representative of the Europ ean Union  shared the concerns expressed by the US and 
asked that Uruguay provide a written reply to  the EU  comments .  
3.108.   The representatives of Colombia,  Guatemala  and Costa Rica  supported the concerns raised 
and follow it with interest. Costa Rica  referred the Committee to the statement delivered  at the 
previous TBT Committee meeting, circulated in document G/TBT/W/613 . 
3.109.   The representative of Uruguay  responded to the concerns raised.  The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/677 . 
European Union - Draft Co mmission Regulation laying down eco -design 
requirements for electronic displays pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council, amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 and 
repealing Commission Regulation (EC) 642/2 009 (and its accompanying annexes)" 
G/TBT/N/EU/609 , G/TBT/N/EU/610  (IMS ID  57538) 
The representative of the United States  raised concerns with this measure. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/672 . 
The representative of China  recalled that after comment period, the EU had revised the 
regulation and announced a new version on 8 May 2019. This new , stricter  version also contained 
several additional requirements. For example, the restriction for halogen flame  retardants in Annex 
2D of the regulation was a significant change that would affect global chemical sectors. China thus 
asked the EU to provide for an o pportunity to make comments on such new requirements. According 
to scientific principle, China said, a restriction for all the halogen flame  retardants was not necessary. 
Normally, practical logical research and risk assessment of any chemical were based o n a single 
chemical substance instead of a class of chemical substances. There were more than 100 halogen 
flame  retardants. It would be oversimplified to assume that all chemical substances with halogen 
shared the same attributes and thus hard to deny the probability that more green and eco -friendly 
halogen flame  retardants may be created in the future. Thus, there ha d never been any regulations 
that restricted all the halogen flame  retardants in other countries, other than in the EU. In fact, even 
internat ional organizations, such as the IEC, terminated the establishment of too low halogen 
standards in 2018. China also recalled that plastics with halogen flame  retardants ha d the unique 
advantage according to the mechanic process for plastics. ABS plastics a dded with halogen flame  
retardants could  maintain their original fire safety after four or five times. China asked the EU to 
reconsider the restrictions for all halogen flame  retardants according to scientific basis and evidence 
which was used by UN Stockh olm convention, EU REACH and rules of other relevant regulations 
rather than to restrict all such substances.   
                                                
38 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  575 (under dates raised and references) . 
 G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 19 - 
 
  
The representative of Japan  reiterated  the concerns raised at the previous  TBT Committee 
meeting39, and asked the  EU to ensure that the each imple menting measure for individual product 
groups under the eco -design directive be established in a transparent manner, avoiding  becom ing 
unnecessary trade barriers.  
The representative of the European Union  repeated the response provided at the previous 
TBT Committee meeting.40 She also confirmed that the text that was voted in December had been 
three  months under  scrutiny . This text  was soon going to be adopted by the Commission, as part of 
a package of 10 E codesign measures.  
Republic of Korea - Warning statement and graphic health warnings on alcoholic 
beverages , G/TBT/N/KOR/ 817 (IMS ID  57741) 
The representative of the United States  expressed full support for the objective of managing 
the public health challenges related to drunk driving. However, her delegation was nonetheles s 
concerned with various aspects of th e proposed measure. The US understood this measure to 
include, among others, the following requirements: (i)  a warning on the label to the effect that 
driving under the influence of alcohol was "equivalent to murder; " and (ii)  a picture on the label 
depicting a traffic accident or other harmful effects of driving under the influence of alcohol (including 
a warning photo). The US also had federal mandatory health warning requirements for alcoholic 
beverages. Fed eral regulations require d that any alcoholic beverage containing 0.5% alcohol or 
higher ha ve a Health Warning Statement on the label. US regulations set out a number of 
requirements relating to the font and appearance of the Health Warning Statement, inclu ding that 
it be legible, appear on a contrasting background, and be separate and apart from all other label 
information. However, there was no federal requirement in the US for a graphic warning (i.e., a 
picture) on alcoholic beverage labels. The US also s upported several public -private partnership 
initiatives related to combating the harmful use of alcohol and driving under the influence of alcohol. 
The 2015 -2020 US Dietary Guidelines did not recommend that individuals start or increase drinking 
for any re ason and, if alcohol was consumed, the Guidelines stated that it should be consumed in 
moderation - up to one drink per day for wom en and two drinks per day for men - and only by adults 
of legal drinking age. It ha d come to US' attention, however, that Kor ea ha d recently taken other 
steps to address drinking and driving. In December 2018, a bill to amend Korea's Road Traffic Act 
had been  passed by the National Assembly. This amendment reduced the allowable blood alcohol 
level for driving under the influence  of alcohol and instituted the revocation of an individual's driv ing 
license if their blood alcohol level was found to be above 0.08 %. Had Korea considered allowing time 
to analyse the impact of this measure before making additional changes to its labellin g 
requirements? Could Korea consider other, less trade -restrictive means to achieve its objective, such 
as its domestic initiatives to reduce drinking and driving?  
The representative of Japan  was concerned that Korea had not presented any detailed 
warning statements and graphics showing the dangers of drunk  driving, nor a date of entry into 
force of this Amendment.  Japan asked Korea to present a full English text of this amendment , as 
early as possible.  Japan also asked  Korea to indicate how long the transi tion period for this 
Amendment  would be,  which should be adequate in order to avoid any confusion.  Japan also stated 
that related international standards , such as  "CODEX General Guidelines on Claims" (CAC/GL1 -
1979) , should be taken into consideration for the amendment.  
The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation supported the concerns  
raised by others  and invited Korea to provide  further details about the health warning statements 
and also to re spond to the comments sent to the Korean enquiry point. 
The representative of Mexico  said that, although her delegation recognized the objective of 
reducing the impact related to the abuse of alcohol consumption and the need to educate the people 
in this r egard, it nonetheless considered that there were different alternatives to the warning 
statements proposed by Korea, that might be more effective without being more unnecessarily trade 
restrictive. Mexico asked Korea to examine the results of other recentl y implemented and less trade -
restrictive measures.  
                                                
39 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.12.  
40 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.13. 
41 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  577 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 20 - 
 
  
The representative of Canada  said that, while Canada and the Canadian wine industry 
supported the goal of minimizing the potential harm associated with the misuse or abuse of alcohol, 
it was nonetheless c oncerned that this regulation may have an impact on trade, especially for smaller 
producers. As a wine -producing country, Canada was interested in receiving further clarity and 
information on the measure in order to ensure that that any unnecessary disrupt ion to trade in 
Canadian alcoholic beverages to Korea could be avoided.  
The representative of Australia  said that, while his delegation  recogni zed the right of 
government to take measures necessary to protect public health , it on the other hand emphasi zed 
the importance of compliance with WTO obligations, in particular the requirements that measures 
be implemented in a non -discriminatory manner and in a way that would  not be more trade 
restrictive than necessary.  Australia sought  clarification as to the ev idence on which the draft 
amendments and labelling requirements were based and how the proposed measures would  
contribute to public health objectives. Australia ask ed Korea to provide guidance on the final wording 
of the warning statements and images that were required to appear on alcoholic beverages, as well 
as the specifications, such as size and placement, required for the warning statements and images. 
Australia would also appreciate clarification from Korea on : (i) the expected timeframe for 
implement ation of the measures ; and (ii)  whether exemptions or a transition period w ould apply for 
products that were already in market or in transit when the new measures were implemented.  
The representative of the Republic of Korea  said that the revision of the National Health 
Promotion Act, reflecting Members' comments from the previous  TBT Committee meeting, ha d been 
notified.  Currently, the relevant ministries were gathering opinions from each Member, but the 
related discussions a nd procedures were not yet in progress, so the specifics with respect to the 
enforcement (such as whether or not it would be enforced, the detailed contents, and enforcement 
date) had not yet been determined. Korea also said that it would consider the re -notification to the 
TBT Committee and fully discussing the matters with Members, only after the specific enforcement 
date and the revised draft were confirmed. Other requests raised by Members at this meeting, would 
be sent to capital for further considerat ion. 
China — Regulations for the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices 
(Order No. 650 of the State Council) , G/TBT/N/CHN/1313  (IMS ID  42842) 
The representative of the Republic of Korea  thanked China for giving Members the 
opportunity to comment on the draft Regulations for the Supervision and Administration of Medical 
Devices contained in G/TBT/N/CHN/1313 . Korea had expressed concerns regarding this proposed 
regulation at previous TBT C ommittee meetings.43 She reiterate d Korea's concerns over the Chinese 
regulations, especially on the requir ement on test reports.  
a. Firstly, Article 8 of the draft regulation  required  that the National Medical Products 
Administration (NMPA) conduct  inspection on quality management capacity of medical 
devices manufacturers in order to ensure the safety and efficac y of the products. She 
asked for clarification on the inspection method, such as whether the inspection would 
take place on -site or could be replaced by document review when the manufacturer h eld 
certificates of quality (for example, ISO 13485 and US21 CFR  820), and relevant 
standards.  
b. Second ly, Article 9.2 of the draft regulation provide d that China would recognize self -
inspection reports or inspection reports issued by qualified medical device inspection 
institutions. While regulators in the US, the EU an d Korea generally recognize d test report 
issued by internationally accredited laboratories, China recognize d test report s only  issued 
by designated laboratories located in China. Korea was  concerned that this caused  
significant delays and costs in licensin g and registration of new medical devices in China. 
Furthermore, an administrative policy was in operation  in China le ading to a smaller 
number of laboratories available for inspections, causing additional delays in carrying out 
necessary inspections. Korea therefore requested that internationally -accredited or other 
competent laboratories outside of China be included as  "qualified medical device inspection 
institution s".  
                                                
42 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  428 (under dates raised and references) . 
43 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.83.  G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 21 - 
 
  c. Thirdly, with regard to Article 19 on clinical trials conducted overseas, more specific 
information was requested on whether the subject of the stated clinical trials overseas was 
confined to Chinese nationals  residing outside of China or include d non-Chinese nationals  
outside of China.  Fourth, the proposed Article 48 of the regulation provide d that China 
prohibit ed the import and sales of used medical devices. Korea believe d this ban raised 
national treatment conce rns by being applied only to imported medical devices. China was 
requested to  remove this provision.   
d. Lastly, Korea requested that a sufficient transition period  be provided so as  to prevent any 
unnecessary confusion and allow time for industry to prepare for the new regulation.  
Korea request ed that  China explain the current state of play , includ ing the date of entry into 
force of the draft , and provide a response to commen ts submitted . 
The representative of China  repeated the  response provided at the previous TBT Committee 
meeting.44 
China - Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC) Information and 
Communication Technology Regulation , G/TBT/N/CHN/1172  (IMS ID  48945) 
The representative of the European Union  referred the Committee to the statement delivered 
at the previous TBT Committee meeting.46 These concerns continued to be maintained.  
The representative of China  informed the Committee that the former CIRC's Information and 
Communication Technology Regulation had been  drafted in response to  the merg ing of the former 
CBRC and CIRC. China always abide d by the WTO commitments, and was  open and transparent in 
drafting information technology measures in banking and insurance sectors. These measures  would 
without doubt be applied equally to  domestic and foreign comp anies.  
Ireland - Public Health (Alcohol) Bill 2015  G/TBT/N/IRL/2  (IMS ID 51647)  
The representative of the United States  thanked the EU for the response to its comments on 
G/TBT/N/IRL/2 . She indicated that, while supporting Ireland's objective of  managing public health 
challenges, questions remained about Ireland's regulatory process for implementing its new labelling 
requirements for alcoholic beverages. She referred to the United States' statement48 and the EU's 
response49 on this matter during th e previous  TBT Committee meeting.  
The representative reiterated its request for clarifications on the regulatory process of the 
forthcoming secondary legislation and to provide an expected timeline for the corresponding 
notifications to the WTO. She asked Ireland to confirm that a commenting period would be provided, 
and that comments would be considered prior to the three -year transition period for implementation.  
The representative of Argentina  thanked the EU for the bilateral meeting during which a  
status update on the regulation had been  provided and the EU explained that section s 12 and 13 of 
the bill, corresponding to labelling and advertising, still had to be implemented through related 
standards. Referring to their concerns raised at previous TBT Committee meetings, he stated that 
the requirements of having public health warnings on the direct consumption of alcohol without 
differentiating between excessive and responsible alcohol consumption was disproportionate with 
respect to the legitimate o bjective to protect human health and might create unnecessary technical 
barriers to trade.  
The representative of Australia  recogni zed the right to take measures necessary to protect 
public health and appreciated Ireland's efforts to address a legitimate pu blic health concern. Noting 
the implementation time frames for 23 of 31 sections the Public Health Bill 2015, he sought 
                                                
44 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.168 . 
45 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 489 (under dates raised and references) . 
46 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.99. 
47 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 516 (under dates raised and references) . 
48 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.18 9. 
49 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.194 . 
 G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 22 - 
 
  clarification on the details and implementation of the remaining eight sections, in particular on 
section 12 on labelling and on the cle arance process at EU level. He stated that advice on the 
expected timing for implementation of the new requirements would be appreciated.  
The representative of Mexico  thanked the EU for the bilateral meeting and referred  the 
Committee  to statements delive red at previous TBT Committee meetings .50 She asked Ireland to 
share information on the development of the regulation  and in particular  on the content and date of 
entry into force.  
The representative of the European Union  referred the Committee to statements delivered 
at previous  TBT Committee meetings .51 In November 2018 , the Health  Minister had signed an order 
to commence several sections of the bill that did not require secondary legislation  prior to being 
enforced .  
a. With effect f rom 12 November 2019: alcohol advertising  in or on public service vehicles, 
at public transport stops or stations and within 200m of a school, early years centre or a 
local authority playground would  be prohibited ; alcohol advertising in cinema s would  be 
prohibited except in screenings  with an over 18 classification or in licensed premises in a 
cinema ; and  children 's clothing promot ing alcohol would  be prohibited.  These were:  
b. With effect from  12 November 2020:  in mixed retail outlets alcohol products and 
advertising were confined to one of the following: an area separated by a 1.2m high 
barrier, or units in which alcohol products were not visible up to 1.5m height, or up to 
three units that could  be a maximum of 1m wide by 2.2m high. In addition, alcohol 
products could  be contained but not be visible in a unit behind the counter.   
c. With effect f rom 12 November 2021:  there was a  prohibition on alcohol advertising on a 
sports area during a sporting event, at events a imed at children or at events in which the 
majority of participants or competitors were children ; and a lcohol sponsorship of events 
aimed at children, events at which the majority of participants or competitors were children 
and events involving driving or  racing motor vehicles was prohibited.   
China - Draft revised Encryption Law of the People 's Republic of China by the 
Office of State Commercial Cryptography Administration (OSCCA) ( IMS ID 53452) 
The representative of Japan  referred the Committee to the statement delivered at the 
previous TBT Committee meeting and said that Japan continue d to have concerns regarding China 's 
draft Encryption Law.53 China was requested  to provide relevant information regarding the revision 
process and to implement the law in a transparent  manner.  
The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns on this measure. The 
full statement is contained in  G/TBT/ W/656. 
The representative of China  informed the Committee that China w ould press forward with 
the Law on Cryptography in accordance with the Legislative Law and adhere to the principles of law -
making in a well -conceived and democratic way. Scientific verification and public consultation would 
be conducted, ensur ing stakehold ers' participation in the legislative  process . The Law on 
Cryptography (Draft for consultation)  had been released in April 2017 for public consultation  and 
domestic and foreign parties ha d provided many constructive suggestions. China was actively 
research ing and taking into account t he relevant suggestions from all parties and pressing ahead 
with further revision s of the Draft . This measure  would further reduce the number of administrative 
licences and regularize market access.  
                                                
50 G/TBT/M/76 , para. 3.134 . 
51 G/TBT/M/77 , para . 3.194  and G/TBT/M/76 , para. 3.139.  
52 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  534 (under dates raised and references) . 
53 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.119.  
 G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 23 - 
 
  
European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation)  
G/TBT/N/EU/629  (IMS ID 53954) 
The representative s of the Russian Federation , the United States , the Philippines  and 
Australia  raised concerns with this measure. The full statements are contained in  G/TBT/W/666 , 
G/TBT/W/673 , G/TBT/W/678  and G/TBT/W/645 . 
The representative of Japan  share d others ' concerns on the EU's titanium dioxide regulation.  
In the EU 's 14th adaptation to tech nical and scientific progress (ATP) proposal of the CLP regulation, 
the provisions for titanium dioxide and mixtures containing titanium dioxide  were of concern . In 
particular, t he proposed draft regulation classifie d the powder mixtures containing 1% or more of 
titanium dioxide as a carcinogen regardless of whether or not exposure of titanium dioxide by 
inhalation c ould occur . This could  inappropriately broaden the scope of products to be regulated . 
Labelling requirements could  even affect products containing titanium dioxide with low inhalation 
risk such as toner cartridges. In addition, those products ha d not been classified as a carcinogen in 
other countries ' system s along with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of 
Chemical s (GHS) . The EU was requested to reconsider the classification criteria in order to limit the 
scope to products where titanium dioxide inhalation exposure risk exist ed. Japan also asked that  the 
EU ensure that the regulation would not be more trade -restrictive than necessary.  
The representative of Canada  support ed the points raised by other delegations.  Canada felt 
it was necessary to reiterate its concerns with regard to the potential impact of the measure on the 
trade in products containing t itanium dioxide or cobalt and the process followed by the EU in arriving 
at the proposed changes to the CLP regulation. He referred the Committee to the statement delivered 
at the previous TBT Committee meeting .55 Canada invite d the EU to explain how the hu ge range of 
products contain ing titanium dioxide or cobalt w ould be treated over the whole of the EU's regulatory 
framework if th e proposal was implemented.  He also requested that the EU provide further details 
on the next stages. Canada remain ed open to p articipating  in any bilateral discussions on this issue. 
The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand acknowledge d and support ed the 
right of all WTO Members to regulate to achieve legitimate health objectives.  However, any 
regulation to address concerns about the possible carcinogenicity of titanium dioxide must be 
proportionate and not unduly restrict trade in goods containing ti tanium dioxide.  He invited the EU 
to explain how it had ensured that the draft regulation was helping to achieve the EU 's environmental 
and human health protection objectives, whilst not being more trade restrictive than necessary.  He 
also asked whether th e European Union ha d considered less trade -restrictive alternatives and, if so, 
on what basis it had been  decided not to adopt such alternatives.  
The representative of Mexico  thanked the EU for the bilateral meeting . She referred the 
Committee to the state ment delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting.56 Mexico would 
continue to follow the development of the regulation and requested that the EU provide an  update 
on the status of this regulation subsequent to the public hearing carried out.  
The representative of the European Union  responded to the concerns raised. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/ W/657. 
Brazil — Draft Technical Resolution n° 51, 7 April 2017 on labelling of beverages, 
wine, and grape derivatives (IMS ID  55757) 
The representative of the European Union  referred the Committee to  written comments sent 
on 16 August 2017 on the notification G/TBT/N/BRA/719  on labelling of wine and other beverages 
and to its stat ements in the past TBT Committees for details of EU concerns. She stress ed the 
importance of clear and proportional requirements on labelling for European wine and spirits 
producers exporting to Brazil and requested that  Brazil clarify the relation of the draft to other 
regulations, including general rules on consumer protection and specific regulations on wine, which 
seem ed to partly overlap. The EU also encourage d Brazil to apply to the greatest possible extent the 
international standards adopted by the O IV, for example on different expressions for the alcohol 
                                                
54 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  539 (under dates raised and references) . 
55 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.76 . 
56 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.74 and G/TBT/W/619 . 
57 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  557 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 24 - 
 
  content. At the March meeting, Brazil had informed the TBT Committee that the draft was under 
revision and w ould be subject to a new public consultation. She asked when this public consultation 
was expected , that  Brazil notify the new draft , and that EU concerns during the preparations of the 
new draft be taken into account. Finally, she requested that Brazil  reply to the EU written comments.  
The representative of Brazil  informed the Committee that t he process of drafting Technical 
Regulation No. 51 was still in progress. Since the publication of the first draft the original timeline  
had been adjusted . He stressed that the original text ha d been substantially improved. Brazil was 
currently  not able to provide replies to the comments submitted by the EU. The new consultations 
and the public hearing had been rescheduled  but there was not yet a timeframe for their publication. 
He assure d interested parties that they would be able to express their v iews on the draft regulation.  
Israel — Addendum to the Pharmacist Regulations (Cosmetics 5778 -2018) , 
G/TBT/N/ISR/709/Add.2  (IMS ID  55258) 
The representative of the Republic of Korea  reiterated the concerns raised at the previous 
TBT Committee meeting.59 
The representative of Israel  referred the Committee to the statement delivered at the 
previous  TBT Committee meeting.60 Israel was in the process  of aligning its cosmetics regulations 
with international best practice in order to facilitate international trade. All the comments received 
were being considered during the  regulatory process . The status of the regulations remain ed 
unchanged since the March meeting of the TBT Committee. Due to government elections in 
September, the Israeli parliament was limited, in terms of  its legal power to enact or amend laws  
and was  therefore not in a position to  indicat e when the regulations m ight be finalized.  
European Union — Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 
laying down rules and procedures for compliance with and enforcement of Union 
harmonization legislation on products and amending relevant regulations (IMS ID  56561) 
The representative of China  raised  concerns with th e measure. The full statement is 
contained in  G/TBT/ W/652. 
The representative of the United States  said her delegation shared China's  concerns on this 
measure . 
The representative of the European Union  emphasi zed the importance of s afety and 
compliance of products for consumers. Therefore, p ublic authorities in EU member States had to be  
able to check that the products on their home market were safe for their citizens.  Market surveillance 
authorities in the EU faced some difficulties in checking compliance of goods originating outside the 
EU. Therefore, the EU proposal for a Regulation contained a requirement that there should be a 
person in the EU responsible for compliance information on products.  The European Union recall ed 
that this was not a completely new approach. A significant number o f EU laws on products ha d 
similar provisions but they were no longer fit for purpose  due to new types of e-commerce supply 
chains . With the increase in E-commerce , the EU  needed to update its legal framework accordingly 
in order to protect EU consumers.  The Regulation ha d been adopted on 14 June 2019, with a number 
of changes, and would  be notified accordingly to the Committee.  
On the provision for an interlocutor in the EU, the main change was on the product scope. 
It only applied to 18 EU laws on products , instead of 66 as foreseen in the initial proposa l and it 
would apply to product categories such as electronic  and electrical equipment, machinery and toys . 
The final Regulation provide d flexibility on the interlocutor of manufacturers vis -à-vis market 
surveillance authorities. Manufacturers c ould appoint a representative or use  a fulfilment centre in 
the EU.  The interlocutor w ould have to provide information to the authorities on request and 
cooperate with them, but it would  not be liable for non -compliance of the product. This would 
                                                
58 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  552 (under dates raised and references).  
59 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.83 . 
60 G/TBT/M/77 , paras . 3.84-3.85. 
61 For previous statements follow the thread und er IMS ID  565 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 25 - 
 
  continue to fall on the manufacturer in accordance with the current applicable regulatory framework 
in the EU.  
In order to protect consumers, this requirement applie d to all sellers, regardless of how 
many products th ey sold. However , the Regulation clarif ied that for offers for sale s online, it would 
only apply if sales were targeted at EU end -users.  He said t he Regulation w ould be published during 
the summer. It w ould apply as of mid -2021 to give enough  time to imple ment the new requirement 
for products where there was not yet such an interlocutor in the EU. The Commission w ould issue 
guidance for the implementation of this provision in 2020.  
Dominican Republic - Regulation on Cosmetic and Hygiene Products 
(IMS  ID 56962)  
The representative of Mexico  raised concerns with the draft regulation on cosmetic and 
hygiene products, issued by the Dominican Ministry of Public Health, which ha d not been notified to 
the WTO , and referred to Mexico 's first statement on this matter during the November 2018 TBT 
Committee meeting.63 A fresh public consultation  had been  carried out by the Dominican Republic 
following the that meeting, during which Mexican industry had submitted comments . Mexico was 
still awaiting news on the status of the new draft and how comments were being taken into account. 
Subsequently she listed Mexico's main concerns:  
a. The broad scope of the measure, including i.e. medicines, cosmetics, and cleaning and 
personal hygiene products , could lead to confusion with respect to compliance and 
implementation.  
b. The importance of includ ing clear and specific notification requirements for each of the 
categories cover ed by the regulation  (e.g. cosmetic, personal hygiene and household 
products ) to ma ke satisfactory compliance possible.  
c. The risk level with which cosmetic products were catalogued at international level should 
enable adoption of a system under which prior marketing authorization was not required 
or, failing that, only a single notificati on or automatic registration prior to marketing would 
be required. Such a Health Notification/Automatic Health Registration System enable d 
focussing  resources on product verification and facilitat ing detection of products that were 
counterfeit, illegal or substandard or might harm health of consumer.  
d. The requirement for a free sale certificate, a document recognized as guaranteeing 
compliance with health regulations or with the standards applicable at origin . This  had 
been eliminated in Latin American countries through decisions taken by trading blocks, in 
particular the Andean Community, the Pacific Alliance and the  Southern Common Market.  
e. Submitting a good manufacturing practices (GMP) certificate should not be a req uirement 
for obtaining authorization to market product s. The practice at international level was to 
require compliance with international GMP standards but certification or endorsement was 
not demanded. Safety of  these  products type s could  be guaranteed by market vigilance, 
without prejudice to the powers of the health authorities to carry out inspections in i.e. 
production plants, warehouses to ensure compliance with the required hygienic, technical 
and quality control conditions.  
In the light of the above , Dominican Republic was requested : 
a. To give status details on the issuing of this draft technical regulation  and indicate whether 
authorities involved would  continue to amend it . 
b. If intended to continue with this draft, to notify the new version of the mea sure together 
with the date of entry into force, if known . 
                                                
62 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  569 (under dates raised and references) . 
63 G/TBT/M/76 , paras . 3.17 and 3.18 . G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 26 - 
 
  c. To respon d to comments , especially  those submitted by the Mexican private sector in 
February 2019.  
d. That th e Committee's transparency principle be applied, and that Members be notified of 
drafts to ensure greater clarity with regard to the public consultation processes.  
The representative of El Salvador  expressed  concern  that the measure had not been n otified 
to the WTO . El Salvador had thus not known the substance of the regulation  nor had the opportunity 
to provid e comments. El Salvador was analysing the possible impact on its exports and would follow 
developments closely . 
The representative of the Dominican Republic  took note of the statements and the request s 
made by Mexico. At the  Novemb er 2018  TBT Committee meeting , Dominican Republic had indicated 
that the measure would be notified once the domestic consultation procedures were over. Queries 
raised at the meeting would be sen t to the relevant authorities in capital so they c ould provide  a 
timely respons e. The Dominican Republic was available to clarify any misgivings about these issues.  
Chile - Regulations on the classification, labelling and notification of chemical 
substances and mixtures , G/TBT/N/CHL/422  (IMS ID 57064) 
The representative of Mexico  raised concerns with the draft regulations notified on 
13 November 2017 in document G/TBT/N/CHL/422 . The draft re gulations establish ed criteria for the 
classification, labelling, notification and risk assessment of hazardous substances and mixtures with 
which manufacturers and importers must comply in order to protect human health and the 
environment. The objective was to implement the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and 
Labelling of Chemicals (GHS).  
Mexico had expressed concern regarding the draft regulations at the meeting of th e TBT  
Committee in November 2018.65 Mexican industry had participated in the public consultation  and 
feedback ha d already been received from the Chilean authorities on the issues raised . Mexico 
remain ed concerned regarding the interpretation of the classification of consumer products/final 
products as hazardous, the proposal for la belling final products with hazard pictograms and the short 
time frames for the implementation of this measure.  
Mexico had not yet received the latest version of the draft regulations or any information on 
the possible publication or implementation date. In addition, there had been no information 
exchange with third parties . It was understood that discussions  had been held  with local chemical 
industry,  but final product manufacturers had not been involved in the discussion which in Mexico's 
view, they should have been.  
In light of this, Mexico requested Chile to: provide an update on the  status of the new draft 
of these technical regulations (for example,  the amended document, the publication or 
implementation dates), and confirm whether th is new draft would be notified; and, a nalyse the 
feasibility of involving final product manufacturers in the working groups participating in the drafting 
of these techni cal regulations.  
The representative of Chile responded to the concerns raised. The full statement is contained 
in G/TBT/W/648 . 
China — Requirements for information security products, including, inter alia , 
the Office of State Commercial Cryptography Administration (OSCCA) 1999 Regulation on 
commercial encryption products and its  on-going revision and the Multi -Level Protection 
Scheme (MLPS) (IMS ID  29466) 
The representative of Japan  continue d to have concerns regarding China 's "Regulation on 
the Administration of Commercial Cipher Codes " and "Cyber Security Multi -Level Protection 
                                                
64 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  570 (under dates raised and references) . 
65 G/TBT/M/76 , paras. 3.22 -3.24. 
66 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  294 (under dates raised and references) . 
 G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 27 - 
 
  Scheme. " She referred the Committee to the statement delivered at the previous TBT Committee 
meeting67 and request ed that China provide relevant information regarding the revision process and 
that the regulations be imp lemented  transparently.  
The representative of the European Union  said that the EU maintain ed concerns as regards 
the importance of clarifying the implications of the adoption and entry into force of China's new 
Cybersecurity Law for the existing rules, not ably the Multi Level Protection Scheme ('MLPS') and 
referred the Committee to the  statement delivered  at the previous TBT Committee meeting .68 
The representative of Australia  reiterated concerns raised at previous TBT Committee 
meetings .69  
The representative of China  repeated the response provided  at the previous TBT Committee 
meeting.70 
Indonesia — Halal Product Assurance Law No. 33 of 2014 (IMS ID  50271)  
The representative of the United States  said that while the US recognize d the importanc e 
for Indonesian consumers  to know whether products were halal, it was  also important to e nsure that 
the law as implemented achieve d this objective without creating any unnecessary barriers to trade.  
The US understood that Indonesia ha d finalized and  issued the Provisions of the Implementation of 
Law Number 33 Year 2013 Regarding Halal Product Assurance and  expect ed to issue further 
implementing regulations regarding the Halal Law.  She expressed disappointment that Indonesia 
had not  notified this measure prior to its  finalization and strongly urge d the notification of  all further 
implementing regulations prior to finalization to provide adequate time and opportunity for 
comments from stakeholders , and for comments to be consider ed. She request ed that Indonesia 
provide enough  transition time for stakeholders to understand and comply with the requirements in 
these regulations.   
She asked Indonesia to confirm that the implementing regulation on "Phasing of Halal 
Certified Products " would allow for phased implementation of mandatory halal certification 
requirements per "further Ministerial Regulation ", and that Indonesia w ould continue to allow the 
sale of non -certified products.  She also requested additional information about when halal 
certification requirements w ould be applied to non -food and beverage products (including personal 
care products, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals)  and w hen the "further Ministerial Regulations " would 
be released . 
She thank ed Indonesia for extending the recog nition of foreign halal certification bodies so 
that halal -certified agricultural products entering Indonesia c ould continue uninterrupted during this 
transition time.  She requested c lear guidance from the government agency responsible for halal 
certificat ion during the transition and phased implementation , along with  clear guidance on how 
foreign certification bodies c ould apply for continued recognition once their current recognition period 
expire d.  
The m andatory requirement that both "halal" and "non-halal" products be labelled remained 
a concern for the US . Mandating labels for both halal and non -halal information w ould create 
confusion for consumers and be costly and challenging for companies, both foreign and domestic, 
to implement. Registration requi rement s for foreign halal certificates included in the implementing 
regulations  as currently written was  cumbersome, duplicative, and ha d the effect of restricting trade  
for importers and it was not clear how the same registration requirements would apply to local 
products. The US requested that Indonesia modify this registration requirement to reflect the fact 
                                                
67 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.141 and G/TBT/M/76 , para.  3.40. 
68 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.142 and G/TBT/W/633 . 
69 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.14 3, G/TBT/M/76 , para. 3.43; G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.47; G/TBT/M/74 , para. 
2.68; G/TBT/M/73 , para . 2.22; G/TBT/M/72 , para. 3.75; G/TBT/M/71 , para. 2.162; and G/TBT/M/71 , para. 
2.175.  
70 G/TBT/M/77 , para.  3.144.  
71 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 502 (under dates raised and references) . 
 G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 28 - 
 
  that Indonesia 's Halal Product Assurance Agency ( "BPJPH ") would  already be conducting verifications 
of foreign halal agencies issuing halal certific ates for imported goods.  
The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns with this measure. 
The full statement is contained in  G/TBT/ W/658. 
The representative of Brazil  reiterate d the concerns raised at previous TBT Committee 
meetings72 and requested Indonesia to provide an update on any recent developments and internal 
discussions and on the intention to notify this measure to the TBT Committee.  He also  reiterate d 
Brazil's interest in participating in any  future public consultation regarding this issue.  
The representative of New Zealand  request ed an update regarding the  implementation of 
the Mandatory Halal Law Number 33 Year 2014  and a clear explanation of the timeframe for 
implementation of the Law , and in particular on the phased implementation of mandatory  
certification for different products . New Zealand welcome d the recently released Government 
Regulation No. 31 2019 which gave more detail on the functioning of the Product Halal Assurance 
Organi zing Agency (BPJPH).  He understood f urther implementing  regulations were being drafted and 
looked forward to those being published in time to give businesses certainty of their operations upon 
implementation. He request ed further information on the timefra me for the transition of 
responsibilities to Indonesia 's Halal Product Assurance Organizing Agency (BPJPH) and the steps 
taken to ensure continued recognition of foreign halal certification.  Any clarification Indonesia could 
provide  in addition to Governme nt Regulation 31 2019 on the status of non -halal products  was 
welcome,  specifically on the scope of this term and how labelling requirements would be managed.  
The representative of Australia  said it was understood that Indonesia's Halal Product 
Assurance L aw No.33 of 2014 would take effect from 17 October 2019, with a likely phased 
implementation period of between five to seven years . He thank ed Indonesia for including Australia 
in the recent Halal Law sociali zation event held by the Japanese External Trade Organization.  
However, Australia was disappointed that Indonesia had not circulate d the final draft to trading 
partners for comment prior to finali zation , given the broad scope and potential impact on traded 
commodities and services. The sho rt implementation period  was also of concern, given many of the 
implementation regulations had not been circulated for comment.  He requested that Indonesia 
confirm when they would be circu lated for comment and requested further guidance on Indonesia's  
timeframe for implementation of the Halal Law requirements for different products and services.  
Australia encourag ed Indonesia to ensure an open dialogue with trading partners to allow foreign 
businesses and their valued Indonesian importers to remain adequate ly informed of new 
requirements under the Halal Law.  
The representative of Canada  said her delegation support ed the concerns raised by other  
WTO Members and reiterate d concerns raised at previous  TBT Committee meetings .73 In particular, 
Canada encourage d Indonesia to share the most recent version of the Halal Law with WTO Members 
prior to it being implemented and finalized.  This w ould allow trading partners to provide feedback 
on the measure and maximize the time leading up to its implementation to prepare and adjust to 
the proposed changes.  The scope of the measure also remain ed unclear.  Canada was interested in 
obtaining addition al information on whether products such as grains, oilseeds or fruits and 
vegetables would automatically be considered halal. Finally, Canada requested further details 
regarding the process and requirements by which foreign halal certifying bodies could  secure  halal 
recognition with Indonesia's Halal Product Assurance Agency (BPJPH) .  
The representative of Indonesia  repeated the response provided at the previous TBT 
Committee meeting.74 At this meeting she adde d that  Indonesia would not curb its market for 
produ cts that contain ed non-halal ingredients. Products that contain ed non-halal ingredients could 
still be put on the Indonesia n market  by including non -halal information comply ing with the 
regulation of The Head of National Agency for Drug and Food Control Re public of Indonesia No. 
HK.03.1.23.06.10.5166 Year 2010 concerning inclusion of the Information on Particular Substances, 
Alcohol Content and Expired Date on The Label of Drug/Medicine, Traditional Medicines, 
Complementary Medicines, and Food.  
                                                
72 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.104 and G/TBT/M/76 , para. 3.11. 
73 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.107 . 
74 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.108 -3.109.  G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 29 - 
 
  
China — Cyberspace Administration of China – Draft implementing measures for 
the Cybersecurity Review of Network Products and Services (IMS ID  53375) 
The representative of Japan  said it was her delegation's understanding that the Cyber 
Security Review Measures which were subject to public comment would supersede the Network 
Product and Services Security Review Measures.  This proposed measure had unclear articles 
regarding definiti ons of terms, concrete requirements for review and evaluation, and the scope of 
regulations. Japan had concerns that the measures might hamper market access for foreign 
companies and cause leaking of  confidential technology information, depending on the co ncrete 
details of rules governing its implementation. Therefore, China was requested to implement the 
measure in a non -discriminatory and least  trade-restrictive manner,  in line with the TBT Agreement.  
She asked that China clarify the definitions of terms,  concrete requirement s for review and 
evaluation, and the scope of regulations, and ensure transparency. The r elevant regulations and 
procedures should be consistent  with international standards and practices.  China should  also ensure 
that these measures  take into account the comments and concerns raised by Japan and other 
Member s. 
The representative of the European Union  recalled that the  EU ha d stress ed concerns related 
to drafts of the Security Review of Network Products and S ervices, including the Cybersecurity review 
committee on several occasions . Notably, the measures were quite general and very broad 
discretionary powers were left to the authorities in charge of the security review, raising concerns 
for foreign ICT operators. The EU urge d China to ensure the clarity, transparency and objectiveness 
of the security review. While the EU had not received replies to earlier comments on the draft, she 
noted that on 24 May 2019, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) had released the 
Cybersecurity  Review Measures (Draft for Comments) for public consultation , with an official 
deadline of 24 June. This draft was currently  being  analys ed but the EU did have some initial thoughts 
on the basis of the concerns  expressed previously :  
a. The draft seem ed to broaden the triggers and scope of cybersecurity review. Instead of 
waiting for the cybersecurity review by a relevant government authority, as was current 
practice,  operators w ould be obliged to conduct a preliminary risk assessment and compile 
a report whe n purchasing network products and services, and then apply for cybersecurity 
review under four circumstances – some of the elements appear ed to be quite wide in 
scope and open -ended . 
b. Instead of being a one -off review, the cybersecurity review would  be acco mpanied by post -
market supervision measures in the form of spot inspections and tip -offs (Article 16), 
thereby having a continuous impact on those falling under the draft 's scope of application.  
c. The non -technical factors among the cybersecurity review  appeared to have more focus 
compared to the earlier draft . The EU was  interested in understanding how China plan ned 
to assess these factors, bearing in mind the importance of predictability to the business 
sector . There were also e conomic and industrial development considerations, as 
demonstrated in the  draft's Article 3, which include d the promotion of advanced technology 
among the cybersecurity review 's many purposes.  
d. The EU sought further information on how the cybersecurity revi ew would  validate new 
contracts. The draft appear ed to make the cybersecurity review a market access condition, 
to a certain extent. For network product and service procurement activities that need ed 
to undergo the cybersecurity review, the CII operators s hould specify, in the procurement 
documents or the contracts, or via other binding means, the obligation of the product and 
service providers to cooperate with the cybersecurity review, and that contracts should 
only take effect after the cybersecurity rev iew was passed (Article 7).  
The EU requested that clarification to these questions be provided by China in order to ensure 
the EU had  the correct reading of the situation.  
The representative of Canada  said that  Canada was also carefully reviewing the  
cybersecurity review measures published  on 24 May 2019 and that comments would be provided by 
                                                
75 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  533 (under dat es raised and references) . G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 30 - 
 
  the 24 June deadline . Canada urge d China to ensure that the measure clearly  showed that  imported 
products w ould receive no less favourable treatment than like products, of national origin or 
originating in any other country.  He encourage d China to notify the  new draft cybersecurity  measure.  
The representative of China  informed the Committee that the m easures for security review 
of network products and services had been released in May 2017, establish ing the review mechanism 
of cyber security  so as to  improve the secure and controllable level of network products and services, 
prevent the security risk of the supply chain, safeguard national cyber security and prot ect people's 
interests. The system was also  conducive to increasing consumer  confidence in IT products and 
services . 
Not all the products and services were required to be reviewed, and the focus was on those 
which could  affect national security applied in critical information infrastructures and important 
information systems . The security review w ould not violate companies' intellectual property right s 
and China al ways attached great importance to IPR legal protection . Great  efforts ha d been made 
to severely crack down on the violation of the enterprise IPR in any form. The review w ould not 
damage commercial secrets or IPR. Domestic companies were treated equally to foreign companies 
and the review could  help increase consumer confidence  in the products and expand the market for 
enterprises.  
European Union — Amendments to the Directive 2009/28/EC, Renewable Energy 
Directive (IMS ID  55376) 
The representatives of Malaysia , Colombia , Indonesia  and Ecuador  continued to raise  
concerns with this  measure. The full statements are contained in documents G/TBT/W/665 , 
G/TBT/W/663 , G/TBT/W/641  and G/TBT/W/650 , respectively.  
The representative of Costa Rica  reiterated his delegation's support for the concerns raised 
by preceding speakers. In particular, Costa Rica was concerned about the cri teria proposed for the 
determination of indirect change in the use of the soil, and the certification of a low risk of indirect 
change in the use of the soil in relation with biofuels. As pointed out at previous meetings of the TBT 
Committee, Costa Rica wa s a pioneering country committed to the protection of the environment. It 
was one of the few countries that had been capable not only of reforesting but also of reversing the 
trend to deforestation. Today Costa Rica had one of the few decarbonized electric ity systems in the 
world: in  2017 some  99.5% of Costa  Rica's electricity had been genera ted without using fossil fuels  
– the highest p ercentage in  30 years. Costa Rica applauded the efforts of the EU to establish an 
effective policy for the use of renewable energy sources. Nevertheless, these efforts could not be 
detrimental to product marketing conditions on the basis of criteria that lack scientific foundation. 
Costa Rica trusted that European authorities would be able to recognize the special nat ure of palm 
oil cultivation in Costa Rica and other areas of Latin America.  
The representative of Thailand  stressed the need for fair and equitable treatment of palm oil 
compared to other oil crops. Thailand appreciated the EU 's updates and welcomed the ir effort s to 
develop a more appropriate policy on renewable energy that would be more concurrent to WTO 
obligations.  
The representative of Guatemala  support ed concerns raised by other Members  and referred 
the Committee to  statements delivered at previous TBT  Committee meetings . 
The representative of the European Union  thanked various members for raising this issue 
and noted that the revision of the REDII (Renewable Energy Directive) had also been discussed in a 
number of bilateral meetings among experts. The European Union had an ambitious energy and 
climate policy framework, in line with its international commitments (Sustainable Development 
Goals, Paris Agreement) and as an essential step to achieve its decarbonisation by 2050. The REDII, 
adopted by the Euro pean Parliament and the Council in December 2018, was an important element 
of this policy. The revised REDII had been officially published on 21 December 2018, and the 
Delegated Act on 21 May 2019. These provided further clarity on the issues raised. Notab ly, the 
REDII included measures to promote the sustainability of conventional biofuels and set rules on the 
extent to which such biofuels could contribute towards the EU targets for renewable energy. In this 
                                                
76 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 553 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 31 - 
 
  sense, it was recalled that the REDII did not re gulate their access to the EU market. The Delegated 
Act specified objective criteria for the implementation of these rules, namely on (i) determining high 
ILUC-risk feedstocks and (ii) certifying low ILUC -risk biofuels. The EU would continue to review the 
relevant scientific data to ensure that the implementation of these rules remained up -to-date and 
based on the latest available scientific evidence. A first updated assessment was foreseen by mid -
2021, before the end of the period for member States to tran spose the REDII into their domestic 
legislation. Only after the end of the transposition period would the REDII – and the criteria on high 
and low ILUC risk – have to be applied.   
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – Technical Regulation for plastic products OXO – 
biodegradable , G/TBT/N/SAU/947  (IMS ID  58377) 
The representative of the United States  recognised the decision to delay implementation for 
phases two and three of this regulation until 1 September  2019 while Saudi Arabia conduct ed and 
evaluate d environmental and economic impact assessments of this regu lation and considered on-
going stakeholder comments. The US note d concerns with the effectiveness of oxo -biodegradable 
plastics in achieving Saudi Arabia 's environmental and consumer protection objectives under this 
regulation. Specifically, oxo -biodegrada ble plastics disrupt ed recycling operations and could  create 
new environmental hazards such as microplastics in the soil and the aquatic environment, even in 
Saudi Arabia 's climate.  
The current regulation lack ed clarity on whether certain plastic product p ackaging or shipping 
materials were exempt from the regulation 's requirements.  While assurance had been provided 
verbally that plastic in contact with food was exempt,  she asked that this be documented in the 
regulation.  The additive required to make plast ics oxo -biodegradable was commercially rare , with 
only one facility in Europe and none in the Western hemisphere.  If there was only a limited number 
of product exemptions, this would lead to supply chain disruptions and difficulties in exporting 
products to Saudi Arabia.  
The US continued to have specific questions and concerns regarding the technical regulation 
and support ed the exchange of information and technical expertise between the US and Saudi Arabia 
on waste management, recycling, and the impact of oxo -biodegradable plastics on recycling 
programs and the environment at large.  She request ed that Saudi Arabia  re-notify the regulation 
with the amended version so that the final regulation  was clear, addresse d stakeholder comments, 
and provide d an adequate transition period for compliance.   
The representative of the European Union  reiterated  the concerns raised at the previous TBT 
Committee meeting.78 She also informed the Committee that EU co-legislators had adopted on 5 
June 2019 the Directive on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the 
environment , to be implemented by the EU member States within  two years after its ent ry into force. 
The Directive require d member States to prohibit the placing on the market of products made from 
oxo-degradable plastics .  
The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  informed the Committee that Saudi 
Arabia had conducted a national st udy to investigate the impact of oxo biodegradable on the 
environment taking into account the climatic conditions,  a national study and recommendations 
along with Members ' comments.  The Saudi Standards Authority  would meet on this  by the end of 
August. Sau di Arabia was willing to hold further  discussions with any interested delegation s. 
                                                
77 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  583 (under dates raised and references) . 
78 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3. 53 and G/TBT/W/626 . 
 G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 32 - 
 
  
India — New Telecommunications related Rules (Department of 
Telecommunications, No. 842 -725/2005 -VAS/Vol.III (3 December 2009); No. 10 -
15/2009 -AS-III/193 (18 March 2010); an d Nos. 10 -15/2009 -AS.III/Vol.II/(Pt.)/(25 -
29) (28 July 2010); Department of Telecommunications, No. 10 -15/2009 -
AS.III/Vol.II/(Pt.)/(30) (28 July 2010) and accompanying template, "Security and 
Business Continuity Agreement") (IMS ID  27479) 
The representative of the United States  referred  the Committee to the statement delivered 
at the previous TBT Committee meeting .80 
The representative of the European Union  recognized the clarification  provided  by India at 
previous TBT Committee meetings. Re ferring to several Indian notifications specifying products for 
which in -country testing and certification would be required, she stressed the need to allow for 
adequate time for affected stakeholders to review final requirements and asked India to confirm  that 
the date of entry into force of the testing requirements would remain 1 August 2019 for all types of 
equipment. She reiterated the concern that mandatory in -country testing mean t duplication of 
testing and certification undertaken by well -established  mechanisms around the world, and 
particularly in the EU. She pointed to a visit of a delegation of the Indian Department of Telecom to 
discuss possible recognition instead of in -country testing and expressed hope to build on these 
discussions.  
The represe ntative of Japan  expressed support for the positions of the United States and the 
EU and uttered its concerns related to the Unified Access Service Licence Agreement. She requested 
that India ensure that the country's telecom regulations did not impede mar ket access for foreign 
industries and reiterated Japan's request that the regulations be implemented in a transparent 
manner in terms of testing methods and certification requirements.  
The representative of Canada  support ed the comments made by other dele gations and 
expressed continued concerns about India's in -country testing requirements for telecommunications 
equipment, which might hinder access to, or exclusion from , the Indian market. The representative 
asked India to confirm its intention to apply th e requirements as of August 2019 and urged India to 
recognize foreign CABs to test and certify to India's regulatory requirements, minimizing the 
negative impact on exporters.  
The representative of India repeated the statement provided at the previous TBT Committee 
meeting.81 He informed the Committee that the implementation date for the new rules had been 
extended to 1 August 2019 by TECT for telecom products and stated that he would forward to capital 
the concern regarding allowing adequate time before ent ry into force of the measure.  
Russian Federation — Draft Technical Regulation on Alcohol Drinks Safety 
(published on 24 October 2011 ), G/TBT/N/RUS/2  (IMS ID  33282) 
The representative of the European Union  repeated many of the concerns raised at the 
previous TBT Committee meeting and contained in G/TBT/W/634 . The impa ct on geographical 
indications was of serious concern to the EU. On mandatory labelling requirements, Russia was 
invited to refer to the international standard CODEX STAN 1 -1985, point 4.7, as regards the 
indication of date markings and storage conditions,  which were strictly linked to each other.  The EU 
was also concerned by the requirement of a double labelling in Russian and/or another EAEU 
language, leading to an additional cost burden.  This regulation contained a rule where al coholic 
beverages must pro ve conformity in order to be marketed in the EAEU territory. The conformity 
assessment was conducted by a state entity and cover ed a wide range of requirements such as 
documentation and laboratory analysis . This represent ed a disproportionate burden and co st for 
producers. The EU requested clarification  on how the conformity procedure w ould apply to imported 
products and whether EU accompanying documents w ould be considered as sufficient to establish 
the compliance of EU products with the notified technical  regulation.  
                                                
79 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  274 (under dates raised and references) . 
80 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.137.  
81 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.140 and G/TBT/W/621 . 
82 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  332 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 33 - 
 
  
The representative of the Russian Federation  informed the Committee that t he Technical 
Regulation of the Eurasian Economic Union on Safety of alcohol beverages had been  adopted on 
5 December 2018 and would enter into force on 9 January 2021.  Such a lengthy grace period would 
provide ample opportunities for business to adapt to the new regulation.  To implement the Technical 
Regulation , the Eurasian Economic Commission had adopted a decision no. 61 dated 6 April 2019 
setting out transition al provisions  where it provide d that the documents on conformity assessment 
issued before the entry into force of the technical regulation w ould continue to be valid until their 
expiration, but not later than 9 January 2024.  
On geographical indications, Russia noted that the legislation in force d id not prohibit the 
use of the designations  "cognac", "calvados" and "champagne". This had been emphasi zed many 
times during  meetings with the EU and France.  In Russia, t hese designations transformed into 
generic n ames and were not associated with the geographical indications due to the long history of 
the use of these terms in the USSR and even before.  Under the arrangements between the Russian 
Federation and France the designations "cognac", "champagne" and "calva dos", written in Cyrillic 
characters, c ould refer to products produced in Russia that were marketed domestically.  This 
provision  was included in  the Technical Regulation on Safety of alcohol beverages under the Chapter 
8 "Requirements for labeling of alcoh ol beverages". It provide d that only beverages originat ing from 
respective areas in France could  bear label "cognac", "champagne" and "calvados" in Roman 
characters, while product s produced in Russia for domestic consumption could  bear label s in Cyrillic 
characters.  Moreover, EU producers were welcome to register their geographical indications in the 
Federal Service for Intellectual Property .  
In response to the EU question, t he list of documents required for the conformity assessment 
procedures was available in para graphs  47-49 of the Technical Regulation. On labelling 
requirements, common labelling requirements set out in the Technical Regulation of the Eurasian 
Economic Union were based on the relevant standard of the Codex Alimentarius Commiss ion 1-1985. 
Requirements such as alcohol content or storage conditions were introduced for consumer safety 
and to ensure that adult consumers ma de informed choice s. He noted that discussions were currently 
ongoing  in the Codex Alimentarius Commission on th e labe lling of alcohol products since many 
countries found  that applicable standards lacked clarity  for alcohol products.  The approach to 
labelling employed by the Technical Regulation of the Eurasian Economic Union was not something 
new as  the same requir ements for alcohol label ling were currently applied in Russia.  
The representative of Kazakhstan  support ed the statement made by the Russian Federation. 
Its adopt ion in  September 2018  with entry into force in January 202 1 gave importers ample time to 
prepare for the necessary requirements. The objective was to protect  consumers and Kazakhstan 
did not consider it to be an unnecessary obstacle to trade. As the new technical regulation was based 
on the current requirements of the Eurasian Economic Union member states,  this technical regulation 
would not have a restrictive effect on trade. He noted that the measure would be applied equally to 
third countries and products produced in the territory of the Eurasian Economic Union . 
India — Electro nics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for 
Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012, G/TBT/N/IND/44 , G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.1 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.2 , G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.3 , G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.6 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/47 , G/TBT/N/IND/58  (IMS ID  36783) 
The representatives of the United States84, Canada85 and the European Union86 referred the 
Committee to statements delivered at previous TBT Committee meetings.  
The representative of India repeated the responses provided at previous TBT Committee 
meetings and circulated in G/TBT/W/583  and G/TBT/W/622 . 
                                                
83 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 367 (under dates raised and references) . 
84 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.148, G/TBT /M/76 , para. 3.59; G/TBT/M/75 , para.  4.67; and G/TBT/M/74 , 
para. 2.89. 
85 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.149 and  G/TBT/M/76 , para. 3.60. 
86 G/TBT/W/484 . 
 G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 34 - 
 
  
European Union — Hazard -based appr oach to plant protection products and 
setting of import tolerances G/TB T/N/EU/383 , G/TBT/N/EU/384 , G/SPS/N/EU/166  
(IMS  ID 39387) 
The representative of the United States  recalled  its position on endocrine disruptors , 
expressed at previous TBT Committee meetings.  The US was disappoin ted that the EU ha d proceeded 
with implementing the regulations despite numerous interventions by WTO Members  - 11 Members 
at the previous  TBT Committee meeting.  The United State s had ongoing concerns with the EU 's 
hazard -based approach to pesticide regulation, and its implementation of criteria for identifying and 
subsequently banning endocrine -active substances.  Simply identifying hazards without identifying 
ascertainable risks or considering reasonable methods for managing risk raise d concerns that the 
EU's regulatory approach could  be more trade  restrictive than necessary.  The hazard cut -offs 
unnecessarily restrict ed access to crop protection tools that would be deemed safe und er a system 
honouring risk assessments and risk management processes.  They further restrict ed trade by 
feeding into the EU 's MRL decisions, which should rather be based on comprehensive risk 
assessment.  
The EU ha d stated that import tolerances w ould be gra nted on a case -by-case basis, 
factoring in "all relevant factors ". However, the US re mained troubled by the EU 's opaque process 
for managing import tolerances for substances that trigger ed the hazard -based cut -off criteria. 
Despite its insistence that import tolerances w ould be "in line with risk analysis principles ", the EU 's 
case-by-case approach d id not seem to examin e the circumstances relevant to each substance, as 
would be the case in a true risk -based approach.  This approach cause d considerable uncertainty for 
applicants and producers and cause d significant delays in the issuance of import tolerances, or no 
tolerance at all, while effectively halt ing trade  without clear reasons.  In this way, the hazard criteria 
serve d as barriers to trade.   
If the EU was interested in addressing the concerns raised by Members, it needed to clarify 
the following: what the relevant factors were, how these factors relate d to safeguarding human 
health and the environment, what was the length anticipated  for the process , and how producers 
could effectively utilize the process.  She again re minded the EU that other less trade -restrictive 
regulatory approaches exist ed that provide d high levels of human health a nd environmental 
protection, without posing unnecessary barriers to trade. To that end, she stressed  the importance 
of the EU 's approach comporting with the principles of sound science, non -discrimination, 
transparency, and predictability in the implementa tion of TBT measures.  
The representative of Canada  raised concerns with this measure. The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/644 . 
The representative of Paraguay  joined the concern s raised by ot hers. As said previously in 
both in the TBT and SPS Committees , the use of this hazard -based approach for active substances 
would  create unnecessary barriers to trade and would  have a negative impact on producers. 
Paraguay noted the s ignificant economic im pact in particular on small producers who were 
subsistence farmers.  
The representative of Panama  expressed concern with these measures which went beyond 
international standards and ha d an unnecessary impact on international trade. He recalled that most  
tropical countries ha d very different climatic characteristics to European countries and many of the 
substances were essential for protecting foodstuffs. Panama  called upon the EU to consider the 
impact  of the measures on social wellbeing, particularly in the most vulnerable populations who 
produce d agricultural products. He thanked  the EU for establishing a dialogue and hope d that 
measures could be implement ed without any  unnecessary  impact on trade.  
The representative of Brazil  reiterated  the concerns raised at previous TBT Committee 
meetings.88 
                                                
87 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 393 (under dates raised and references) . 
88 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.156; G/TBT/M/76 , para . 3.67. G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 35 - 
 
  
The representative of Costa Rica  reiterated the concerns raised at the previous TBT 
Committee meeting.89  
The representative of Colombia  supported the concerns raised by other Members. Colombia 
preferred a risk identification approach rather than a hazard -based approach , as well as a 
management and communication assessment. In pesticide use , Colombia was seein g a negative 
impact  on the use of low risk products  as under these conditions they could be defined under this 
hazard -based approach without any scientific evidence. Colombia was of the view that the EU 
proposal should take into account scientific evidence , methods and production processes, 
international standards in Codex, ecological and environmental criteria in the countries that may be 
impacted by the measure and thereby avoid any u nnecessary barrier s to trade.   
The representative of Argentina  thank ed the EU for the bilateral meeting and the on -going 
exchanges at a technical level. These had been useful in addressing doubts with the EU approach. 
Despite this engagement, Argentina continue d to harbour doubts with t he practical implementation 
of import tolerances  of active substances which ha d been impacted by the cut off level under the 
hazard -based approach in the implementation of the Commission regulation. The requirements for 
import tolerances were having an imp act on the non -renewal of active substances identified as 
having present ed a hazard . He urged the EU to consider the impact this was having and the 
importance of the EU market for developing countries such as Argentina.   
The representative of Australia  recalled its position on the importance of adopting a risk -
based approach for regulating endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) rather than considering only 
the potential for harm due to the intrinsic properties of a chemical. 90 The EU legislation for plant 
protection products provided that active substances which were endocrine disruptors should  not be 
approved, unless there was negligible exposure in which case they may be approved under restricted 
conditions. Australia noted t hat the clause of negligible exposure had been  discussed in the Plants, 
Animals, Food and Feed Standing Committee meeting of 23 -24 October 2018, and that no qualified 
majority had been  reached. An update on when these discussions would resume was requested . 
The representative of Uruguay  once again echoed the remarks made by other Members and 
reiterate d its trade and systemic concern with regard to the increasing use of what was considered 
to be a risk -based approach by the European Union.  This approach d id not appear to correspond to 
a complete scientific assessment of the risks based on validated methodologies, which was the  
approach Uruguay expect ed the EU  to adopt in phytosanitary matters  so as to be in conformity with 
the commitments undertaken, in order  to avoid contributing to an unjustified proliferation of barriers 
to international trade in agricultural products.  
The representative of Thailand  reiterate d concerns raised at previous TBT Committee 
meetings. The EU had developed the regulation setting out scientific criteria for the determination 
of endocrine disruptor s based on hazard identification without considering the potency of substance 
and exposure assessment. Such criteria d id not comply with the SPS Agreement, which encourage d 
Members  to establish  measures based on the principle of risk assessment.  Thailand was  concerned 
that the implementation of this criteria would pose unnecessary restrictions to trade.  He asked  the 
EU to conduct risk assessment before setting the MRLs for substance s identified as endocrine 
disruptor s or adopt the existing Codex MRLs for these substances to minimiz e the adverse impact 
on trade.  Thailand hoped that the EU would take these  concern s into account.  
The representative of India joined other Members in expre ssing concern on the EU Regulation 
on Endocrine Disruptors. India had expressed serious concerns on this Regulation on several  
occasions including during meeting at Brussels.  He reiterate d that the measure ha d significant effects 
on trade and asked that th e EU consider other options such as the risk -based assessment as available 
within the WTO SPS framework, rather than a hazard -based approach . 
The representative of Ecuador  continue d to express concern with this measure , above all the 
uncertainty it generate d with respect to  future conditions for agricultural products in gaining access 
to EU markets.  
                                                
89 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.155 . 
90 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.162; G/TBT/M/76 , para. 3.64. G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 36 - 
 
  
The representative of Guatemala  supported the concerns raised by other Members.  
The representative of the European Union  repeated the res ponse provided at the previous 
TBT Committee meeting.91  
India — The Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2015, 
G/TBT/N/IND/50  (IMS ID  48692) 
The representative of the European Union  reiterated the concerns raised at the previous TBT 
Committee meeting .93 
The representative of India responded to the concerns raised by the EU. The full statement 
is contained in G/TBT/W/674 . 
China – Registration Fees for Drugs and Medical Device Products (IMS ID  46694) 
The representative of the Republic of Korea  reiterate d concerns raised at the previous TBT 
Committee meeting.95 
The representative of Australia  said that her delegation continued to follow developments in 
China 's regulation of drugs and medical devices.  She thanked  China for the constructive bilateral 
discussi ons on a range of health technology topics to date  and look ed forward to further cooperation 
and exchanges.  
The representative of China  repeated the response provided at the previous TBT Committee 
meeting.96 
China — Interim Measures for Quality Management of Commercial Coal , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1057  (IMS  ID 47797) 
The representative of Australia  recalled  its position expressed at the previous TBT Committee 
meeting.98 As Australian coal continued to face longer processing times at Chin ese ports, h e asked 
if China could advise on whether there had been any adjustments in how the measure (originally 
notified on 18 September 2014) was being implemented . He noted that both China and Australia 
were signatories to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation Mutual Recognition 
Arrangement (ILAC MRA) and that under this agreement, coal could be tested prior to leaving 
Australian ports.  
The representative of China  said that  Australia had always been  an important source of 
China 's coal imports. In 2018, China imported more than 80 million ton nes of Australian coal, which 
accounted for  29% of total coal imports. The ChAFTA Agreement offer ed a zero tariff rate favo urable 
treatment for Australian coal.  China ha d not drafted the new rules or regulations relating to 
commercial coal. Since the Interim Mea sures for Quality Management of Commercial Coal came into 
force in 2015, both imported coal and domestic coal were treated equally. For inspection, both 
Chinese and international methods c ould be adopted.  According to China's laws and regulations, the 
imported goods were subject to the inspection of China's Entry -Exit Inspection and Quarantine 
Bureau. The statutory inspection could not be replaced by third -party inspection. The goods in bulk 
needed to be inspected at port of unloading and statutory inspecti on in the port of entry could not 
be replaced by pre -shipment inspection.  
                                                
91 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.164.  
92 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  486 (under dates raised and references) . 
93 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.174 and G/TBT/W/635 . 
94 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 466 (under dates raised and references) . 
95 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.169.  
96 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.171. 
97 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  477 (under dates raised and references) . 
98 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.172.  
 G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 37 - 
 
  
India — Draft Food Safety and Standards (Alcoholic Beverages Standards) 
Regulations, 2015, G/TBT/N/IND/51  (IMS ID  49499) 
The representative of the  European Union  reiterated the concerns raised at the previous TBT 
Committee meeting .100 In addition , she informed the Committee that a  meeting of the Scientific 
Panel of FSSAI had taken place on 18 March 2019 to discuss the most important outstanding EU 
concerns; but most requests had been  rejected by India. The EU hoped  an acceptable soluti on to 
the outstanding issues  could be found so as to a llow for the continued entry of certain EU beers and 
spirits  onto the  Indian market .  
The representative of India repeated detailed statements  made at previous TBT Committee 
meeting s. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/675 . 
China — Formula Registrati on Regulation for Infant and Follow -up Formula 
(IMS  ID 493101)  
The representative of the United States  thank ed China for the bilateral meeting on this 
regulation and noted the continued concerns regarding implementation requirements for the 
registration of infant formula as noted in previous interventions.  
The representative of Switzerland  reiterated the concerns raised at the previous TBT 
Committee meeting.102 In addition, he informed the Committee that China ha d committed itself to 
fair competition between d omestic and overseas enterprises according to China 's "Action Plan for 
the Improvement of Domestic Infants and Young Children Formula Milk Powder ". Switzerland v ery 
much welcome d this commitment and the possibility to engage with China to reach a better 
understanding of some of the measures put forward as part of the Action Plan.  
The representative of China  informed the Committee that t he Food Safety Law stipulate d 
the registration management of form ula for infant formula milk powder products. In accordance with 
the "Food Safety Law", China had issued the "Formula Registration Regulation for Infant and Follow -
up Formula Milk Powder" . This contained the requirements for the applicant's research capabil ities, 
production capacity and inspection capabilities, and urge d the scientific formulation of formulas for 
infant formula milk powder products. Registration management for infant formula was enforced 
according to the Food Safety Law, and "Formula Registr ation Regulation for Infant and Follow -up 
Formula Milk Powder ". 
Russian Federation – Rules of cement certificatio n, G/TBT/N/RUS/48 , 
G/TBT/N/RU S/49  (IMS ID  497103) 
The representative of the European Union  referred the Committee to statements delivered  
at previous TBT Committee meetings . The EU welcome d the recent announcement by Russian 
authorities declaring that a new standard on cement certification was currently under preparation  
and asked what the planned timeline for its adoption and its notification was , and for  more detailed 
information about its content. Given that since t he introduction of the mandatory certification for 
cement, the EU exports of cement  to the Russian Federation  had practically been blocked – with the 
exception of white cement, n ecessary  for Russian industry  - the EU was very much interested in 
following t he development of the new standard .  
The EU reiterate d its request that these measures be suspended as they led to a de facto  
ban of cement imports of EU o rigin, and to justify  current additional testing processes at the border 
for each cement batch exported to Russia  as this violated the TBT Agreement. She also as ked that 
Russia confirm that the strength test d id not have to be performed for certified cement , as this led 
to blockages at the border.  
                                                
99 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  494 (under dates raised and references) . 
100 G/TBT/M/77 , paras. 3.176 -3.177.  
101 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 493 (under dates raised and references).  
102 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.182.  
103 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  497 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 38 - 
 
  
The representative of Mexico  recalled Mexico's i nterest  in this issue , as had been indicated 
in several statements made at previous TBT Committee meetings. She requested that Russia update 
the Committee on any ch anges in this measure . 
The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the aim of this measure was to fight 
illicit trade in cement and to ensure the strength of cement , something of paramount importance for 
the durability of buildings. Currently, the amendments to GOST -R "Rules of cement certification " 
were being discussed internally between relevant Russian authorities. No precise timeline for the 
outcome of these discussion s was ava ilable . Members  would be kept informed on further 
developments.  
Egypt — Manufacturer Registration System (Decree No. 43/2016 and Decree No. 
992/2015 ), G/TBT/N/EGY/114 , G/TBT/N/EGY/115  (IMS ID  505104) 
The representative s of the European Union , Brazil  and Thailand  reiterated  statement s made 
at the  previous TBT Committee meeting.105 
The representative of the Russian Federation  shared the concerns raised by other  
delegations. The procedure of exporters' registration in Egypt was overly burdensome. Russian 
exporters that ha d been trying to register since 2016 and since 2017 were not getting any feedback 
on the document s sent to Egyptian authorities.  In the mean time, producers were not allowed  to ship 
their products to Egypt. Therefore,  the system in force in Egypt introduced a de facto  ban to the 
products of these exporters. Russia urged Egypt to review discriminative legislation a s well as to 
speed up consideration of all pending requests.  
The representative of Egypt  reiterated its previous explanation that Decree 43 for the year 
2016, complemented by Decree 44 for the year 2019, did not aim at restricting trade, an argument 
that w as statistically supported by the fact that the value of Egypt's imports during 2018 ha d 
increased by 22% as compared to 2017. Further, the HS chapters contain ing tariff lines subject to 
Decree 43, show ed that the imports from these chapters had in fact in crease d by 30% in 2018 as 
compared to 2017. In addition, comparing the trade  figures of these chapters in 2018 to 2015, which 
was the year preceding the entry into force of the mentioned decree, showed  an overall increase in 
some chapters of more than 110% . Regarding the ceramics sector, in which it was highlighted that 
companies particularly faced problems, Egypt said that its imports from HS chapter 69 had a 28% 
increase in 2018 as compared to 2017, and an increase of 8% in 2018 as compared to 2015. The 
rationale of the decision, its purpose, the methodology of its application and its general 
requirements, did not pose any burden on businesses or trading partners. Nonetheless, in an effort 
to respond to the concerns expressed by a number of trading partner s, a new committee had been  
established with the purpose of reviewing all pending applications to facilitate and speed up the 
registration process. Therefore, Egypt requested that Members  with specific problems contact them , 
so that such problems could be conveyed accordingly to this new committee.  
The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu – Draft 
of the Organic Agriculture A ct, G/TBT/N/TPKM/225 , G/TBT/N/TPKM/225/Add.1 , 
G/TBT/N/TPKM/225/Add.2  (IMS ID  511106) 
The representative of the European Union  thank ed Chinese Taipei for  its written 
communication and the bilateral dialog ue on the reform of its regulation on organic products. The 
new Organic Bill had been  promulgated on 30 May 2018  and the draft implementing regulations of 
the new bill notified on  7 January 2019 . The EU had submitted comments on the implementing 
regulations on 14 March 2019, to which Chinese Taipei replied on 22 March 2019.  The EU  very much 
regret ted that the new Bill allow ed only for a transitional period of two years, after which the 
unilateral recognition of 16  member States would  expire. The EU consider ed that the consequences 
for trade partners were disproportionate, and a more flexible transitional arrangement should be 
considered in the future.  
The main concern  was how the Organic Bill  would  be implemented . As the  second largest  
exporter of organic products to Chinese Taipei, the EU needed to be assured that the  system was 
                                                
104 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  505 (unde r dates raised and references) . 
105 G/TBT/M/77 , paras . 3.184, 3.185 and 3.186 , respectively.  
106 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  511 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 39 - 
 
  effective and would  avoid any trade disruptions which would also harm retailers and consumers from 
Chinese Taipei. In particular, Chinese Taipei was requested to set up a clear information tool as soon 
as possible so as to allow European operators and Control Bodies to  become familiar with the new 
imports procedures . The European Union requested a rapid and swift recognition of the European 
Control Bodies by the  competent authorities of Chinese Taipei.  
The EU also requested that Chinese Taipei recognize European standards for products 
coming from the E uropean Union. This was currently not the case  since, in practice, compliance with 
Chinese Taipei standards was s till checked , causing  tremendous problems for trade and, given the 
high level of European standards . Chinese Taipei could  have full confidence  that by respecting the 
European standards, pro ducts from the EU were safe. She said this recognition should extend to all 
28 EU Member States as the EU is a single market with a single production standard.  
The representative of t he Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
said t hat the implementing regulations  had been  adopted  and notified to the WTO . The adopted 
texts were contained in the addend a to notifications G/TBT/N/TPKM/346 , G/TBT/N/TPKM/347, 
G/TBT/N/TPKM/ 348, G/TBT/N/TPKM/ 364, G/TBT/N/TPKM/365, G/TBT/N/TPKM/ 366, 
G/TBT/N/TPKM/ 370 and G/TBT/N/TPKM/ 371. He assure d the EU  that his delegation intended to 
continue to work closely with the EU on this matter.  
China — National Standards on Limits of Volatile Organic Compounds for 
Furniture, G/TBT/N/CHN/1094 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1095 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1096  (IMS 
ID 509107) 
The representative of the European Union  reiterated  the statement made at the previous 
TBT Committee meeting.108  
The representative of China  said that these measures had been notified to the WTO  in July 
2015. In 2016, as part of the six  measures of "Deepening the Reform Programme of Standardization 
work", China ha d simplified and integrated all the mandatory standards, including  the mandatory 
standards for the furniture in dustry. On 14 January 2017, the China National Standardization 
Administration Committee had published the conclusion of the simplif ication  and integrati on of 
Chinese mandatory standards in the notice "Notification of the issuance of conclusion of the 
simpl ifying and integrating of Chinese mandatory standards" (No.4 document of SAC in 2017). The 
three standards referred to needed to be integrated before they c ould be released. As a result, these 
three standards ha d not yet been published and implemented.  The drafting of the integrated 
standards had begun in 2019 and the  "Limit of hazardous substances in furniture"  mandatory 
standards w ould be completed within two years. These measures would be notified to the WTO in 
due course and the EU was welcome to partic ipate in the consultation  process . 
China — Cybersecurity Law (IMS ID  526109) 
The representative of Japan  informed the Committee that Japan continue d to have concerns 
with China 's "Cybersecurity Law " that had entered into force on 1 June 2017 and refer red to the 
statement made at the previous  TBT Committee meeting.110 Japan would provide comments on 
"Cyber Security Review Measures ", which had recently been subject to public comment  and 
requested that China take into account those  comments.  In addition, Japan  request ed that China 
provide adequate lead time from completion of the regulations until their enforcement, and to 
implement these measures in a transparent manner.  
The representative of the European Union  said that the concerns previously raised regard ing 
the entry into force of the Cybersecurity Law on 1 June 2017 were maintained. She r eferred the 
Committee to the statement delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting.111 
                                                
107 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  509 (under dates raised and references) . 
108 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.72.  
109 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  526 (under dates raised and references) . 
110 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.199; G/TBT/M/76 , para. 3.153; G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.172 and G/TBT/M/74 , 
para. 2.196.  
111 G/TBT/M/77 , para . 3.200 and G/TBT/W/637 . G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 40 - 
 
  
The representative of the United States  said that the US  remain ed very concerned about 
China 's suite of cybersecurity and cryptography measures.  As stated  at previous TBT Committee 
meetings, this was a major concern for US  companies, given China 's intertwined requirements for 
conformity assessment systems for security t esting, technical regulations, and a multi -level 
classification scheme laying out requirements  that included  mandatory standards and testing for the 
purchase of ICT goods across a wide range of commercial sectors.  
Despite serious and long -standing concerns , China 's Cybersecurity Law had entered into 
force on 1 June 2017 . Since then, China continued to develop, and in certain cases, finalize related 
implementing measures that were sometimes general in scope, and sometimes sector  specific.  The 
US had  many con cerns regarding China 's Cybersecurity Law and related measures, which impose d 
far-reaching, highly trade -restrictive conditions on foreign ICT products through "secure and 
controllable " requirements, enforced by cybersecurity review regime checks.  Such req uirements 
were largely based on a planned update and expansion of the Ministry of Public Security 's Multi -
Level Protection Scheme (MLPS).  An example of this was the 25  January 2018 draft measure 
"Information Security Technology – Guidelines for Grading of Classified Cybersecurity Protection, " 
which appea red to repeat and elaborate upon China 's MLPS.  Numerous other concerns ha d been laid 
out in interventions by the US and  other Members at prior TBT Committee meetings.  
Additionally, the United Sta tes reiterate d its serious concerns regarding China 's Office of 
State Commercial Cryptography 's (OSCCA) draft Cryptography Law of the People 's Republic of China 
to which comments had been submitted in May 2017.  The U S was  concerned that this law would 
codify potentially far -reaching, highly trade -restrictive cryptography -related constraints on foreign 
ICT products.  Because these issues were technically complex and China 's approach appear ed to be 
both novel and would have a potentially widespread impact in t he commercial sector, the U S 
request ed that China undertake in -depth consultations with WTO Members, and global stakeholders.  
China was requested to  allow subsequent opportunities for interested parties to submit 
comments on revised iterations of draft st andards and all other implementing measures related to 
the Cybersecurity Law. Given the broad potential impact of these standards and measures and the 
serious concerns they ha d raised, it was critical that China act deliberately to collaborate with all 
interested parties and  take their comments into account before adopting the drafts as written. The 
US would  continue to carefully monitor China 's implementation of the Cybersecurity Law and related 
measures, as well as movement on the draft Cryptography Law , and looked forward to continuing  
important dialogue with China . 
The representative of the Republic of Korea  support ed the comments made by other 
delegations. He raised concerns with Article 31 of the law that stipulate d the designation of 
infrastructural facility for core information, and Article 35 that stipulate d that the operator of 
designated core information infrastructural facility should  undergo a national security evaluation, 
when the purchasing network product and services might impact on national  security.  The specific 
designation scope and criteria for the core information infrastructural facility had not been 
established, and the scope and assessment procedure for the national security review of network 
products and services were vague . Korea wa s concerned that this could cause unnecessary abuse 
of the regulation, as well as breach of intellectual property rights (IPR).  
He request ed more clarity o n the designation criteria for the core information infrastructure 
facility and the scope for nationa l security review . He also request ed the establishment of a clause 
forming a procedure that could prevent confidential business information leakage and the liability of 
compensation.  Additionally,  Article 37, and sub -regulations 'Measures for Security Asse ssment of 
Cross -border Transfer of Personal Information and Important Data ' and 'Information Security 
Technology – Guidelines for Data Cross -Border Transfer Security Assessment ', contained a 
requirement that if critical information infrastructure operators in China store d personal information 
and important data in a foreign territory, or provide d the information to a foreign individual or 
organization, the operator would  be subject to a national security review by the Chinese 
Governm ent. 
Article 4.4 of the Guidelines for Data Cross -Border Transfer Security Assessment (draft) 
stipulate d that "transfer of data with high level of safety risks such as personal information and 
important data to a foreign territory was prohibited ". However,  the regulation about the phrase "high 
level of safety risks " was vague. Therefore, Korea request ed China to publish a guideline, which 
focuse d on detailed case studies, so that "data with high level of safety risk" information could be G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 41 - 
 
  objectively identif y. The final draft of the Cyber security Law and relevant sub -regulation and 
standard was not yet available , so Korean companies were having difficulties in complying with the 
regulation. He requested that the information regarding the time schedule for the  sub-regulation 
and standard  be made available . When the related sub -regulation and standard draft were 
announced, Korea request ed that they be notified to the  WTO with a sufficient comment period ( 60 
days or more ), so as to give adequate opportunity for f oreign stakeholders to comment . At least six  
month s for adaptation should also be given  after publication of final draft.  
The representative of Australia  reiterate d concerns  raised at previous TBT Committee 
meeting s.112 
The representative of Canada  said that i n line with STC 22113, Canada  was follow ing with 
interest the developments related to China's Cybersecurity Law. Canada support ed the concerns 
raised by other Members and w elcome d any additional and relevant information or clarification that 
China  could provide.  
The representative of China  repeated the response provided at the previous TBT Committee 
meeting.114 
European Union — Organic production and labelling - Maté (erva -mate) 
(IMS  ID 524115) 
The representative of Brazil  thank ed the EU for all the clarifications received on this matter. 
Brazil was raising this STC once again to recall concerns related to the labelling of organic erva -mate 
in the EU. Even with the  regulatory changes es tablished by the EU Regulation 848/2018, Brazil found 
that the unjustifiable refusal to provide a transitory solution constitute d an unnecessary barrier to 
trade. As had been  stated at previous TBT Committee meeting s, not including "erva -mate" in the 
organic product list without any technical or scientific justification was discriminatory and more 
trade -restrictive than necessary, and thus inconsistent with the TBT Agreement.  Brazilian producers 
would  be denied access to EU markets on an equitable basi s until January 2021 and their losses 
would not be compensa ted. 
The representative of the European Union  noted that it ha d replied to Brazil on this issue at 
previous TBT Committee meetings, as well as bilaterally. Erva mate was not within the scope of the  
current organic Regulation (Regulation (EC) 834/2007) and there was no possibility to modify this.  
However , the E U noted that, as proposed by the European Commission, the new Regulation (EU) 
2018/848 on organic production and labelling adopted on 30 May 2 018 by the European Parliament 
and the Council include d Maté under its scope. The new Regulation w ould enter into force on 
1 January 2021.  
                                                
112 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.20 3, G/TBT/M/76 , para. 3.157 and G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.175.  
113 China — Cyberspace Administration of China – Draft implementing measures for the Cybersecurity 
Review of Network Products and Services  
114 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.204.  
115 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  524 (under dates raised and references) . 
 G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 42 - 
 
  
European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - non-renewal of approval of 
the active substance picoxystrobin G/TBT/N/EU/437  (IMS ID  535116)  
The representative of Brazil  said that as previously stated, the EU's non -renewal of 
picoxystrobin was against scientific consensus regarding the safety of the substance and its use in 
crop protection . Since its first notification in the TBT Committee, in January 2017, Brazil had  
encouraged the EU to notify the non -renewal of picoxystrobin to the SPS Committee, bearing in 
mind that the protection of human and animal health constitute d its basic underlying concept. The 
EU had taken  18 months to finally bring this matter to the attention  of the SPS Committee . In 
January 2019, the EU notified to the SPS Committee the adoption of Regulation 2019/91, 
establishing very restrictive MRLs for seven substances, including picoxystrobin, as well buprofezin, 
important substances for Brazil's trade i n agricultural commodities. Brazil did not consider that the 
transitional period of 13 August 2019 given for producers to adapt to the new MRLs to be reasonable, 
given that studies conducted by EFSA were inconclusive, not based in due risk -analysis and to the 
detriment of CODEX guidelines.  
This STC relate d to a measure notified under the TBT Agreement but that could also fall 
under the SPS Agreement, bearing in mind its objective. Since 2016, Brazil had  identified at least 
20 different cases of substances t hat were not approved or had their registry of approval not renewed 
by the EU and that were only notified to the TBT Committee.  In line with Brazil 's presentations at 
the thematic session on transparency, it was important to reiterate that even when a tech nical 
regulation or conformity assessment procedure could initially just be an administrative procedure, 
upon revision,  it might  also be considered as a n SPS  measure as it met the objectives foreseen in 
the SPS Agreement.  This, he said, would call for simultaneous notification to both agreements.  In 
another situation, where there was a lack of clarity regarding whether a measure should be notified 
under either the SPS or the TBT Agreements, Brazil's  position was that Members should notify both 
Committee s, for the sake of transparency. Brazil believed that based on p revious interventions in 
the TBT  Committee , this understanding was also shared by other Members .  
The representative of Paraguay  reiterate d its concern with the EU's decision not to renew 
the approval of active substance picoxystrobin  and referred the Committee to the statement 
delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting.117 
The representative of Panama  expressed continued interest in this issue.   
The representative of the European Union  repeated the response provided at the previous 
TBT Committee meeting.118 
China — Certification requirements for processed foods , G/TBT/N/CHN/1209  
and G/TBT/N/CHN/1209/Add.1  (IMS  ID 547119) 
The representative of the United States  thank ed China for its bilateral enga gement in 2017 
and 2018 on the concerns raised on the official certification requirements for imported foods, and 
for its September 2017 announcement notifying WTO Members of the two -year transitional period 
for enforcement from 1 October 2017 to 30 Septem ber 2019.  This measure, entitled "Measures for 
the Administration of Certificates Attached to Foods Exported to China (Draft) " in the TBT 
notification, require d a range of imported food products to be accompanied by official certificates on 
a shipment -by-shipment basis , including processed, shelf -stable foods.  Given the rapidly 
approaching implementation date (30 September 2019), and the fact that China ha d not yet 
indicated how it w ould take into account comments received, she asked that China explain how it 
planned  to move forward on this issue . The US remind ed China that WTO Members need ed adequate 
lead-time in implementing any new measure, and said the  current timeframe was not sufficient.  The 
US was  hopeful that a mutually acceptable agreement could be reached on reasonable requirements 
for food imports.  
The representative of Japan  asked that China present detailed information on the 
certification requirements for processed food s and to provide suffi cient scientific evidence and 
                                                
116 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  535 (under dates raised and references) . 
117 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.210.  
118 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.212; G/TBT/M/76 , para. 3.176 and G/TBT/M/75 , para. 4.188 . 
119 For previous stateme nts follow the thread under IMS ID 547 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 43 - 
 
  background for setting the scope of products within th e measure.  He also  requested that China  
amend the  measure appropriately and sufficiently, taking into account comments from Members . 
The representative of Switzerland  ackno wledged China's  open engag ement both inside the 
WTO and also in bilateral talks. Switzerland support ed China's  efforts with trading partners to find a 
workable solution through the "Electronic Working Group on Food Integrity and Food Fraud ", which 
had been instated by the "Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Certification and Inspection " 
(CCFICS). Furthermore, Switzerland welcome d China's  decision to postpone the entry into force of 
the measure until further notice. By doing so, China ha d shown its willingness to take seriously the 
concern of trade partners.  
The representative of Mexico  thanked China for the bilateral engagement . Mexico again  
requested that China provide more detailed in formation on the next steps  being considered for the 
certification requirements and the entry into force of the implementation of the measure .  
The representative of China  repeated the response provided at the previous TBT Committee 
meeting.120  
Viet Nam — Decree 116/2017/ND -CP on business requirements for 
manufacturing, assembl y and import s of  automo biles, automobiles  warranty & 
maintenance services , G/TBT/N/VNM/116  (IMS ID  549121) 
The representative of the European Union  reiterated  concerns raised at the previous TBT 
Committee meeting.122 She added that u nder the framework of Decree 116, Viet Nam  had also 
notified  a new Circular for car parts that no longer allow ed for the recognition of UN certificates and  
require d all impor ts to undergo local testing. These provisions were not in line with the EU -Viet Nam  
Free Trade Agreement . Viet Nam  should recogni ze EU parts and equipment complying with UN 
regulations without further testing and certification. The same should apply to pas senger cars.  
Therefore, Viet Nam  should accept UN certificates, markings, test -reports and conformity 
assessment reports, and to conduct checks only on the basis of a reasonable risk assessment 
system, that would take into account the very low risk posed by imports conducted by the official 
importer of vehicle or component manufacturers.  Viet Nam  should suspend the application of the 
Decree and reconsider the comments provided by WTO Members in different fora.  The EU request ed 
that Viet Nam  reconsult  all stakeholders, in particular small volume importers of foreign cars.  
The representative of Thailand  maintained the  concerns raised at previous TBT Committee 
meeting s.123 The requirement of testing by lot and VTA Certificate mandated by the Decree create d 
unnecessary obstacles to international trade. Thailand  underline d that Viet Nam 's lot-by-lot testing 
procedure  deviate d from international practices and would most likely impose additional cost and 
time delays . Feedback from Thai automobile exporters was contrary to what Viet Nam  had reported 
at the March  TBT Committee meeting . The current export situation was:  
a. Each shipment of i mported cars still h ad to be inspected at the Viet  Nam Register, the 
single  testing authority . This led to many cars awaiting testing and completion of the 
process  extended by up to two months.  
b. Due to the bottle neck in the Viet Nam Register , it was  unable to conduct proper emission 
testing under UN Regulation s which result ed in adverse finding . Cars fail ing to meet the 
decree 's requirements were retested which increase d cost and custom clearance time for 
importers as well as longer waiting time for customers.  From July 2019, Viet Nam  would 
not allow a second test so all imported automobile s would  be rejected.  
In addition,  Thailand continued to have serious concerns on the latest circular which had 
entered into force in April 2019.  Viet Nam had clearly failed to comply with the obligations under 
Article 5.6 of the TBT Agreement  as Viet Nam  had not no tified the circul ar to WTO at early 
appropriate stage and  had not provide d any comment  period . The Thai auto parts industry  was 
encountering difficulties in applying for a conformity certificate due to the limited number  of 
                                                
120 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.217.  
121 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 549 (under dates raised and  references).  
122 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.2 19. 
123 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.218. G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 44 - 
 
  designated  certification bodies in Viet Nam ; unreasonable processing time; acceptance of Viet Nam 
Register  Laboratory test report only; and frequency of factory audit.  This was affecting headlights 
in particular. Thailand urge d Viet Nam to suspend the implementation of Decree 116 and relevant 
Circulars and take concern s into serious consideration to ease  the strict procedures for imported 
cars; and most importantly, to comply with commitments under the TBT Agreement.  
The representative of the United States  reiterated  concerns raised at the previous TBT 
Committee meeting .124 
The representative of Japan  share d the concerns raised by other Members. She referred the 
Committee to the statement delivered at the previous TBT Committee  meeting.125 She requested 
that Viet Nam treat imported automobiles and domestic automobiles in an equitable manner.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  said that Russia share d the concern s raised by 
other Members. T his measure was discriminat ory and more tra de restrictive than necessary to fulfil 
legitimate objectives for imported cars. The measure disrupt ed traditional trade flows between 
Viet Nam and other Members of the WTO  and Russia requested that  Viet Nam revise the measure.  
The representative of Viet N am informed the Committee that t he purpose of the provisions 
in Circular No. 3 was to ensure the protection of the environment  and c onsumer  rights. Under the 
detailed instruction of Viet Nam government agencies, WTO Members ha d been successful in 
receiving  vehicle approval in accordance with Decree 116 and Circula r No. 3. Recent trade  figures 
showed an increase  in imported , versus  domestically assembled , cars. Car import s in the first four 
months of 2019 accounted for half of those  for the whole of 2018 . Cars from all Members ha d been 
imported into Viet Nam, indicating that enterprises ha d adapted well to provisions of Decree 116 
and Circular no. 3. In addition , the Vietnam ese G overnment always accompanie d the private sector 
so as to remove difficulties  and ensure balance between benefits to importers and requirements on 
safety and quality of imported cars.  
Viet Nam — Cybersecurity Measures (IMS ID  544126) 
The representative o f Japan  expressed concern  with this measure, which had been  passed 
in the Viet Nam  National Assembly in June 2018 and include d provisions which could hinder the free 
flow of information and the participation of foreign companies in Viet  Nam's market.  At the previous 
TBT Committee  meeting, Viet  Nam had explained that the draft decree would continue to be revise d 
with comments from Members taken into account.  Japan was particularly concerned with Article 25 
of the Decree which indicate d that  an entity was obliged to store data locally and to establish a 
domestic branch or representative office. As the article lack ed clarity, Japan requested that Viet Nam  
confirm how the article would be revised.  She also asked  that Viet  Nam provide information on the 
current status of the draft and timeline for implementation. In addition, Japan had concerns on 
whether the draft decree as a whole included  technical requirements for IT products or devices  and 
therefore r equest ed that Viet  Nam notify the second draft  so as to allow Members the opportunity 
to comment.  Viet Nam was encouraged to implement the law and its decree in a transparent manner 
in order to prevent it from being more trade  restrictive than necessary and also to consider the 
comments from Japan and  other Member s. 
The representative s of the United States127 and Australia128 reiterated  the concerns raised 
at previous TBT Committee meeting s. 
The representative of Canada  said that his delegation continued to have concerns with 
Viet Nam's security measure, particularly as it could have very extensive product coverage. He noted 
the importance of WTO notifications as well as the use of international standards and conformity 
assessment frameworks. Canada sought Viet Nam' s clarification that this matter  did not apply to the 
                                                
124 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.2 20. 
125 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.221.  
126 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 544 (under dates ra ised and references).  
127 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.224 and G/TBT/M/76 , para. 3.211  
128 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.227 and G/TBT/M/76 , para. 3.212.  
 G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 45 - 
 
  private sector. Further, he urged Viet Nam to notify the measure to the TBT Committee so as to 
allow Members and stakeholders to provide comments.  
The representative of the European Union  reiterated  concerns raised at previous TBT 
Committee meetings .129 In addition the EU encourage d Viet Nam to develop and implement the 
Cyber Security law and any implementing measures in full respect of WTO principles, such as non -
discrimination and proportionality , and to take into consideration available international standards 
and best practices.  
The representative of Viet Nam  emphasised the importance to Viet Nam of cybersecurity 
protection as an essential  part of the open investment environment , without hinderin g the 
development of the digital economy. Therefore,  the balance between economic development and 
national security ha d always been among the top  priorities throughout the development and 
implementation of th e Cyber Security Law. The draft decree implement ing cybersecurity law ha d 
now been finalized and w ould be submitted to the government for further approval. Viet Nam 
unders tood and share d the concerns on legal documents implementing cybersecurity law. 
Accordingly , the provisions on storing data locally a nd operating representative office s or branch es 
as contained in Article 25 of the draft decree ha d been developed with openness and flexibility in 
mind.  
China — Catalogue of Solid Wastes Forbidden to Import into China 
(IMD  ID 545130) 
The representative of the United States  referred the Committee to the statement delivered 
at the previous TBT Committee meeting .131 China  had not provided sufficient details as to what 
specific environmental concerns it wished to address, nor how these restr ictive measures intended 
to alleviate the environmental concerns. The US had repeatedly requested meetings with China 's 
Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) to work cooperatively to ensure the least trade -restrictive 
manner possible , yet China had dec lined all requests and moved forward with the implementation 
and expanded the scope of restricted materials.  
Her delegation requested that China immediately suspend implementation of its import ban 
and import control standards for recovered materials and engage in constructive conversations with 
Members. She was concerned about the release of China 's draft revisions on the Law on Prevention 
and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Wastes in July 2018, as this could result in an import 
ban on recycla ble materials. She noted that the qualities of recycl able materials ma de the 
classification of them as "waste " inaccurate. She urged China to provide allowances for trade in 
recyclable materials and to properly define and distinguish "waste " from recyclabl e materials and 
scrap before implementing this draft law.  
The representative of Australia , whilst appreciat ing China 's efforts to reduce pollution, 
reiterate d previously raised concerns.132 He urged China to reconsider the measure and engage with 
trading partners to improve and develop facilitative standards for trade in recyclables . 
The representative of New Zealand  appreciated China 's stated proactive policy objectives in 
relation to sustainable de velopment. However, he was concerned that vanadium slag was included 
in China 's catalogue of banned imports. He reiterated that vanadium was not a waste and should 
not fall under this measure. As China was the largest global producer of vanadium slag, he a sked 
China to clarify how they would ensure that the rules appl ied to foreign products  were no less 
favourable than those accorded to domestic products. How had China  ensured that the import ban 
on vanadium slag was not more trade restrictive than necessar y to achieve China 's environmental 
and health protection objectives ? 
The representative of Canada  referred the Committee to statements delivered at  previous 
TBT Committee meetings since March 2018.  He noted that such regulatory changes contribute d to 
the increasingly difficult and uncertain trading conditions for exporters of waste and scrap products. 
He urged China to consider other mechanisms to address the specific problem of contaminated 
                                                
129 G/TBT/M/77 , para.  3.225; G/TBT/M/76 , para. 3.213.  
130 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  545 (under dates rais ed and references).  
 131 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.230  and G/TBT/W/610 .  
 132 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.2 29 and  G/TBT/M/76 , para. 3.191.  G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 46 - 
 
  materials, while ensuring that mutually beneficial trade could  continue in a predictable manner and 
fulfilling environmental protection goals.  
The representative of China  responded to the concerns raised. The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/653 . 
India - Amended regulation on toy imports (ID 546133)  
The representative of China  raised concerns with this measure. India had publish ed this 
amended regulation on toy imports on 1 September 2017,  and only notified  it to the WTO at the end 
of 2017, without providing any comment period  or time for industry to adapt . Given the significant 
effect this regulation would have on toy trade, China requested that India allow the opportunity for 
WTO Members to provide comment s. The amended regulation require d that imported toy s conform  
with Indian Standards,  and not internatio nal standards, and, that they be tested by labs accredited 
by the Indian National Accreditation Body (NABL), rather than  labs accredited under the ILAC MRA. 
These requirements  led to higher costs to toy companies . China  requested that India make 
modificati ons to the regulation, harmonize it with  international standards, recognize test reports 
issued by ILAC MRA labs, and establish a transparen t and trade facilitative  environment.  
The representative of the United States  and the European Union  supported China 's concerns 
raised. The representative of the EU referred the Committee to the statement  delivered  at the 
previous TBT Committee meeting.134  
The representative of Canada  supported the comments made by other Members. He noted 
the importance of allowing foreign accredited laboratories to test toys in order to put foreign and 
domestic producers on the same level playing field.  
The representative of India reiterate d that the measure had been developed to  immediate ly 
stop the imports of toys  that posed health risks to users, particularly children. This ha d been done 
based on analysis and the representations received from the stakeholders. Toys imported into India 
were found to be unsafe for children 's health . Hence as an emergency measure, action had been 
taken to ensure appropriate standards and conformity assessment  procedures were followed . 
Detailed information on safety concerns on toys were already highlighted in the referred standard 
i.e., IS 9873 and IS 15644.  She said t he standard IS  9873, and in particular parts 1,  2, 3, 4 and 7, 
were identical to corresponding ISO standard i.e., ISO8127. Similarly, the standard IS  15644 was 
identical to corresponding IEC standard i.e., IEC 62115.  She assured the Committee that  there were 
sufficient number s of NABL -accredited labs and therefore no delays in testing . Further more,  she said 
the test charges were lower when compared to  international rates.  
On the issue of Quality Control Order, 2019, she referred the Committee to the statement 
delivered under STC 4135, stating that the matter was still in the  domestic stakeholder consultation 
process . Once available , it would be notified to the WTO giving Members the opportunity to provide 
comments. She requested that Members send India their statements so th at capital -based  officials 
could provide any f urther clarification.   
European Union — Application of Regulation No. 1169/2011 and Regulation (EC) 
No 1924/2006 as regards the labelling of food products , in not prohibiting or examining 
the use of "palm oil free" labels (IMS ID  555136) 
The representative s of Colombia  and Indonesia  continued to raise concerns with this 
measure. The statements are contained in G/TBT/W/664  and G/TBT/W/642 . 
The representative of Costa Rica  repeated his delegation's concerns relating to the 
widespread use on the European market  of labels includ ing wording such as "palm oil free".  As 
previously stated, Costa Rica consider ed that there was no proper scientific justification for generally 
maintaining that products manufactured with palm oil were harmful to health and that therefore  
there was no basis for allowing the inclusion of wording of this kind on the packaging, As such, his 
                                                
133 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  546 (under dates raised and references).  
134 G/TBT/M/77 , paras. 3.235 -3.236.  
135 India - Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2019 . 
136 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 555 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 47 - 
 
  delegation deemed that the EU had committed an oversight in allowing this additional statement , 
resulting in non -compliance with the principles and legiti mate objectives of the TBT Agreement.  
The representative of Honduras  share d the concerns raised by Colombia and Indonesia and 
underlined the importance of the palm oil sector for Honduras, with many  thousands of permanent 
jobs and farmers rely ing on this p roduct. Palm oil was controlled in Honduras, including by 
regulations protect ing forests  and only a very minimal impact on the environment from this product  
had been observed . She thanked the EU for the  bilateral meeting.  
The representative of Thailand  register ed his delegation's interest in palm oil free labels , 
recalling the concerns raised at the March 2019  TBT Committee meeting . Thailand would  continue 
to monitor the development of this concern in the  TBT Committee.  
The representative of Malaysia  continued to share concerns raised by other Members under 
this STC.  
The representative of Ecuador  supported  the concern raised by Colombia and Indonesia with 
regard to the practice of labelling food products as being "palm oil f ree", insofar as it generate d a 
negative campaign against th ose products in particular, without a technical or scientific basis.  Her 
delegation considered that f rom the nutritional standpoint, this labelling constitute d an unfounded 
negative generalization , impl ying that palm oil was somehow harmful to health or nutritionally 
inferior to other similar vegetable oils.  From the environmental standpoint, this labelling implie d that 
palm oil  per se was less ecological or sustainable  than other similar vegetable  oils, without 
considering the particular circumstances of African palm producing countries such as Ecuador, for 
example, where palm oil was produced responsibly and sustainably, as explained at some length in 
her delegation's  statement concerning STC 23137. 
Although the labels did not include explicit references to nutritional properties or the possible 
environmental consequences of consuming palm oil, Ecuador was of the view that the negative 
allusion was implicit in the message through its very ambiguity and ha d a dissuasive effect on the 
consumer which in turn ha d an unfair and discriminatory impact on the product.  These actions f ell 
within the context of misleading commercial practices, as mentioned by Colombia in its statement, 
since even though the inf ormation was factually correct it might  lead the consumer to take a decision 
that he or she would not otherwise have taken.  Ecuador call ed on the EU to provide information 
concerning the control procedures it carrie d out to ensure that the information in t he labels on the 
products indicat ing that they were palm oil free did not infringe its own domestic legislation in force 
and did not result in unjustified discrimination against the product.  Ecuador thanked the EU for the  
bilateral meeting.  
The representative of the European Union  recalled  that Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on 
food information to consumers138 did not require nor regulate any form of negative labelling, such 
as, "palm oil free ". She underline d that t he Regulation allow ed information to be provided by 
manufacturers on a voluntary basis such as to indicate that a product ingredient ha d not been used 
in a food product provided that this was not ambiguous, confusing or misleading for the consumer.  
She stressed that the decisi on to use this type of labelling was a voluntary practice, put in place by 
manufacturers and that it would not stem from a technical regulation as defined by the TBT 
Agreement.  Moreover, t he statement "palm oil free" per se/alone was not considered as a nu trition 
claim within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006139 on nutrition and health claims.  
EU member States were responsible for enforc ing, monitor ing and verify ing that relevant EU 
food law requirements were fulfilled by food business operators. The European Commission met 
                                                
137 European Union — Amendments to the Directive 2009/28/EC, Renewable Energy Directive  
138 Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the 
provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 
of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council 
Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 20 00/13/EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 
608/2004 (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 8).  
139 Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 
on nutrition and health claims made in foods (OJ L 404, 30.12.2006, p. 9).  
 G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 48 - 
 
  regularly with the member States' competent authorities on food labelling to discuss food 
labelling/claim issues and to ensure harmoni zed implementation of both Regulations. She indicated 
that a  regularly updated "Question and Ans wer" document was available to help food business 
operators to comply with EU labelling requirements.  
Thailand - Certificate of Analysis for the import of alcoholic beverages 
G/TBT/N/THA/524  (ID 556140) 
The representative of the European Union  raised concerns with this measure. The full 
statement is contained in  G/TBT/ W/659. 
The representative of Japan  requested that  Thailand provide the latest information on this 
issue.  Japan requested that Thailand amend this ministerial regulation appropriately and provide 
sufficient scientific evidence and background before its entry in to force . Comments from Members 
should also be taken into account.  
The representative s of New Zealand141 and Australia142 reiterated  statement s made at the 
previous TBT Committee meeting.  
The representative of Thailand  informed the Committee that the Ministerial Regulation on 
Liquor Importation Permission 2017 ha d been in force  since 16 September 2017. The EU, Japan, 
Mexico, New Zealand, Canada, Australia and Chile ha d expressed concern about the liquor 
importation perm ission criteria and the liquor analysis standard. Thailand provided the following 
update on the progress of the revision of the Ministerial Regulation on Liquor Importation Permission 
2017 as follows:  
a. Thailand's Excise Department ha d amended the Ministeria l Regulation on Liquor 
Importation Permission 2017 and issued a revised statement on the Ministerial Regulation 
entitled Liquor Importation Permission (No.2) 2019  that prescribed that any person 
intends to import liquors into the Kingdom of Thailand should : 
"Submit samples of liquors to be imported to the Director General for 
quality examination and analysis - prior to file an application for permission 
- or submit the certificate of analysis to examine whether they are qualified 
in accordance with the Excise standards as to be announced by the Director 
General, provided that the certificate shall be issued by the agencies as set 
out by the Director General to be the liquor quality examination and 
analysis agencies - or the agencies of foreign government s or the agencies 
as acknowledged by foreign governments to have the duty to control the 
liquor production of the liquor producers in foreign countries ". 
b. Under the revision of the Ministerial Regulation on Liquor Importation Permission (No.2) 
2019 and the new Excise Department Notification, the Excise Department ha d held  several 
meetings with representatives from several Member s including the EU , US, Australia, 
Japan, Canada and Mexico. The new notification was focused on the protection of human 
health and safety, was not  discriminat ory between domestic and imported liquors and was  
aligned with international practices.  
c. Thailand ha d circulated the Ministerial Regulation on Liquor Importation Permission (No.2) 
2019 and the Notification of the Excise Department  on Prescribing Quality Standard for 
Imported Liquor on 18 June 2019  in G/TBT/N/THA/548  and G/TBT/N/THA/ 549. 
He assured the Committee that  Thailand recogni zed the concerns raised by Members and 
that comments provided would be taken into account . Thailand was available for further discussion  
with interested Members . 
                                                
140 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  556 (under dates raised and references).  
141 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.253  
142 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.254 an d G/TBT/M/76 , paras. 3.241 -3.242.  
 G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 49 - 
 
  
India — Testing and Certification of telegraph (The Indian telegraph 
(Amendment) Rules, 2017), G/TBT/N/IND/66  (IMS ID  558143) 
The representative of the United States  referred the Committee to the statement delivered  
at the previous TBT Committee meeting .144 
The representative of the Republic of Korea  supported the comments made by the US. It 
was stressed that, according to the regulation, the product needed to be tested in a TEC -designated 
testing laboratory in India, and after undergoing necessary certification procedures, TEC certification 
mark had to be attached on the product. The enforcement date was August 2019, but a testing 
laboratory for the mandatory testing fields such as LTE, LTE -A radio (RF), Internet Protocol Version 
(IPv6), and GPS, had not been designated. Also, designated testing laboratories for SAR  and 2.4 
GHz RF were not enough, which made  it difficult to acquire the certification. Moreover , global 
manufacturers would be applying for the certification all at the same time – right after the 
enforcement date, and Korea worried that it would take a lo ng time. Therefore, Korea requested 
India, in respect of the amendment of Indian Telegraph Rules: (i) to designate a testing laboratory 
for all the fields; (ii) to ensure that no technical barriers to trade due to lack of designated 
laboratories resulted; and (iii) to grant a grace period of at least six months after designating a 
testing laboratory for all the fields. It was also important that the designated laboratories had 
sufficient resources to cope with the testing and certification demands, so the e xporting companies 
could comply with the regulation.  
The representative of India reiterated a number of points in respect of the India's  scheme of 
Testing and Certification of Telegraph (The Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Rules, 2017) – which, 
she said, had been notified to WTO. She stressed that the Rule was intended to safeguard safety of 
the user and security of the network. Second, the scheme did not restrict the testing to Conformance 
Assessment Bodies (CAB 's) located in India only, but also allowed test ing from TEC recognized 
international CAB 's located in MRA partner countries.  The scheme was non -discriminatory with 
respect to OEM – domestic or foreign as well as the location of CAB – that was TEC designated Lab 
in India or recognized lab in MRA partner  country anywhere in the world. The list of designated 
testing laboratories was available in DoT website. Regarding the date of enforcement, it was noted 
that the implementation date for ITR, 2017 had been extended to August 2019 . It was noted that 
the dat e of 31 March 2019, up to which test results from ILAC accredited labs were accepted, was 
by way of relaxation considering the demand from the industry. It would not be feasible to continue 
the relaxation indefinitely. It was also noted that the issue of o verlap was being worked upon. 
Delegations were reassured that at no point of time would industry be subjected to duplicate testing 
requirements under the CRO and under "The Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Rules 2017 ". The 
request for providing a grace period for implementation of the regulation had been noted and would 
be transmitted to Capital.  
United States  — TSA Certification on security screening equipment 
(IMS  ID 559145) 
The representative of China  reiterated concerns raised at previous TBT Committee 
meeting s.146 In addition China hoped that the US would, in line with transparency obligations under 
the TBT Agreement, notify the TSA certification in advance , allowing Members to provide comments.  
The representative of the United Sta tes said that while the US appreciate d China's concerns, 
the TSA Certification was a government procurement  requirement. As th e only evidence China had 
provided had been  federal procurement documents , the US did not see this as a TBT issue.  
                                                
143 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 558 (under dates raised and references).  
144 G/TBT/M/77 , para 3.259.  
145 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 559 (under dates raised and references).  
146 G/TBT/M/77 , para. 3.261;  G/TBT/M/76 , para. 3.258 a nd G/TBT/W/581 . 
 G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 50 - 
 
  
Russian Federat ion — Federal law No 487 -FZ, providing a framework for 
comprehensive use of special labelling and traceability of goods and Decision No. 792 -r 
specifying the goods to which labelling will apply and the dates of introduction of the 
mandatory labelling (IMS ID 567147) 
The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns with this measure. 
The full statement is contained in G/TBT/ W/660. 
The representative of the Republic of Korea  support ed the  conce rns raised by the EU.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  provided responses to the concerns raised. The 
full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/667 . 
Brazil — Technical Regulation 14, 8 February 2018, to set the additional official 
identity, quality standards for wine and derivatives of grape and wine products as well as 
the requirements to be acquainted and Technical Regulation No. 48, 31 August 2018 
published in the Official Gazette on 10 September 2018 (IMS ID  568148) 
The representative of the European Union  thank ed Brazil for the fruitful bilateral meeting. 
She said that the EU wine industry was experiencing disruptions to trade due to the implementation 
of the Technical Regulation No. 14 of 8 February 2018 setting the official identity, quality standards 
for wine a nd derivatives of grape and wine products. It contained a long list of analytical parameters 
and for test methods differing from those used in the EU and not aligned with the OIV 
recommendations.  
Delays in custom clearance appear ed to be cause d by the leng thy checking of compliance to 
the Technical Regulation No. 14. The EU asked  Brazil whether the network of laboratories accredited 
by the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture to perform the tests foreseen in Technical Regulation No. 14 
had sufficient capacity to guarantee efficient custom clearances of imported wines. Likewise, the 
requirement to test at origin for parameters that were not used  or even banned (such as colourings 
and sweeteners) in the EU wine industry was challenging to EU-based laboratories gi ven the lack of 
a methodology to comply with those tests. This led to  high costs for the tests of those specific 
parameters.  At the previous  TBT Committee meeting , Brazil had said that  Technical Regulation 
No. 14 would soon be revised. The EU asked  about t he timeframe for public consultation and the 
TBT notification of the revised draft regulation. She reiterate d the invitation to the Brazilian 
authorities to make use , to the maximum extent possible , of the recommendations of the OIV when 
revising Technical  Regulation  No. 14 and to consider accepting imported wines made according to 
oenological practices authori zed by the OIV. The EU was prepared to work bilaterally with Brazil in 
this respect . 
The representative of New Zealand  said that t he requirements for the certificate of analysis 
for wine exported to Brazil set out in Normative Instruction 14 (IN14) 2018, pose d a significant 
barrier to trade for New Zealand wine exporters.  Recogni zed wine testing laboratories in New 
Zealand d id not provi de testing for parameters such as total sulphates expressed as potassium 
sulphate, total chlorides expressed as sodium chloride, ash and methyl alcohol. Testing for these 
parameters w ould have to be out -sourced to overseas laboratories, at significant cost  to exporters . 
This could result in trade no longer being viable.  
Considering Brazil 's obligations under the TBT Agreement, New Zealand request ed that  Brazil 
advise Members how it ha d ensured that the certificate of analysis requirements implemented 
throug h Normative Instruction 14 2018 were not more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve 
Brazil 's objectives.  He invite d Brazil to share  the rationale for its departure from conformity with 
OIV-adopted standards. It was New Zealand's understanding that  IN14 was currently subject to an 
internal review by the Brazilian authorities and note d that this review provide d a timely opportunity 
to bring IN14 into alignment with OIV recommendations.  
The representative of Brazil  referred the Committee to responses provided  at previous TBT 
Committee meetings, and in particular the statement  circulated in G/TBT/W/561  where the t echnical 
                                                
147 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  567 (under dates raised and re ferences) . 
148 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  568 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 51 - 
 
  questions raised had been addressed . The EU delegation had stressed that containers of EU wine 
had been blocked in Brazilian ports due to delays in customs clearance. At the bilateral meeting held 
earlier in the week , Brazil had requested further information regarding these containers . Brazilian 
competent authorities had not yet received enough details about these shipments. Brazil reaffirm ed 
that neither this regulation nor any other Brazilian legi slation concerning the wine sector represent ed 
an obstacle to exports of wine from the EU to Brazil. EU wine was the largest in the Brazilian market , 
corresponding to around 40% of Brazil imports, ahead of Chile and Mercosur partners.  
Egypt — Halal require ments for Poultry Parts and Offal (IMS ID  571149) 
The representative of the United States  thanked Egypt for their bilateral engagement 
regarding compliance with halal standards and for the responses to the concerns raised at previous 
TBT Committee meetings o n the issue of halal requirements for poultry. However, Egypt continue d 
to deny market access to US poultry producers for exports of poultry parts, citing halal concerns, 
despite demonstrated assurance of compliance by US exporters.  She noted that this was an issue 
for exports from other countries as well  and looked forward t o this issue being resolved in the near 
future.  
She said that at past TBT Committee meetings, Egypt ha d cited the challenges in verifying 
the source of all imported parts, the compliance of slaughtering houses, and difficulty in 
differentiating between pou ltry parts and raptors.  However, in the case of the United States, in 
September 2013, Egypt 's General Organization for Veterinary Services (GOVS) inspected and 
confirmed that 22 US producers had met  Egyptian halal and food safety standards.  Thus, the US 
saw no reason for Egypt to continue to restrict trade.  In light of the agency's  existing verification, 
Egypt was requested to remove its unjustified barriers to trade.  Poultry parts and offal should be 
granted the same full market access as whole frozen bird s, given that they were produced under the 
same regulatory regime and halal requirements.  She invited Egypt to provide an update with respect 
to GOVS and halal certification . 
The representative of Egypt  reiterate d the importance o f halal requirements  to the Egyptian 
population , stemming from religious beliefs.  The difficulties faced by Egyptian authorities in verifying 
the source of imports in case of poultry parts had been explained. This had  led to adopting this 
decision ai med at safeguarding consumers ' health as well as the values and beliefs of Egyptian 
society. Egypt also reiterate d that only whole poultry was considered to be in compliance with halal 
requirements, upon the verification of the concerned authorities in Egypt.  
3.2.3   STC procedures adopted on a trial basis  
The Chairman  recalled that the Committee had agreed,  in the Eighth Triennial Review , to 
adopt new procedures for the discussion of STCs, on a trial basis at the March and June 2019 
meetings. These procedures  include  earlier deadlines for submission of STCs – twenty calendar days 
prior to the convening of the TBT Committee meeting; and for circulation of the Annotated draft 
Agenda – fifteen calendar days prior to the Committee. In addition, it was noted, the new proce dures 
called on Members to indicate whether STCs they wish to raise were in respect of "proposed" or 
"final" measures . This information had been  included in the Annotated draft Agenda of March 
meeting, and th e June (current)  meeting.  As was stated in the f ootnote to the Eighth Triennial 
Review recommendation – document G/TBT/41 , footnote 305 on page 26 – the Committee  needed 
to decide whether to continue with these new procedures. The Chairman said that the new 
procedures appeared to be working well. He had also consulted with the previous Chairman who 
also had a positive view on th e way they had worked out during the March  (2019)  meeting.   
The Chairman therefore proposed that the Committee adopt the  new procedures on a 
permanent basis, as set out in the Eighth Triennial Review report, G/TBT/41 , para. 8.2 (b.i). This 
would mean , he emphasized,  that the Committee would continue with the new deadlines for 
submission of STCs and circulation of the Annotated draft Agenda, as well as information on 
"proposed" and "final" measures.  
It was so agreed . 
                                                
149 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  571 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 52 - 
 
  3.3  Exchange of Experiences  
3.3.1   Guidelines on Conformity Assessment Procedures  
The Chairman  recalled that  an informal meeting had been held on Tuesday 18 June  2019 on 
the draft guidelines for conformity assessment, in follow -up to the Eighth Triennial Review mandate. 
The EU had presented a paper, setting out its ideas and proposals on guidance principles and best 
practices, as well as an overview of the EU system  on conformity assessment . Other Members shared 
comments and flagged their intention to submit papers after this meeting. He said that this was a 
useful first discussion  and noted that the Committee wo uld revert to the matter at its next meeting . 
The Aide -Memoire document on the follow -up to the Eighth Triennial Review has been updated to 
reflect this discussion (Section 2 of JOB/TBT/273/Rev.4) . 
3.3.2   Transparency  
The Chairman recalled that at the conclusion of the Eighth Triennial Review, Members  had 
agreed to hold a thematic session on transparency , including the Ninth Special Meeting on 
Procedures for Information Exchange , over one and a half days, starting in the afternoon of Tuesday 
18 June 2019.  A background note  had been provided by the Secretariat to assist delegations in 
deliberations on the topic ( JOB/TBT/320  and JOB/TBT/320/Cor r.1) and a comprehensive summary 
report had been provided by the moderator of the Thematic Session on Transparency 
(G/TBT/GEN/265) . The webcast of the session is available here. 
3.4  Follow -up on Committee Decisions and Recommendations  
The Chairman  recalled that for the November 2019 meeting there would be two thematic 
session s, one on  conformity assessment procedures, focusing on National Quality Infrastructure; 
and the other on standards, focusing on incorporating standards by referenc e in regulations. There 
were already a few proposals on the table for these two sessions, as indicated in the latest revision 
of the Secretariat's  Aide-Memoire document ( JOB/TBT/273/Rev.3) . The Chairman said that to 
prepare for these sessions, he intended to hold an informal meeting in September . This meeting was 
subseque ntly scheduled for Thursday, 26 September p.m. (see RD/TBT/281) .  
On the t opic of the thematic sessions to be held in November, the Chairman  asked the 
Committee if these could be webcast as had been done for earlier thematic sessions held by the TBT 
Committee.  
It was so agreed . 
3.5  Other recommendations from the 8th Triennial Review  
 The Chairman  said, in respect of other recommendations emanating from the Eighth  
Triennial Review, that it would be helpful to hear more about Members ' interests and priorities. He 
suggested  – considering where the last Chairman left  off – that it might be useful for the Committee 
to continue its emphasis on developing the guidelines on conformity assessment . It remained 
important , however,  to move forward in other areas. For example, it could  also be useful for the 
Committee to continue discussing the revised format for addenda in the area of transparency . 
Moreover, he dr ew Member s' attention to the recommendation on improving the "efficiency and 
effectiveness of the Committee 's consideration of specific trade concerns " (G/TBT/41 , p.26). Given 
the time the Committee sp ent on this agenda item, any ideas Members had on how to approach the 
mandate , in other words how to save time , were welcome.  He remained open to any Member that 
wished to consult with him on these matters, directly or via the Secretariat . 
4  TECHNICAL COOPER ATION ACTIVITIES  
The representative of the European Union  reported that Sweden, in cooperation with the EU, 
had held a successful Side Event on technical assistance coordination in the margins of the TBT 
Committee . Several countries had shared examples on when technical assistance coordination ha d 
prove n useful and on challenges faced. There seemed to be a consensus that there was a need for 
a certain structure at the domestic level to ensure an effective cooperati on. It was noted that the 
WTO Secretariat had highlighted the importance of discussion on technical assistance coordination ; G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 53 - 
 
  this was demonstrated by the fact that the issue ha d been discussed in the Committee for several 
years. At the end of the event, Sw eden offered the option to host a first informal meeting in 2020  
in the margins of the TBT Committee to continue the important discussion on technical assistance 
coordination for TBT . 
The Secretariat  informed the Committee that a TBT Transparency Workshop had taken place 
in parallel to the TBT Committee meetings. The participants had attended parts of the Committee, 
including the transparency thematic session. They had also participated in other training sessions, 
including on the use of online tools and on  experience -sharing among themselves. Six of the 
participants also presented during the thematic session on transparency. She noted that the 
Secretariat usually receive d many more applications for its courses than could be  support ed for such 
workshops ; this time nine additional participants could be included thanks to financial support from 
ANSI, the Swedish Board of Trade and ISO . The Secretariat thanked these organizations for the 
support.  
The representative of St Kitts and Nevis  said that the Transparen cy Workshop had been a very 
useful opportunity to share ideas, difficulties and challenges. For example, experiences showed that 
it paid off to submit notifications using the NSS , and that ePing  was a useful tool for enquiry points 
as well as industry. At the national level, working on guidelines helped enquiry point teams stay  up 
to date , respond to notifications , and focus on quality rather than quantity of notifications . 
5  UPDATING BY OBSERVER S 
5.1  Updates from Observers  
The representative of Mexico  drew the Committee's attention to the C odex Alimentarius 
Commission meeting which had been held on 13-17 May 2019 in Ottawa , Canada. During that 
meeting, discussion had taken place on a first draft of a revision for standards : "Follow up formula". 
Paragraph 9.6.4 of that draft stated that products needed to be  labelled in such a way as to avoid 
any risk of confusion between infant formula, follow -up formula for older infants, for young children, 
and formula for special medical p urposes  – and also to enable consumers to make a clear distinction 
between them, in particular as to the text, images and colours used. There  was also  a prohibition 
between cross promotion between categories of products on the labelling of the product.   
Mexico noted that this prohibition of cross promotion could prohibit the trademark holders who 
were involved in this, including on the obligation of Members under the framework of the TBT 
Agreement. Considering this , Mexico said that  the concept "cross promo tion" needed to  be analysed 
and discussed in greater detail to determine whether this was compatible with rules of international 
trade established by WTO and WIPO. Mexico urged M embers to participate in any future discussions 
and keep themselves informed a s to new developments on this topic in Codex.  
The representative of the  United States  share d Mexico's concerns and believe d the  work 
undertaken by WTO Members pursuant to Codex needed to  be consistent with WTO TBT obligations.  
The representative s of BIPM, UNECE , OIML, ISO and IEC 150 provided updates on their activities 
related to the TBT Committee.  
5.2  Pending requests  
The Chair man turned to the issue of pending requests for observer status. He recalled that the 
list of observers, including pending requests, was contained in document G/TBT/GEN/2/Rev.14 . In 
addition, document RD/TBT/1/Rev.6  provide d a compilation of the various bodies that ha d sought 
observer status in the TBT Committee and whose requests were still pending. Both these documents 
were up to date (no further re quests ha d been received to date). He noted that he had no new 
information regarding Members' positions with respect to the pending requests. He therefore 
suggested, unless any Members ha d any other view (or different information) , that the Committee  
rever t to this matter when Members had had the time to further consult among themselves.  
                                                
150 G/TBT/GEN/266 , G/TBT/GEN/267 , G/TBT/GEN/268  G/TBT/GEN/269  and 
https://www.iec.ch/about/globalreach/partners/wt o/wto_report.htm  G/TBT/M/78  
 
- 54 - 
 
  
The representative of Turkey  reiterate d his delegation's support for granting observer status 
to the Standards and Metrology Institute for Islamic Countries  (SMIIC) at the TBT Committee ; he 
invited other Members to echo their support. SMIIC had conveyed its request in 2017  and Turkey 
had openly  been supporting th at request  since then . He recalled that SMICC had been established 
in 2010  and was an affiliate organization institute of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) 
which ha d the membership of 57 countries. As the intergovernmental standardization institution of 
the OIC , SMIIC aim ed to develop the infrastructure, economies and trade  capacities of each member 
country  – thereby enhancing international trade. SMIIC acceptance and compliance with the Code 
of Good Practice was a clear indication of SMIIC's stand in this regard. Since its establishment in 
2010, the number of SMIIC members had increas ed and ha d recently reached 37 member states. 
Turkey expected this trend to continue until SMIIC cover ed all members of the OIC in the near 
future. It was stressed that the 27 members of SMIIC were already Members of the WTO, while 10 
members were observers. Therefore , being an observer to the WTO TBT Committee would be an 
expected route for the SMIIC to follow. Turkey was of the view that the participation of SMIIC in the 
TBT Committee with observer status would  contribute to the ultimate object ive of reducing 
unnecessary barriers to trade and enhancing cooperation in the areas of standardization, conformity 
assessment, metrology and accreditation. It would mean that  SMIIC members  would be notified in 
a timely manner of the latest developments in  international trade, and, in turn, SMIIC would be able 
to take essential steps to ask its members to fulfil the necessary requirements of the TBT Agreement 
and stay aware of potential technical barriers to trade. SMIIC would  contribute to the Committee's 
work by providing its point of view on each area of activity. Turkey was of the firm view that this 
would promote international trade.  
The representative of Jordan  supported Turkey's statement.  
The representative of the United States  said that her delegation did not have approval for 
granting observer status to the SMIIC at the current time.  
6  OTHER BUSINESS  
The Secretariat  reported on a number of Secretariat activities related to TBT.  At the upcoming 
Aid for Trade Review, the WTO would launch  a publication with the OECD Secretariat  on "Facilitating 
Trade Through Regulatory Cooperation  – the case of the WTO's TBT SPS Agreements and 
Committees. " This publication is available here.151 The Secretariat was also hold ing a session in 
cooperation with the World Bank on Quality Infrastructure  for Trade – Better Quality, Better Trade. 
The session would discuss constraints faced by developing country Members, provide some 
perspectives on what different organizations were doing to address capacity related challenges of QI 
and TBT , and also reflect on opportunities there might be for more collaboration and support. Further 
information , including audio and webcasting, is available here.152 Finally, it was reported that in the 
margins of the November Committee meeting t here would be a celebration of the 40th anniversary  
of the adoption of the 1979 Tokyo Round TBT Agreement Standards Code . This event , organized by 
the Secretariat,  on 15 November 2019 would bring together experts, former negotiators , some 
current delegates  and scholars to commemorate the past and reflect on the future of the WTO TBT 
Agreement.  
7  DATE OF NEXT MEETING  
The next regular meeting of the Committee is scheduled for 13-14 November  2019. It will be 
preceded  by thematic sessions on  conformity assessmen t procedures, focusing on the National 
Quality Infrastructure; and  on standards, focusing on incorporating standards by reference in 
regulations .  
__________  
                                                
151 https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/tbtsps19_e.pdf . 
152 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/a4t_e/gr19_e/gr19programme_e.htm .