RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/RO/W/66
22 June 2001
(01-3110)
Committee on Rules of Origin Original:  English
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE HARMONIZED RULES OF ORIGIN
AND THE LABELLING REQUIREMENTS ON FOODS
Submission by Japan
The following communication, dated 18 June 2001, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Japan.
_______________
Issue under question
It is reasonable to understand that the results of the ongoing harmonization work on rules of
origin shall not hinder the labelling requirements, especially those applied to foods for the purpose ofproviding information to consumers, as introduced in some Members.
It is also appropriate to make clear the above understanding when establishing the results of
the harmonization work as an annex to the Agreement.
Background
In Article 1 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, it is stipulated that "origin marking
requirements" are within the scope of that Agr eement. However, as already pointed out in the
previous session of the Committee on Rules of Origin, the said Article has no mention as to whether
the Agreement should also apply to "origin labelling requirements".
We therefore think it necessary to develop a common understanding as to whether the results
of the harmonization work should apply to origin labelling requirements enforced domestically in
Members, after their establishment as an annex to the Agreement, in order to avoid any possible
disputes on the interpretation of the texts1.
As for the origin labelling standards on foods, the relevant provisions, including those
regarding "origin labelling requirements", are already included in the Codex General Standard for the
Labelling of Prepackaged Foods (see Annex I). Since the general principle of the Codex Standard is to
prevent consumers from being misled or deceived, the rationale on which they are based is quite
different from that used in the ongoing harmoniza tion work of rules of origin, which is primarily
designed for the purpose of customs procedures.
Furthermore, it should be noted that a discussion paper to revise the existing arrangements for
origin labelling under the Codex Standard has been submitted (see Annex II), and that discussions
                                                     
1 At the same time, we should also avoid confusion when properly enforcing "origin marking
requirements" at border points at the level of customs clearance.G/RO/W/66
Page 2
should continue in this direction at the next session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. In the
above discussion paper, for instance, it has been proposed that the origin of meat shall be that of the
sole place where birth, rearing and slaughter actually took place. Should such place differs, each
additional one should be declared accordingly.
The thread of this proposal indeed reflects the reality of matters, i.e. that the requirements
necessary for achieving consumer policy objectives when carrying out "origin labelling" (by
providing accurate information, including the history of a product to consumers) are quite different
from those required for customs administrative purpos es (which need only one single origin country
for each product).
In other words, for the "origin labelling" of foods, it is quite reasonable to list the origins of
the ingredients, in addition to the single origin of the final product as required for the customs
procedures.  Furthermore, it may also be said that to list the origins of ingredients in food labelling
will not only be beneficial to consumers in importing countries, but will also be advantageous for
producing and exporting countries.
In light of the above, it is legitimate, as well as appropriate, to argue that a reasonable
distinction can be made between the rulings under the ongoing harmonization work in the Committee
on Rules of Origin and the labelling standards established in the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
In this context, however, it goes without saying that the harmonization work ongoing in the
WTO, as well as the standards established in the Codex Alimentarius Commission, should not
negatively influence each other, in order to not upset the legal stability of domestic food labelling
systems applied in Members when introducing the harmonized rules of origin. In all events, Members
should make further efforts towards fruitfully discussing the relationship between the work carried out
in WTO with that on the Codex in order to make them fully coordinated.G/RO/W/66
Page 3
Annex I
Existing provision of the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods
4.5   COUNTRY OF ORIGIN4.5.1   The country of origin of the food shall be declared if its omission would mislead or deceive the
consumer.
4.5.2   When a food undergoes processing in a second country which changes its nature, the country in
which the processing is performed shall be considered to be the country of origin for the purposes of
labelling.G/RO/W/66
Page 4
Annex II
Proposal to Revise the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods
4.5 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
PRODUCTS
4.5.1  The country of origin of the food shall be declared.
4.5.1.1.   The term “produce of” (or equivalent, such as ”product of”, “produced in”, “origin”, Swiss
etc)shall only be used where all the significant ingredients or components come from the identifiedcountry and virtually all of the production / manufacturing processes associated with the food occur
within that place or country. An exception is allowed where significant ingredients cannot come from
the country in question.
4.5.1.2.   For meat, the country of origin is the place of birth, rearing and slaughter. If these places
differ, then each shall be declared.
4.5.1.3    Where the term “produce of” or equivalent is not used the origin declaration should identify
the country in which the food last underwent a substantial change in its nature and use appropriate
terminology, such as “cured in”, “made in”, “pre pared in”, “manufactured in”.  Packing, cutting,
slicing, mincing, shredding, grating and other similar processes are not, for these purposes, processes
that substantially change the nature of the food.
4.5.2  Where the label carries other material that may imply origin, the declaration should be
sufficiently prominent to avoid misleading consumers.
INGREDIENTS
4.5.3  The origin of any ingredient must be give n if its omission would mislead or deceive the
consumer.  This is particularly important where the labelling implies that the country of origin of the
ingredients is the same as the country of processing.
4.5.4  Except where the country of origin of the ingredient in question is the same as the country of
origin of the product, the origin shall always be declared for:
[the main ingredients (threshold to be determined)], or
[specific identified ingredients, (e.g. meat and dairy products, threshold to be determined) ], or
[ingredients that are mentioned in the name of the food , or which are usually associated with thatname by the consumer, unless they have been used in small quantities (threshold to be determined )]
4.5.5   Declarations of ingredient origin should, whenever possible, relate to a single country. In other
cases the declaration may refer to groups of countries or use phrases like “origin may vary” of
“produce of more than one country”.
__________