WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/TBT/W/184
4 October 2002
(02-5345)
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS RELATED TO LABELLING
BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE
SINCE 1995
Note by the Secretariat
This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own
responsibility and without prejudice to the positions of Members
and to their rights and obligations under the WTO
At the 20-21 June 2002 meeting of the Committee, the Secretariat was requested to prepare a
factual paper containing two lists.  The first one compiles notifications (made since 1995) related to
labelling by date, indicating the Members concerned, the products covered, the stated legitimate
objectives and the periods provided for comments.  A second list contains a factual reference to the
specific trade concerns related to labelling brought to the attention of the Committee under theAgenda item "Statements on Implementation and Administration of the TBT Agreement" since 1995.
This list would describe the Members involved, the issues, the concerns raised and references to the
relevant notifications.  This paper would be taken up at the next informal meeting in October 2002.
This document contains the second list.  It was prepared based on the minutes of the first to
twenty-eighth Committee meetings (G/TBT/M/1-27), identifying the measures related to labelling
brought to the attention of the Committee by Members who raised concerns about the potentialadverse trade effects or inconsistencies with the Agreement of those measures. This document
summarizes all the concerns raised but does not reflect individual Member's concerns, nor the
responses provided; nor does it reflect the further development of the measures.G/TBT/W/184
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. 1995 ......................................................................................................................... ...................5
1. KOREA:  Marks of Origin System .........................................................................................5
2. MEXICO: Characteristics, Requirements and Conditions for Use of the Official
Seal ........................................................................................................................... ..................5
3. MEXICO:  New Meat Regulations..........................................................................................5
4. UNITED STATES: Motor Vehicle Content Labelling..........................................................6
II. 1996 ........................................................................................................................ ....................6
5. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Registration  of Geographical Indications and
Designations of Or igin......................................................................................................... .....6
6. UNITED STATES: Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labelling of Textile
Wearing Apparel and C ertain Piece Goods.............................................................................7
7. UNITED STATES: Tea Importation Act;  Tea Standards...................................................7
III. 1997 ....................................................................................................................... .....................7
8. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Technical Regulations relating to Genetically
Modified Organisms (GMOs): Commission Regulation Concerning theCompulsory Indication on the Labellin g of Certain Foodstuffs Produced from
Genetically Modified Organisms of Partic ulars other than those Provided for in
Directive 79/112/EEC; and Commission Directive 97/35/EC of 18 June 1997
Adapting to Technical Progress for the Second Time Council Directive
90/220/EEC on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of GeneticallyModified Organisms ............................................................................................................. ....7
9. MEXICO: Labelling on Industrial Products, including Food Products; and
Non-alcoholic Beverages........................................................................................................ ...8
10. MEXICO:  Textiles........................................................................................................... ........8
11. THAILAND: Labellin g of Cigarettes......................................................................................9
IV. 1998 ........................................................................................................................ ....................9
12. BRAZIL:  Proposed Technical Regulation for Labelling of Textile Products ....................9
13. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Regulation Concerning the Compulsory
Indication on the Labelling of Certain Foodstuffs Produced from Genetically
Modified Organisms of Particulars other than those Provided for in Directive
79/112/EEC..................................................................................................................... ...........9
14. EGYPT:  Labelling of Meat................................................................................................... 12
15. EGYPT:  Labelling of Textile Products................................................................................12
16. JAPAN:  Agricultural Standards fo r Organic Agricultural Products...............................13
17. MEXICO:  Labelling of Natural Hides and Tanned Skins, and Artificial Leather
having the Appearance of Natural Leather,  of Footwear and Leather Goods, and
of other Articles Made from these Materials .........................................................................13
18. THE NETHERLANDS: Bill of Parliament Amending the Act on Environmental
Protection (Sustainability Produced Timber) ......................................................................13
V. 1999 ......................................................................................................................... .................14G/TBT/W/184
Page 3
19. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES:  EC Regulation 881/98 "Traditional Terms"
adopted in April 1998, effe ctive 1 October 1999 ..................................................................14
20. NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIA: Labelling Food Produced Using Gene
Technology (Foods Commonly Referred to as Genetically Modified Foods)....................15
VI. 2000 ........................................................................................................................ ..................16
21. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Proposal for a European Parliament and
Council Regulation Establishing a System for the Identification and Registration
of Bovine Animals and Regarding the Labelling of Beef and Beef Products. ...................16
22. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Proposal for a Council Regulation Amending
Regulation (EEC) N° 1907/90 on Certain Marketing Standards for Eggs ........................16
23. INDONESIA: Regulation of Government  No. 69/1999 on Food Labelling and
Advertisement  and Draft Decree of the Ministry of Health on ImplementationGuide of the Regulation of Governme nt No. 69/1999 on Food Labelling and
Advertising .................................................................................................................... ..........17
24. JAPAN:  Standards for Labelling on Quality of Processed Foods, Fresh Foods;
Husked (Brown) Rice and Milled Rice and Marine Products ............................................17
25. UNITED STATES:  Country of  Origin Mark on Imitation Jewellery .............................1826. UNITED STATES:  Dolphi n-Safe Tuna Labelling;  Official Mark...................................18
VII. 2001 ....................................................................................................................... ...................19
27. BRAZIL:  Labelling Registration Requirements for Packed Food Products
Containing or Produced by Genetically Modified Organisms............................................19
28. CHILE: Amendment to the Decree of Ministry of Health N° 977 of 1996 on
Transgenic Foods (Labelling System for Transgenic Foodstuffs) ......................................19
29. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES/BELGIUM: Draft Law Aiming to Promote
Socially Responsible Production............................................................................................19
30. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES : EC Regulation N° 1493 on the Common
Organisation of the Market in Wine .....................................................................................20
31. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Proposal fo r a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council on Genetically Modified Food and Feed and
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
concerning Traceability and Labelling of Genetically Modified Organisms and
Traceability of Food and Feed Products Produced from Genetically Modified
Organisms and Amending Directive 2001/18/EC ................................................................21
32. INDIA:  Mandatory Label Requirements for Pre-packaged Imports for Retail
Sale and Revision of the Indian 1955 Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules .................22
VIII. 2002 ...................................................................................................................... ....................23
33. BRAZIL: Ruling on Criteria and Procedures for the Import of Wines and
Beverages Derived from Grapes and Wines.........................................................................23
34. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Commission Re gulation (EC) N° 753/2002 of 29
April 2002 Laying Down Certain Rules for Applying Council Regulation (EC)
N°1493/1999 as Regards the Description, Designation, Presentation and
Protection of Certain Wine Sector Products ........................................................................24
35. KOREA: Notification of the Delegated Order Pertaining to the Use of Liquor
Labels ......................................................................................................................... ..............25G/TBT/W/184
Page 4
36. PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Public Notice of General Administration
for Quality Supervision and Inspection and Quarantine....................................................26
37. UNITED STATES: Country of Origin Labelling Provisions .............................................26
38. WORKS OF THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMITTEE ON FOOD
LABELLING  (CCFL) ...........................................................................................................26G/TBT/W/184
Page 5
I. 1995
1. KOREA:  Marks of Origin System
Products
Raised by Japan and Switzerland
Meeting/Dates raised 21 April 1995 (G/TBT/M/1)
Notification
Other relevant documents
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. No satisfactory solution had been offered to any of the problems raised.
2. It was not clear if the information had any bearing on the practical implementation of the
measure.
3. Its labelling requirements were inconsistent with Article XI of the GATT 1994 and the
Agreement.
4. The burdensome application of the origin regulations for various goods and the mandatory
marking in Korean language created problems.
2. MEXICO: Characteristics, Requirements and Conditions for Use of the Official Seal
Products Official countermark
Raised by New Zealand
Meeting/Dates raised 21 April 1995 (G/TBT/M/1)
Notification G/TBT/Notif.95.37
Other relevant documents Mexican Official Standard NOM-106-SCFI-1994
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. The rationale, necessity and coverage of the regulation required an explanation.
2. An explanation was required on whether the Regulation met the obligations for conformity
assessment under Article 5.1 of the Agreement with respect to issues such as import suppliers'access to the mark and the possibility for conformity  assessment to be undertaken at the site of the
exporter's facilities.
3. Clarification was needed of the necessity of the procedures in order to give Mexico confidence
that imported products conformed with regulations.
3. MEXICO:  New Meat Regulations
Products Meat and carcasses
Raised by New Zealand
Meeting/Dates raised 21 April 1995 (G/TBT/M/1)
Notification
Other relevant documents Mexican Official Standard NOM-030-ZOO-1994
Mandatory/voluntary MandatoryG/TBT/W/184
Page 6
Concerns raised
1. To clarify whether adhesive labels were acceptable.
2. To clarify whether the Spanish language label could be affixed in Mexico.
3. To clarify whether a provision stating that carcasses would only be accepted if properly identified
with the seal of the approved establishment meant that a carton seal had to be applied to each
carcass or whether the brands printed on the carcass itself met the requirement.
4. UNITED STATES: Motor Vehicle Content Labelling
Products New motor vehicles
Raised by European Communities and Japan
Meeting/Dates raised 21 April 1995 (G/TBT/M/1)
Notification TBT/Notif/93.458
Other relevant documents
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. The final text was published, but concerns remained as to whether comments made had been
taken into consideration.
2. No information had been received despite the fact that a reminder had been sent.
3. Further information was sought.
II. 1996
5. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Registration of Geographical Indications and
Designations of Origin
Products 133 products, amongst others, wines
Raised by Australia; Canada and New Zealand
Meeting/Dates raised 28 June 1996 (G/TBT/M/5); 16 and 22 October 1996 (G/TBT/M/6)
Notification
Other relevant documents EC Regulation (EC)  No. 1107/96; Council Regulation (EEC) No.
2081/92
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. Written comments had been sent.  However, no response had been received;  further information
was requested.
2. The Regulation had not been notified;  confirmation about the intention to notify was sought.
3. No opportunity had been provided for advance knowledge of it "at an early appropriate stage
when amendments can still be introduced and comments taken into account".
4. Its status and the process by which concerns could be registered required clarification.
5. The scope of the impact was difficult to determine in the absence of a complete list of products
that it would cover.  This could prevent the export of products from other Members.
6. It was an immediate concern for some cheese exporters.  Given its development, it would have
more widespread implications.
7. The EC geographical indications went beyond those adopted in any other countries and those
provided under the TRIPs Agreement.G/TBT/W/184
Page 7
6. UNITED STATES: Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labelling of Textile Wearing
Apparel and Certain Piece Goods
Products Textile wearing apparel and piece g oods (HS Chapters 62, 63)
Raised by European Communities
Meeting/Dates raised 28 June 1996 (G/TBT/M/5); 16 and 22 October 1996 (G/TBT/M/6)
Notification G/TBT/Notif. 96.20
Other relevant documents
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. Why relevant ISO Standard 37.58 was not used in the draft regulation.
7. UNITED STATES: Tea Importation Act;  Tea Standards
Products Tea (HS Chapter 0902)
Raised by European Communities
Meeting/Dates raised 28 June 1996 (G/TBT/M/5); 16 and 22 October 1996 (G/TBT/M/6)
Notification G/TBT/Notif.96.46
Other relevant documents Federal Register 61 FR 4597, 7 February 1996; Fe deral Register 21 CFR
Part 1220
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. To clarify why the existing ISO standard 37.20 was not used in the Regulation.
III. 1997
8. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Technical Regulations relating to Genetically Modified
Organisms (GMOs): Commission Regulation Concerning the Compulsory Indication on
the Labelling of Certain Foodstuffs Produced from Genetically Modified Organisms of
Particulars other than those Provided fo r in Directive 79/112/EEC; and Commission
Directive 97/35/EC of 18 June 1997 Adapting  to Technical Progress for the Second Time
Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the Deliberate Release into the Environment ofGenetically Modified Organisms
Products F oods and food ingredients produced from genetically modified soya and
genetically modified maize (various tariff headings) and products
containing or consisting of gene tically modified organisms (GMOs)
Raised by Canada and United States
Meeting/Dates raised 20 June 1997 (G/TBT/M/8); 3 October 1997 (G/TBT/M/10)
Notification G/TBT/Notif.92.355; G/TBT/Notif.97.151; G/TBT/Notif. 97.382
Other relevant documents Regulation (E C) 258/97 O.J. No. L 43, 14 February 1997
Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the Deliberate Release into the
Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms
Mandatory/voluntary MandatoryG/TBT/W/184
Page 8
Concerns raised
1. The EC Regulations had been implemented without notification under Article 2.9.2
2. They were covered by the Agreement and subject to its disciplines.
9. MEXICO: Labelling on Industrial Products, including Food Products; and
Non-alcoholic Beverages
Products Industrial products; food products; textiles and non-alcoholic beverages
Raised by European Communities
Supported by
Meeting/Dates raised 13 and 18 November 1997 (G/TBT/M/9); 27 March 1998 (G/TBT/M/11)
Notification
Other relevant documents Mexican Offici al Standards NOM-050-SCFI-1994(Commercial
information – general provisions for products);  NOM-051-SCFI
(General specifications for the labelling of prepackaged foodstuffs and
non-alcoholic beverages)
Mandatory/voluntary Voluntary
Concerns raised
1. The justification of the Regulations required explanation.
2. To clarify whether the provisions of the Agreement had been respected.
3. Comments had been submitted but no response had been received.
4. Obligations under Article 2.9.4 to provide opportunities for discussion and under Article 2.9 to
notify were recalled.
5. Further information and progress would be needed to avoid any possible discriminatory treatment
and unnecessary obstacles to trade.
10. MEXICO:  Textiles
Products Textiles
Raised by European Communities
Supported by
Meeting/Dates raised 13 and 18 November 1997 (G/TBT/M/9); 27 March 1998 (G/TBT/M/11)
Notification
Other relevant documents Mexican Official Standard - NOM-004-SCFI-1994 (Commercial
Information – Labelling of Textiles, Articles of Clothing and
Accessories)
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. The justification of the Regulation required explanation.
2. To clarify whether the provisions of the Agreement had been respected.
3. Comments had been submitted but no response had been received.
4. Obligations under Article 2.9.4 to provide opportunities for discussion and obligations under
Article 2.9 to notify were recalled.
5. Further information and progress would be needed to avoid any possible discriminatory treatment
and unnecessary obstacles to trade.G/TBT/W/184
Page 9
11. THAILAND: Labelling of Cigarettes
Products Cigarettes
Raised by European Communities
Meeting/Dates raised 20 June 1997 (G/TBT/M/8); 3 October 1997 (G/TBT/M/10)
Notification G/TBT/Notif.97.768;  G/TBT/Notif.97.769
Other relevant documents Tobacco Products Control Act B.E. 2535 (1992), Notification of the
Public Health (No. 2) B.E. 2535 (1992) Criteria, Procedures and
Conditions for Labelling of Cigarettes and the Statement therein issuedunder Tobacco Product Control Act B.E. 2535 (1992).
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. To clarify whether the Regulation would be notified under the Agreement.
2. Since its content was not known, it was not possible to judge whether it was relevant to other
international agreements.
IV. 1998
12. BRAZIL:  Proposed Technical Regulation for Labelling of Textile Products
Products Textiles products
Raised by European Communities
Meeting/Dates raised 15 September 1998 (G/TBT/M/13)
Notification G/TBT/Notif. 98.276
Other relevant documents
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. Comments had been sent.  However, no response had been received.
2. The justification of the requirements which could create trade barriers required explanation.
13. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Regulation Concerning the Compulsory Indication on
the Labelling of Certain Foodstuffs Produced from Genetically Modified Organisms ofParticulars other than those Provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC
Products F oods and food ingredients produced from genetically modified soya and
genetically modified maize (various tariff headings)
Raised by Argentina; Brazil; Canada; New Zealand and United States
Meeting/Dates raised 1 July 1998 (G/TBT/M/12); 15 September 1998 (G/TBT/M/13);
20 November 1998 (G/TBT/M/14); 31 March 1999 (G/TBT/M/15);
11 June 1999 (G/TBT/M/16); 6 October 2000 (G/TBT/M/21);
10 November 2000 (G/TBT/M/22); 30 March 2001 (G/TBT/M/23);
29 June 2001 (G/TBT/M/24)
Notification G/TBT/Notif.97.766
Other relevant documents G/TBT/W/78; G/TBT/W/94; G/TBT/W/104
Mandatory/voluntary MandatoryG/TBT/W/184
Page 10
Concerns raised
1. The Regulation would create unnecessary obstacles to trade in corn and soybeans.
2. The steps that would be taken to comply w ith the TBT Agreement should be clarified.
3. The claimed legitimate objective to provide "pro per information to the final consumer" required
clarification.
4. It was necessary to explain how the objectives and practical aspects of its provisions were to be
addressed.
5. A clarification was needed of whether the regu lation was promulgated to address any particular
risk to human or animal health.
6. It would not provide consumers with meaningful information and would not achieve its objective.
It could confuse rather than inform consumers and could increase the cost of food for consumers.
7. It was unclear whether the approach was based on science.  Risk assessments based on scientific
data should form the basis of any distinction between genetically modified foods and
conventional varieties.
8. There was no empirical basis which demonstrated that the presence of protein or DNA resulting
from genetic modification would render the food different such as e.g., "composition, nutritionalvalue or nutritional effect from like products that were not genetically modified/conventional
counterparts.
9. It was unclear how the European authorities had arrived at the conclusion that genetically
modified soybeans or maize were not equivalent to conventional varieties, and how consumers
would be informed of the differences through the regulation.
10. It constituted a de facto requirement to se gregate GMO from non-GMO products (in storage,
transportation and processing systems).  It would be burdensome and costly for suppliers and
difficult to justify.
11. There was no indication of what procedures were established to ensure compliance on a
non-discriminatory basis.
12. The difficulties involved in securing compliance, and how the regulation would be enforced
required an explanation.
13. It discriminated against the use of certain technologies.  The "differential treatment" of GMOs
could cause unjustified concern among consumers, which could ultimately penalize trade in these
products without scientific justification.  If "genetically different" foods were not to be considered
equivalent, then there would be a need to label every variety of food or food ingredient, whether
produced through genetic modification or traditional breeding (e.g. radiation, genetic mutation,cell cultivation, etc.).
14. There was no indication of the kind of the tests to be used to determine if genetically modified
protein or DNA was present, nor was there indi cation of when and how often tests would be
required. These tests were primarily for research purposes, and were time-consuming and
expensive.
15. It proposed the development of a test to detect genetically modified DNA or protein.  Under
current trade rules, countries were encouraged to use internationally accepted testing methods.
16. It was unclear whether the EC would follow prac tices such as holding international meetings to
study the methods in question, since DNA and protein detection methods (as applied to
genetically modified foods) were still at an early stage of development.
17. It was not specified which protein or which specific part of the DNA had to be monitored (i.e. to
provide a guideline for conducting tests).
18. Six months had passed since the regulation came into effect.  Neither the announced "negative"
list nor the commercially practical test existed.  Without the list, exports to the EU had to be
segregated, tested, certified for whether or not they contained GMOs.
19. The criteria to be used to determine acceptable GMO thresholds and tolerances, as well as the
mechanisms used to develop them, were still unclear.
20. The lack of set detection limits could inevitably lead to a shifting and unpredictable standard for
testing, and to the potential need for re-testing.G/TBT/W/184
Page 11
21. The lack of guidance on the analytical methods made it impossible to implement the regulation,
and was causing confusion and unnecessarily disrupting trade.  Without the analytical methods
and a de minimus  threshold to test for the presence of DNA or protein resulting from genetic
modification, the certification of GMO-free products to the EU had been impossible.
22. It would require third country producers to establish a system similar to that used for tracing the
origins of products.  This would include a mechanism for the identification of the plots of land
used or farms, the storage and transportation systems employed, packaging, labelling, and sales
requirements, etc., and would inevitably increase the cost of the final product.
23. It would require a restructuring of the production and marketing processes, with a direct effect on
costs in exporting countries.  The increased cost s of production due to labelling would ultimately
be transferred to consumers (without providing information on greater food safety).
24. The number of genetically modified foods on the market would increase in the next few years.
The variety and number of "sequences" and the complexity and difficulty of tests to monitor DNA
would constitute a growing burden if the measures were to serve as a model for future food
labelling requirements.
25. The rapid increase in variety and traits introduced into crops through modern biotechnology
would increase the complexity and difficulty of testing and make it burdensome.
26. It created uncertainty for other genetically modified foods being assessed for approval in the EU;
it was unclear whether the newly approved genetically modified foods or food ingredients would
be subjected to more detailed criteria.
27. The rationale for identifying protein and DNA resulting from genetic modification through
mandatory labelling should be clarified.
28. The labelling statements "contains genetically modified soya" or "contains genetically modified
maize" did not inform consumers about specific characteristics with regard to composition,
nutritional value, nutritional effects or the intended use of a food, as the labels did not contain
such information.
29. There were other ways of providing valuable info rmation about genetically modified foods to the
public.
30. Treating genetically modified foods as a class of products would further encourage incorrect
consumer perceptions about biotechnology. Cons umers were already confused and misinformed.
31. There was no indication on when to use the label.
32. The proposed labelling provisions were vague; information was needed on whether labelling
requirements would apply to other genetically m odified foods and food ingredients, and if so,
when this would occur.
33. It was not clear what specific "documentary information" had to be provided which would be
sufficient to fulfil the regulation's objectives.
34. It was necessary to explain how the statement "produced from genetically modified soya" could
provide information about composition or characteristics of a food.
35. It was not clear how a complicated and technical production tool, such as biotechnology, could be
explained in a five-word label.  The text did not provide any criteria for determining why the
presence of protein or DNA resulting from genetic modification might alter the properties of a
given food.
36. The label wording did not indicate the qualitative and quantitative make up of foods which had
already gone through safety reviews.
37. Labelling was not the most practical way of attaining the objectives particularly in the case of
processed foods containing various ingredients from different sources.
38. Compulsory labelling schemes could disadvantage GMO exporting countries.  The requirements
could easily act as disguised barriers to trade in favour of non-GMO products.
39. Closer scrutiny was needed with regard to the scientific grounds for distinguishing GMOs, the
need to keep consumers informed, and possible discrimination against GMO products.
40. It was unclear whether comments had been taken into account in the adoption of the measure.G/TBT/W/184
Page 12
41. A biosafety protocol was being negotiated under the Convention on Biological Diversity, which
would address trade in foodstuffs produced from GMOs.  Any labelling requirement for GMOs
was premature; it would be wise to wait for outcome of ongoing negotiations.
42. It would create precedents for the future regulation of other food and agricultural products.
43. Updated information was required.
14. EGYPT:  Labelling of Meat
Products Meat, slaughtered poultry and chicken
Raised by European Communities and United States
Meeting/Dates raised 15 September 1998 (G/TBT/M/13); 20 November 1998 (G/TBT/M/14);
31 March 1999 (G/TBT/M/15)
Notification G/TBT/98.127
Other relevant documents Minister of Trade and Supply Decree No. 465/1997
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. The Regulation was a technical barrier to trade; it was costly, technically difficult to comply with,
and was not in conformity with international practice.
2. Clarification was required on whether labels had to be placed both on the inside and outside of
packaging containers.
3. Comments had been sent but no reply had been received.
4. The relevant provisions should be amended and brought into conformity with the Agreement.
5. The labelling requirements decreased the opportunities for trade in beef livers, meat and poultry,
in particular for small producers.
15. EGYPT:  Labelling of Textile Products
Products Textiles
Raised by European Communities and United States
Meeting/Dates raised 15 September 1998 (G/TBT/M/13); 20 November 1998 (G/TBT/M/14);
31 March 1999 (G/TBT/M/15)
Notification G/TBT/Notif. 98.206
Other relevant documents Egyptian Decree 1/1998
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. Unnecessarily disproportionate labelling and marking requirements which could create trade
barriers.
2. The nature of the information required was excessively detailed.
3. The way in which the labels were to be app lied to products was exaggerated and costly for
producers.
4. The number of labelling requirements in Egypt had increased.G/TBT/W/184
Page 13
16. JAPAN:  Agricultural Standards for Organic Agricultural Products
Products Organic plant products and pro cessed foods made from organic plant
products
Raised by Australia; Canada; New Zealand and United States
Meeting/Dates raised 15 September 1998 (G/TBT/M/13); 20 November 1998 (G/TBT/M/14);
1 October 1999 (G/TBT/M/17)
Notification G/TBT/Notif. 99.539; G/TBT/Notif. 99.540
Other Relevant documents The Law Concerning  Standardization and Proper Labelling of
Agricultural and Forestry Products
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. The draft Regulation should be notified when ready.
2. The extended comment period would allow other Members to consider the Regulation with
sufficient time and to hold consultations.
17. MEXICO:  Labelling of Natural Hides and Tanned Skins, and Artificial Leather having
the Appearance of Natural Leather, of Footwe ar and Leather Goods, and of other Articles
Made from these Materials
Products Hides and tanned skins, footwear, leather g oods
Raised by European Communities
Meeting/Dates raised 27 March 1998 (G/TBT/M/11)
Notification G/TBT/Notif.97.611
Other relevant documents Draft Mexica n Official Standard (NOM-020-SCFI-1997)
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. Comments had been made but no reply had been received.
18. THE NETHERLANDS: Bill of Parliament Amending the Act on Environmental
Protection (Sustainability Produced Timber)
Products Wooden products
Raised by Brazil; Canada; Ecuador; Malaysia and the Philippines (ASEAN);
Norway and Poland
Meeting/Dates raised 15 September 1998 (G/TBT/M/13); 20 November 1998 (G/TBT/M/14),
30 March 2001 (G/TBT/M/23); 29 June 2001 (G/TBT/M/24)
Notification G/TBT/Notif. 98.448
Other relevant documents
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. The Bill contravened the obligation of the Netherlands and the European Union (EU) under the
WTO Agreements and GATT rules.
2. It went against the non-discriminatory principle of the WTO and was inconsistent with Article 2.1
of the Agreement.G/TBT/W/184
Page 14
3. It would treat wood products from "primary fo rests" less favourably than like wood products from
other forests.  This would prejudice products of countries that had maintained primary forests.
4. The justification for the proposed Bill.
5. It would create obstacles to international trade and was inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the
Agreement.
6. It targeted perceived environmental concerns in the territory of other WTO Members, since there
was no consensus on definitions regarding "an area where wood production takes place on a
sustainable basis" and on "primary forest".  It attempted to impose a Dutch definition and criteria
on other national jurisdictions.
7. It would also treat wood products less favourably than like products made from other materials.
If its objective was environmental protection, some of these other products and their process and
production methods (PPMs) could prove to be far less environmentally benign if assessed on thebasis of life-cycle analysis.  It contained a de facto  requirement for traceability throughout the
supply chain which was not a standard practice.
8. It would not meet its declared objectives of sustainable forest management nor combat
deforestation in the tropics, but would create an unreasonable burden on industry.
9. It imposed a certification requirement without the recognition of capacity building that might be
needed to develop a certification regime appropriate to local circumstances and to achieve
certification.
10. Certification should be market based, independent, and voluntary.
11. Mandatory labelling was not a step which the majority of suppliers would be ready to implement
in the time-frame proposed.
12. It would not enhance consumer choice, since cons umers would not be able to distinguish between
good or bad wood based on the marking.  The label would only indicate whether a formal
certification had been adopted, ignoring the fact that wood products could be sustainably
produced without being certified.
13. It contradicted a number of multilateral arrangements, such as the WTO Agreement, the process
being undertaken by the United Nations Intergovernmental Forum on Forest (IFF), and the
International Tropical Timber Agreement (ITTA).
14. Neglected to give effect to Article 12 of the Agreement, particularly with respect to paragraphs 2
and 3.  It discriminated against developing countries unable to achieve certification, and as a
result would reduce their market access and harm their economies.
15. The Dutch authorities should reconsider the proposed Bill and instead support multilateral efforts
towards a market-driven acceptable solution.
16. Several ASEAN countries have provided comments to the EC Enquiry Point and to the European
Union (EU).
17. Further information about the status of the Bill was requested.
V. 1999
19. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES:  EC Regulation 881/98 "Traditional Terms" adopted in
April 1998, effective 1 October 1999
Products Wines with labels or packaging containing any of a number of labelling
terms; certain wines sector products
Raised by Argentina; Australia; Canada; Chile; Egypt; Mexico; New Zealand;
Uruguay and United States
Meeting/Dates raised 1 October 1999 (G/TBT/M/17); 25 February 2000 (G/TBT/M/18);
9 October 2001 (G/TBT/M/25)
Notification
Other relevant documents
Mandatory/voluntary MandatoryG/TBT/W/184
Page 15
Concerns raised
1. The Regulation was far-reaching.  It would restrict the use of commonly used wine labelling
terms describing colour, processing methods and other characteristics of wine which were not
recognized internationally as an intellectual property right or dealing with geographicalindication.  In many cases, these terms acted as a verification of the particular quality of wine
produced in other parts of the world.
2. It was unlikely that the use of these terms would create consumer confusion.
3. It could create barriers to trade.
4. Instead of utilizing traditional terms, registered trademarks could be used to protect consumers.
5. Wines with labels or packaging containing any of  the "traditional terms" would be denied entry
into the EC, unless originating from a countr y with which the Commission had a bilateral
agreement.
6. The objective of preventing consumer deception was effectively met in many jurisdictions
through general consumer protection laws.
7. There was no evidence of consumer deception in relation to traditional terms.
8. It had not been notified and no opportunity had been given to interested Members to provide
comments before adopting the final text.  Sought information on when notification could be
expected.
9. No implementation date had been set;  information was sought on whether a delay in
implementation was planned for consultations to develop a WTO-consistent approach in order to .
10. The justification of the Regulation and explanation of its objective were required in order to
clarify the scope and nature of the protection it envisaged.
11. It could create a precedent for other agricultural products (such as cheese) in which Members took
a significant trade interest.
20. NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIA: Labelling Food Produced Using Gene
Technology (Foods Commonly Referred to as Genetically Modified Foods)
Products Foods derived from gene technology; foods produced using gene
technology
Raised by Canada
Meeting/Dates raised 11 June 1999 (G/TBT/M/16); 1 October 1999 (G/TBT/M/17)
Notification G/TBT/Notif.99.134; G/TBT/Notif.99/244; G/TBT/Notif.99.275
Other relevant documents
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. The need of the Regulation and its objective.
2. An explanation was needed of how the proposed labelling scheme would be made consistent with
international trade obligations.
3. The discrimination among like products needed an explanation.
4. How it would be verified and enforced required clarification.
5. It was unclear what methods of analysis and samp ling would be used to ensure the accuracy of the
labelling.
6. To clarify how and when all the necessary methods  of analysis would be developed, and whether
all methods of analysis and sampling schemes should be subject to international scrutiny and
verification.G/TBT/W/184
Page 16
VI. 2000
21. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Proposal for a European Parliament and Council
Regulation Establishing a System for the Identification and Registration of Bovine
Animals and Regarding the Labelling of Beef and Beef Products.
Products Beef (CN Codes 0201;  0202; 0206 10 95 and 0206 2991)
Raised by Brazil; Canada;  Egypt; New Zealand; South Africa and United States
Meeting/Dates raised 21 July 2000 (G/TBT/M/20); 6 October 2000 (G/TBT/M/21);
10 November 2000 (G/TBT/M/22)
Notification G/TBT/Notif.00/289
Other relevant documents European Commission pr oposal for a European Parliament and Council
Regulation establishing a system for the identification and registration of
bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products andrepealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. To clarify whether only the country of origin of the animal and the slaughterhouse labels
information would apply to beef exported to the EC.
2. To consider if it might not be more appropriate to notify the measure under the SPS Agreement
given the objective of establishing a labelling system in view of the BSE crisis to prevent
consumer deception.
3. The proposed system could represent a serious im pediment to trade from developing countries.
22. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Proposal for a Council Regulation Amending
Regulation (EEC) N° 1907/90 on Certain Marketing Standards for Eggs
Products Table eggs (HS: 0407.00.30)
Raised by Canada; India and United States
Meeting/Dates raised 6 October 2000(G/TBT/M/21); 10 November 2000 (G/TBT/M/22)
Notification G/TBT/Notif.00/428
Other relevant documents Proposal for a Counc il Regulation Amending Regulation (EEC) N°
1907/90 on Certain Marketing Standards for Eggs
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. The consistency of the labelling scheme under WTO Agreements was questioned.
2. The justification of the measure, including inform ation about the conditions that would govern the
farming methods.
3. The justification of the change from a voluntary to a mandatory scheme.
4. It was a labelling requirement related to non-product related PPMs.
5. Compulsory labelling, as well as labelling based on non-product related PPMs, were matters of
strong systemic concerns.G/TBT/W/184
Page 17
23. INDONESIA: Regulation of Government  No. 69/1999 on Food Labelling and
Advertisement  and Draft Decree of the Ministry of Health on Implementation Guide of
the Regulation of Government No. 69/1999 on Food Labelling and Advertising
Products Food in general , food labelling and advertising
Raised by Egypt; European Communities and United States
Meeting/Dates raised 21 July 2000 (G/TBT/M/20); 6 October 2000(G/TBT/M/21);
10 November 2000  (G/TBT/M/22); 29 June 2001 (G/TBT/M/24)
Notification G/TBT/Notif.00/478; G/TBT/Notif.00.507
Other relevant documents Regulation of Government No. 69/1999 on Food Labelling and
Advertisement and Draft Decree of the Ministry of Health on
Implementation Guide of the Regulation of Government No. 69/1999 on
Food Labelling and Advertising; Indonesian Regulation N° 8 of 1999
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. The measure had not been notified even though it would have an  impact on trade and Members
did not have the chance to comment.
2. Businesses did not have sufficient time to adjust to the new requirements.
3. The justification of the use of local language on labelling.
4. Written comments had been submitted but there had been no reply.
5. Certain general requirements imposed on food should not be applied to wines and spirits, in
particular labelling.
6. Requirements involving labelling could have future negative impacts on the flow of trade to the
Indonesian market, especially from other developing country Members.
24. JAPAN:  Standards for Labelling on Quality of Processed Foods, Fresh Foods; Husked
(Brown) Rice and Milled Rice and Marine Products
Products All food and beverages on sale for consumers
Raised by Australia, Egypt and New Zealand
Meeting/Dates raised 17-19 May 2000 (G/TBT/M/19); 21 July 2000 (G/TBT/M/20);
10 November 2000 (G/TBT/M/22); 30 March 2001 (G/TBT/M/23)
Notification G/TBT/Notif.99/668
Other relevant documents The Law Concerning  Standardization and Proper Labelling of
Agricultural and Forestry Products (1950 Law No. 175)
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. The country of origin labeling requirement appeared  to be considered as an intrinsic determinant
of product quality for fresh foods.  However, there was no scientific or proven link between originand quality.
2. The requirement added unnecessary costs to producers, distributors and consumers, inconsistent
with Article 2.2.
3. Quality assurance was an issue already provided in the health and safety tests that products had to
meet in order to be marketed in Japan.
4. To explain the justification of the additional costs arising from the scheme when the scheme did
not meet its stated objective.
5. To clarify whether alternative measures of a less trade restrictive nature e.g., voluntary labelling
schemes, had been considered and the reasons why those alternatives had been disregarded.G/TBT/W/184
Page 18
6. To clarify whether the risks of non-fulfilment of the objective (i.e. to provide consumers with
information through the country of origin labelling) had been considered and to explain the
scientific and technical information that had been used to determine the risk of non-fulfilment.
7. The labelling requirements had been proposed and developed in the context of revisions to the
Basic Agriculture Law which aimed at increasing demand for domestic agricultural products.
8. Country of origin labelling shou ld remain voluntary, allowing distributors and producers the right
of use when considered justified, including in response to consumer wishes for information.
9. To clarify whether the consequences on developing country Members and the costs related to
compliance by SMEs had been taken into consideration.
25. UNITED STATES:  Country of  Origin Mark on Imitation Jewellery
Products Imitation jewellery, of base metal, whether or not plated with precious
metal
Raised by Korea and Thailand
Meeting/Dates raised 25 February 2000 (G/TBT/M/18); 17-19 May 2000 (G/TBT/M/19)
Notification
Other relevant documents Africa Growth and Opportunity Law
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. The proposed measure and its exceptions were inc onsistent with Article 2.1 and Article 2.2 of the
Agreement.
2. It posed an additional burden on foreign jewellery manufacturers, despite the fact that there was
no sign that the current marking practices were insufficient.
3. It would undermine foreign competition.
4. It required indelible marking on the products rather than on the packaging.
5. It was difficult for foreign jewellery manufacturers to ask for the exceptions allowed by the
regulation; this would add the cost to imported jewellery.
6. A justification of the proposed measure was required.
26. UNITED STATES:  Dolphin-Safe Tuna Labelling;  Official Mark
Products Tuna Labelling
Raised by Brazil; Egypt; Mexico and  Thailand
Meeting/Dates raised 25 February 2000 (G/TBT/M/18); 17-19 May 2000 (G/TBT/M/19);
21 July (G/TBT/M/20); 6 October 2000 (G/TBT7M/21); 10 November
2000 (G/TBT/M/22)
Notification G/TBT/Notif.00.5
Other relevant documents Federal Register 64 FR 71722, 22 December 1999; 50 CFR Part 216.
Mandatory/voluntary Voluntary
Concerns raised
1. To clarify whether the requirement was mandatory or voluntary.
2. The justification of the nature of the draft.
3. Eco-labelling should be applied on a voluntary basis, otherwise it could result in trade barriers.
4. The importance of the information on tuna labelling was underscored.
5. Doubts existed on which views would prevail with in the US given that there were differing
positions but only some were compatible with WTO obligations.
6. To clarify whether a corrigendum would be made to the notification.G/TBT/W/184
Page 19
VII. 2001
27. BRAZIL:  Labelling Registration Requirements for Packed Food Products Containing
or Produced by Genetically Modified Organisms
Products Packed food products for human consumption
Raised by United States
Meeting/Dates raised 9 October 2001 (G/TBT/M/25)
Notification G/TBT/N/BRA/27
Other relevant documents Government Act Nº 3.871, 18 July 2001, published in the Federal
Official Journal (Diário Oficial da União), Section I, page 1, 19 July 2001
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. The proposed Decree had not been notified.
2. It was not clear whether it was a final Decree.
28. CHILE: Amendment to the Decree of Ministry of Health N° 977 of 1996 on Transgenic
Foods (Labelling System fo r Transgenic Foodstuffs)
Products Transgenic Foods
Raised by Canada
Meeting/Dates raised 9 October 2001 (G/TBT/M/25)
Notification/ G/TBT/CHL/18
Other relevant documents
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. The Regulation created unnecessary barriers to trade.
2. It needed scientific justification.
3. The practicability of its measures and their enforceability should be clarified.
29. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES/BELGIUM: Draft Law Aiming to Promote Socially
Responsible Production
Products Goods and services, including substances, preparations, biocides and
packaging
Raised by Argentina; Brazil; Canada; Cuba; Egypt; Hong Kong,China; India;
Malaysia (ASEAN); Mexico; Pakistan; Thailand ant United States
Meeting/Dates raised 30 March 2001 (G/TBT/M/23); 29 June 2001 (G/TBT/M/24); 9 October
2001 (G/TBT/M/25); 15 March 2002 (G/TBT/M/26)
Notification G/TBT/N/BEL/2
Other relevant documents
Mandatory/voluntary Voluntary
Concerns raised
1. The Singapore Ministerial Declaration which rejected the use of labour standards for protectionist
purposes had been ignored.  The ILO (and not the WTO) was the competent body to set and deal
with labour standards.G/TBT/W/184
Page 20
2. Linking social concepts with trade would create an obstacle to international trade.
3. The scheme was based on non-product related PPMs.  The WTO consistency of such measures
had been intensively debated and consensus had not been reached.
4. The linkage between trade and core labour standards was a concept that developing countries had
been resisting.
5. The measure was discriminatory and would create unnecessary obstacles to trade.
6. It was unilateral, against the use of prescribed multilateral rules set up on the basis of balance and
mutual benefits for all parties.
7. To clarify whether it was mandatory or voluntary and if it was an EC-wide initiative.
8. To clarify the criteria and whether it was to be applied to services.
9. To clarify the precise language of the label.
10. To clarify whether importers have been consulted and if assessments have been made on the
competitiveness of products and services bearing or not bearing the label.
11. The delay in replying caused concern since efficient information exchange on notifications was
important.
12. To notify more, rather than less, was useful for Members so as to provide them with opportunities
for comments, disregarding the voluntary nature of a measure.
13. It could not provide an incentive for developing countries to develop socially responsible
enterprises.
14. It should be reconsidered taking into account the negative trade effects on developing countries'
exports.
15. Constructive and positive measures, raising living standards, ensuring full employment,
expanding trade in goods and services and in a manner consistent with needs and concerns of
countries at different development levels should be introduced instead.
30. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: EC Regulation N° 1493 on the Common Organisation
of the Market in Wine
Products Wine products
Raised by Argentina; Australia;  Canada Chile;  New Zealand;  Uruguay and United
States
Meeting/Dates raised 9 October 2001 (G/TBT/M/25); 15 March 2002 (G/TBT/M/26)
Notification
Other relevant documents
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. The proposal violated the national treatment requirement of the Agreement and had a significant
impact on trade.
2. It provided special favourable treatment to products of European origin and was an attempt to
gain a competitive advantage for EC-produced wines and spirits by imposing an unnecessary
restriction on trade of imported ones.
3. To prohibit the use of traditional expressions in connection with imported goods could constitute
unnecessary obstacles to trade.  It violated Article 2.2; the objective could be achieved in a less
trade-restrictive manner, e.g. by using country-of-origin requirements.
4. It restricted import of wines with labels bearing descriptive or generic matter, if considered as
"traditional expressions" by the EC.  Most of the prohibited terms were adjectives, such as thecolour or the age of wines (e.g. "vintage" and "ruby").  The prohibition went beyond current
intellectual property protection provided in the TRIPs Agreement (i.e. geographical indications).
5. To prohibit others from using certain containers or bottles raised trade barriers.G/TBT/W/184
Page 21
6. It contributed to consumer deception as there was no factual basis to assert that the use of certain
descriptive or generic terms identified by the EC would deceive or confuse consumers.
7. It violated Article III or Article XI of the GATT 1994.
8. No reason had been provided for exceptions which would justify GATT inconsistencies.
9. The definition of labelling appeared to cover packaging as well.
10. The draft regulation should have been notified so that interested Members could provide
comments before its final adoption.
11. Information on the status of the draft and on plans to notify was needed.
12. The potential impact on other product sectors, such as cheese and other food products should be
considered.
31. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament
and of the Council on Genetically Modified Food and Feed and Proposal for a
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning Traceability and
Labelling of Genetically Modified Organis ms and Traceability of Food and Feed
Products Produced from Genetically Modified Organisms and Amending Directive
2001/18/EC
Products Genetically  modified organisms (GMOs) for food or feed use, food and
feed containing or consisting of GMOs, food produced from or
containing ingredients produced from GMOs, and feed produced from
GMOs and Products consisting of, or containing genetically modified
organisms (GMOs), food and food ingredients, feed materials, compoundfeeding stuffs and feed additives produced from GMOs
Raised by Argentina;  Australia; Brazil;  Canada and United States
Meeting/Dates raised 9 October 2001 (G/TBT/M/25); 15 March 2002 (G/TBT/M/26);
20-21 June 2002 ((G/TBT/M/27)
Notification G/TBT/N/EEC/6; G/TBT/N/EEC/7
Other relevant documents G/TBT/W/171
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. It was not clear how the Regulations were reconciled with the TBT and the Marrakesh
Agreements.
2. They discriminated against imported products based on methods of production
(i.e. biotechnology) rather than on products' characteristics and risks.  They sought to impose
additional traceability and monitoring requirements only on biotechnology products. To impose
the requirements for products or ingredients that could not be differentiated from their traditional
counterpart would constitute an unjustified discrimination between them.  This would go beyond
the principles of MFN treatment and national treat ment, contrary to Article 2.1 of the Agreement,
as well as Articles I and III of the GATT 1994.
3. They were believed to be more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, and
went against Article 2.2 .
4. An explanation on the substantive reasoning behind each of the stated objective was needed.
Traceability and labelling requirements were not the ideal measures to fulfil the declared
objectives.
5. They had no scientific basis.
6. They required the traceability and labelling of highly processed products such as oils derived from
GMOs even though there was no detectable DNA protein.  The enforceability of labelling
requirements on these highly refined products raised concerns.G/TBT/W/184
Page 22
7. The lack of scientific support of the measures could lead to the possible introduction of other
non-science based elements in regulatory decision-making processes.
8. The means to effectively implement the Regulations required clarification.  Without the means for
testing, its requirements would be unenforceable, could lead to fraudulent practices and could fuel
consumers' distrust in regulatory regimes, which was not in any country's interest.
9. Their nature was discriminatory: labelling requirements could apply to food or feed which
consisted of or were produced from GMOs, but not to food produced with genetically modified
enzymes (i.e. in the case of cheese).
10. It was unclear how exporters could comply with the Regulations' requirements at a reasonable
cost.
11. The cost that would be involved to develop, maintain and enforce their proposed regulatory
system was unclear.
12. They were unworkable and unenforceable.  An effective verification mechanism was not
foreseen.
13. They attempted to respond to unidentified risks and unspecific hazards.
14. Their requirements applied to biotechnology derived products which had been approved for
human and animal consumption and environmental release.  These products had undergone riskassessment and had been approved for years.
15. Their labelling requirements were imposed on products with no identified handling, usage, safety
or compositional distinctions.  Consumers would be left without accurate information.
16. There was no justification of expanding the mandatory traceability and labelling requirements to
animal feeds.
17. Any regulation of GM foods should be based on science; should be enforceable as well as
commercially feasible (i.e. not prohibitively costly).
18. The wording "containing or coming from GMO" showed a lack of impartiality, and would not
provide consumers with the information needed to make purchasing choices in an objective way.
19. They would lead consumers not to choose GM products even though both the traditional and
GM products had been analyzed, tested and authorized for marketing as safe products.
20. There existed a reasonable variety of less trade restrictive alternative measures which could fulfil
the objectives (e.g. the use of batch numbering or the identification of new breeds of plants).
21. Foodstuffs and feed containing GMOs could retain less agro-chemical residues and could result in
less environmental contamination.
22. An explanation was necessary of how the comments made would be taken into account.
23. They also fell under the SPS Agreement, and had been notified under that Agreement.
24. Further clarification on the decision-making process was needed.
32. INDIA:  Mandatory Label Requirements for Pre-packaged Imports for Retail Sale and
Revision of the Indian 1955 Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
Products All prepackaged consumer products are covered under the labelling
requirements; the list of 133 products if available in the notifications
no. 44 dated 24 November 2000 (All packed and/or bottled food items)
and notification no. 7 (Vegetarian Food) dated 31 March 2001.
Raised by Australia; Canada; European Communities; Japan and United States
Meeting/Dates raised 30 March 2001 (G/TBT/M/23); 9 October 2001 (G/TBT/M/25);
15 March 2002 (G/TBT/M/26);  20-21 June 2002 (G/TBT/M/27)
Notification G/TBT/N/IND/1
Other relevant documents Indian 1955 Preventio n of Food Adulteration Rules; Standards of
Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977
Mandatory/voluntary MandatoryG/TBT/W/184
Page 23
Concerns raised
1. Members' rights under the Agreement had been denied, since the proposals had entered into force
but had not been notified.  Transparency requirements of the Agreement should be observed
(e.g. to notify and provide opportunities for comments).
2. A reasonable period of time for suppliers to adapt to the new requirements had not been granted.
3. Its requirements would impede exports of distilled spirits to the Indian market.
4. Its objective required clarification.
5. Its rationale for requiring labels on non-perishable products to indicate the month and year of 
packaging as well as the maximum retail price needed and explanation.
6. An explanation was needed for the justification of additional costs imposed on manufacturers and 
consumers.
7. To explain the justification of the coverage of the labelling requirements.
8. To explain the role of the Bureau of Indian Standards –BIS - and why manufacturers and exporters
must register with BIS.
9. An explanation of the scientific or technical basis for proposing maximum concentration levels 
for a variety of naturally occurring substances in distilled spirits (certain chemicals and metals).
10. The alcohol content requirements should be revised.
11. The geographical indications for "bourbon whisky" and "Tennessee whiskey" should be
recognized, and the sale of such products should be prohibited unless they had been legally
produced.
12. To explain whether relevant international standards, guides or recommendations have been
considered.
13. To clarify whether India has considered accepting existing international or national certification
that are equivalent.
14. To clarify whether other less burdensome and trade-restrictive means have been considered.
15. To inform whether the regulations would be notified to the WTO.
16. The compliance procedures were neither clear nor transparent.
VIII.  2002
33. BRAZIL: Ruling on Criteria and Procedures for the Import of Wines and Beverages
Derived from Grapes and Wines
Products Wines and beverages derived from wines and grapes, like brandy, grappa,
sangria, grape juice and others
Raised by European Communities
Meeting/Dates raised 20-21 June 2002 (G/TBT/M/27)
Notification G/TBT/N/BRA/29
Other relevant documents
Mandatory/voluntary
Concerns raised
1. Comments had been provided but no replies had been received.
2. The registration of producers of exporting countries with Brazilian authorities as well as with
certain labelling requirements was unclear and required clarification.G/TBT/W/184
Page 24
34. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Commission Regulation (EC) N° 753/2002 of
29 April 2002 Laying Down Certain Rules for Applying Council Regulation
(EC) N°1493/1999 as Regards the Description, Designation, Presentation and Protection
of Certain Wine Sector Products
Products Certain wine sector products
Raised by Argentina; Australia; Bolivia; Brazil; Canada; Mexico; New Zealand;
Paraguay; Peru; Uruguay and United States;
Meeting/Dates raised 20-21 June 2002 (G/TBT/M/27)
Notification G/TBT/N/EEC /15
Other relevant documents
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. The proposed Regulation contained technical provisions that would have a significant effect on
the importation of wine into the EU.  The tr ade impacts for non-EU wine producers could be
significant; there was an attempt to provide a competitive advantage for EU wines.
2. Its approach should be reconsidered keeping in mind obligations under Article 2.1 (on national
treatment and MFN provisions), Article 2.2 (on avoiding the creation of unnecessary obstacles tointernational trade), Article 2.3 (on addressing objectives in a less trade-restrictive manner), and
Article 2.8 (on basing regulations on performance rather than descriptive characteristics).
3. It discriminated against non-EU wine, contrary  to the national treatment obligations under
Article III of the GATT 1994.
4. Its overall approach was in conflict with the TBT principle to ensure that technical regulations
and standards did not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade. The objective could be
achieved in a less trade-restrictive manner.
5. The need for a prescriptive approach in an area where serious health, safety or environmental
risks did not seem to apply required clarification.  It was more stringent than necessary to address
any perceived risk, and was taken much further than was required for other food products.
6. The protection of "traditional expressions" as identified by the EU had no counterpart in the law
of any other country outside the EU.
7. Descriptive and/or generic terms had no specific connection with a geographical source of a given
class of goods.  "Traditional terms" did not constitute intellectual property.  To reserve generic
descriptive terms and phrases exclusively for EC producers raised serious concerns aboutWTO obligations.  There was an attempt to broaden the definition of geographical indications
(GI) beyond the definition as contained in the TRIPs Agreement.  This was in conflict with TRIPs
and GATT provisions on national treatment.
8. There was no factual basis to assert that the use of such terms on imported wines would deceive
or confuse consumers.
9. The objective of consumer information  was undermined to the extent that the measure prevented
the use for  imported wines of generic descriptors used commonly in global wine trade.  It couldalso contribute to consumer deception.
10. There was no basis for the restrictions on the use of certain grape variety names on wine labels
based on country of origin.  Wondered how information on grape variety might "confuse"
consumers.
11. The approach of granting labelling flexibility to those countries that agreed to adopt certain
regulations or signed bilateral agreements with the EU would induce countries to adopt certain
regulations that otherwise they would not accept, or would be used as leverage to extract
concessions in negotiations on unrelated matters.  The preferential treatment afforded to countries
that had bilateral wine agreements with the EU was inconsistent with respect to MFN obligations
in Article 2.1 of the Agreement and Article I of the GATT 1994.G/TBT/W/184
Page 25
12. It was necessary to clarify whether the EC permitted certain countries, but not others, to inform
EU consumers of certain grape varieties used to produce wines.
13. Bottle configurations  reserved for exclusive EU use was inconsistent with the TRIPs Agreement;
bottle configurations could not be considered suff icient to identify a product as originating in a
certain geographical area. The EC's compliance with WTO obligations on its restriction on certainbottle configurations and shapes was questioned.
14. Notification was made only after the adoption of the proposal.  The transparency obligations had
not been fulfilled, in particular, there was a failure to notify at an appropriate early stage so as to
allow other Members to comment, and to provide an opportunity for amendments to be made on
the basis of those comments.
15. Its interpretation and application required clarification.
16. Its enforcement should be reconsidered in th e light of the obligations under the GATT and the
TBT Agreements;  instead an opportunity for consultations and appropriate amendment should be
provided.
17. The need to legally define every term on wine labels related to a "production method" or quality
descriptor so as not to mislead consumers was unclear.  Consumer preferences could not be
harmonized.
18. Its requirement of common adjectives to describe  wine went beyond what would be considered a
reasoned response to the risk of deceptive practices in labelling.
19. It would prohibit certain wines from entering the EU, if their regulatory system did not provide
legal definitions for words used to describe wines on labels.
20. A WTO Member could not reserve common adjectives and other descriptive words for the
exclusive use by its industries.
21. There was no connection between prevention of deceptive practices and the measures set out.
22. To reserve the exclusive use of common English language words was not the least
trade-restrictive means of achieving the objective.
23. Its application should be refrained pending full consultations with interested Members since both
the product and the subject matter involved had an important systemic impact on world trade.
35. KOREA: Notification of the Delegated Order Pertaining to the Use of Liquor Labels
Products Spirits; liquors; wine; beer etc.
Raised by Canada; European Communities and United States
Meeting/Dates raised 20-21 June 2002 (G/TBT/M/27)
Notification G/TBT/N/KOR/34
Other relevant documents
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. Comments made should be considered.
2. The labelling requirements would oblige producers to establish a specific line of production and
storage for exports to Korea.  It would have time and cost implications.
3. A less trade-restrictive solution should be assessed.
4. The policy objective did not appear to be a matter of serious health, safety or environmental risk.
5. To provide information on the one-year transition period.G/TBT/W/184
Page 26
36. PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Public Notice of General Administration for
Quality Supervision and Inspection and Quarantine
Products Food and cosmetics
Raised by European Communities
Meeting/Dates raised 20-21 June 2002 (G/TBT/M/27)
Notification (G/TBT/N/CHN/2)
Other relevant documents Public Notice of Gene ral Administration of Quality Supervision and
Inspection and Quarantine [2002] No.21; Decree of State Administrationfor Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine [2000] No.19; Decree of State
Administration for Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine [2000] No. 21.
Mandatory/voluntary Mandatory
Concerns raised
1. The legislative text and an extension of the comment period were requested.
37. UNITED STATES: Country of Origin Labelling Provisions
Products
Raised by Canada
Meeting/Dates raised 20-21 June 2002 (G/TBT/M/27)
Notification
Other relevant documents US Farm Security and Role Investment Act
Mandatory/voluntary
Concerns raised
1. To explanation the objectives of the requirement.
2. To clarify the intention to notify.
38. WORKS OF THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMITTEE ON FOOD LABELLING
(CCFL)
Products Labelling of Food derived through biotechnology
Raised by Canada, United States, Egypt and Chile
Supported by
Dates raised 6 October 2000 (G/TBT/M/21); 10 November 2000 (G/TBT/M/22); 30 March
2001 (G/TBT/M/23); 29 June 2001 (G/TBT/M/24)
Relevant documents G/TBT/W/115; G/TBT/ W//115. Add.1; G/TBT/W/134; G/TBT/W//134.
Add.1; G/TBT/W/155
1. A drafting group had been established under CODEX to elaborate a guideline for the labelling of
foods derived through biotechnology.  The CCFL had considered the options of either mandatory
labelling based on health and safety considerations or mandatory labelling based on health and
safety considerations and the method of production.  Codex, as an international intergovernmental
standards body for food safety, undertook to develop a standard on what appeared to be a
TBT issue;  there were the potential trade implications of this work.  Members were encouragedto participate in it.G/TBT/W/184
Page 27
2. Article 2.1 of the Agreement and Article III of the GATT ensured that imported products be
accorded treatment no less favorable than that accorded to like products of national origin.  A
mandatory labelling scheme based on non-product-related PPMs, such as biotechnology, could be
considered a technical barrier to trade as it treated similar products differently based on methods
of production.
3. The issue of non-product related PPM labelling was generally held to be a like product issue.  The
use of non-product related PPM labelling schemes with respect to GMOs could have much
broader trade implications.  This type of labellin g could be used to mark items for environmental,
social and even ethical considerations.
4. Supported the development of a GMO labelling standard that could be applied by the private
sector on an internationally consistent voluntary basis.
5. The work being done in the CCFL could lend creating to the adoption by governments of
mandatory labelling requirements on bio-engineered food.
6. Governments should not take such action without, inter alia  , due consideration to alternative
approaches, e.g. public awareness campaigns or voluntary labelling.
7. Governments should also take into account the following elements: the feasibility of
implementing such requirements, how to verify through end-product testing as well as whatwould be the costs and the infrastructure n eeded in order to adequately implement such
requirements; and what would be the implications of a  government taking actions in an area not
related to health and safety, and what would be the likelihood of consumers being misled.
Wondered if the above concerns had been taken into account by the CCFL when developing the
guidelines.
8. Guidelines on the labelling of foods derived fr om biotechnology would be helpful;  however,
mandatory labelling requirements might be troublesome.  The guidelines should not be binding,
and countries should not be required to abide by them unless they proved to be consistent with
countries' needs and abilities.
__________