G/TBT/W/670  
 
23 July 2019  
(19-4881) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  Original: English  
 
EUROPEAN UNION - QUALITY SCHEMES FOR AGR ICULTURAL PRODUCTS  
AND FOODSTUFFS  
STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES TO THE COMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS T O TRADE  
20 AND 21 JUNE 2019  
The following communication, dated 22 July 2019, is being circulated at the request of the delegation 
of the United States . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  The United States would like to raise two issues with regard to the EU's registration process for 
protected geographical indication (PGI) – first rega rding the applications for "danbo " and "havarti " 
cheese, and second regarding the notification of G/TBT/N/EU/593 . 
1  HAVARTI/DANBO APPLIC ATIONS :  
2.  First, the United States remains concerned with the registration of the name "danbo " as a 
protected geographical indication (PGI), with a complete disregard for the international standard in 
Codex.  
3.  Furthermore we feel the application under consideration for the name "havarti " also lacks 
transparency, particularly considering the existing  Codex standard for havarti.  
4.  We reiterate that we found the EU's consultation process with regard to these registrations 
unsatisfactory. Moreover, our interventions at the TBT Committee have not resulted in additional 
clarity. In particular, we seek to un derstand how the Commission considered the existing Codex 
standards for both danbo and havarti.  
5.  To that end, we would also like to redouble our opposition to the EU granting GI protection for 
havarti because there is an international Codex Alimentarius st andard for havarti, which Codex 
members – including the EU – reconfirmed in 2007, 2008, and 2010.  
6.  The Council's own Decision on the EU's accession to the Codex Alimentarius Commission affirms 
that "Codex standards have acquired increased legal relevance by  virtue of the reference made to 
Codex in the WTO Agreements and the presumption of conformity which is conferred on national 
measures when they are based on such standards. " 
7.  The EU and its Member States also supported and agreed to the Codex Committee for  Milk and 
Milk Product' Individual Cheese standards, which contain labeling provisions under section 7 that 
preserve the generic nature and use of the names of these cheeses.  
8.  We remind the EU that no WTO agreement is superior to another and the EU's asser tion that it 
is following procedures under other agreements does not mean it can disregard TBT commitments 
to uphold international standards.  
9.  We again would like to ask if the Commission's view of the legal relevance of Codex standards 
has changed since t he publication of the Council Decision?  G/TBT/W/670  
 
- 2 - 
 
  10.  Any EU decision to move forward in granting GI protection to havarti would raise serious 
questions about the views of Denmark and the EU Commission regarding the relevance of Codex.  
11.  We would encourage Denmark to mee t their respective WTO TBT obligations by considering the 
international Codex standard for Havarti and taking comments into consideration prior to finalizing 
the Havarti measure. We further encourage the EU to consider withdrawing or amending the Havarti 
GI application, for example by considering a less trade restrictive option to provide GI protection for 
Danish Havarti as a compound term while continuing to allow producers outside of Denmark to use 
Havarti for cheese produced in accordance with the Codex standard.  
2  NEW EU NOTIFICATION : G/TBT/N/EU/ 593 
12.  Second, we would like to better understand the EU's proposal to amend EU regulation 
No. 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as well as other 
regulations pertaining to GIs outlined in TBT notification G/TBT/N/EU/593 . We submitted comments 
on EU/593 on October 19, 2018.  
13.  The EU has repeatedly avoided answering our questions, which we feel have TBT relevance.  
14.  In general, we are concerned about many of the proposed amendments, as they appear to 
exacerbate rather than alleviate our existing concerns. We will highlight some o f those concerns 
here, but seek further bilateral discussions on these issues. And per our comments, we urge the EU 
to rescind the elements of the Proposed Amendments that will exacerbate our concerns.  
15.  The proposal appears to shift authority from the Commission to member states, giving member 
states greater flexibilities and control over GI applications. We urge the Commission to retain this 
function without modification to ensure uniformity and predicta bility across the EU.  
16.  More concretely, how would this proposal affect existing applications such as havarti? Would 
Denmark now take control of the application or will these proposals only apply to new applications?  
17.  Under the new proposal, how will the EU Commission ensure member states adhere to TBT 
commitments including the use of international standards?  
18.  We are also concerned that the proposed extension of the "protection " of EU GIs to in -transit 
goods would exacerbate concerns the United States has rega rding the negative market access effects 
of the EU's protection and enforcement of GIs in the EU and third -country markets for U.S. producers 
and traders.  
19.  We are also concerned that the Proposed Amendments will truncate the opposition period on 
GI registra tions.  
 
__________