RESTRICTED  
  
G/TBT/M/90  
 
21 September  2023 
(23-6302) Page: 1/138 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade   
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING 21-23 JUNE  20231 
CHAIRPERSON: M S. ANNA VITIE  
Note by the Secretariat2 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  2 
2   ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ .......................  4 
3   IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT  ................................ . 5 
3.1   Specific Trade Concerns  ................................ ................................ ...............................  5 
3.1.1    Withdrawn concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 
3.1.2    New Specific Trade Concerns  ................................ ................................ ......................  5 
3.1.3    Previously raised con cerns  ................................ ................................ ........................ 21 
3.2   Exchange of Experiences  ................................ ................................ ...........................  124 
3.2.1    Transparency  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  124 
3.2.2    Regulatory Cooperation between Members  ................................ ................................  127 
3.3   Other Matters  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  127 
3.3.1    Planning of the 10th Triennial Review  ................................ ................................ ........  127 
3.3.2    Planning of upcoming Thematic sessions  ................................ ................................ ... 127 
3.3.3    Better functioning of the CTG and its Subsidiary Bodies  ................................ ..............  128 
4   TECHNICAL  COOPERATION ACTIVITIES  ................................ ................................ .. 132  
4.1   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ........................  132 
4.2   Information from Secretariat  ................................ ................................ ......................  132 
5   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  133  
5.1   Updates from Observers  ................................ ................................ ............................  133 
5.2   Pending requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 133 
6   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 133  
6.1   Steel event  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  133 
6.2   China on MC 13 Declaration  ................................ ................................ ........................  134 
6.3   New US Standards Strategy  ................................ ................................ .......................  138 
7   DATE OF NEXT MEETING ................................ ................................ ..........................  138  
  
 
1 This document was re -issued on 5 April 2024 to correct some minor typographical errors . 
2 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/90  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF  THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee  adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/TBT/2 6. 
1.2.  The representative of Ukraine  informed WTO Members about activities in the field of technical 
regulation. For 16 months, Ukraine had fought against Russian aggression. The war, initiated by 
another WTO Member, had led to the loss of thousands of lives, destroyed critical infrastructure and 
residential buildings, and disrupted trade routes and supply chains. Despite these challenges, 
Ukraine took steps to ensure the proper functioning of its technical reg ulation system, and continued 
work in the areas of standardization and metrology under wartime conditions. They made every 
effort to maintain transparency of TBT measures even under martial law. Ukraine had adopted 
46,191 national standards, of which 39,26 8 (or 85%) were international standards that had been 
integrated as national ones. The National Standardization Program for 2023 planned for the 
development of 1,843 draft national standards, of which 1,133 (or 61%) would be harmonized with 
international s tandards. At that moment, 165 technical standardization committees were operating 
in Ukraine across various sectors of the economy, collaborating with representatives from public 
authorities, businesses, educational institutions, and more. The infrastructu re of designated 
conformity assessment bodies was made up of 69 accredited organizations that conducted full 
conformity assessments in various regions of Ukraine. Among these, 12 bodies were tasked with 
ensuring the conformity of measuring instruments with  the technical regulations in the field of 
metrology. Additionally, 75 authorized verification laboratories performed metrological activities. 
However, in some regions, centers for standardization, metrology, and certification had suffered 
damages from Rus sian missile strikes. Kherson, Luhansk, and Donetsk regional centers, which had 
halted their operations, were yet to restart their activities. On 9 March of that year, the day a TBT 
Committee meeting took place, a national research center for standardizati on was hit and heavily 
damaged by a Russian missile.  
1.3.  Russia continued its attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure, with the recent destruction of the dam 
at the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant becoming one of the largest ecological and humanitarian 
disaste rs in Europe in recent years. To combat the damages caused by Russia's military invasion, 
Ukraine worked diligently to restore its infrastructure by adhering to relevant technical regulations 
and international standards. This focus was especially on those standards necessary for security, 
defense, and essential societal functions, like quality management systems and environmental 
management systems. Ukraine saw harmonized international standards as a vital tool for future 
recovery. Despite wartime condition s, Ukraine continued notifying Members about its legislative 
changes. Since the beginning of that year, Ukraine had shared 72 notifications, 50% of which 
pertained to technical regulation measures (with 36 notifications being as of 18 June 2023). They 
also responded regularly to WTO Members' enquiries on TBT issues, having provided 26 responses 
by that date . 
1.4.  The representative of the European Union  praised Ukraine's efforts to maintain a proper 
functioning system of technical regulation and to continue its work in the field of standardization and 
metrology under these difficult conditions. The European Union particularly appreciated the efforts 
to submit notifications and replies to comments from WTO Members despite the war. This clearly 
demonstrated Ukraine's strong commitment to the WTO. The European Union condemned in the 
strongest possible terms the Russian Federation's unprovoked and unjustified  military aggression 
against Ukraine, as well as the illegal attempted annexation by Russia of certain regions of Ukraine. 
This aggression deeply violated international law and undermined international security and stability. 
War crimes committed against U krainians, of which there was growing evidence, and the continuous 
destruction of civilian infrastructure, were flagrant violations of international law. The European 
Union called on the Russian Federation to immediately end its acts of aggression, withdra w its troops 
from Ukraine, and fully respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence within 
its internationally recognized borders. The European Union stated it would stand firmly with Ukraine 
and its people for as long as it took . 
1.5.  The representative of the United States  thanked Ukraine for its statement and joined the 
sentiments of the Members who had spoken today in condemning Russia's aggression on Ukraine. 
The delegation of the United States expressed its heartfelt support to Ukra ine and said that it stood 
in solidarity with the Ukrainian people in these unprecedented times. The United States also 
expressed its appreciation to the diverse group of WTO Members who were taking action to support 
the Ukrainian people in their valiant a nd courageous defence of their country, as reaffirmed in the 
recent MC12 joint statement from many WTO Members, including the United States, in rejecting G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Russia's illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Meanwhile, Ukraine continued to notify its 
regula tions to the WTO despite the unimaginable conditions they faced at home. The United States 
commended Ukraine's commitment to transparency and this organization. The United States added 
that their important work together would continue.  
1.6.  The representative o f Canada  thanked Ukraine for its continued act of engagement with the 
work of this Committee. Ukraine's commitment with the multilateral trading system and upholding 
the rule of law while under attack was commendable. Canada continued to unequivocally cond emn 
Russia's illegal, unprovoked, and unjustifiable invasion of Ukrain e – it was a clear violation of 
international law and the rules -based international system.  Canada's support for Ukraine and its 
people was unwavering and it would work to find ways to use trade to support Ukraine as it rebuilt 
its economy and society. Canada once again called on Russia to immediately cease all hostile actions 
against Ukraine.  
1.7.  The representative of the United Kingdom  reaffirmed its unwavering support to Ukraine and 
aligned itself with the recent remarks made by other colleagues. It had been over a year since 
Russia's continued war of aggression and illegal invasion of another sovereign nation, and the 
impacts of this brutal act continued to be felt. The United Kingdom ad mired the courage and bravery 
of Ukraine who, despite the dire circumstances, continued to stand firm against Russia and even 
more so, continued to uphold their obligations under the TBT Agreement. The United Kingdom 
thanked the representative of Ukraine f or his update. The consequences of Russia's actions spanned 
across the globe and were directly felt in the multilateral trading system as well - not to mention the 
huge cost on civilian's lives. Ukrainian exporters were also directly affected, with destruc tions on 
infrastructure and supply -chain disruptions resulting directly from this illegal war. Over the last year, 
the United Kingdom and allies had continued to outline the enormous global impact of Putin's actions, 
and the United Kingdom would do so for as long as it took. Importantly, the United Kingdom thanked 
its colleague from Ukraine for his update in the field of metrology, standards and technical 
regulations. The United Kingdom applauded Ukraine's resilience, bravery and efforts to uphold its 
obligations under the TBT Agreement . 
1.8.  The representative of Moldova  extended its appreciation to Ukraine for its update in this 
Committee and thanked Ukraine for keeping up the good work on harmonization of international 
standards, despite the continuous attacks  launched on a daily basis by Russia on its territory. In this 
context, Moldova added its voice of support along with Ukraine and other Members who had spoken 
on condemning Russia's war. The economic and social repercussion s of this war were strongly felt 
in and around Ukraine, including in Moldova, from the trade and transportation perspective. It should 
be noted that due to the war initiated by Russia against Ukraine, Moldavian economic agencies and 
exporters had lost access to an important share of marke t, and their transit routes to Asian partners 
had been blocked. Moreover, some of Moldova's exports had been totally blocked from the traditional 
markets, and Moldova had fully or partially lost its exports which had been exacerbated by the 
energy crisis a nd high inflation which had picked up to 30%. Moldova concluded by reiterating its 
strong support to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people and noting that it would continue to stay by 
Ukraine's side for as long as it took.  
1.9.  The representative of Japan  strongly c ondemned Russia's aggression against Ukraine and its 
attacks against civilian infrastructure and cities across Ukraine. As the only country to have ever 
suffered atomic bombings during wartime, Japan absolutely could not accept Russia's nuclear 
threats, le t alone its use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Japan strongly urged Russia 
to stop the aggression and withdraw its forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally 
recognized borders , immediately. Japan would also continue to wo rk firmly on the two pillars: 
imposing strong sanctions against Russia and providing robust support to Ukraine in cooperation 
with the international community.  
1.10.   The representative of Switzerland  condemned Russian military aggression on Ukraine in the 
strongest possible terms. This was a serious violation of international law. Russia's actions violated 
the prohibition of the use of force and the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, as  
enshrined in international law. Switzerland called on Russia to respect its international obligations 
and to reverse its actions as well as withdraw its troops and contribute to the de -escalation. 
Switzerland called on all actors to respect international law, including international humanitarian 
law. G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.11.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  expressed its appreciation for Ukraine's continued 
efforts in the transparency area provided by its notifications and presentation today despite 
devastating circumst ances. Korea joined others in strongly condemning Russia's invasion against 
Ukraine. Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence should be respected. 
Reaffirming its strong commitment to the rules -based international order, Korea would be  standing 
together with Ukraine for the peace and prosperity of the Ukrainian people.  
1.12.   The representative of Australia  thanked Ukraine for its intervention and update to the 
Committee. Australia acknowledged the challenging circumstances in which Ukraine c ontinued its 
efforts to meet its WTO obligations. Australia particularly welcomed Ukraine's advice about the 
harmonization of its domestic standards with international standards. In this broader context of the 
challenges facing Ukraine, Australia echoed ot hers and reiterated its condemnation of Russia's 
unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine, which was a gross violation of international laws, 
including the Charter of the United Nations. Australia strongly supported Ukraine's sovereignty and 
territorial integrity and called on Russia to cease its attacks and withdraw its forces from Ukrainian 
territory. Russia's war on Ukraine was exacting a catastrophic humanitarian toll.  
1.13.   The representative of  New Zealand  condemned Russia's aggression. New Zealand recogn ized 
and comm ended Ukraine's efforts to ensure the proper functioning of its technical regulation 
systems, despite the massive disruption from war -time conditions. Russia had massively destructed 
global production and trade through its illegal and unprovok ed attack on one of the leading food 
producers, as well as its destruction of Ukraine's civilian infrastructure and the blockading of 
Ukraine's ports. These Russian actions had a clear and devastating impact on both Ukraine and the 
global economy. New Zeal and stood shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine in supporting its sovereignty 
and territorial integrity. New Zealand continued to call on Russia to end its war.  
1.14.   The representative of the Russian Federation  noted that Article 13 of the TBT Agreement 
stipulated that the present Committee met "for the purpose of affording Members the opportunity 
to consult on any matters relating to the operation of this Agreement or the promotion of its 
objectives, […]". Ther efore, he believed the bulk of the interventions the Committee had heard were 
not relevant to its mandate. Russia had repeatedly pointed out that discussions concerning regional 
or global security, and adherence to the UN Charter, did not fall within the p urview of the WTO 
committees, including the current one. Such discussions, Russia  argued, were the domain of 
specialized UN bodies and agencies. It was within these entities that Russia communicated its stance 
on the rules and justifications for its specia l military operation and addressed the issues that arose 
during its conduct. Concurrently, Russia denounced the disinformation campaign that attributed the 
destruction of the Kakhovka dam to Russia when it was, according to them, the act of Ukrainian 
forces. They suggested that one intent behind the statements the Committee had recently heard 
was to validate the unilateral measures some Members had implemented against Russia, in apparent 
breach of WTO commitments. These actions, Russia asserted, impacted gl obal trade and the world 
economy. Such repercussions could have been avoided if the WTO Members who had spoken earlier 
had adhered to WTO rules. As the Committee planned to discuss ways to enhance its operations, 
one recommendation for increased efficiency  was for Members to abstain from addressing topics 
that intentionally overstepped the Committee's mandate. Russia called on relevant delegations to 
refrain from occupying the Committee's time inappropriately .  
2  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  
2.1.  The incoming Chairpers on, Ms Anna Vitie  (Finland ), recalled  that her election as Chairperson 
was formalized via a written procedure earlier in June. She expressed her gratitude to the Members 
for placing their trust in her. Acknowledging  the critical role of the TBT Committee, she shared her 
humility and honour  in assuming the chairmanship. Eagerly anticipating her tenure, she hoped for 
the unwavering support and proactive participation of the Members. Furthermore, she extended her 
appreciation to her predecessor, Mr. Anwar Huss ain Shaik from India, for his commendable 
leadership throughout the previous year.  
2.2.  The outgoing Chair person , Mr. Anwar Hussain Shaik  (India ), conveyed his best wishes and 
congratulations to the incoming Chairperson as she undertook the pivotal role of lead ing the TBT 
Committee. He emphasized the significant responsibilities shouldered by the Committee, especially 
when compared to several other WTO bodies . The TBT Committee had demonstrated remarkable 
efficiency, a testament to which was the CTG's report on the performance of various committees. 
He was optimistic that the incoming Chairperson would uphold and further this legacy of efficiency. G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Representing India and presiding over this esteemed Committee had been a privilege for him. With 
a commitment to effi ciency, he always aimed to conclude the agenda without dragging the meetings 
into weekends. He expressed satisfaction over the cooperation of many Members who, upon his 
request, had abbreviated their oral remarks, pointing to their detailed written stateme nts for official 
documentation. This collaborative approach greatly assisted in managing the agenda promptly. 
Mr. Anwar Hussain Shaik extended his gratitude to the Members, hopeful that such cooperative 
practices would persist. Lastly, he acknowledged the instrumental support of the Secretariat team 
in his role and extended his thanks to the interpreters.  
3  IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT  
3.1  Specific Trade Concerns  
3.1.1   Withdrawn concerns  
3.1.  The Chair  reported that the following STCs had been withdrawn from the agenda at the request 
of the concerned Member:  
• United States - State of Maine, Public Law c. 477, An Act To Stop Perfluoroalkyl and 
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Pollution and 06 -096 Chapter 90: Pr oducts Containing 
Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances  
• Brazil - General Requirements to Product Certification  
• India - Approved models and manufacturers of solar photovoltaic modules order, 2019 
(ID 742)  
• Angola - Decreto Executivo n°186/22 by the M inisterio das Finanças (ID 776)  
3.1.2   New Specific Trade Concerns  
3.1.2.1   Ireland - Draft Regulations Under Section 12 of the Public Health (Alcohol) Act 
2018, G/TBT/N/IRL/4  (ID 7943)4 
3.2.  The representative  of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
supports Ireland's objective of combatting harmful alcohol consumption and communicating 
important health information to consumers to assist more informed decision -making about alcohol 
consumption. We wo uld like to thank Ireland for notifying its Public Health (Alcohol) (Labelling) Bill 
as G/TBT/N/IRL/4  to the WTO on 6 February with a 90 -day comment period. However, the United 
States is deeply concerned that Ireland finalized this measure on 22 May 2023; a mere two weeks 
following the end of the WTO comment period. The United States remind s Ireland and the European 
Union of the importance of taking WTO Members' comments into account prior to the finalization of 
a measure. This process helps to reduce unnecessary trade barriers and increase the effectiveness 
of technical regulations. How sho uld exporters to the EU navigate member State requirements that 
may not be compatible with EU law? For example, Ireland's notified regulation contains requirements 
to report alcohol content in grams, whereas EU law requires such content to be reported as a  
percentage of alcohol by volume. How did Ireland or the European Commission account for the 
European Parliament's recent actions on alcohol drinks labels in promulgating or approving the 
notified regulation?  
3.3.  We understand the EU is planning to revise the Food Information to Consumers (FIC) 
regulation. In this revision, will the EU set uniform alcohol labelling requirements to harmonize 
discrepancies across EU member States? The United States notes that the example labels, under 
Schedule 1 and Schedule 3 of  the measure, list energy content and alcohol content in grams but do 
not include clarifying information about the amount of product being measured i.e. full container, 
100 ml, or specific serving size. If the energy and alcohol content displayed on the la bel is supposed 
to be representative of the full container, has Ireland assessed the utility of this information, 
particularly for higher alcohol -by-volume (abv) products that are not typically consumed in a single 
sitting by an individual consumer? Furthe rmore, we'd appreciate receiving information from Ireland 
 
3 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 79 4. 
4 Related to Previously Raised STC ID 516 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 6 - 
 
  on any assessments undertaken related to consumer understanding of labelling alcohol content in 
grams per container. We look forward to receiving Ireland's response to our comments.  
3.4.  The representati ve of Mexico  provided the following statement. The Mexican delegation refers 
to Ireland's Public Health (Alcohol) (Labelling) Regulations 2022, notified to the members of this 
Committee in document G/TBT/N/IRL/4 . The delegation of Mexico also refers to  communication 
500/ROC/07/2023, sent by the Government of Mexico to the Government of Ireland on 3 April 2023, 
through which it made comments on the Regulations that focused on:  - The Government of Mexico's 
concern as regards the disruption to the EU's har monized legislation and the fragmentation in the 
region's market that the Regulations could generate, thereby hampering international trade.  - The 
divergence between the Irish Regulations and Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011 in terms of the 
requirements for d eclaring energy value and alcohol content.  In this connection, the delegation of 
Mexico asks that the delegation of Ireland:  - Communicate the technical and scientific evidence on 
which the wording of the proposed health warnings in the Regulations is base d. - Provide information 
on any alternatives to labelling alcoholic beverages that were considered as a way of addressing the 
issue in a less trade -restrictive way.  Lastly, the delegation of Mexico asks the delegation of Ireland 
to reply to the comments sh ared during the public consultations.  
3.5.  The representative  of the Dominican Republic  provided the following statement. The 
Dominican  Republic thanks Ireland for the opportunity to comment on its draft regulations notified 
in document G/TBT/N/IRL/4 , on th e labelling of alcoholic beverages.  The Dominican Government 
acknowledges that the objective of the measure proposed by the Irish Government for alcoholic 
beverages marketed in its territory is to protect human health, ensure that consumers are aware of 
the health risks of alcohol consumption and provide health warnings on the potential consequences 
of harmful consumption.  We share and promote a similar interest in informing pregnant women 
about the harm to health caused by alcohol consumption.  However, we consider the measures to be 
more restrictive than necessary to fulfil the legitimate objective pursued, in accordance with Article 
2.2 of the TBT Agreement, which states: "Members shall ensure that technical regulations are not 
prepared, adopted or applied  with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to 
international trade. For this purpose, technical regulations shall not be more trade -restrictive than 
necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non -fulfilment would create."  
Ireland must therefore ensure that its proposed measures are compatible with the commitments 
assumed under the WTO TBT Agreement. The measures go beyond even the World Health 
Organization (WHO) Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol. In view of this, we 
request that the extent of the obligations be brought into line with the public health objective 
pursued, recalling that there are alternative measures to achieve the same level of awareness as 
the Government of Ireland inte nds. 
3.6.  Exclusive health warnings for the Irish market .5 We urge you to reflect on whether the proposed 
warnings, whose wording is inaccurate, disproportionate and risks sounding alarmist, especially in 
the light of the evidence concerning responsible and mo derate alcohol consumption, are appropriate. 
Furthermore, the warnings should take account of the fact that the risks to drinkers' health vary 
substantially depending on drinking patterns, including the speed of consumption, the quantity of 
alcohol ingeste d, and the frequency and context of consumption.  The link between alcohol and 
cancer risk is complex and depends on multiple individual factors, such as drinking patterns, which 
calls for a broader approach that is centred mostly on raising consumer awaren ess of the health 
risks associated with excessive alcohol consumption. The proposed warning is more restrictive than 
necessary and thus violates Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, which stipulates that the "available 
scientific and technical information" mu st be taken into account when establishing technical 
regulations to pursue public policy objectives. It is also incompatible with the WHO Strategy, the 
main objective of which is to reduce the harmful use of alcohol.  It should be noted that, in the 
Dominic an Republic's view, the adoption of this measure would undermine efforts by the European 
Union to ensure that consumers receive harmonized and accurate information based on scientific 
evidence, including a plan for mandatory health warnings being developed  by the European 
Parliament through the Special Committee on Beating Cancer. Since there is currently no compelling 
scientific evidence of a direct link between alcohol consumption and fatal cancer, such a claim would 
lack documentary support and mislead c onsumers.  We therefore invite the Irish Government to 
consider alternative technologies such as QR codes, a method of providing up -to-date information 
 
5 Under Section 5(1) and (3), alcoholic beverage contai ners must display health warnings stating that 
"Drinking alcohol causes liver disease" and "There is a direct link between alcohol and fatal cancers".  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 7 - 
 
  on the complex relationship between health risks and alcohol consumption, as well as information 
on nutri tion and responsible drinking.  
3.7.  A major barrier to the free movement of goods within the EU Common Market . We certainly 
agree on the importance of addressing the harmful use of alcohol. However, this regulation would 
also create obstacles to the free movement of goods within the EU Common Market, and 
disproportionate and unnecessary barriers to international trade.  If the proposal is adopted as it 
stands, exporters of distilled spirits would be forced to relabel or repackage their products destined 
for the Irish market, significantly increasing their operating costs. It would also violate Article 12.3 
of the TBT Agreement by creating unnecessary obstacles to exports from developing country 
Members of the WTO, such as the Dominican Republic, where spirit s – specifically rum – form part 
of our cultural identity and have a designation of origin.  
3.8.  Mutual recognition of existing pregnancy warning pictograms . We call on Ireland to examine 
the practices of other EU countries that have warnings similar to pregnan cy pictograms, which fulfil 
Ireland's pursued objective and avoids the exporter having to change the label in order to enter the 
Irish market.  
3.9.  Alcohol content must be given by volume . Similarly, we urge Ireland to consider maintaining 
legislative coherence  at the Community level in terms of the proposed and required unit of measure. 
Grams of alcohol is not a measure that consumers understand, and it will create confusion since 
they are familiar with alcohol strength measured as a percentage of alcohol by vo lume, not by grams.  
3.10.   Alcohol and energy content must be in line with existing requirements . Under the EU 
Regulation on Food Information to Consumers, the energy value and the amount of nutrients must 
be expressed per 100 g or per 100 ml, and may also be exp ressed per portion or per consumption 
unit.6 A standard drink in Ireland is 10 g of alcohol, the equivalent of 25 cl of beer (5% vol.), 12.5 
cl of wine (10 -12% vol.) or 3 cl of distilled spirits (40% vol.). The requirement to display such 
information on e ach bottle or container does not provide consumers with basic information on the 
alcohol content of a measure/portion of distilled spirit, wine or beer in a way that would allow them 
to measure or moderate their alcohol consumption and make responsible cho ices. 
3.11.   These are, in short, some of the reasons why the Dominican Republic is requesting Ireland to 
take note of these comments in line with the WTO commitments assumed under the TBT and other 
agreements, and to ensure that the measures finally adopted do n ot, in practical terms, constitute 
a technical barrier to trade.  Lastly, we appreciate this opportunity to express our concerns at this 
important discussion forum that seeks to maintain and boost our trade, while always taking 
protection of health into acc ount. The Dominican Republic hopes that between us we will be able to 
arrive at a mutually satisfactory measure.  The Dominican Republic thanks the delegation of Ireland 
for considering this statement and the requests made therein. We also thank the United States and 
Mexico for submitting the concern in question, Japan, Colombia and Canada for their support, and 
Cuba for submitting its comments in writing.  
3.12.   The representative  of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan supports the concerns 
raised by the  United States, Mexico and Dominican Republic with regard to "Draft Regulations Under 
Section 12 of the Public Health (Alcohol) 2018 " notified to Members in document G/TBT/N/IRL/4 . 
These revised regulations establish requirements above and beyond EU re gulations. Therefore, it 
would create trade barriers within the EU and lead to the fragmentation of the EU as a single market. 
In particular, Japan has two concerns as follows. First, business operators exporting alcoholic 
beverages to Ireland will have to  deal with labelling that differs from the EU standards, which will 
inevitably increase costs. Second, the health warnings labelling in these draft regulations 
("DRINKING ALCOHOL CAUSES LIVER DISEASES " and "THERE IS A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN 
ALCOHOL AND FATAL CANCERS. ") are inaccurately and inappropriately worded with an 
overemphasis on risk, and are not accurately based on objective scientific evidences. Taking into 
concerns of Japan, the United States, Mexico and Dominican Republic seriously, Japan calls for a 
review of the Irish revised regulations to ensure that they do not create more trade barriers than 
necessary for liquor businesses.  
3.13.   The representative  of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada supports Ireland's 
public health objective of reduci ng the health risks and harms associated with alcohol use. However, 
 
6 Articles 32 and 33 of Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Canada is concerned by the potential impact these regulations may have on trade in the EU single 
market. These regulations, once implemented, would impact Canada's trade – and that of othe r WTO 
Members – by requiring exporters to produce Ireland -specific labels, creating new costs and 
impacting their ability to reallocate product within the European market. Unilateral member State 
initiatives such as these undermine the EU single market by establishing differential treatment of 
products and creating barriers to trade. Canada highlighted these concerns in a letter to the EU 
Enquiry Point and Ireland's Department of Health sent in May 2023, ultimately pressing for the EU 
to coordinate and harm onize alcohol health labelling. Canada notes the European Commission 
already announced plans to review its policy on alcohol labelling, and intends to propose a mandatory 
indication of health warnings on alcohol products before the end of 2023 as part of "Europe's Beating 
Cancer Plan ". As Ireland has provided a three -year lead -in time for these regulations to be 
implemented, Canada encourages the EU to use this time to coordinate and harmonize alcohol health 
labelling at the EU -level to address regulatory f ragmentation and prevent disruptions to trade. 
Finally, Canada understands Ireland signed its draft regulations into law on 22 May 2023, only 14 
days after the official TBT window for comments closed. This indicates Ireland did not intend to take 
into acco unt comments made through the Enquiry Point and here today. This is of serious concern 
for Canada, and we urge our partners in the EU and Ireland to respect their obligations under the 
TBT Agreement, including Articles 2.9 and 3.  
3.14.   The representative  of Chile provided the following statement. The delegation of Chile thanks 
Ireland for notifying the draft Public Health (Alcohol) (Labelling) Regulations 2022 to the Committee 
on Technical Barriers to Trade. Our delegation hopes that Ireland will duly respond to the comments 
sent in good time via Chile's official WTO/TBT enquiry point. We also wish to point out that efforts 
to fulfil the legitimate public policy objectives, particularly those under Article 2.2 of the TBT 
Agreement, pursued by the notified Regulati ons must not result in the creation of unnecessary 
obstacles to trade.  Chile is particularly concerned by the requirements under part 2 of the 
Regulations, which relate to health warnings. These warnings directly link the consumption of alcohol 
to the deve lopment of deadly neoplastic diseases such as liver cancer, while failing to make any 
distinctions as regards consumption levels or other risky behaviours associated with the consumption 
of alcohol.  We consider that these provisions excessively obstruct tr ade, as there is no conclusive 
evidence that moderate alcohol consumption is the direct cause of liver cancer or other deadly 
cancers.  
3.15.   The representative  of Argentina  provided the following statement. Argentina would like to 
thank the delegations for including this trade concern on the meeting agenda and Ireland for its 
notification.  Argentina recognizes the importance of informing consumers about alcohol 
consumption. At the national level, both the National Grape -Growing and Wine Produ ction Institute 
and the industry have promoted the concept of responsible consumption with the aim of reducing 
the impact of alcohol consumption on non -communicable diseases, based on the premise that 
consumer education is the most appropriate tool for ach ieving this aim.  Although Argentina 
understands that the warnings under the Irish regulations are intended to inform consumers about 
alcohol consumption, we believe that they may unnecessarily harm trade and that they might not 
take account of differences between alcoholic beverages, in terms of their alcohol content in 
particular, but also their composition. We therefore encourage Ireland to consider other strategies 
to promote moderate and responsible drinking that do not create unnecessary obstacles to t rade. 
3.16.   The representative  of New Zealand  provided the following statement. New Zealand thanks 
Ireland for the opportunity to comment on the Public Health (Alcohol) (Labelling) Regulations 2023. 
New Zealand shares the concerns of other parties surrounding th ese measures. In particular, we 
note our concern that the measure requires parties to express a product's quantity of grams and 
energy on the labelling differently to the European Commission's Regulation 2021/2117, while 
achieving substantively the same ou tcome. We seek clarification from Ireland on whether it has 
considered alternatives to enable the Regulations to be less trade restrictive on imports from 
Ireland's trading partners. For example, has Ireland considered aligning its Regulations with EU 
Regulation? New Zealand also wants to highlight for Ireland's continued consideration of the 
potential for these measures to affect stock in trade from other countries. While New Zealand 
understands the new measures do not come into effect until 22 May 2026, w e note that wine has a 
very long shelf -life and there may be old, and high -value, stock already in trade (such as from older 
vintage stock in cellars) that does not display Ireland's required warnings and energy information. 
New Zealand would appreciate cl arification from Ireland on how it intends to ensure these regulations 
do not unintentionally prohibit trade of such old stock.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 9 - 
 
  3.17.   The representative  of Colombia  provided the following statement. Colombia supports the 
trade concern raised by the Dominican Rep ublic, Mexico and the United States regarding the draft 
regulations under Section 12 of the Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018, notified to Members in 
document G/TBT/N/IRL/4 . On 4 May, Colombia sent comments from its export sector via the contact 
point, outlining the following points, among others:  - Mutual recognition for accepting pregnancy 
warning labels similar to those used in third countries, including the European Union, without 
changing the labelling ; - Alcohol and energy content in accordance wit h existing EU regulations ; 
- The scientific and technical basis for the wording of the health warnings proposed in the 
regulations . We look forward to receiving a response from Ireland to the comments made in the 
public consultations.  Lastly, bearing in mi nd the concerns outlined by several Members, we hope 
that there will be flexibility when reviewing the measures in order to avoid unnecessary trade barriers 
for alcoholic beverages companies.  
3.18.   The representative of Cuba provided the following statement. On 2 May, the Directorate of 
Technical Regulations and Quality of the Republic of Cuba's Ministry of Foreign Trade and 
Investment, the national contact point for the TBT Committee, sent to its Irish  counterpart the 
concerns of Cuban rum producers and exporter s in relation to the Irish Public Health (Alcohol) 
(Labelling) Regulations 2022, notified to the Committee members in document G/TBT/N/IRL/4 . In 
the communication, we thanked the Government of Ireland for notifying its draft regulations to the 
Committee  on Technical Barriers to Trade in accordance with its obligations as a Member of the 
World Trade Organization under Article 2.9.2 of the Agreement, which establishes that notifications 
of technical regulations must take place at a stage when comments can be taken into account and 
amendments can be made to the initial draft.  We also explained the impact of these measures on 
labelling and the obstacles that these Regulations pose to international trade and, more specifically, 
to exports of alcohol products f rom Cuba to Ireland.  We have yet to receive a response to the 
concerns outlined in our communication, on which we would be grateful to hear Ireland's views.  
3.19.   The representative  of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia recognizes the 
importance of labelling to promote consumer awareness and support public health initiatives. 
However, like other Members today, Australia is concerned Ireland's new alcohol labelling regulations 
could impact trade by introducing labelling requirements that are inconsistent with those of other 
European Union (EU) member States, undermining the concept of the European single market and 
potentially creating an unnecessary obstacle to international tra de. Ensuring consistency in labelling 
between Ireland and other EU member States is important in reducing unnecessary barriers to trade. 
Australia supports concerns raised on this issue and is willing to work with the Government of Ireland 
to resolve this matter.  
3.20.   The representative  of Guatemala  provided the following statement. Guatemala thanks the 
countries that raised this trade concern, in addition to those that are supporting it.  Furthermore, 
Guatemala supports the objective of the proposal to combat al cohol abuse and ensure that Irish 
consumers are directly informed of alcohol -related health risks and receive support in making 
healthier choices with regard to alcohol consumption.  Guatemala has raised a number of timely 
concerns relating to the draft reg ulations, which, should they be implemented, would constitute a 
blatant barrier to trade. Guatemala therefore requests that Ireland recognize products that contain 
similar pictographic pregnancy -related warnings without requiring a change of label.  We urge  Ireland 
to ensure that the regulations are based on the information on alcohol content and energy as 
provided by Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.  In 
addition, we ask Ireland to clarify why the quantity of gr ams of alcohol needs to be provided.  We 
also encourage Ireland to consider other options, such as QR codes or websites, to inform consumers 
of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.  Guatemala would appreciate a response from 
Ireland to the concerns  raised. We also ask Ireland to consider measures that are not more restrictive 
than necessary.  
3.21.   A representative from the World Health Organization  provided the following statement. Thank 
you, Chair, for the opportunity to address the Committee on this cri tical public health issue.  Alcohol 
consumption poses risks to human health. The International Agency for  Research on Cancer, which 
is a WHO body, classifies alcohol as a group 1  carcinogen, with alcohol consumption causing cancers 
of the mouth, pharynx,  larynx, oesophagus, liver, colorectum and female breast. In addition, alcohol  
consumption is a risk factor for over 200 communicable and non -communicable  diseases and can 
lead to road traffic injuries and harm to self and others. WHO  estimates that in 2019, 2.6 million 
deaths were caused by alcohol consumption,  equivalent to tuberculosis, malaria and HIV/AIDS 
together. Importantly, no level  of alcohol consumption can be established as safe for health.  At the G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 10 - 
 
  international level, countries have committed to re ducing alcohol  consumption per capita. This is 
target 3.5.2 of the Sustainable Development  Goals.  More recently, countries have confirmed their 
commitment to reduce alcohol -related  harm by adopting the WHO Global Action Plan 2022 -2030 to 
effectively  implem ent the Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol as a Public  Health 
Priority. The Proposed Actions for Member States in the Action Plan  include to:  "Ensure appropriate 
consumer protection measures through the development and  implementation of l abelling 
requirements for alcoholic beverages that display essential  information for health protection on 
alcohol content in a way that is understood by  consumers and also provides information on other 
ingredients with potential impact on  the health of con sumers, caloric value and health warnings. " 
3.22.   Appendix 3 of the WHO Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of  Noncommunicable 
Diseases, adopted by the World Health Assembly, also  includes the policy option to:  "Provide 
consumers with information, including labels and health warnings, about  contents of alcoholic 
beverages and the harms associated with alcohol consumption  as a public health intervention to 
reduce modifiable risk factors for  noncommunicable disease and underlying social determinants 
through creation  of health -promoting environments. " Thank you very much for this opportunity to 
provide additional information to  the TBT Committee, with a view to ensuring coherence across the 
international  system.  
3.23.   In response, the representa tive of the European Union  provided the following statement. The 
EU would like to thank the United States, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Japan, Canada, Colombia, 
(Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, Chile, Guatemala and Cuba) (and the WHO) for their comments 
on the Irish proposal under Section 12 of the Public Health Act of 2018. Allow me to address the 
core concerns raised here today by the different WTO Members. First, the EU would like to thank all 
the members of the TBT Committee who provided written comme nts on the Irish measure. We had 
hoped to have the replies out ahead of today's meeting but unfortunately this will only happen 
shortly after the meeting. Second, the Irish Regulations at issue aim to communicate in simple and 
direct terms information to t he consumer on the content of the alcohol product as part of a series of 
public health measures. The measure is supported by a body of scientific research. Most of those 
can be found in the TBT notification made by Ireland. Among other things, the body of scientific 
research listed in the TBT notification cover the lack of awareness among the Irish population of 
health risks associated with alcohol consumption. It also covers scientific data on negative effects of 
alcohol on mortality, liver disease, pregna ncy and cancer, and the expected benefits of warning 
statements to high -risk drinkers. Furthermore, the Covid crisis demonstrated that closing premises 
where one can consume alcoholic beverages only demonstrated a marginal impact on reducing 
average alcoho l consumption in Ireland.  
3.24.   In addition, the measure was designed with the aim to minimise the impact on cross -border 
trade. In fact, the Irish law provides that that the necessary information can be included by a sticker 
affixed to the container of the alco hol product. This means that alcohol products can be imported 
without this information on the product, the information can then be added before the product is 
sold on the territory of Ireland. The mandatory minimum dimensions of the health information and 
warnings are set small (60mm x 30mm) and the requirement to provide a pregnancy warning can 
be met by displaying an image without the need for accompanying text. In addition, the draft law 
provides that for containers which have a surface area of less than  80 square centimetres, the area 
reserved for the health warnings can be reduced by 25%. Furthermore, there is a three -year 
transition period for the measure. It won't go into effect until 22 May 2026. This three -year lead -in 
time is to give businesses the  time to prepare for the changes. Finally, the EU has indeed announced 
its intention to review its food labelling rules under the regulation on Food Information to Consumers 
Regulation, including the labelling of alcoholic beverages. However, we are still very early in the 
process. Currently the preparatory work and evidence -gathering are in progress with the preparation 
of an impact assessment.  
3.1.2.2   European Union - Proposal for a regulation on horizontal cybersecurity 
requirements for products with digital ele ments, G/TBT/N/EU/936  (ID 7957) 
3.25.   The representative of China  provided the following statement. 1. For chapter 1, 1/2/1, it is  
recommended to clarify the definition of "products with digital elements ". Chapter 1 1/2/1 defined 
the scope of CRA regulati on as below, "This Regulation applies to products with digital elements 
whose intended or reasonably foreseeable use includes a direct or indirect logical or physical data 
 
7 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 795 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 11 - 
 
  connection to a device or network ". This regulation does not clearly define "product s with digital 
elements ". Manufacturers cannot evaluate the scope of products according to the existing 
requirements of the regulation. The EU should clearly define "products with digital elements " or 
provide relevant guidelines, such as whether various ap plication APKs and security components are 
included in the scope. It is recommended that services (as mentioned in the recital) such as SaaS 
and open -source software exempted from this regulation should be explicitly excluded from the 
scope.  
3.26.   2. For Chapter 1, 1/3/1, it is recommended to further clarify "software components to be 
placed on the market separately ". Chapter 1 1/3/1 defined the "product with digital elements " means 
any software or hardware product and its remote data processing sol utions, including software or 
hardware components to be placed on the market separately. Firstly, the concept of software 
components to be placed on the market is vague. Consumers can download and use software from 
websites, app stores, etc.. anywhere in t he world, so it is difficult to judge whether the software 
components are placed on the market or not. Secondly, the NLF has not provided conformity 
assessment requirement for pure software products yet. Finally, if any software components to be 
placed on the market separately shall be conducted conformity assessment to comply with CRA, it 
is a great burden for small and medium -sized enterprises.  
3.27.   3. For Chapter 1, 1/6/5, it is recommended to add a provision on the identification of "highly 
critical products  with digital elements " pursuant to transparency manner. Chapter 1 1/6/2 specifies 
the European Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts to define the "highly critical 
products with digital elements ". The identification elements (a) & (b) of the "highly critical product " 
set out in this article contain obvious non -technical judgments, including whether the product is used 
by the essential entities referred to (EU) 2022/2555 NIS2 and the security of the supply chain. It is 
recommended to add a provisi on on the identification of "highly critical products with digital 
elements " pursuant to transparency manner. The Commission shall identify products as "highly 
critical products with digital elements " based on the principles of impartiality, non -discrimina tion, 
and transparency.  
3.28.   4. For Chapter 2, 2/11/1, it is recommended that the manufacturer shall notify ENISA any 
actively exploited vulnerability within 72 hours. Chapter 2 2/11/1 specifies the manufacturer shall, 
without undue delay and in any event withi n 24 hours of becoming aware of it, notify ENISA of any 
actively exploited vulnerability contained in the product. The requirement for the 24 -hour 
vulnerability notification is strict. In view of after the actively exploited vulnerability is discovered, it  
is necessary to collect information, verify the vulnerability, and identify the scope of affected 
products immediately. Meanwhile, international enterprises are limited by the time difference, it will 
take more time to deal with the vulnerability. It is r ecommended that the vulnerability reporting 
time could be changed to 72 hours, which is consistent with the requirements of (EU) 2022/2555 
NIS2 Directive.  
3.29.   5. For Chapter 2, 2/11/2, it is recommended to modify the scope of security incidents to be 
notified and requirements of the reporting time, moreover, to exempt manufacturers reporting 
obligations of incidents in B2B scenarios. Chapter 2 2/11/2 specifies the manufacturer shall, without 
undue delay and in any event within 24 hours of becoming aware of it, notify to ENISA of any incident 
having an impact on the security of the product. As specified in the (EU) 2022/2555 NIS2, within 24 
hours of becoming aware of the significant incident, an early warning needs to be submitted to the 
CISRT or the competent au thority; and within 72 hours, an incident notification needs to be 
submitted to the CISRT or the competent authority. It is recommended that the requirements of 
incident notification could keep consistent with the (EU) 2022/2555 NIS, modifying this require ment 
to "Early warning is submitted within 24 hours and incident notification is submitted within 72 hours 
for the significant incident ". Regarding to the B2B application scenarios, there is a high probability 
that security incidents will occur in the operation, therefore, it is more reasonable that the entities 
referred in the (EU) 2022/2555 NIS2 shall fulfill the reporting obligations and (if applicable) 
collaborate with the manufacturer. It is recommended to exempt manufacturers from reporting 
obliga tions of incidents in B2B scenarios.  
3.30.   6. For Chapter 5, 5/46, it is recommended that the transition period could be extended to 48 
months; the RED DA will be repealed when the CRA Act comes into force, but RED DA certificates 
which have been issued will con tinue to be valid. Article 57 of Chapter VIII specifies that this 
regulation shall apply from "24 months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation ". As the 
scope of CRA regulation is very wide, all products covered by the regulation must be sub ject to G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 12 - 
 
  conformity assessment before they are put into the EU market. Considering the time for developing 
the harmonized standards, implementing regulations, and the time for the economic operator and 
Notified Body to prepare after CRA was issued, it is re commended that the transition period could 
be extended to 48 months, and the transition period for the manufacturer's vulnerability reporting 
obligation could be extended to 30 months. It is recommended to repeal the Directive (EU) 2022/30 
RED DA after the  entry into force of the CRA, but product certifications obtained under the (EU) 
2022/30 RED DA before the entry into force of the CRA can still remain valid to avoid duplicate 
certifications.  
3.31.   7. For Annex I, 1(2), it is recommended to change "without any known exploitable 
vulnerabilities during product delivery " to "without publicly known exploitable vulnerabilities within 
XX days before the product delivery ", using the European vulnerability database as the main basis 
for determining whether "vulnerabilit ies" are "publicly known exploitable vulnerabilities ", and adding 
necessary exemption clauses. It is specified that "Products with digital elements shall be delivered 
without any known exploitable vulnerabilities " in paragraph 1 (2) of Annex I. Generally, the product 
delivery time is restricted by the contract. However, the occurrence of vulnerabilities is 
unpredictable. To avoid breach of contract, it is recommended that "Products with digital elements 
shall be delivered without any known exploitable vulne rabilities " in paragraph 1 (2) of Annex I could 
be changed to "No publicly known exploitable vulnerabilities within XX days before the product 
delivery ". (EU) 2022/2555 NIS2 has defined that ENISA will develop and maintain a European 
vulnerability database . Therefore, it is recommended that vulnerabilities published by the 
vulnerability database could be used as the main basis for determining whether vulnerabilities are 
publicly known vulnerabilities. Some vulnerabilities cannot be fixed on the original pro duct. It is 
recommended that appropriate exemption clauses could be provided for these vulnerabilities. For 
example, WFA released WPA3 technical specifications to fix WPA/WPA2 vulnerabilities in newly 
developed Wi -Fi products. For the interests of consumer s, WFA still allows WPA/WPA2 -enabled 
products to be phased out naturally. In addition, some chip vulnerabilities are difficult to exploit and 
repair. Once they are manufactured and cannot enter the market, chip manufacturers' costs will be 
greatly increase d, and technological innovation will be suppressed. The market generally adopts the 
product iteration method to naturally eliminate old products. It is recommended that appropriate 
exemption clauses could be provided for such vulnerabilities.  
3.32.   In response, the representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. At 
the outset, the European Union would like to reassure China that it will provide a detailed written 
response to China's written comments received in March 2023. The response is c urrently in the final 
phase of the internal EU consultation process and will be sent through the Enquiry Point very soon. 
The EU would like to provide a brief reply to China statement as follows. As regards the 
recommendation to provide the definition of p roducts with digital elements, the EU would like to 
inform China that the EU regulatory approach is to have rules that provide legal certainty and are 
accordingly as detailed as possible but at the same time sufficiently flexible so as not to stifle 
innova tion and ensure that rules remain future -proof. As regards the request to clarify the notion of 
"software components to be placed on the market separately ", the list of definitions in the proposed 
Regulation includes the concept of "placing on the market ", which refers to the first making available 
of a product on the Union market, and clarifies the notion of "making available ". The EU considers 
that these two definitions, combined, clarify the concept of "placed on the market ". 
3.33.   As to the identification of "highly critical products with digital elements ", the EU would like to 
indicate that Article 6(5) establishes the criteria the Commission has to take into account when 
preparing a delegated act. The criteria both provide legal certainty and take into accou nt, in an 
objective manner, the evolving technology and threat landscape. As to extension of the time delay 
for reporting incidents to 72 hours and the exemption from reporting of incidents in B2B scenarios, 
the EU observes that the notification expected f rom the manufacturer is not a comprehensive report, 
but shall only include details concerning that vulnerability and, where applicable, any corrective or 
mitigating measures taken. The EU also observes that the reporting obligations in NIS2 Directive 
only concern significant incidents and for services by the entities in the scope of NIS2 Directive. It 
does not concern actively exploited vulnerabilities in products or incidents having an impact on the 
security of a product, as is the case for the proposed Re gulation. As to the provision of a longer 
transition period, extended to 48 months, the EU considers that the two -year transition period is a 
standard transition period to allow the development of harmonized standards. The proposal also 
includes a grandfat hering clause according to which the products with digital elements that have 
been placed on the market before the date of application of the new regulation shall not be subject 
to its requirements. Finally, the EU is of the opinion that delivering product s with digital elements G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 13 - 
 
  without any known exploitable vulnerabilities or providing security patches or updates to products 
with digital elements free of charge is necessary to achieve the general consumer safety and 
cybersecurity objectives pursued by the proposed Regulation.  
3.1.2.3   United Arab Emirates - Technical Requirements for Electric Vehicle, 
G/TBT/N/ARE/572  (ID 7968) 
3.34.   The representative  of China  provided the following statement. China noted the United Arab 
Emirates notified the technical requirement s for electric vehicle and this standard covers all electric 
vehicles with a speed of more than 25km/h and takes in consideration the compatibility with relevant 
Gulf standards and regulations and it is the first time for China to raise the concern. China has 
submitted 13 comments from technical aspects during the comment period and have not received 
any response so far so we would like to use this opportunity to communicate with the counterparts 
from the United Arab Emirates to get feedback.  
3.35.   According to A rticle 2.4 of the WTO/TBT Agreement, "Where technical regulations are required 
and relevant international standards exist or their completion is imminent, members shall use them. 
or the relevant parts of them, as a basis for their technical regulations ... ", China suggests that: 
(1) The UAE refer to the relevant scope provisions of the UN regulations to further clarify the scope 
of application of this regulation. The scope of application of this regulation is supplemented as 
follows: "This standard is appli cable to electric vehicles with a speed exceeding 25km/h and a 
maximum total mass less than 3500kg." (2) It is recommended that technical regulations be 
consistent with the requirements of the UN regulations, specifying that connectors shall not be 
opened,  separated, etc. except for those without the use of tools. When relevant requirements are 
met, connector separation is allowed; and adding protection level requirements for live parts. (3) It 
is recommended that technical regulations be consistent with th e requirements of the UN 
regulations, adding that when connectors are separated, they must meet the corresponding 
protection level requirements; regarding the requirements of "meeting the corresponding protection 
level requirements when the connector is se parated", "equipped with a locking mechanism", and 
"within 1 second after the connector is separated, the voltage of the live parts becomes equal to or 
less than 60 V DC or equal to or less than 30 V AC (rms)" , meet one or more of these requirements 
can b e considered as meeting the regulations; remove the requirement of "Connectors shall locate 
under the floor". The relevant requirements in the Chinese standard GB 18384 are consistent with 
UN UNECE R100. It is recommended that the UAE consider equivalent r ecognition of the Chinese 
regulation GB 18384.  
3.36.   (4) It is recommended that the technical regulations of the UAE be consistent with the 
requirements of the UN regulations, and the chapter "3.2.1.2.1 Protection against Electrical Shock" 
be split into two cha pters: "Absence of high voltage" and "Low electrical energy". And clarify that 
meeting one or more of the requirements of "Absence of high voltage", "Low electrical energy", 
"Physical protection", and "Isolation resistance" can be considered as meeting reg ulatory 
requirements; The relevant requirements in the Chinese standard GB 31498 are consistent with UN 
UNECE R94, and it is recommended that the UAE consider equivalent recognition of the Chinese 
regulation GB 31498; (5) It is recommended to maintain cons istency between the technical 
regulations of the UAE and the requirements of the UN regulations, and to supplement the resistance 
value requirements in the case of "any two exposed conductive parts that can be reached 
simultaneously". (6) To avoid confusio n for enterprises in response, it is recommended that the 
technical regulations of the UAE be consistent with the requirements of the UN regulations. Clarify 
that the resistance tested in "the resistance shall be less than 0.1Ω" is an equipotential resista nce; 
If the resistance tested in "the resistance shall be less than 0.1 Ω" is an equipotential resistance, it 
is recommended to delete the requirement of "the resistance shall be less than 0.1 Ω" to avoid 
duplicate authentication; The relevant requirements  in the Chinese standard GB 18384 are 
consistent with UN UNECE R100. It is recommended that the UAE consider equivalent recognition of 
the Chinese regulation GB 18384.  
3.37.   (7) It is recommended to allow the label content in section 6.1.3 to have other similar  
expressions such as "FOR USE WITH ELECTRIC VEHICLES"; Alternatively, it is recommended that 
the label content in section 6.1.3 be consistent with the label content in section 6.2.1. (8) To avoid 
confusion for enterprises, it is recommended to clarify the quantitative standards for the anti -electric 
shock requirements of electric vehicle couplers, or explain whether this requirement is consistent 
 
8 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 796 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 14 - 
 
  with the electrical performance requirements of the entire vehicle. If it is consistent with the electrical 
performance requirements of the entire vehicle, it is recommended to delete this requirement. (9) 
It is recommended to add "If the user can externally charge the on -board ESS, the vehicle should 
not be able to move through its own propulsion system when the ex ternal power supply is connected 
to the vehicle end socket" in section 3.1.4 and delete section 6.1.6. (10) It is recommended to clarify 
the definition of listed system, or modifying "listed system of protection against electric shock of 
person" to "system  of protection against electric shock of person" to avoid manufacturers' 
misunderstanding of regulations.  
3.38.   (11) It is recommended to clarify objects with clear requirements: 1) If the object is 
overcurrent protection, it is recommended to follow the follow ing regulations: the power supply 
equipment detects the actual working current of the on -board charger. When i) the maximum power 
supply current corresponding to the PWM signal of the power supply equipment is ≤ 20A, and the 
actual working current of the o n-board charger exceeds the maximum power supply current+2A and 
remains for 5 seconds, or ii) the maximum power supply current corresponding to the PWM signal 
of the power supply equipment is>20A, when the actual working current of the on -board charger 
exceeds 1.1 times the maximum power supply current and remains for 5 seconds, the power supply 
equipment should terminate the charging process within 5 seconds. Reason: For example, if the 
minimum limit for overcurrent protection in the original text is 125% of the maximum load of the 
electric vehicle power supply device, and the current reaches 7.5A when it is 6A, it is defined as the 
overcurrent protection state. Therefore, external factors such as grid fluctuations and internal factors 
such as detection err ors may lead to frequent overcurrent protection, affecting the user experience. 
When the current is 63A and reaches 78.75A, it is in the overcurrent protection state, and at this 
time, it may have exceeded the product's load -bearing capacity and lost the s ignificance of 
overcurrent protection. 2) If the object is a switch, it is recommended to change the required object 
in the original text to a switch.  
3.39.   (12) It is recommended that the UAE clarify the implementation requirements of the standards 
listed in A ppendix 1 and Appendix 2 in this draft, as well as the certification and non -certification 
requirements, so that vehicle manufacturers can understand how to prepare. (13) Considering 
promoting trade facilitation among WTO Member countries, it is recommende d that the UAE, Saudi 
Arabia, and other Gulf countries uniformly recognize Gulf electric vehicle witness test reports to 
avoid duplicate testing and certification of the same projects.  
3.40.   The representative of the United Arab Emirates  did not provide a respon se to the concerns 
raised.  
3.1.2.4   India - Footwear (Quality Control Order), 2020, G/TBT/N/IND/172  (ID 7979) 
3.41.   The representative  of the United Kingdom  provided the following statement. The United 
Kingdom thanks India for our bilateral engagement on notification G/TBT/N/IND/172 , which sets out 
quality control requirements for  footwear made from leather and other materials. Like India, the UK 
acknowledges the importance of implementing high standards for footwear to ensure consumer 
protection. Nevertheless, we encourage India to base their relevant footwear regulations on 
applicable international standards, which provide an adequate means of ensuring product quality 
and safety. We encourage India to continue its participation in the ISO/TC 216 Footwear and ISO/TC 
94 Foot Protection Committees and recognise that conformity with I SO relevant standards would 
fulfil Indian quality control requirements. It is our understanding that, for the purpose of these new 
regulations, the Bureau of Indian Standards would be the only body authorized to provide 
certification for the entire Indian market. UK industry has requested clarity on the rationale behind 
mandating third party testing and certification for products, which already conform to ISO 
international standards. The UK is concerned that these additional procedures will result in delays  
and unjustified costs to commercial operators. Furthermore, the UK believes there would be other 
less trade restrictive options available and would be interested if any alternatives were considered.  
3.42.   The UK is also concerned that these regulations could st ifle creativity and innovation in fashion 
footwear, particularly in a growing market. No other country extends mandatory certification to 
fashion footwear where products evolve based on consumer demand and use innovative materials. 
Moreover, given that Ind ia forms a considerable part of the complex global footwear supply chain, 
it is likely that manufacturers will have to manufacture to two different standards. This measure will 
 
9 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 797 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 15 - 
 
  therefore lead to significant adverse impacts on trade flows and the footwear i ndustry more broadly. 
Did India undertake an impact assessment of this measure, and, if so, would India be able to share 
its findings? Finally, we thank India for delaying this measure by at least six months to allow Member 
concerns to be responded to. We encourage India to respond to our questions submitted to the 
Enquiry Point and re -consider the implementation of this measure.  
3.43.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union would like to support the United Ki ngdom. The EU recognises the importance of high standards 
for footwear regarding product and chemical safety, however standards must not become restrictive 
on companies that already apply high safety standards. The EU remains deeply concerned by the 
increa sing number of quality control orders issued by India across many sectors. The EU would like 
to recall that the majority of QCOs introduced by India appear to have a protectionist orientation 
and consequently raise questions regarding compliance with the W TO's TBT Agreement. The EU is 
particularly concerned by the fact that QCOs usually prescribe India -specific standards where 
international standards already exist. In fact, while dealing with QCOs, the procedures involved pose 
a greater hurdle than complyin g with the technical standards. The EU would like to remind India that 
Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement requires Members to use international standards where they exist 
as a basis for technical regulations except where such international standards or relev ant parts would 
be ineffective or inappropriate means for the fulfilment of the legitimate objectives pursued, for 
instance because of fundamental climatic or geographical factors or fundamental technological 
problems.  
3.44.   India's notification sets out qualit y control requirements for footwear made from leather and 
other materials. Although the notified standard is to apply to all footwear entering the Indian market, 
both India -made and imported, it will put exporters in a disadvantaged position as the QCO wil l have 
an effect that will restrict imports. The EU would therefore like to recall that international standards 
should be used to facilitate trade and to limit the costs incurred by footwear manufacturers. 
Additionally, footwear imported into India should be allowed to be tested in laboratories outside of 
India. Testing only in India causes delays and additional costs. The EU would like to suggest to India 
to allow those brands which meet EU standards in footwear reproduction to export to India based 
on sel f-certification. Finally, the EU welcomes India's decision to defer the entry into force of some 
QCOs by at least six months until 1 January 2024. The EU would like India to consider further 
deferment of this measure.  
3.45.   In response, the representative  of India provided the following statement. India has taken 
various initiatives to improve the quality of footwear and QCOs are an important component in this 
regard. However, level playing field has been ensured for foreign and domestic manufacturers. India 
has its own quality standards developed by BIS and import of footwear and leather items to Indian 
territory has to follow these standards. Being one of the largest consumer markets, India has to 
protect the consumer's rights. As per the BIS Act, 2016, Leather and Footwear QCOs come under 
scheme -I (ISI Mark Scheme) for which self -testing is not allowed to prevent the risk to human life 
and safety. We thank the UK for the ongoing engagement on a bilateral basis on this STC.  
3.1.2.5   European Union - The PFAS Restriction P roposal under the Registration, 
Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (ID 79810) 
3.46.   The representative  of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan understands the 
regulatory objectives of protecting human health and the environment. Howe ver, Japan has concerns 
about the proposal to newly restrict perfluoroalkyl compounds and polyfluoroalkyl substances 
(PFASs) under the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) 
regulation, published by the European Chemic als Agency (ECHA) in February this year. Although 
some PFASs are considered to have high risk, there are considerable differences among PFASs in 
terms of their direct and harmful effects and properties, which are not recognized as common to all 
PFASs. In f act, the proposed restriction itself also acknowledges that "for most PFASs there are 
insufficient data to adequately assess their effects on human health and the environment ". Some 
PFASs are used only in enclosed spaces where the amount of exposure to the  environment is very 
limited, and the risk posed by such uses of PFASs to human health and environment are even lower. 
Since many PFASs are used in a wide range of sectors and no alternative substance has been 
 
10 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 798 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 16 - 
 
  identified for many PFASs, a full ban on their  use, trade, etc. across all PFASs would be extremely 
trade restrictive.  
3.47.   Japan understands the regulatory objectives of protecting human health and the environment. 
However, the proposed restriction which would introduce a uniform restriction on the use, t rade, 
etc. of all PFASs, including PFASs that have not been proven to pose unacceptable risk and PFASs 
that pose less risk depending on their uses, would be inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT 
Agreement as the proposed restriction lacks sufficient sci entific and rational basis and is more trade -
restrictive than necessary to fulfil the regulatory objectives. We believe that the EU will provide a 
sufficient grace period in accordance with Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement when introducing the 
proposed re striction, but in light of the above, we would like to request that the EU appropriately 
consider and examine the comments submitted by industries and other stakeholders, and limit the 
scope of the restriction to an appropriate range for the objectives of the REACH regulation, which 
are protection of human health and the environment.  
3.48.   The representative  of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement. Korea 
appreciates this opportunity to convey the following comments and concerns from our industries on 
the "PFAS Restriction Proposal under the REACH Regulation", which is currently under a consultation 
process by the Eu ropean Chemical Agency (ECHA). PFAS is used extensively throughout industries, 
including electrical and electronics, automotives, displays, and semiconductors to name a few, but 
among the various individual PFASs, only a fraction have been identified as ha zardous. Moreover, 
there are currently no known alternative substances that can properly replace PFASs. As such, we 
are concerned that an indiscriminate ban on the use of all PFASs could lead to other kinds of serious 
environmental problems such as an incr ease in product safety risks, or hindrance to the development 
of eco -friendly industries like electric vehicles. Therefore, Korea requests the European Union that, 
before adopting the regulation, the regulatory scope of PFAS be defined clearly, based upon scientific 
evidence and international standards, such as the CAS Registry Numbers for PFAS and/or reports of 
hazards to human health and the environment.  
3.49.   Second, we request that the relevant regulation enters into effect at the point where sufficient 
discussions on alternative materials to PFAS have been made and the alternatives become available 
for use. Third, for certain groups of products, like rechargeable batteries, the use of PFAS is 
unavoidable in the manufacturing process. Therefore, Korea requests  that the EU carefully review 
provisions that stipulate exemptions or regulatory exceptions concerning such products or industries. 
Finally, it is hoped that international discussions and consultations with respect to the hazards of 
individual PFASs and th e regulations thereof could be sufficiently conducted.  
3.50.   In response, the representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The 
EU would like to thank Japan and Korea for raising the issue of a possible PFAS restriction under EU 
REACH le gislation. Pollution from PFAS (per - and polyfluoroalkyl substances) is a serious human 
health and environmental concern, considering the large number of cases of soil and water 
contamination across Europe - including drinking water. At the same time, PFAS  are needed in critical 
applications, for example in the digital and energy sectors (e.g., semiconductors, electrolysers and 
membranes for green hydrogen production). Within the framework of the REACH Regulation, five 
national authorities (from the Netherl ands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway) have proposed 
a broad ban with some derogations on the use of PFAS. This proposal is currently undergoing an 
independent scientific assessment in the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Scientific Committees. 
As part  of this assessment, the ECHA's Scientific Committees will also carefully consider the need 
for derogations for specific applications. That is why we would like to invite all stakeholders, 
especially the stakeholders in Japan and Korea, to participate in t he public consultation that has 
been launched and will run until 25 September 2023. It is very important that stakeholders provide 
their input because this will directly feed into the identification of derogation needs for particular 
uses or products. Of c ourse, the EU will notify the measure to the TBT Committee once it has a legal 
proposal to share.  
3.1.2.6   India - Geo Textile and Protective Textile (Quality Control Order), 2022, 
G/TBT/N/IND/242 , G/TBT/N/IND/243  (ID 79911) 
3.51.   The representative  of Indonesia  provided the following statement. Indonesia would like to 
thank India for its notification related to the Geo Textiles (Quality Control) Order, 2022 as 
 
11 For previous statements follow the thread  under ID 799 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 17 - 
 
  G/TBT/N/IND/242  and Protective Textiles (Quality Control) Order, 2022 as G/TBT/N/IND/243  on 8 
February 2023 to the TBT WTO Committee. Referring to the notifications, the India Ministry of 
Textiles has issued 31 standard regulations on textiles export products, under which the products 
must be certified in accordance with Indian Stand ards, and the manufacturers are required to 
undergo certification by the Indian Standards Bureau (BIS) under the Foreign Manufacturer 
Certification (FCMS), before the products are allowed to enter the Indian market with effect from 
180 days from the date o f issue. Previously, Indonesia had sent inquiries seeking clarification on the 
legitimate objective of this regulation. However, India's response was that this regulation has been 
enacted on 12 April 2023 and has not provided any explanation regarding Indo nesia's concerns. In 
this regard, we would like to seek further clarification on the following matters.  
3.52.   First, the legitimate objective of the Quality Control Order (QCO). As we understand that the 
purpose of this provision is to improve standard and quali ty of geotextiles and protective textiles in 
India. However, the requirement of certification and inclusion of Standard Marks to the 31 products 
will be an unnecessary barrier to trade and increase costs for companies engaged in international 
trade with In dia. Second, the transition time of the regulation is insufficient for producers to be able 
to meet the requirements set out in the QCO. With the large number of regulated products, the need 
for physical testing, and the factory inspection requirements at production sites, we are concerned 
about the possibility of queues and backlogs of product certification applications coming into BIS, 
which could slow down the certification process and hamper the export process. In this regard, we 
request India to postpo ne the implementation of this QCO at least 12 months after promulgations. 
Third, Indonesia suggest that India open the option of international recognition for conformity 
assessment results and/or conformity assessment bodies (inspection bodies) from the co untry of 
origin to speed up the audit and certification process and reduce the cost of certification. Fourth, 
Indonesia urges India to notify the stipulated technical regulations to the secretariat, in accordance 
with Article 2.9.2 of the TBT Agreement.  
3.53.   In response, the representative  of India provided the following statement. We thank the 
representative  of Indonesia for their interest in this issue. We are currently examining the 
statements made. We will provide a response after due examination of the issu es raised.  
3.1.2.7   India - Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022 (ID 80012) 
3.54.   The representative  of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement. Korea respects 
India's efforts to protect the environment through its waste management regulations and the Kore an 
industries are endeavouring to faithfully comply with them. However, the relevant Korean industry 
has experienced difficulties in complying with the "Battery Waste Management Rules" (S.O. 3984(E), 
2022), enforced on 24 August 2022, and Korea submitted c omments regarding the Rules to India 
through the TBT Enquiry Point on 23 February and 10 May 2023. Since there has been no response 
from India, we would like to convey them again by raising this STC. First, the Rules stipulate waste 
battery collection of 1 00% against the total weight of the battery placed in the Indian market during 
each compliance cycle (i.e., 7, 10 and 14 years) prescribed by the type of battery, apart from the 
minimum collection target rate by each year. The collection target per cycle i s a stringent 
requirement that has not been implemented in other countries, and the related Korean industries 
are suffering great difficulty in complying with the regulation. Accordingly, we would like to request 
that the corresponding requirement be withd rawn from the Rules. Second, to meet the obligation of 
"the minimum use of domestically recycled materials in new Battery" stipulated in item 4. (14), the 
production process of batteries for exports to India must be managed separately from those bound 
for other countries. It is expected that such separation will impose excessive costs on the related 
Korean companies and reduce productivity. Therefore, we would like to request an exemption from 
applying the minimum use of domestically recycled materials requ irement to batteries produced 
outside India.  
3.55.   In response, the representative  of India provided the following statement. We thank the 
representative  of Korea for their interest in this issue. We are currently examining the statements 
made. We will provide a  response after due examination of the issues raised.  
 
12 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 800 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 18 - 
 
  3.1.2.8   United States - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Dishwashers, 
G/TBT/N/USA/1817/Add.1  (ID 80113) 
3.56.   The representative of China  provided the following statement. Accordi ng to Article 2.2 of the 
WTO/TBT Agreement, "Members shall ensure that technical regulations are not prepared, adopted 
or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade," 
in order to avoid unnecessary obs tacles to trade caused by misunderstandings between the two 
sides, China suggests that the U.S. clarify the definition of "soiling application ". 
3.57.   In response, the representative of the United States  provided the following statement. Thank 
you for your comme nts and for the bilateral today. As we discussed, we do not have a record of any 
comments coming from China on that measure during the comment period. If you have evidence of 
that please let me know but we are unable to take your comment into account if yo u do not submit 
in a timely manner.  
3.1.2.9   China - Data Security Law (ID 80214)15 
3.58.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The EU would 
like to note at the outset that this is not a new concern but was previously raised under the STC on 
Cybersecurity (ID 526). For coherence, we are separating issues under China's Data Security Law 
and Cyberse curity Law. The EU would like to refer to its statements at previous TBT Committees 
with regard to the Data Security Law16 and related legislation. The concerns raised in those previous 
statements remain and have already had a negative effect on business c onfidence. Considerable 
uncertainty remains around key definitions of the Law and related legislation, including, but not 
limited to, "industrial data ", "important data ", "core data " and "data transfer ". This in turn gives rise 
to uncertainty for foreign c ompanies as to which legislation is applicable to them. The EU remains 
concerned about the Outbound Data Transfer Security Assessment Measures and their 
implementation. There is uncertainty regarding the triggers for assessment, such that they may 
potentia lly be triggered by normal cross -border commercial activity. In addition, the assessment 
process is proving to be lengthy, giving rise to considerable uncertainty. The EU is particularly 
concerned that these measures put foreign operators at a disadvantage  compared to domestic ones. 
In addition, there are considerable concerns regarding the protection of trade secrets during the 
assessment process.  
3.59.   The EU also continues to be concerned about the lack of clarity surrounding the sectoral scope 
of application of the Measures for Data Security Management in Industry and Information Technology 
(for Trial Implementation). The EU encourages China to clarify the scope of key legal definitions and 
to define them in as narrow a manner as possible. In particular, the E U encourages China to define 
sectoral catalogues of important and core data as soon as possible.  
3.60.   In response, the representative  of China  provided the following statement. The Data Security 
Law of China aims to regulate data processing activities, ensure d ata security, promote data 
development and utilization, protect the legitimate rights and interests of individuals and 
organizations, and safeguard national sovereignty, security and development. The Data Security 
Law clearly establishes and improves data classification and classification protection, risk monitoring, 
early warning and emergency response, data security review and other systems, and makes 
provisions on measures to support and promote data security and development, and promote public 
data secu rity and openness, so as to ensure development with security and promote security through 
development.  
3.1.2.10   Angola - Executive Decree No. 64/2023: Implementation of high security tax 
stamps on alcoholic beverages and liquids, tobacco and its substitutes (ID 80317) 
3.61.   The representative  of Mexico  provided the following statement. The Mexican delegation refers 
to Angolan Executive Decree No. 64/2023 on the implementation of high security tax stamps on 
alcoholic beverages and liquids, tobacco and its substitutes. This  Decree entered into force on its 
 
13 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 801 . 
14 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 802 . 
15 Related to Previously Raised STC ID 526 . 
16 数据安全法 . 
17 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 803 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 19 - 
 
  date of publication of 12 May 2023 and was not notified to WTO Members.  Mexico considers that 
this Decree contains requirements that mean it can be classed as a technical regulation under the 
WTO TBT Agreement, so the lack  of notification and the entry into force of the Decree constitute a 
contravention of Articles 2.11 and 2.12 of the Agreement.  Moreover, the Decree establishes that tax 
stamps will become obligatory from 12 July this year, that is, 60 days after the public ation of the 
Decree. However, this time frame is insufficient for producers exporting Mexican spirits to register 
and obtain the tax stamps required. Accordingly, we ask the Government of Angola to grant an 
extension to the transitional period provided und er Article 18 of the proposal, to at least six months.  
The Decree also provides for an 180 -day period for operators to recover products currently on the 
market without a stamp, so that they can affix a tax stamp to these products. However, this measure 
would be too burdensome and complicated for producers, hampering international trade. The 
Government of Mexico therefore suggests that an exhaustion clause be included for products already 
on the market, with the aim of maintaining trade flows.   
3.62.   Furthermore, the Decree establishes that, once 30 days have elapsed since its publication, 
operators must declare to the General Tax Administration the quantity of goods, both domestically 
produced and imported, in stock. In practice, this leads to a complicated proces s and producers need 
to be granted enough time to carry out these operations.  The measure establishes that the stamping 
of imported products must occur at the place of origin, so operators will have to affix the stamps in 
the country of production, putting  them at a disadvantage compared to local operators. The 
Government of Mexico therefore suggests that greater flexibility be granted as regards the physical 
location at which tax stamps may be affixed.  Lastly, given that Angola published the Decree in the 
Official Journal without notifying it beforehand to the WTO TBT Committee, we ask that it carry out 
this procedure, thereby giving Members the opportunity to submit comments.  
3.63.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. On 10 March 
2022, Angola published the Executive Decree n°149/22 introducing the obligation to affix High 
Security Tax Stamps on certain products including beverages (beer, wine, spirits, soft drinks) and 
tobacco in order to fight smuggling. This decree was supp osed to enter into force on 10 April 2022. 
On 8 April 2022, the Angolan authorities published the Executive Decree n°186/22, which suspended 
the mandatory affixing of high -security tax stamps on all alcoholic beverages. On 12 May 2023, 
Angola published a n ew decree n° 64/2023 replacing previous decrees 149/22 and 186/22. Angola 
has not yet notified this draft measure to the TBT committee, and we request Angola to notify as 
soon as possible, so that all Members can provide their comments on the draft measure  well ahead 
of the adoption and entry into force.  
3.64.   The EU supports the main objective of the Decree - the eradication of illicit trade, smuggling 
and counterfeiting of alcohol products, taking into account both public health considerations and the 
objective of combating tax evasion. However, we have serious concerns with some of the provisions 
of this decree, especially regarding: The foreseen timelines for entry into force, which are not realistic 
and could lead to significant trade disruption. The  currently foreseen deadline for tax stamps to 
become compulsory is 60 days – this is far too short. A transition period of at least six months is 
needed, considering the time needed to register and obtain tax stamps as well as the shipping time, 
which is currently 90 days on average from Europe to Angola. The absence of a stock exhaustion 
clause, which is very problematic given the long shelf life of the concerned products. The decree 
foresees a 180 -day period for unstamped products currently on the market , which is not realistic, 
especially if third parties are involved. Furthermore, according to the new decree, after 30 days from 
the publication, operators must declare to the General Tax Administration the quantities in stock, 
locally produced and importe d. This deadline is unrealistic and should be extended.  
3.65.   The lack of flexibility in terms of location where the tax stamps can be affixed. There should 
not be a requirement for operators to be AEO -accredited in Angola to authorize them to affix tax 
stamps i n bonded warehouses. In addition, getting the flexibility to affix tax stamps in bonded 
warehouses in third countries logistics hubs would help. Current provisions mean that the vast 
majority of EU operators would be forced to affix tax stamps in the count ry of production, placing 
them at a disadvantage with local operators. It is important that the elements mentioned are 
addressed by Angola as a matter of urgency. The shortcomings of the new decree have already led 
some brands to stop exporting to Angola. We would be grateful if Angola could take these concerns 
into account as well as consult stakeholders concerned before finalising the decree. We are ready to 
engage in bilateral discussions in order to clarify the issue further.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 20 - 
 
  3.66.   In response, the representa tive of Angola  provided the following statement. The 60 days 
before the entry into force of the measure that we proposed on Executive Decree 64/2023 is, we 
believe, time enough for the registration of the operators, the acquisition of the tax stamps and th e 
delivery of the tax stamps to the operators. This time was actually defined after a study that we 
made about the process and we find it comfortable and actually the experience we had since 12 May 
when it was published, we have been able to supply tax sta mps to the international operators that 
were registered since then. So we still believe and the experience that we have since then 
recommends us to keep that time in force. According to the 180 days of the transitory dispositions 
on number 3 of the article  18, we also asked that a study be made on that process to many other 
different geographies where this program was implemented. What we have realised is that for the 
transitional period they also had less time: some countries had a month, other countries h ad three 
months and we have given six months so we do not find it uncomfortable, we actually find it useful. 
According to the decree being published in Angola before it was notified to the TBT Committee, 
unfortunately we prepared all the procedures to stan dard and unfortunately it did not go to the 
destination in time. We understand that the documents were prepared on the tax administration and 
were about to be sent to the Trade Ministry in which we have the focal point that was responsible to 
notify to the  TBT Committee. We are sorry for that.  
3.1.2.11   China - Packaging requirements for Edible Agricultural Products, 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1715  (ID 80418) 
3.67.   The representative  of India provided the following statement. India note with concern the 
China's Notification No. G/TBT/N/CHN/1715  dated 3 February 2023 related to Packaging 
Requirements for Edible Agricultural Products. India finds the packaging requirements as restrictive 
and excessive. India requests China to provide the detailed scientific assessment unde rlying the 
determination for various parameters including - number of packaging layers, inter -space ratio and 
weight ratio, as specified in the proposed standard. Further India requests China to provide rational 
for limiting the cost of packaging at 20% of  the sale price of the product. India also requests China 
to indicate the objective sought to be achieved through the proposed standard and how the proposed 
measures help in fulfilling the objective.  
3.68.   In response, the representative of China  provided the fo llowing statement. The "requirements 
of restricting excessive package -Edible Agricultural Products" has been approved for revision, and 
during the commenting period in China and notification in WTO, we have not received comments 
from India. (1) Background of the development of this standard. Article 68 of the Law of the China 
on the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Wastes clearly stipulates that 
"relevant standards shall be formulated in accordance with the national economic and te chnical 
conditions, the prevention and control of environmental pollution by solid wastes and the technical 
requirements of products to prevent environmental pollution caused by Overpackaging." The 
development of the mandatory national standard "Restrictin g Overpackaging of commodities 
requires eating agricultural products" is a specific measure to implement the requirements of the 
law. (2) Scope of the standard. The standard applies to edible agricultural products with sales 
packaging, including fresh agri cultural products such as meat, vegetables, fruits, eggs, and aquatic 
products, and does not apply to gifts or unsold products.  
3.69.   (3) Main content of the standard. 1. Sales packaging. The term "sales packaging" in the 
standard refers to packaging that is pri marily intended for sales and arrives in the hands of 
consumers along with edible agricultural products. It does not include logistics protective packaging 
or cooling supplies or water added due to the preservation and liveliness of agricultural products. 
2. Calculation of Void Rate of Products. Packaging porosity refers to the percentage of the necessary 
space occupied by edible agricultural products removed from the packaging compared to the total 
volume of the packaging. 3. Number of packaging layers. Th e number of packaging layers refers to 
the number of layers that completely wrap edible agricultural products and can be physically 
separated. Complete packaging refers to the packaging method in which a complete layer or 
combination is used to prevent the  scattering of edible agricultural products. When calculating, the 
packaging that directly comes into contact with edible agricultural products is the first layer, and so 
on. The outermost packaging is the Nth layer, where N is the number of layers of pack aging. The 
standard stipulates that the packaging layers for meat, fruits, and aquatic products should not 
exceed 4 layers, and the packaging layers for vegetables and eggs should not exceed 3 layers. 
4. Packaging costs. The packaging cost reflects whether  the packaging is luxurious and excessive. 
 
18 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 804 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 21 - 
 
  In order to limit the trend of luxury, this standard imposes restrictions on the packaging cost of 
edible agricultural products. The packaging cost in this standard is the percentage of the total cost 
of selling p ackaging to the selling price of the product. The standard drafting group has conducted 
extensive market research and considered the development status of the industry to determine the 
limit requirements for packaging costs. 5. Judging rules. If there is o ne item in the commodity 
packaging that does not meet the limit requirements of three technical indicators, like packaging 
porosity, packaging layers and packaging cost), this kind of package will be judged as excessive 
packaging.  
3.1.3   Previously raised concern s 
3.1.3.1   India – Draft Food Safety and Standards (Import) Amendment Regulation, 2020, 
G/TBT/N/IND/180 , G/TBT/N/IND/667  (ID 66719) 
3.70.   The representative  of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
remains concerned with Indi a's facility registration measures, notified to the WTO TBT Committee 
as G/TBT/N/IND/180  and G/TBT/N/IND/237 . We appreciate India's confirmation that trade will 
continue uninterrupted as exporting countries strive to meet India's facility registration 
requirements. However, we note that additional clarity is needed as to how the measure will be 
implemented by India, including information regarding the treatment of shipments from unregistered 
facilities that enter ports in India, as  exporting countries strive to comply with the measure. For 
greater clarity, could India please provide a list of HS Codes for products subject to these facility 
registration requirements so that their scope is clearly understood by all parties? In additio n, we 
would be interested to know how India's new registration system has led to any demonstrative 
change or improvement in food safety oversight.  
3.71.   Furthermore, the United States remains concerned with India's draft measure, Food Safety 
and Standards (Impor t) Amendment Regulation, 2020 ( G/TBT/N/IND/180 ). The measure states that 
India may identify categories of "risk" for food products "from time to time… for which inspection or 
audit of foreign food manufacturing facilities producing such categories o f foods shall be mandatory. " 
We are still concerned about the lack of information regarding the scope of this proposed technical 
regulation, and hope that India will provide any scientific and technical information that is used to 
determine the specific "risk" for food product categories, as well as information on audit processes. 
We look forward to receiving further information and clarification from India on these two concerning 
measures.  
3.72.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following sta tement. The European 
Union would like to refer to its previous statements on the India's import requirements related to 
the registration foreign food manufacturing facilities. The EU would like to note that several facilities 
have not yet been registered i n the new India's Registration of Foreign Manufacturers - ReFoM online 
system. Given the possible disruption to trade associated to delays in listing registered facilities, 
even if the registration is not associated to new sanitary measures; given the abse nce of any specific 
criteria to define the risks associated to the listing or delisting of facilities, which may go beyond the 
India legislation; and, finally, given the fact that there are different authorities in India regulating 
imports of the same prod ucts, the EU would like to ask India to: Clarify the modalities related to 
audits to the exporting countries, inspections of facilities, border checks and health certificates 
associated to the registration of foreign food manufacturing facilities, if and w hen these requirements 
will be made obligatory by any of the India authorities; Provide written guidance to the exporting 
countries and companies on how they should register the facilities and send the lists of facilities to 
India, and to maintain them upd ated; Consider avoiding that the competent authorities of the export 
countries sign more than one certificate with the same sanitary measures. The EU would like to 
repeat its request to India to notify these amendments and future measures related to the 
registration of food manufacturing facilities to the WTO SPS Committee. Finally, the EU reiterates its 
availability to cooperate with the competent authorities of India to enhance mutual understanding 
and avoid unnecessary and unjustified disruptions to trad e. 
3.73.   The representative  of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada would like to reiterate 
concerns raised at previous TBT Committee meetings regarding India's draft amendment to its Food 
Safety Standards (Import) Amendment Regulation pertaining to t he registration, inspection and/or 
audit of foreign food manufacturing facilities producing food products destined for India, which has 
 
19 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 667 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 22 - 
 
  been implemented as of 1 February 2023. While Canada recognizes India's right to take necessary 
measures to protect publ ic health and safety, a number of elements contained in India's proposed 
amendments remain ambiguous. As previously stated, it is unclear what criteria would be used to 
determine the level of risk for food products imported into India and what circumstance s would 
instigate an audit or an inspection of a foreign manufacturing facility. Canada remains concerned 
and would like to seek clarity on India's measures for targeted commodities, audit rates, compliance 
actions and appeals, and implementation plan. We are of the view that India's approach in these 
areas could create unnecessary obstacles to trade.  
3.74.   Canada thanks the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India for its prompt registration 
of Canada's food manufacturing facilities and publication of list o f establishments. While some of 
Canada's questions have been answered, a number of questions remain regarding these 
requirements and we look forward to India's response to our comments submitted to India's Enquiry 
Point in January 2023. In closing, Canada recalls its request to India to notify these amendments to 
the SPS Committee given that India's proposed regulation covers food safety measures aimed at 
protecting human health and safety.  
3.75.   The representative  of New Zealand  provided the following statement.  New Zealand would like 
to thank FSSAI for its flexibility on the implementation of this new requirement. We understand the 
registration requirement, along with the new certification requirements and the completion of a 
country questionnaire, is FSSAI's ne w approach to ensuring food safety requirements are met by 
exporting country manufacturers. While we support this approach to ensure both food safety and 
faster clearance at the Indian border, we believe that the registration requirements could be simpler,  
yet remain robust. Currently, countries need to register/list manufacturers and the particular 
products that each manufacturer wishes to export to India. New Zealand would like to suggest that, 
given food safety practices at a manufacturer will be the sam e for all products produced, India should 
only require manufacturer listing, for the commodity type they produce, without the requirement to 
specify each individual product type and associated HS codes.  
3.76.   The representative  of Japan  provided the following st atement. Japan would like to express its 
concerns regarding India's Order related to requirement to register foreign food manufacturing 
facilities. According to the India's TBT notification, the final date for comments was set as the middle 
of January 2023 , and proposed date of adoption and entry into force of the Order was advised as 
1 February 2023, which was just two weeks after the closing date for comments. We would like to 
express strong doubt that the Indian authority would not have had sufficient ti me to consider any 
comments put forward before the implementation. Moreover, although Japan submitted lists of food 
manufacturing facilities in accordance with the Order on 10 October 2022, India has not yet 
registered some of the facilities on the list.  
3.77.   Japan requests India the following: Suspend implementation of the Order and give the 
exporting Members sufficient time to adapt to the newly introduced requirements, meantime, allow 
imports of designated food products without registration of the facilities;  Specify the HS codes for 
the designated food categories subject to the Order: milk and milk products; meat and meat 
products including poultry, fish and their products; egg powder; infant food; and nutraceuticals; 
Clarify the details on how to apply for t he registration of foreign food manufacturing facilities; and 
Respond to the unanswered questions posed by Japan.  
3.78.   The representative  of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia recognizes the 
right of the Indian Government to take measures nec essary to protect public health. Australia wishes 
to thank India for accommodating streamlined and simplified establishment details for registration 
approval, reducing the administrative burden on competent authorities to comply with the new 
registration r equirements. As noted in previous statements, Australia would appreciate information 
on India's risk assessment which concluded that additional measures required the registration of 
food manufacturing facilities with FSSAI, particularly for those which hav e not previously required 
registration in order to export to India. Australia's export and domestic food production systems are 
underpinned by a robust legislative framework, which provides confidence to trading partners that 
exported products are safe, tr aceable and meet importing country requirements.  
3.79.   Australia thanks India for its prompt actioning and publication of establishments for 
registration and discretion to allow food business operators to continue their export operations while 
registration submi ssions were finalized. However, Australia remains concerned that this regulation 
imposes an unnecessary barrier to trade for products where establishment registration has not G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 23 - 
 
  historically been required. Australia appreciates India's clarification on the us e of the establishment 
registration list and how exporting countries may amend the list of registered establishments in 
future. Australia is happy to work with India to support a more risk and outcomes -based approach 
to food safety.  
3.80.   In response, the repres entative  of India provided the following statement. Food Safety and 
Standards Authority of India is a statutory body for laying down science -based standards for articles 
of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import, to ensure 
availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption and for matters connected 
therewith. In pursuance to the section 25 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, FSSAI 
regulates and ensures the safety of food being imported in the countr y. Further, section 22 of Food 
Safety and Standards Act, 2006 envisages that no person shall manufacture, distribute, sell or 
import any novel food, genetically modified articles of food, etc. and such other articles of food which 
the Central Government ma y notify in this behalf.  
3.81.   Accordingly, to envisage robust food safety and monitoring system, FSSAI has notified Food 
Safety and Standards (Import) Amendment Regulations, 2021 dated 3 November 2021 which 
provides the legal framework for registration and insp ection of foreign food manufacturing facilities. 
Further, as per the regulations, the registration and inspection of such facilities will be based on risk 
of food categories as specified by the Food Authority from time to time. This regulation is intended 
to ensure traceability, including access to operations, of an overseas facility manufacturing high risk 
foods in order to verify implementation of appropriate measures at the source facility that enhance 
food safety. The Draft regulations were also notifie d at WTO TBT Committee for inviting comments. 
The comments have been received from various Member countries with respect to procedures and 
the list of commodities for which manufactures need to give details for registration.  
3.82.   To address all such issues, FSS AI vide order dated 10 October 2022 notified that the 
registration of foreign food manufacturing facilities falling under Milk and Milk Products, Meat and 
Meat Products including Poultry, Fish, and their products, Egg powder, Nutraceuticals, Foods for 
Infant Nutrition and manufacturers desirous to export such article of food to India shall register with 
the Food Authority before exporting to India. For the registration purpose, to be done by FSSAI, the 
Competent Authorities of the exporting countries are re quested to provide the list of existing 
manufacturers and of those intended to export such food products to India. The practice of 
Listing/Registration of Foreign Establishment is already prevailing in many countries and similar 
procedures are being in pla ce. India being a developing nation and one of the biggest food market 
in world, ensuring safety and quality of food is utmost needed and under the mandate of Food Safety 
and Standards Act. This provision will ensure the safety and quality of foods being m anufactured for 
import into India and also help to reduce time taken for the inspection and clearance at ports.  
3.83.   FSSAI notified the requirement for registration of High Risk commodities to facilitate trade. 
The registration or listing of Foreign Food Manufacturing Facilities (FFMF) is not trade prohibitory but 
to create a database of foreign food manufacturing facilities which are exporting food products of 
these categories into India. Further, it may be noted that as on date, the FFMF which are not 
registered or listed at FSSAI portal are also able to export their food products to India without any 
trade hindrance. So FSSAI has initiated the process of listing of FFMFs with the positive intent to 
facilitate trade.  
3.1.3.2   Canada - Proposed Prohibition of Certa in Toxic Substances Regulations, 2022, 
G/TBT/N/CAN/673  (ID 75320) 
3.84.   The representative  of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement. Regarding 
Canada's 'Proposed Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations,' which were notified to  the 
WTO Members on 18 May 2022 as G/TBT/N/CAN/673 , Korea submitted comments to Canada in July 
2022 requesting to postpone and reconsider the enforcement, and Korea also expressed support for 
the specific trade concern raised by Japan in the previou s Committee meeting of March 2023. Though 
we thank Canada for its reply to our comments last August and its response to the STC at the TBT 
meeting in March this year, relevant Korean industries remain concerned about the proposed 
restriction of DBDPE, so w e would like to reiterate our previous statements. Due to its excellent and 
cost-effective flame -retardant features, decabromodiphenyl ethane, or DBDPE, is used as an 
intermediate material in various industrial sectors such as in the manufacture of electri cal and 
 
20 For previous statements follow th e thread under ID 753 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 24 - 
 
  electronic products, automobiles, construction equipment vehicles, agricultural machinery, etc., 
substituting the once commonly used decaBDE.  
3.85.   Korea shares the view with Canada on the need for environmental protection measures. 
However, if the restr iction on DBDPE is enforced without considering the availability and 
development of alternatives to DBDPE, it is deeply concerned that such measures would not only be 
more trade -restrictive than necessary but also put human safety at risk. We are aware tha t the 
proposed regulations include specific time -limited exemptions for electrical and electronic products, 
vehicle parts and pellets or flakes used in manufacturing wires and cables. However, if no adequate 
alternatives were found even after the exemption  period is over, consumer safety risks would 
increase significantly due to the absence of flame -retardants or the low flame -retardant quality in 
products. Therefore, Korea requests that Canada thoroughly reconsider product safety before 
enforcing the DBDPE  restriction and postpone the regulations indefinitely until alternative materials 
on par with DBDPE in cost and performance are developed for manufacturers' use.  
3.86.   In addition, the Department of Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) concluded 
that DB PDE is harmful to marine life such as orcas and belugas on the basis that DBDPE acts as a 
substitute for the decaBDE by the same flame -retarding principle. However, the two substances 
have different chemical structures, and the Canadian government's findin gs differ from those of 
international research, such as a study from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that classifies 
DBDPE and decaBDE into different sub -classes of flame -retardants. Accordingly, the Stockholm 
Convention and the Great Lakes Water Qu ality Agreement (GLWQA) have not designated DBDPE as 
a prohibited substance. Moreover, Canada has also noted in its Chemicals Information Sheet that 
DBDPE is not harmful to human health. Therefore, to help manufacturers clarify the issue, Korea 
requests Ca nada for internationally accepted and scientifically justified evidence that DBDPE and 
decaBDE are equal hazards, besides the studies cited in the proposed regulations.  
3.87.   The representative  of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan appreciates Canada' s 
comments at the last TBT Committee meeting in March that "the proposed Regulations provide time -
limited exemptions for parts and products of certain industrial sectors, such as the automotive sector 
and electronic and electrical equipment ", and that "comments and concerns from all stakeholders 
with respect to the proposed controls for DBDPE are being considered in the development of the 
final Regulations. " However, Japan continues to have concerns regarding the proposed DBDPE 
restriction in  the draft revision of the Regulations, especially its impact on industries and citizens' 
lives in Canada.  
3.88.   DBDPE is widely used as an alternative for decaBDE, which is a brominated flame retardant 
that has been internationally prohibited in EEE, automobile s, aircraft, medical equipment, industrial 
equipment, social infrastructure equipment, agricultural machinery, industrial machinery, 
construction machinery and industrial vehicles. DBDPE has not been restricted by international 
conventions or in other coun tries or regions. Regarding DBDPE prohibition, there are many use cases 
where there is currently no alternative flame retardant equivalent to DBDPE. Therefore, the period 
of exemption proposed in May 2022 is not sufficient for developing alternatives to DB DPE and 
completing substitution through the entire supply chain. Accordingly, it will highly likely have 
significant and serious effects on the trade and distribution in Canada of the various types of 
equipment noted above. In particular, medical equipment  and industrial equipment are important 
not only for supporting Canadian industries and infrastructure but also for the effect they have on 
citizens' lives in Canada. Therefore, we reiterate our request for setting a sufficient grace period for 
the examina tion and introduction of DBDPE alternatives through conducting additional stakeholder 
consultations and deliberate consideration.  
3.89.   Canada indicates contribution to the protection of the Canadian environment and wildlife as 
the main objectives of DBDPE restr ictions. We understand the objectives of the regulations, however, 
according to Japanese industries, DBDPE contained in products poses a very low risk of harmful 
effects on humans and the environment, including wildlife. The screening assessment published by 
the Environment and Climate Change Canada elaborates this as follows: "OECD (2009) identifies 
potential volatility to atmosphere from service life for generic OFRs in plastics, estimated at 0.05% 
over lifetime for indoor or outdoor use; however, this ge neric value may be an overestimate for a 
very low volatility OFR like DBDPE. Environmental release of the substance from plastic polymers 
via leaching is considered possible, albeit low. The potential release of OFRs from plastics during 
service life to wa ter is estimated at 0.05% over lifetime if the substance is for indoor use or 0.16% 
over service life for outdoor use (OECD 2009). The large majority of DBDPE containing products G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 25 - 
 
  would be enclosed or used for indoor use; the release rate of 0.05% is theref ore most applicable 
and may likely be an overestimate since contact with water is not expected. " We would appreciate 
if Canada would indicate its rationale that the scope of the Regulations includes DBDPE contained in 
products. Based on the above, in order  to ensure that the draft revision of the Regulations would 
not be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve its legitimate objectives, Japan would like 
to request the following things to Canada: 1) To conduct a more thorough risk assessment for the  
effects of DBDPE contained in articles on human health and the environment, 2) to take into account 
consistency with risk assessment results from other countries and regions, and 3) to re -examine the 
necessity of restrictions on DBDPE in articles and a gr ace period for such through conducting a 
practical feasibility study on alternatives to DBDPE.  
3.90.   The representative  of China  provided the following statement. Canada's prohibition on DBDPE 
lacks scientific basis, fails to fulfil legitimate objectives, create s unnecessary obstacles to trade, and 
it is inconsistent with the TBT Agreement. China suggests that the prohibition on DBDPE should be 
suspended. First, the ban lacks scientific basis and does not contribute to the fulfillment of legitimate 
objectives. DB DPE has been scientifically proven to hardly produce potentially toxic substances and 
is low toxic to mammals and marine life. In addition, a major reason why DBDPE is listed as a 
hazardous substance is that DecaBDE is used as a surrogate for DBDPE in haza rdous assessment, 
and this is problematic. US National Academies of Sciences (NAS) released a study report in 2019, 
holding that OFRs used in consumer products should not be assessed as a single group of hazards; 
instead, they should be sorted into 14 subg roups based on chemical structure, physic -chemical 
properties, and predicted biologic activity. It is noteworthy that in the study, NAS grouped DBDPE 
and DecaBDE into separate sub -classes. A ban on DBDPE and products containing DBDPE could not 
fufill the l egitimate objectives of the Canadian regulator.  
3.91.   Second, the replacement technology of DBDPE is not mature, and the replacement cycle is 
long. If immature alternatives are used, the flame retardant level of the product may be reduced, 
thereby amplifying the  risk of fire, threatening the life and property of consumers. Third, 
international practice should be followed, and there is no precedent in the world for controlling 
DBDPE separately. The EU REACH assessment of DBDPE is still in progress and it should be  
comprehensively evaluated from the perspectives of hazards, feasibility of alternative technologies 
and impact on the industry.  
3.92.   In response, the representative of Canada  provided the following statement. The responsible 
regulatory body is currently analyz ing the comments received during the consultation period with 
the objective of publishing a final version of the regulation in the summer of 2024.  Since the 
Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) was launched in 2006, Canada has taken a robust approach to 
risk as sessment to determine whether a substance presents or may present a risk to the 
environment or to human health. Decisions are based on a weight -of-evidence approach and 
precaution to determine the potential for risk posed by a substance, which considers bo th the 
hazardous properties of the substance (such as toxicity to aquatic organisms or cancer -causing 
properties) and the nature and extent of the exposure of Canadians or the environment to the 
substance. In 2019, the Government of Canada published the sc reening assessment for 
Decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE), which concluded that there is a risk of harm to the 
environment due to the persistence and widespread occurrence of DBDPE in the environment along 
with the potential for bioaccumulation and toxicity of its transformation products. The conclusions 
from the screening assessment for DBDPE reflect a weight -of-evidence, which considers lines of 
evidence, the relevance and robustness of available information, and accounts for uncertainties. All 
information received by the Government of Canada, including studies on transformation for DBDPE, 
have been carefully evaluated and considered as part of the weight of evidence.  
3.93.   The screening assessment considered analogue evidence for certain characteristics of DBDPE 
for which limited information was available. Selection of analogues was based on scientific 
judgement and followed the internationally -recognized Guidance on Grouping of Chemicals, Second 
Edition, published by the Organisation for Economic Co -operation and  Development (OECD). On 
14 May 2022, Canada published in Part I of the Canada Gazette, the Proposed Prohibition of Certain 
Toxic Substances Regulations, 2022. Publication of the proposed Regulations opened a 75 -day 
comment period for stakeholders. The meas ure was notified to the WTO TBT Committee on 18 May. 
The proposed regulation aims to reduce the risks of toxic substances entering the Canadian 
environment, contributing to the protection of Canada's environment and wildlife. The proposed 
regulation would repeal and replace the Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2012, G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 26 - 
 
  which prohibit the manufacture, use, sale offer for sale and import of certain toxic substances and 
products containing them, with a limited number of exemptions.  
3.94.   With respec t to DBDPE, the proposed Regulations provide time -limited exemptions for parts 
and products of certain industrial sectors, such as the automotive sector, and electronic and electrical 
equipment. Comments and concerns from all stakeholders with respect to t he proposed controls for 
DBDPE are being considered in the development of the final Regulations, expected to be published 
in summer 2024. Canada does not specify alternative flame -retardant substances for industry. It is 
contingent upon industry to identif y and transition to appropriate alternatives. Flame retardants such 
as DBDPE are generally used to meet performance -based flammability requirements. These 
performance -based requirements do not specify which chemical flame retardants need to be used; 
rather  they may require a product or component to pass a laboratory test such as a cigarette smolder 
or open flame ignition test (ASTM 2014). Using chemical flame retardants such as DBDPE in their 
products is one means through which companies can achieve flammab ility requirements for their 
products. Alternate substances, as well as non -chemical -based alternatives, may also be used to 
replace the use of DBDPE as a flame retardant in various applications.  
3.1.3.3   China - Recommended National Standard (GB/T) for Office Devi ces (Information 
security technology – Security specification for office devices) (ID 76121) 
3.95.   The representative  of Japan  provided the following statement. As Japan has pointed out at 
successive meetings of the Committees, Japan has heard that the proposed national standard 
requires office devices including their components procured by critical information infrastructure 
operators to be developed and manufactured in China, and also requires information disclosure to 
prove that the development and production are carried out in China. If the national standard with 
the above requirements is introduced and operated in a de -facto mandatory manner, importation 
and use of finished products and components of multifunctional printers, etc., will not be allowed, 
and th e use of components made in China will be forced. Therefore, there are concerns that foreign 
products including Japanese products will be treated discriminately and that trade will be more 
restricted than necessary. It may violate Articles 2.1, 2.2, and 5. 1.2 of the TBT Agreement, Article 
2.1 of the TRIMS Agreement, and Article 3.4 of the GATT. There are also concerns that the national 
standard could force de facto technology transfer depending on its operation if, for example, it 
requests businesses to pro vide technical information to China in order to develop and manufacture. 
It may violate Article 7.3 of China's Protocol of Accession to the WTO.  
3.96.   Japan understands that the process for revision is still ongoing under the direction of the 
National Informatio n Security Standardization Technical Committee (TC260). However, Japan would 
like China to share the information on the proposed national standard including the current status 
of the consideration, the timing of the public comment process, the schedule to be adopted, the 
scope of application, the definition of the critical information infrastructure operators, the 
requirement of the development and production of office devices and their components in China, 
and the requirement of information disclosure to p rove that they were developed and manufactured 
in China. Japan would like a sincere response from China to our enquiries. China has not provided 
any convincing explanations to the specific concerns raised by Japan and related countries at the 
successive me etings of the TBT Committee, the Council for Trade in Goods, the Market Access 
Committee, the TRIMS Committee and the Committee on Government Procurement. About the draft 
revision, Japan hopes that the related concerns raised at this meeting will be firmly  addressed and 
then a sufficient period of time will be made available for the public comment process allowing the 
stakeholders to fully express their comments.  Japan strongly requests China not to adopt the 
national standard, which contains the discrimina tory treatment of foreign products and the possibility 
of de -facto forced technology transfer, in a form causing with concerns. Besides, Japan strongly 
urges China not to take the same or similar measures in other industrial sectors or products.  
3.97.   The repres entative  of the Philippines  provided the following statement. The Philippines shares 
the concerns raised by Japan and the European Union on China's Recommended National Standard 
for Office Devices. We also request China to notify the draft measure and prov ide clarifications 
particularly on 1) the definition of critical information infrastructure operators, and 2) the possible 
discriminatory treatment of foreign products vis -à-vis the requirement for critical information 
infrastructure operators to procure o ffice devices and their components that are produced in China.  
 
21 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 761 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 27 - 
 
  3.98.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement.  The EU would 
like to echo the concerns raised by Japan and the Philippines regarding the draft Chinese 
recommended na tional standard for office devices. Based on the information received about the 
revised requirements, if enacted, they would rule out the possibility for overseas office device 
providers to participate in government procurement in China, as most of their p roducts rely heavily 
on overseas components. The EU would like to emphasise that all office equipment cannot be 
classified as critical information infrastructure. This highlights even more the urgency of having a 
clear and specific definition of "critical information infrastructure operator ". The EU also urges China 
not to take similar measures in other sectors or products.  
3.99.   In response, the representative  of China  provided the following statement. SAC has approved 
the revision plan of this standard. During the comment period on the revision plan, we did not receive 
any comment , especially no comment from Japan. At present the revision work is at the drafting 
stage, and the content of the standard is under studying and discussed, especially complying with 
WTO regulations, so as soon as finishing drafting, it will be entered into public comment stage and 
will be considered to notify to WTO Members. Anyone will be welcome to raise comments to these 
standards, including stakeholders from Japan. As we know, a stan dard is a very useful tool to achieve 
better market order and regulate healthy competition, and it should be developed based on the wide 
range of coordination, so we welcome the stakeholders from Japan to keep on paying attention to 
this standard and we ar e willing to help Japanese companies communicate with SAC/TC 260 to 
enhance communication.  
3.100.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement. China explained the "pre -
public comment" process for the revision of this national standard which was c onducted during the 
period from 22 December 2022 to 5 January 2023. However, Japan has not got any information on 
this process. China said there were no opposing comments on the plan of the revision of the 
standard. However, according to stakeholders, any agencies in China, not limited to Japanese ones, 
have not got any information from China's relevant websites. Therefore, Japan encourages China to 
be more transparent on this matter.  
3.101.   The representative of China  provided the following statement. I would lik e to respond more 
about Japan's concern. In China, the development of a standard has several stages, including the 
approval stage, drafting stage, comment stage, and so on, which is consistent with the ISO/IEC 
Directives. So as soon as the development of a  standard enters into the drafting stage, it will be 
organized by a technical committee SAC/TC, the same as ISO/TC.  If you want to know more about 
the information it is better to contact the SAC/TC to handle  the information issue  because the 
information mi ght be updated very soon and the updated information will be delivered to you if you 
contact the TC260.  
3.1.3.4   South Africa - Regulations relating to the composition, production and labelling 
of wine and spirits intended for sale in the Republic of South Africa, 
G/TBT/ N/ZAF/48/Rev.2/Add.1  (ID 73322) 
3.102.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The EU thanks 
South Africa for notifying their proposed revisions to their alcohol beverage composition, production, 
and labelling regulations in December 2021. The EU sent written comments on 16 February 2022 as 
well as letters sent in October 2022. Our key concerns relate to the following South African 
categories: spirit aperitif, gin, description of pot still brandy and vintage brandy. The amended 
regulation related to the composition, production and labelling of wine a nd spirits intended for sale 
in the Republic of South Africa was published on 15 July 2022. Many of the amendments under the 
new regulations will enter into force in December 2025 for products already approved on the South 
African market, with derogations possible until then for products not yet approved prior to 15 July 
2022. While some of our concerns concerning the new spirit aperitif category have been taken on 
board (including safeguards on how the name of the spirit used for production of this drink c an be 
used and displayed on the label and comments in relation to gin), there are some important issues 
with the new rules which result in products being excluded from the South African market. While 
local producers will be able to reformulate in line with  the new rules, EU producers will not, for 
economic reasons.  
 
22 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 733 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 28 - 
 
  3.103.   The maximum ABV (alcohol by volume) set for spirits aperitifs (30%) seems to be the biggest 
issue for EU spirits producers. Many products, such as flavoured vodka, aperitifs or pastis will be left 
without a home, as they have an ABV between 30 & 43% and no  corresponding category under 
South African law. The best way of taking care of these shortcomings would be for South Africa to 
create a spirits drink general category for products that otherwise do not have a home, similar to 
what exists under EU legislat ion. Failing that, the maximum ABV for spirits aperitifs should be 
increased well above 30% ABV – and we want to stress that the proposed increase to 35% would 
be far insufficient for EU products such as flavoured vodka (which usually have an ABV that can 
reach up to 38%). South Africa has also proposed three classes of gin. However, the use of colouring 
additives would only be permitted for compound gin. This is not in line with international standards. 
The best solution would be to allow the use of colour ing additives for all classes of gin, with the 
exception of the denomination "London gin "/ "London dry gin " (permitted denominations within the 
"distilled gin " class).  
3.104.   In addition, we have made the following recommendations to improve the brandy, pot stil l 
brandy and vintage brandy categories definitions and remove market access barriers for Cognac: 
Request to lower the minimum ageing period to 2 years instead of 3; Raise the maximum limit of 
copper to 6mg/L; Raise the maximum limit of sugar to 20g/L. We w ould be grateful if South Africa 
could take these concerns into account. Reformulating is not an option for imported spirits, and the 
rules should therefore be adapted to allow EU spirits to be sold in South Africa after December 2025.  
3.105.   In response, the representative  of South Africa  provided the following statement. South 
Africa thanks the EU for their continued interest in the amendment to the regulation relating to the 
composition, production and labelling of wine and spirits intended for sale in the Repu blic of South 
Africa. South Africa is reconsidering the contents of the notification in line with specific trade 
concerns and comments received from WTO Members, including unintended consequences from our 
amendment to the regulation. Proposals for amendmen ts have been drafted, but still in the process 
of domestic consultations. In the interim, all importers who wanted to continue importing their liquor 
products in terms of the old "Spirit Aperitif" category have applied for a concession until 31 December 
2025. At this moment, the amendments do not have a negative impact on trade.  
3.1.3.5   Brazil - MAPA Ordinance No. 208, 26 February 2021 – revision of the Decree No. 
6.87 of 4 June 2009 on the standardisation, classification, registration, inspection, 
production and s upervision of alcoholic beverages, G/TBT/N/BRA/1145 , 
G/TBT/N/BRA/1145/Add.1 , G/SPS/N/BRA/2033  (ID 71223) 
3.106.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union would like to t hank Brazil for submitting notifications G/TBT/N/BRA/1145/Add.1  and 
G/SPS/N/BRA/2033  and for the opportunity to comment on the draft texts. The European Union 
provided written comments to this notification on 13 July 2022 and  would be grateful if comments 
could be taken into account and replied to before adoption of the notified draft. The European Union 
asked for clarifications concerning both requirements for maximum limit on the alcohol content of 
spirits and definitions su ch as liqueur, rum, whiskey, vodka, gin and aquavit. The EU also made 
specific proposals to better align the relevant requirements and definitions with international practice 
to avoid potential unnecessary obstacles to trade. The European Union continues t o closely follow 
the situation and invites Brazil to notify to the TBT Committee a potential new draft following TBT 
consultations. The EU would like to thank again Brazil for its cooperation in this matter.  
3.107.   In response, the representative  of Brazil  provid ed the following statement. Brazil would like 
to thank the EU for its statement and for the comments it submitted in reply to notification 
G/TBT/BRA/1145/Add.1 . We also welcome the contributions from other countries to our public 
consultation. Brazilian authorities are currently reviewing all of them and we would like to assure 
that they will be duly considered. We appreciate engagement from our trade partners and assure 
them that the development of this regulation will remain tran sparent and aligned to our WTO 
commitments.  
 
23 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 712 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 29 - 
 
  3.1.3.6   European Union - Draft Commission Regulation laying down ecodesign 
requirements for mobile phones, cordless phones and slate tablets pursuant to Directive 
2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council , G/TBT/N/EU/918  (ID 
76824) 
3.108.   The representative  of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement.  Korea would 
like to convey its comments regarding the EU's "Draft ecodesign measures for mobile phones, 
cordless phones and slate tablets," noti fied to the WTO Members on 1 September 2022 as 
G/TBT/N/EU/918 , its texts modified at the end of January 2023, and scheduled to come into effect 
on 6 January 2024. Korea would like to express our gratitude to the EU for reviewing and accepting 
some of  our previous requests that were submitted via a letter on 26 September and the STC at the 
November TBT meeting in 2022. However, our follow -up requests, which were delivered this year 
via the STC at the previous TBT meeting and a letter on 21 March, remai n unanswered because the 
EU's latest reply dated 24 May regarded only the previous requests submitted in 2022. Accordingly, 
we request that the EU carefully reconsider the following four requests. First, for foldable devices, it 
is requested that the 'fold able-related spare parts' (i.e. the Hinge assembly, the Mechanical display 
folding mechanism and the Battery( -ies)) may be supplied as combined with the Display Assembly. 
If the device passes folding -unfolding durability test of over 150,000 cycles, meets IP47 rating, and 
its battery demonstrates at least 83% of the rated capacity after 500 full charge -discharge cycles, 
supplying related spare parts as combined in precision with a higher -level assembly will better 
ensure the durability and reliability of th e folding feature.  
3.109.   Second, for foldable devices, it is requested that the dust tight rating requirement be scaled 
down to IP47. Due to the inevitable slits for movability, the current commercialized foldable devices 
can guarantee dust tight ratings up to I P4x. Third, it is requested that the minimum criteria in 
ensuring the process for replacement of parts and batteries be relaxed so that the requirements be 
changed to "workshop environment" and to "generalist", respectively. In order to properly repair 
EEEs designed with embedded batteries, such as smartphones and tablets, an appropriate working 
environment and technical proficiency are essential. Lastly, for functionality updates of Operating 
Systems (OS), it is requested that either the mandatory provisio n period be shortened to three 
years, or the commencing point of the mandatory period be changed to the market release date. 
Excessive requirements on the OS update period may delay the introduction of new innovative 
technologies or cause unnecessary price  increases of the physical device, limiting consumers' right 
to choose from a wide range of the latest products and services.  
3.110.   The representative  of China  provided the following statement. 1. For Annex II B/D 1.1 (5) 
(a), it requires that the process for re placement of display assembly shall, as a minimum, be able 
to be carried out by a generalist, while 1.1 (5) (b) requires 1 (c) the spare parts except for the 
battery needs to be replaced by layman, and the list of spare parts in 1 (c) contains the display 
assembly again. The two requirements are contradictory. We recommend that the EU further clarify 
the requirements and, in view of the professionalism of the replacement display assembly, we 
recommend following the 1.1 (5) (a) requirements. 2. For Annex II B/D 1.1  (6), "accessible" is not 
defined in the draft, which is easy to misunderstand. Manufacturers have doubts about which form 
of representation can be identified as "accessible". To facilitate enterprise compliance, please further 
clarify. 3. For Annex  II B 1.2 (6)(a) and Annex II D 1.2 (5)(a), it sets out that "Operating system 
updates: (a) from the date of the end of placement on the market to at least five years after that 
date, manufacturers, importers or authorized representatives shall, if they pr ovide security updates, 
corrective updates or functionality updates to an operating system, make such updates available at 
no cost for all units of a product model with the same operating system". This clause has caused 
some confusion for the enterprise.  
3.111.   (1) We suggest that the EU further clarify whether it is not mandatory for manufacturers to 
provide operating system upgrades, but only that if there are updates to an operating system, the 
upgrade service should be available at no cost. (2) For the stateme nt "security update, correction 
update, or functionality update", it is recommended that the EU clarify whether the manufacturer 
can provide only any of the update services to meet the requirements. (3) We suggest that the EU 
further clarify the definition  of "the same operating system ". The draft only defines "operating 
system ", but it is not clear how to define "the same ". In addition, for the Android system, in practical 
application, even if different product models use the same version of the operating system, due to 
differences in the software and hardware of the products themselves, updates are not applicable to 
 
24 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 768 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 30 - 
 
  all products. We suggest that the EU modify it to a compatible product model for free upgrade. 
(4) The premise that the update service can be performed is the technical support of the operating 
system and chipset platforms. It is recommended that the EU clarify whether Eco -design regulations 
also binding on operating system and chipset platforms suppliers.  
3.112.   4. For Annex II B 1.2(6)(f) and Annex I I D 1.2(5)(f), with regard to maintaining the same 
performance after the upgrade, the hardware of the device will definitely age during the life cycle. 
After the version is updated, the software has higher requirements on the hardware, and it is 
unreasonab le for the performance to remain the same performance. Therefore, it is recommended 
to delete this clause, and only require the updated device to comply with the EU requirements. 5.  For 
Annex II B/D 1.1(1), the latest draft regulation extends the period of  availability of spare parts from 
five years to seven years after the date of the end of placement on the market, which is helpful to 
improve serviceability. But considering the seven years' requirement, manufacturers will have to 
store a large number of s pare parts. Due to the storage life of spare parts, long storage will create 
unusable spare parts, which will only result in additional electronic waste. It is recommended that 
the EU shorten the provision period of spare parts. 6. For Annex II B/D 1.3, it  requires the use of 
appropriate standards marking for plastic components. It is recommended that the EU could clarify 
relevant standards, facilitating the implementation of the industry.  
3.113.   In response, the representative  of the European Union  provided the f ollowing statement. 
The EU would like to thank the delegations of the Republic of Korea and China for their continued 
interest in the Ecodesign measures for mobile phones, cordless phones and slate tablets pursuant 
to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. The additional comments 
received are detailed, and require technical interpretation, so it will be difficult and time -consuming 
to address them here on the floor at the TBT Committee. However, the EU will certainly reply to t he 
follow -up questions received and we also remain available to explain the measure bilaterally. In fact, 
after publication of the Ecodesign measure in the Official Journal of the European Union (currently 
expected in Q3 this year), the EU will most likely  set up a dialogue with manufacturers to clarify any 
point on the Regulation that is needed. Korean and Chinese companies are welcome to join this 
discussion.  
3.1.3.7   China - Interim Regulation on Radio Management of Wireless Charging (Power 
Transmission) Equipmen t, G/TBT/N/CHN/1711  (ID 78425) 
3.114.   The representative  of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
would like to express continued concerns today with China's Interim Regulations on Radio 
Management of Wireless Charging Eq uipment. We understand this regulation specifies the technical 
requirements and radio frequencies that will be mandatory for a variety of wireless charging 
equipment produced or used in China, such as mobile devices, smartwatches, and electric vehicles. 
We received an update from US industry that China published the final regulation earlier this month, 
which is concerning given our unresolved questions. Will there be additional implementing measures 
forthcoming? The United States and US industry would again  like to highlight several of our concerns, 
given the significant impact this measure may have on international trade.  
3.115.   First, China's TBT notification states that the objective and rationale for issuing this draft is 
for quality requirements and harmonizat ion. However, one of the frequency ranges China proposed 
to adopt is not included in the relevant ITU -R standard (SM.2129). Can China please explain why it 
has included this additional frequency range (13553 -13567kHZ) that is not in the published 
internati onal standard? China indicated in March that its rationale for allowing only the three 
specified frequency bands stems in part from a lack of compatibility analysis between those bands 
and others to ensure the avoidance of harmful interference but that the  regulation is subject to 
future adjustments per advancement of industry and technology. Both ITU -R and the Wireless Power 
Consortium have examined interference issues as part of the development process for the SM.2129 
and Qi 2.0 standards, respectively. W ill China commit to reevaluating additional frequency ranges 
that may be included in these standards, once they are finalized? We are concerned that China is 
moving forward despite unresolved questions from WTO Members about the rationale for selecting 
the frequency ranges in the regulation.  
3.116.   Second, we note that the draft regulation was scoped as non -radio equipment that radiates 
radio waves, including the energy transmitter connected to the power supply and the power receiver 
 
25 For previous statements follow th e thread under ID 784 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 31 - 
 
  acting on the load. We underst and that the final regulation no longer includes receiving devices in 
its scope. Could China please confirm? We welcome this revision which would address one of our 
concerns. Third, regarding electric vehicle wireless charging equipment, we note that the S AE 
International has developed standard J2954, and standard J2954/2. Could China explain how it 
considered these standards when developing its draft measure? We request that China use these 
two standards as a basis for its regulation. Fourth, has China con ducted a regulatory impact 
assessment on the potential negative environmental and climate impacts of limiting the frequency 
ranges? As we understand it, chargers that operate at the frequency range of 315 -400 kHZ and 1.7 -
1.9MHZ for portable devices, which would not comply with the proposed measure, are able to 
consume less overall energy due to their quick charging ability and are already in use by millions of 
devices in many markets. Fifth, regarding product labelling, China indicated in its March response  
that it would allow for "special identification " on outer packaging or in the product instructions under 
certain conditions. This is helpful, but we urge China to consider allowing for the information to be 
displayed electronically.  
3.117.   Sixth, China also indi cated in its March response that it will set up a reasonable transition 
period and will continue to allow the sale of existing products produced or imported until the end of 
that transition period. We appreciate this additional window, now set to end in Se ptember 2024, and 
thank China for that decision. However, US industry reports that compliance by September 2024 
will still constitute a significant challenge given the complexity of the re -engineering that will be 
required, the breadth of products implicat ed, the nature of the supply chains for these products, and 
the divergence from international standards. We hope that China will acknowledge these realities 
and provide flexibility in its timeline for companies taking good faith steps to comply. We appreci ate 
the opportunity to discuss further.  
3.118.   The representative  of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan has ongoing concerns 
with regard to the China - Interim Regulations on Radio Management of Wireless Charging (Power 
Transmission) Equipment. The Int erim Regulations stipulate the frequencies which wireless charging 
(power transmission) equipment must comply with. Those are three frequency bands, namely 100 -
148.5 kHz, 6765 -6795 kHz and 13553 -13567 kHz. Japan appreciates China's comments at the last 
TBT Committee meeting that it had specified those frequency bands based on relevant 
recommendations from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the development 
status of the industry. However, since Japan's concerns are still not resolved, Japan once again 
raises this STC. First, although the Qi2.0, the international standard provided by the Wireless Power 
Consortium (WPC), was already released in April 2023, and the Qi2.0 includes 360 kHz as a 
frequency for wireless charging, China's interim regu lations do not include this frequency band. Also, 
China's regulations do not include any of the multiple frequency bands such as 315 -400 kHz and 
1700-1800 kHz, which the ITU has decided to include in its revised international standards. 
Therefore, it is ha rd to say that China adequately uses the relevant international standards as a 
basis for the Interim Regulations, and they would be inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the TBT 
Agreement.  
3.119.   Additionally, China explained that the purposes for introducing the Inte rim Regulations are 
to regulate the use of wireless charging (power transmission) equipment, to avoid harmful 
interference to services complying with the law, and to maintain order for radio waves. However, 
the Qi2.0 of the WPC and the revised ITU -R guidan ce as international standards are established 
based on the consensus of Members including China to justifiably maintain order for radio waves, so 
by complying with the international standards, the purposes of the Interim Regulations given by 
China can be s upposed to be achieved. Therefore, as stated above, since products complying with 
the international standards can achieve the purposes of the Interim Regulations, the Interim 
Regulations which prohibit the import, sale and use of products complying with th e international 
standards are likely to be an unnecessarily trade -restrictive measure and may violate Article 2.2 of 
the TBT Agreement. Japan continues to request China to use international standards as a basis for 
formulating the Interim Regulations on Ra dio Management of Wireless Charging (Power 
Transmission) Equipment so as not to become more trade -restrictive than necessary.  
3.120.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The EU would 
like to support the delegations of Japan a nd the United States. The EU would like to refer to its 
statement on this topic in the last meeting of the TBT Committee. On 13 January 2023 the EU sent 
its comments on notification G/TBT/N/CHN/1711  to China which were replied to on 20 March 2023. 
On 20 April 2023 the EU sent follow -up comments. To date we did not receive China's reaction to 
these, therefore the EU would like to recall its main concerns expressed therein. As regards the G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 32 - 
 
  technical asp ects for mobile phones and portable equipment charging, the China regulation foresees 
that the mobile and portable wireless charging equipment shall work within the frequencies of 100 -
148.5 kHz, 6765 -6795 kHz and 13553 -13567 kHz, the rated transmitted powe r shall not exceed 
50W and the radiation parameters shall meet the Specifications of Wireless Charging (Power 
Transmission) Equipment. Considering the results of the study commissioned by European 
Commission on wireless charging technologies for mobile pho nes and similar portable equipment, 
limiting the lower frequency range to 100 -148.5 kHz (instead of 87 -205 kHz) would make a number 
of existing chargers and devices non -compliant. In addition, the EU would like to recall that the Qi 
technology, the main us ed worldwide, has a broader range than the one proposed by China.  
3.121.   Furthermore, given that wireless charging technology is still evolving, over -restricting the 
technology (such as the frequency range and others) could stifle innovation. It is for this reaso n that 
Directive (EU) 2022/2380 introduces technical requirements for wired charging only. Concerning 
Article 11, the EU would like to recall the trend of portable wireless charging devices is 
miniaturization. China's requirement to display the sentence "wireless charging equipment " could be 
problematic due to space constraint. In the EU, manufacturers are requested to display various 
information on the product, however, this is usually done in a form of pictogram/visual element, not 
as a sentence or a word ing. The EU welcomes that Article 11 of Interim Regulations allows the 
labelling in the instruction manual due to the small size of the product. However, as there is no 
specific regulation on the size of the product itself, this provision could lead to unn ecessary disputes 
in the post -supervision links after the implementation of the regulations. The EU would therefore 
like to suggest to China to either display the sentence as a sticker on the product or on the 
packaging; or to foresee an exclusion of displ aying the sentence for small products, clearly indicating 
their size; or to allow adding the requested information ( "wireless charging equipment ") on the 
packaging instead of placing it directly on the device. The last option was applied in Directive (EU) 
2022/2380 to display the charging characteristics (label) and the presence or not of a charger in the 
box (pictogram).  
3.122.   Regarding Article 14 of Interim Regulations, the EU requested an extension of transition 
period to 2 years, to allow for a smooth transit ion. The global supply chain has been impacted by 
the pandemic, and many of companies including Chinese companies are currently in the predicament 
of component shortages. In addition, the life -cycle of re -designing products or the development of 
new produc ts usually takes years, and destocking is also a long -term process. The EU takes this 
opportunity to recall that for these reasons that it was decided to have a transition period of 2 years 
for the proposal on the common charger for mobile phones and simil ar equipment under the Radio 
Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU, thus ensuring that industry has sufficient time to adapt. The EU 
would also like to propose an additional two -year grace period for after -sale service components, 
which would translate into a tot al grace period of four years for the manufacturers and importers of 
after-sale service components. Without the introduction of such additional grace period, many users 
would suffer losses due to unavailability of after -sale services. Should the Interim Re gulations 
prohibit enterprises from making old product components for after -sale services available, it would 
result in more waste and additional market access barriers.  
3.123.   In response, the representative  of China  provided the following statement. 1. With reg ards 
to the frequency ranges of wireless charging equipment, MIIT has specified that mobile and portable 
wireless charging equipment operates in the 100 -148.5kHz ，6765-6795kHz and 13553 -13567kHz 
frequency bands, based on relevant recommendations from the I nternational Telecommunication 
Union (ITU) and the development of wireless charging equipment industry. At present , frequency 
ranges outside these three bands lack of sufficient compatibility and sharing study, which may cause 
harmful interference to incum bent services and deployed systems. In the future , the relevant 
contents of the "Interim Regulations" will be adjusted timely according to the industry development 
and technology evolution. 2. Considering the whole wireless charging (power transmission) co ntains 
power transmitting and receiving, "Interim Regulations " includes "receiver " in the definition of 
wireless charging equipment, but only defines the frequency of the transmitter instead of the 
receiver.  
3.124.   3. Article 11 of "Interim Regulations " stipulates as follows: Enterprises, which produce or 
import wireless charging equipment, shall mark the "special identification " of wireless charging 
equipment in a prominent position or display it electronically. If the "special identification " cannot 
be marked or displayed due to the small size of the equipment, it shall be marked in the equipment's 
independent external packaging or operation instruction. Moreover, the relevant requirements for 
"special identification " shall be formulated separately. ---4. In consideration of enterprise R&D and G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 33 - 
 
  production cycle, "Interim Regulations " sets the transition period more than 15 months and will be 
put into effect since 1 September 2024. While wireless charging devices, produced or imported, are 
still allowed to  be sold and used until scrapped. ---5. Regarding the testing method for wireless 
charging equipment, MIIT is currently developing the related standards, which will serve as the basis 
for testing.  
3.1.3.8   European Union - Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the 
Council on shipments of waste and amending Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) 
No 2020/1056, G/TBT/N/EU/893  (ID 78326) 
3.125.   The representative  of Indonesia  provided the following statement. Indonesia would like to 
thank the Europea n Union for its notification G/TBT/N/EU/893  Proposal for a Regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on shipments of waste and amending Regulations (EU) No 
1257/2013 and (EU) No 2020/1056 (COM (2021) 709 final) ( "the proposal "), which was submitted 
on 25 May 2022, in the first place. As enquiry from Indonesia, which was sent on 23 December 
2022, have not been answered, Indonesia took the initiative to have a dialogue with the Directorate 
General of Environment of the European Commission  and related associations in the EU to seek 
further clarification on some of the provisions mentioned on the Proposal. For this reason, Indonesia 
welcomes that the dialogue with representatives of the European Commission has been successfully 
carried out o n 13 April 2023 in Brussels, Belgium. Although the proposal is almost finalized and does 
not accommodate many of Indonesia's concerns, we kindly request that the EU provide written 
responses to Indonesia's concerns regarding information of audit process, t he application to become 
a country on The List, and the enforcement of waste treatment regulations by the EU for third 
countries.  
3.126.   In addition, Indonesia is also positive to hear that concerning the rigorous national 
regulations for industries to be eligibl e to import green listed waste in Indonesia, the EU believes 
that it would ease Indonesia to fulfil the audit and application requirements that will be regulated in 
reference to the EUWSR. Indonesia recognizes that the proposal incorporates EU's serious ac tion in 
minimizing the risks that could endanger public health as well as any environmental impacts that 
would arise due to unmanaged waste shipments. It is also known that the proposal will replace the 
current Regulation (EC) 1013/2006 on shipments of was te. This draft Regulation establishes 
procedures and control regime for waste shipments, taking into account the origin, destination and 
route of shipment, the type of waste shipped and the type of treatment to be applied to the waste 
at its destination. I t provides procedural rules for the shipment of waste both within, to and from 
the European Union. However, Indonesia would like to echo the discourse expressed in the TBT 
Agreement whereby measures put in place to achieve legitimate objectives, should be assumed not 
to create unnecessary barriers to international trade.  
3.127.   According to a news release from EuRIC, Europe recovered an average of 54.4 million tons 
of paper in 2020 and utilised 47.9 million tons of it internally. However, as has been observed over  
the past few years, there is a persistent disparity between the supply and demand of recovered 
paper in Europe of around 7 million tonnes. For this reason, exports are crucial for the European 
paper recycling business since there is no end market for the 7 million tonnes of recovered paper 
produced in Europe. The one -size-fits-all approach introduced by this proposal, would make all waste 
streams subject to the same export restrictions without distinguishing between untreated waste and 
recycled paper compl iant with European Standard EN643. This could then lead to long -term negative 
impacts on the EU recycling industry and hinder the development of a circular economy both in the 
EU and in third countries. The pulp and paper industry will be one of the sector s heavily impacted 
by this proposed regulation as their essential raw material, i.e recycled paper, also falls within the 
scope of the proposed legislation. Indonesia employs recycled paper, some of which is imported 
from the EU due to insufficient domesti c availability, to meet the raw material demands of the 
national paper industry while maintaining environmental sustainability. The imported recycled paper 
is then reprocessed into paper in a responsible and environmentally sound manner in accordance 
with applicable practices and regulations.  
3.128.   Indonesia shares the same goal of environmental conservation that has become a global 
issue and the need to increase the application of circular economy, reduction of greenhouse gas 
emissions (Net Zero Emissions) and o thers in addressing this issue. The Indonesian government has 
a strong commitment in managing climate change issues, reducing emissions, and improving 
 
26 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 783 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 34 - 
 
  environmental aspects. Gradually, Indonesia is committed to increasing its GHG emission reduction 
target,  which will be in line with the Long -term Strategy for Low Carbon and Climate Resilience (LTS -
LCCR 2050) policy towards net -zero emissions by 2060 or sooner. Indonesia's GHG emission 
reduction target with its own capabilities in the Updated Nationally Dete rmined Contribution (UNDC) 
increases to 31.89%, while the target with international support in the UNDC increases to 43.20% 
in the Enhanced NCD (ENDC). This commitment is followed by updating national policies related to 
climate change, such as related sec toral policies, including Indonesia Forestry and Other Land Uses 
(FOLU) Net -sink 2030, accelerating the use of electric vehicles, B40 policy, increasing action in the 
waste sector such as the use of sludge installations wastewater disposal (IPAL), increasi ng targets 
in the agricultural and industrial sectors, Implementation of Green Industry, Low Carbon 
Development, and many more. Referring to the above perspective, and to minimize potential 
technical barriers to trade due to the EU WSR proposal, Indonesia is open to collaborating with the 
EU in achieving the objectives of the proposed regulation. We look forward to intense communication 
and dialogue especially to obtain transparent and applicable implementing regulations of the EU 
WSR so that we can be desi gnated as one of the "Listed Countries" and exempted from the 
bureaucracy, administrative requirements, and time -consuming and costly certifications.  
3.129.   The representative  of Türkiye  provided the following statement. We would firstly like to thank 
the EU for their cooperation. We have had a chance to meet with the EU delegation on the margins 
of the November 2022 TBT Committee meeting and in fact in the course of time since then bilat erally. 
That said, we still have concerns regarding this regulation and we would like to state them today. 
In fact, Türkiye shares the stated EU objectives with this regulation of supporting the transition to a 
green and circular economy. However, we belie ve that the monitoring and inspection requirements 
and measures envisaged in the draft for waste shipments of especially recycled raw materials of 
certain industries go beyond the stated legitimate environmental objectives. In this regard, we 
believe that the trade restrictive nature of these measures might be incompatible with EU's 
international commitments.  
3.130.   First of all, the draft lacks clear conditions for "monitoring of export and safeguard 
procedure " and for the inspection requirements of the importer facilities. These might lead to 
restriction of waste exports; and might impose additional burden and costs on importers while 
creating technical barriers to trade. Secondly, the draft legislation does not distinguish potentially 
hazardous waste streams suc h as mixed plastic waste from secondary raw materials being used as 
a raw material of certain industries. This approach undermines the benefit of trade in certain 
secondary materials, which contribute to low emission production and thus boost global circul arity. 
In this sense, we believe the draft legislation may endanger the supply of raw materials for third 
countries' recycling facilities, hampering the already functioning circular economy in these countries. 
For instance, taking into consideration that 5 3.4% of the ferrous scrap, 52.8% of non -metal waste 
is imported from the EU, Turkish recycling industry and steel production is highly dependent on the 
supply received from the EU. On the other hand, it is important to underline that under the Paris 
Agreem ent, it is part of an international collective effort to reduce the carbon emissions significantly. 
Therefore, global cooperation is significant in this regard.  
3.131.   Furthermore, Basel Convention and related OECD Decision already set the rules for 
transboundary  movements of hazardous waste. In this sense, this draft regulation might be 
inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement. In that respect, Türkiye would like to ask 
information to the EU on the negative environmental impact justifying the need for t he 
implementation of additional requirements in the draft. What constitutes the basis for imposing 
certain measures to monitor and when necessary restrict trade of ferrous scrap and non -metal non -
hazardous waste for environmental protection concerns? Furth ermore, Türkiye has been 
harmonizing relevant EU legislation with regards to waste management. Facilities in Türkiye that 
manage, recycle and import waste are already subject to licensing and auditing requirements. 
Therefore, the requirements foreseen by t he legislation will bring additional burden for our facilities. 
In that respect, Türkiye would like to ask whether similar additional monitoring and auditing 
requirements will be introduced for the EU member States as well?  
3.132.   In response, the representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
The European Union (EU) would like to thank Indonesia and Türkiye for their interest in the "Proposal 
for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on shipments of waste and amending 
Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) No 2020/1056 (COM(2021) 709 final)." As indicated in the 
notification form, this notification was made for transparency purposes and does not prejudge the G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 35 - 
 
  Union's position as to the applicability of the TBT Agreement.27 The volume of exports of waste from 
the EU is considerable (33 million tonnes in 2020) and has substantially increased in the last decade 
(+75% since 2004). Waste shipped across borders can generate risks for human health and the 
environment, especially  when not properly controlled. The notified draft, in line with the EU's 
commitments under the European Green Deal, the Circular Economy Action Plan and the Zero 
Pollution Action Plan, aims to ensure that the EU does not export its waste challenges to thir d 
countries, seeks to tackle illegal waste shipments and seeks to contribute to the circular economy 
by facilitating shipments of waste for reuse and recycling in the EU. The EU welcomes that Indonesia 
indicates that it also shares the importance of a tran sition to a green and circular economy and the 
management of waste in an environmentally sound manner.  
3.133.   The EU reiterates that the notified draft does not prohibit international shipments of waste. 
In order to avoid that exported waste emanating from the EU  harms the environment or public 
health in countries outside of the EU, the notified draft includes provisions designed to ensure that 
the export of waste from the EU only takes place when there are sufficient guarantees that this 
waste will be managed in an environmentally sound manner in the country of destination. Waste 
treated in the EU is already subject to strict rules designed to protect the environment and human 
health. Waste treatment facilities in the EU are in addition subject to inspections and enforcement 
measures by national competent authorities in the EU member States. In this context, the notified 
draft includes provisions which are designed to ensure that waste exported outside the EU is 
managed in the countries of destination in conditions  that are "broadly equivalent " to EU conditions 
to underpin the environmentally sound management of waste. It therefore aims to achieve the EU's 
environmental and public health objectives by ensuring there is a coherent regulatory approach to 
waste treated  in the EU and waste exported from the EU to third countries. When assessing "broad 
equivalence ", full compliance with requirements stemming from EU legislation shall not be required, 
but it should be demonstrated that the requirements applied in the third  country of destination 
ensure a similar level of protection of human health and the environment than the requirements 
stemming from EU legislation.  
3.134.   The principle that all waste should be managed in conditions that are "broadly equivalent " 
to EU conditions  when exported outside the EU is already reflected in the current EU legislation on 
waste shipments.28 The notified draft is designed to ensure that the provisions on "broadly equivalent 
conditions " are made fully operational, and is intended to overcome p ersisting implementation 
difficulties associated with the lack of clear criteria on this point in the current Regulation. In that 
respect, the notified draft is necessary to secure compliance with the EU's regulatory regime for 
waste management. The EU rei terates that the notified draft does continue to distinguish between 
hazardous and "green -listed waste " relating to the applicable respective procedures for such wastes, 
but that it considers as well that the environmental objectives can only be met if the  requirements 
relating to the environmentally sound management of waste apply to all types of waste exported 
from the EU. This principle is reflected in the existing legislation. In that respect, the EU notes that 
"green -listed waste " can also potentially cause environmental damage if not managed in an 
environmentally sound manner. The criteria designed to demonstrate that waste is managed in an 
environmentally sound manner, are laid down in the notified draft.  
3.1.3.9   European Union - Hazard -based approach to plan t protection products and setting 
of import tolerances, G/SPS/N/EU/166 , G/SPS/N/EU/166/Add.1 , G/SPS/N/EU/263 , 
G/TBT/N/EU/383 , G/TBT/N/EU/383/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/EU/384 , 
G/TBT/N/EU/384/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/EU/495  (ID 39329) 
3.135.   The representative  of Kenya  provided the following statement. Kenya would like to refer to 
her previous statement on this Specific Trade Concern. Kenya wishes to joi n the other delegations 
that have raised this issue. Kenya takes note of the EU's response given in the March 2023 TBT 
Committee meeting. The reference made by the EU are guidelines from European Food Safety 
Authority (EFSA) and European Chemicals Agency ( ECHA). However, there is need to cross reference 
to other international guidelines as well as other scientific literature. The EU's proposed measure is 
 
27 The notified draft was also notified to the Environment Committee on 2 June 2022.  
28 Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on 
shipments of wa ste; OJ L 190, 12.7.2006, p. 1 –98 - 
https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02006R1013 -
20210111&qid=1670254090535 . 
29 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 393 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 36 - 
 
  on Hazard -based approach to plant protection products and setting of import tolerances whereas in 
the re sponse issued in the March 2023 TBT Committee meeting, the EU bases their assessment on 
risk analysis principles on a case -by-case basis which is subjective. A holistic approach to risk 
analysis consistent with Codex guidelines should be adopted for purpos es of consistency and 
predictability.  
3.136.   Adoption of the Hazard based system by the EU has the potential to create unnecessary 
barriers to trade by limiting the availability of crop protection products. This is deemed to be 
inconsistent with Article 2.2 of th e TBT Agreement. In addition, technical regulations shall not be 
more trade -restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non -
fulfilment would create. Kenya reiterates that a risk -based approach is the best global  practice that 
meets the intended objective. The proposed measure would be deemed to be in contravention of 
Article 12.3 of the TBT Agreement which requires that "Members shall, in the preparation and 
application of technical regulations, standards and con formity assessment procedures, take account 
of the special development, financial and trade needs of developing country members, with a view 
to ensuring that such technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures do not 
create unnecessa ry obstacles to exports from developing country members ". Kenya requests EU to 
withdraw this measure.  
3.137.   The representative  of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia remains 
concerned about the significant uncertainty surrounding the mechanisms  for setting import 
tolerances for substances falling under the hazard cut -off criteria. We consider that reduction of 
allowable residues in imported products to the limit of determination would impose a de facto ban 
on the usage of those products in tradi ng partners should they wish to export to the EU. The 
Australian pesticides regulator – the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority 
(APVMA) – must consider impact on off -target species in its assessments of products for registration. 
The A PVMA's decisions consider the specific practices and settings of Australian farms and Australian 
environmental conditions. Australia maintains that the use of food residue limits to pursue 
domestically set environmental policy outcomes in third countries i s inappropriate as it does not 
account for variations in risk stemming from differences in pollinator species, environmental 
conditions and chemical use practises around the world. Accordingly, Australia requests that the EU 
maintain MRLs for substances th at do not pose unacceptable dietary risks and import tolerances be 
authorized based on dietary risk alone.  
3.138.   Australia reiterates its position from previous meetings about the importance of adopting a 
risk-based approach for regulating plant protection produ cts rather than considering only the 
potential for harm due to the intrinsic properties of a chemical. We remain available to discuss our 
approach to pesticide regulation with the EU and look forward to continued and constructive 
engagement on this issue, including in the SPS Committee.  
3.139.   The representative  of Costa Rica  provided the following statement. Costa Rica wishes to 
express its gratitude for the opportunity to raise this trade concern once again, as it is genuinely 
concerned about the hazard -based ap proach adopted by the EU when setting its import tolerances 
for products coming from trade destinations outside of the EU bloc. Under the obligations of the 
multilateral system, all technical requirements are to be aligned with an international reference 
standard or a risk assessment providing the scientific basis for the measure. Costa Rica once again 
urges the EU to ensure that the application of its regulations is based on risk assessments that meet 
criteria supported by sufficient scientific evidence, i n accordance with the obligations set out in the 
TBT Agreement.  
3.140.   The representative  of India provided the following statement. India reiterates its previously 
raised concerns regarding EU's hazard -based approach to plant protection products and setting of 
import tolerances. India notes that EU's implementation of the hazard -based approach with the cut -
off criteria puts a significant burden of proof on the registrant, requiring the registrant to establish 
that the active substance is determined to not have ca rcinogenic, mutagenic, reproductive or 
endocrine disrupting properties, and that it is not a persistent organic pollutant. As a result, the 
registrants are required to definitively prove that their pesticides do not meet any of the cut -off 
criteria, regard less of the level of exposure a consumer may face from the application of that 
pesticide on a treated crop. Without identifying the actual risk in question, this approach disregards 
the fundamental principles of the scientific risk assessment framework for  regulatory decision 
making.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 37 - 
 
  3.141.   As stated previously, such a hazard -based approach would not improve public health or 
environmental protection, but may have adverse consequences for sustainable agricultural 
production due to the removal of crop protection too ls from the market, despite their established 
safety in use. In this regard, India reminds EU of the tenets of the SPS Agreement including 
Article  5.1 requiring WTO Members to ensure that their SPS measures are based on an assessment 
of "risk". Additionall y, India reinstates the relevance of Article 5.4 whereby, EU is obligated to take 
into account the objective of minimizing negative trade effects when determining the appropriate 
level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection. In light of this, and in light  of the importance of risk -
based approach for regulating plant protection products as reinforced by other WTO Members as 
well, India requests EU to reconsider its hazard -based approach to plant protection products and 
setting of import tolerances.  
3.142.   The representative  of Brazil  provided the following statement. Brazil would like to refer to 
its previous statements regarding STC 393. We emphasize that regulations on endocrine disruptors 
should be established according to sound scientific principles, taking all  available data into 
consideration. Serious evaluations must be able to separate chemicals that have the potential to 
cause harm due to their endocrine mode of action from those substances that do not pose a threat 
to human health. A solid risk analysis, c onsistent with CODEX guidelines, is important to ensure 
transparency and predictability in the regulatory processes regarding plant protection products and 
MRLs. The EU affirms that granting import tolerance would make its regulation adherent to the risk 
analysis principle. This very principle is indeed one of the issues that has been raised in this STC 
over recent years. EU concedes emergency authorization to its national member States and deny 
import tolerances to third countries where the same conditions  prevail. Brazil believes that the 
European approach to limit the use of pesticides is more trade -restrictive than necessary to fulfill its 
legitimate objectives under the TBT Agreement. It also disregards risk analyses in the setting of 
regulatory measure s that may have a serious impact on trade.  
3.143.   The representative  of Argentina  provided the following statement. We would like to thank 
the delegations for including this trade concern on the meeting agenda and request that Argentina's 
support be put on record . Argentina once again reiterates its concern and stresses the importance 
of ensuring that all Members implement measures based on risk assessments, taking account of the 
risk assessment techniques developed by international reference bodies, including the  principles for 
the establishment of maximum residue limits for pesticides, as well as the many risk analyses that, 
over the decades, the Codex Alimentarius has conducted to ensure safety in terms of MRL 
recommendations for different substances and crops.  Argentina joins the other delegations and 
reiterates its request to the European Union to ensure that the implementation of its regulations is 
based on the use of risk assessments through the application of criteria supported by sufficient 
scientific evide nce, in line with the commitments established in the TBT Agreement.  
3.144.   The representative  of Paraguay  provided the following statement. Paraguay reiterates its 
position and refers to its previous statements, while stressing the importance of adopting a scientific 
risk-based approach to the regulation of plant protection products, instead of basing it solely on the 
hazard arising from the intrinsic properties of a chemical.  In this regard, Paraguay once again 
requests the European Union to take account of  information on pesticides provided by the specialized 
agencies recognized by the WTO, such as the Codex Alimentarius; reconsider its approach and base 
its decisions on conclusive scientific evidence and real risk weightings, in accordance with the 
relevan t international standards and principles; provide sufficient transitional periods, where 
necessary; and ensure import tolerances.  
3.145.   The representative  of Guatemala  provided the following statement. We reiterate the concern 
regarding the use of a hazard -based approach rather than the recognition of international standards, 
which are key to harmonizing regulations of this type internationally, particularly because they base 
their results on a risk analysis, which provides a scientific basis for the measures.  We thank the EU 
for its explanation of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) guidelines. However, we urge it to 
take into account the existing scientific information emanating from the international reference 
bodies recognized by the WTO, suc h as the Codex Alimentarius, which has relevant information on 
pesticides. This is in order to avoid measures being more trade -restrictive than necessary to fulfil a 
legitimate objective, in accordance with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.  The precautiona ry 
approach has resulted in approvals of active ingredients being withdrawn due to a lack of data and 
MRLs being reduced to the limit of detection. Consequently, we would appreciate that, in cases 
where scientific information is lacking, the EFSA refrain f rom making a recommendation on the MRL, G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 38 - 
 
  since decisions on regulatory measures must be based on conclusive risk analyses that offer real 
conditions for health protection so as to avoid becoming a technical barrier to trade.  
3.146.   The representative  of Ecuador  provided the following statement. As we have done on 
previous occasions, Ecuador once again reiterates its support for this trade concern and agrees with 
the importance of protecting human health and the environment. However, we consider that 
regulatory deci sions adopted on the basis of hazard -based criteria are inconsistent with international 
risk-assessment practice, given that there is no consideration of exposure.  As we see it, the 
European Union's precautionary approach has resulted in approvals of activ e ingredients being 
withdrawn due to a lack of data and in MRLs being reduced to the limit of detection.  In this 
connection, Ecuador reiterates its request to the European Union that, when risk analysis studies 
carried out by the European Food Safety Autho rity (EFSA) determine that a result is inconclusive as 
regards the potential impact on health, the European Union recommend the EFSA to conduct more 
in-depth studies in order to obtain conclusive information that supports the ban or reduction of MRLs.  
Consequently, my country once again calls on the European Union to ensure that, in cases where 
scientific information is lacking, the EFSA does not make a recommendation on the MRL, since 
decisions on regulatory measures must be based on conclusive risk analys es that offer real 
conditions for health protection so as to avoid becoming a technical barrier to trade.  My delegation 
urges the European Union to consider the scientific evidence on pesticides, in line with the 
commitments established under the TBT Agree ment, so that its measures are not more 
trade -restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, as set out in Article 2.2 of the 
Agreement.  
3.147.   The representative  of Chile provided the following statement. The delegation of Chile echoes 
the statemen ts made earlier and, as it has done at previous meetings of this Committee, reaffirms 
the importance of adopting a scientific and risk -based approach to regulating phytosanitary products, 
instead of only considering the hazardousness of agrochemical produc ts. 
3.148.   The representative of Uruguay  provided the following statement. Uruguay supports the 
comments made by the other delegations and expresses its systematic trade concern relating to the 
European Union's use of a hazard -based approach, instead of an approa ch based on comprehensive 
scientific risk assessments, to the adoption of regulatory decisions concerning the authorization of 
active substances used in plant protection products, and when setting import tolerance levels for 
substances that fall below the cut-off or exclusion criteria established in Regulation No. 1107/2009.  
We reiterate the need to base such decisions on conclusive scientific evidence, gathered from an 
assessment of the actual risks, to avoid imposing unjustified restrictions on active sub stances, which 
remain important components of pest management systems and are used safely. This is due to the 
fact that an approach based on hazard rather than on actual risk could have a negative and 
disproportionate impact on production, while contributi ng little or nothing to the cited aim of 
protecting public health.  As usual, Uruguay continues to support any multilateral efforts undertaken 
by the Codex Alimentarius to develop a harmonized, risk -based approach to the treatment of plant 
protection produc ts and MRLs for foods that would ensure the protection of health and, at the same 
time, facilitate international trade. In the meantime, we once again urge the EU to listen to and 
address the concerns expressed by many Members, and to reconsider its regula tory approach in 
order to avoid the unjustified proliferation of barriers to international trade in agricultural products 
and their potential socio -economic consequences for other Members.  
3.149.   In response, the representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
The European Union thanks WTO Members for their interest in the ongoing work in the EU on 
identifying endocrine disruptors for plant protection products. The EU reiterates that the scientific 
criteria to identify endocrine disruptors f or plant protection products based on the WHO definition 
are applicable since 10 November 2018 onwards and included in Commission Regulation (EU) No 
2018/605.30 This is complemented by a guideline by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and 
the Europe an Chemicals Agency (ECHA), providing more details on how to interpret these criteria.31 
Plant protection products and residues in or on those products are regulated in the EU by Regulation 
(EC) No 1107/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. Both Regulation s are complementary and are 
implemented in a coordinated manner to avoid risks and hazards for humans, animals and the 
 
30 Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605 of 19 April 2018 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 
1107/2009 by setting out scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties. OJ L 101, 
20.4.2018, p. 33.  
31 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5311 .  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 39 - 
 
  environment in the use of plant protection products. Environmental protection is foreseen in the EU 
Regulatory framework, and this is app licable to pesticide residues. When taking risk management 
decisions, all the factors relevant to the matter under consideration shall be taken into account, as 
foreseen by the relevant EU legislation.32  
3.150.   This includes environmental factors when read toget her with Article 11 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union requiring that "Environmental protection requirements must be 
integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union's policies and activities, in particular 
with a view to promoting sustainable development. "We are aware of general concerns on EU policy 
on plant protection products for the definition of scientific criteria to identify endocrine disruptors 
and on the establishment of import tolerances for substances not autho rised in the EU, due to the 
so-called "cut-off" criteria in Regulation (EC) No 1107/200933 on plant protection products. As 
previously explained, the European Union decided to follow the procedures of Regulation (EC) No 
396/2005 for the management of impor t tolerance requests concerning active substances falling 
under these cut -off criteria, which include a risk assessment by an Evaluating EU member State and 
a scientific opinion by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The granting of the import 
tolerance is then considered in line with risk analysis principles on a case -by-case basis and taking 
into account all relevant factors. During the thematic session on Trade Facilitating Approaches to 
Pesticide MRLs, in the margins of the SPS Committee of 22 Ma rch 2022, the EU provided an overview 
of the methodology used in EU for pesticide residues risk assessment.34 The EU reiterates its 
commitment to act in full transparency and keep Members duly informed about further 
developments.  
3.1.3.10   European Union - Transitional periods for MRLs and international consultations, 
G/TBT/N/EU/682 , G/TBT/N/EU/683 , G/SPS/N/EU/360  (ID 58035) 
3.151.   The representative  of Kenya  provided the following statement. Kenya would like to refer to 
her previo us statement on this Specific Trade Concern. Kenya raised this as a Specific Trade Concern 
in the previous TBT Committee meeting and continues to have concerns over the same issue. Kenya 
takes note of the EU's response given in the March 2023 TBT Committee  meeting on the Transitional 
periods for MRLs and international consultations. The transitional periods for MRLs established by 
EU are short and do not take into account the needs and adaptive capacities of developing countries 
which is inconsistent with A rt. 12.3 of the TBT Agreement. The transition periods clearly need to be 
longer. Kenya therefore calls for a review of the transitional periods. Kenya will also continue these 
discussions in the SPS committee.  
3.152.   The representative  of the United States  provid ed the following statement. As we have stated 
in multiple prior TBT Committee meetings, the United States has longstanding concerns with the 
European Union's (EU) practices related to the reduction of pesticide maximum residue levels 
(MRLs). We have repeat edly noted that following the restricted approval or non -renewal of many 
active substances in the EU, the EU has subsequently reduced or withdrawn MRLs, including those 
based on Codex limits or import tolerances. We continue to observe that the EU has ofte n reduced 
MRLs without a full risk assessment. The United States continues to request that the EU follow 
science - and risk -based processes, and that the EU completes science -based risk assessments based 
on a full body of evidence, prior to reducing or with drawing pesticide MRLs. The United States also 
expects the EU to take WTO Member comments into account prior to finalizing its draft measures. 
The United States has observed that the period of time between the WTO comment submission 
period and European Com mission voting on draft regulations on active substance renewals and MRLs 
can be brief. We look forward to discussing with the EU the possibility of finding additional 
opportunities for third countries to provide data and other analysis in advance of the f ormal WTO 
notification comment period. This would facilitate the ability of the EU to take a full body of available 
evidence into account prior to finalizing an MRL decision.  
3.153.   The United States reiterates its request that the EU retain existing MRL levels w hile import 
tolerances are under consideration. Recent EU regulation states that import tolerance applications 
 
32 Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 and Regulation 178/2002 . 
33 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament a nd of the Council of 21 October 2009 
concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives  
79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. OJ L 309 24.11.2009, p. 1.  
34 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/thematicsession220322_e.htm .  
35 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 580 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 40 - 
 
  will be considered on a case -by-case basis dependent upon meeting its definition of "environmental 
criteria. " However, the lack of predictability  that results from the consideration of import tolerance 
requests on a "case-by-case" basis unnecessarily increases uncertainty for farmers globally and 
limits farmers' ability to protect crops from pests and diseases. The United States has also previously  
shared concerns regarding the European Union's enforcement of MRLs. To prevent food loss and 
waste and to enhance global food security, we request the EU extend the transition periods for MRLs 
where the EU has not identified risks to consumers based on di etary exposure. This will facilitate 
adequate time for the United States and third -country producers to move lawfully produced food 
products through the channels of trade, including products with long shelf lives. The EU's policy of 
enforcing MRLs at the t ime of importation for imported goods rather than at the time of production, 
as currently applied to the EU's domestic agricultural products, causes disruptions in trade destined 
for the EU market. As currently written in regulations, EU agricultural produ cts and foods can be 
sold in the EU market even if they no longer comply with the most current MRLs. The United States 
requests that MRLs for all products, both domestic and imported, be enforced based on the MRLs in 
place at the date of application of the  pesticide. This would resolve the inconsistency of enforcement 
of MRLs for agricultural goods produced inside and outside the EU.  
3.154.   The representative  of Costa Rica  provided the following statement. Costa Rica reiterates its 
support for this trade concern a nd repeats its request for an extension of the transition periods for 
compliance with the new tolerances established for agrochemical inputs whose approval for use has 
not been renewed, in view of the impact that they have on agricultural production in our  country 
and others around the world. The usual period granted by the EU is around six months, which does 
not provide enough time to replace an agrochemical being used. As a result, there is a need to 
assess the possibility of longer transition periods for  fruit- and vegetable -producing countries.  
3.155.   The representative  of India provided the following statement. India joins other WTO 
Members in raising concerns regarding international consultation processes and planned transition 
periods related to the MRL sett ing procedures as adopted by the European Union (EU). EU MRLs and 
import tolerances are often reduced or withdrawn following a non -approval or restricted approval 
decision, backed by insufficient international consultation and giving limited transition tim e for 
exporters from other countries. At the outset, India requests EU to ensure that the risk assessment 
in question is fully completed before new MRL is set. Secondly, in undertaking this process of MRL 
setting, India requests EU to grant longer, more re asonable transition time. Sufficient transition time 
is necessary to allow trade to continue uninterrupted, while providing adequate time for producers 
and exporters to adapt to the new requirements.  
3.156.   Further, India requests EU to also ensure that intensive  stakeholder consultations are 
undertaken before any drastic revision of MRL and that the comments provided by WTO members 
during the stakeholder consultation are taken into account and how the measure in question is 
revised in light of the inputs received  during stakeholder consultation be put in public domain. India 
reminds EU that if MRLs and import tolerances are lowered without sufficient scientific justification, 
the approach would be read to be more trade restrictive than necessary and can be questio ned 
under WTO Law. In light of this understanding, India requests EU to reconsider its overall approach 
to setting off MRLs, including providing sufficient time for international consultations and sufficient 
transition periods.  
3.157.   The representative  of Colomb ia provided the following statement. These are topics that we 
have raised several times in this Committee, and we are reiterating these concerns on this occasion 
because there have been no adequate changes to the transition period to date, and it is unclea r how 
regulatory changes have been introduced on the basis of the information presented during the 
international consultations.  The problem is exacerbated when maximum residue limits and import 
tolerances are reduced or withdrawn and the transition period is insufficient for exporters in other 
countries.  It is worth remembering that access to international markets is essential to the livelihoods 
of many rural families and to the income generation of agricultural producers, especially because 
the European Un ion is one of the top markets for producers of bananas, coffee and exotic fruits, 
among other products.  Colombia calls on the European Union to consider the comments made before 
taking measures regarding the detection level of an active ingredient, conduct  comprehensive risk 
assessments before establishing a different maximum residue level and ensure that transition 
periods are sufficiently long.  Otherwise, we will end up in a situation with measures that 
unnecessarily restrict and impede trade.  We therefor e invite the EU to follow the recommendations 
of good regulatory practices, according to which rules should be based on clear and objective 
information, and open dialogue with stakeholders, transparency and reduction of market distortions G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 41 - 
 
  are promoted, to the benefit not only of developing countries but also the multilateral trading 
system, which has already been hit hard by this and other measures.  
3.158.   The representative  of Canada  provided the following statement. Maximum residue limits 
(MRLs) regulations were developed to mitigate unnecessary trade barriers. However, these 
measures can unintentionally become unnecessarily trade restrictive and impede trade when a 
country imposes a  sudden MRL deletion without giving its trade partners sufficient time to adjust. 
To that end, Canada would like to reiterate its concern with the EU's approach to transition periods 
for maximum residue limits. Canada is of the view that the EU's approach has yet to acknowledge 
the reality of international agricultural supply chains such as the time required to ship product, multi -
year inventory and extensive shelf life. Sufficient transition periods will allow trade to continue 
uninterrupted, while providi ng adequate time for producers and exporters to adapt to the new EU 
requirements. At a time when ensuring food security is of high concern, Canada urges the EU to 
extend transition periods for MRLs for its trading partners, as it has done so for its domest ic 
producers, taking into account the need for exporters to adapt to new requirements.  
3.159.   The representative  of Brazil  provided the following statement. Brazil supports the concerns 
raised under STC 580 and would like to refer to our previous statements on th is agenda item. We 
respectfully bring to the attention of the EU its obligations under Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement, 
which relate to the establishment of a reasonable interval between the publication of technical 
regulations and their entry into force , except in cases of urgent problems of safety, health, 
environmental protection or national security. It is of utmost importance that the EU provides 
adequate transitional periods, especially for those cases in which the scientific opinions of the EFSA 
on the toxicity of substances are "inconclusive" or only indicate a "suspected risk". Transitional 
periods should also be compatible with the production processes, so as to allow producers – and 
especially small farmers – to adapt to the new regulations. Bra zil would like the EU to explain how 
its authorities deal with uncertainty, indicating if inconclusive evidences lead to suspension or 
prohibition of substances and which actions are taken to review these decisions, as they are based 
on inconclusive opinio ns. 
3.160.   The representative  of Argentina  provided the following statement. We would like to thank 
the delegations for including this concern on the Committee's agenda and we would be grateful if 
Argentina's support could be put on record.  We once again reiterat e our concern about the EU policy 
of removing import tolerances for substances that are no longer used in the EU, which is clearly a 
more restrictive measure than necessary and goes beyond the acceptable level of risk set by the 
EU. The approach taken by t he EU to establish transitional periods for MRLs is inappropriate and 
does not take into account the needs and adaptive capacities of third countries. The transition period 
clearly needs to be longer, and Argentina therefore once again calls for a review o f the transition 
periods.  
3.161.   The representative  of Paraguay  provided the following statement. As with the previous 
concern, we urge the EU to reassess its approach and, where MRL reductions are duly justified, 
provide adequate transition periods that take int o account the realities of the production processes 
and the geography, including distances, of its trading partners.  With regard to the international 
consultations, we thank the EU for the notification of the measures. However, we repeat our question 
to the EU about how the comments submitted by Members at different stages of the consultation 
process are taken into account. We would also like to know whether there are cases in which 
regulatory changes or adjustments have been introduced using the informatio n submitted by 
stakeholders during the consultation process. In many cases, the limited time between the end of 
the comment period and the approval of the drafts without amendments leads us to believe that 
these notifications and comment periods are mere f ormalities, and comments are not intended to 
be, and are in fact not, taken into account.  
3.162.   The representative  of Guatemala  provided the following statement. Guatemala thanks the 
Members that raised this trade concern and reiterates its support for the conce rn. We reiterate the 
position that we previously expressed. Transitional periods continue to be insufficient for making 
adjustments to productive processes and adapting them to local conditions (for example, they do 
not take into account the very variable climatic and geographic conditions or the time needed to 
conduct technical and economic assessments and training). Many tests need to be carried out to 
determine that a product is effective in treating a specific pest or disease in a crop, in variable 
climatic conditions and within a budget. The results need to be used to establish values that are 
statistically valid.  The EU has failed to take account of these transitional periods, which will vary G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 42 - 
 
  depending on the type of crop and harvest. Each crop has a d ifferent productive cycle, which means 
that a fixed period cannot be set for all crops in general. Moreover, many of the compounds used do 
not have established substitutes that meet the necessary requirements in terms of, inter alia , 
effectiveness and cost . This situation is more critical for small -scale farmers and cooperatives in the 
various areas of the country.  It is not possible to ask producers to make changes to their use of 
substances in the different production stages without giving them an exact d ate of when the MRLs 
will be changed, particularly when the number of alternatives on the market is declining. As it has 
been indicated to us that such decisions must be made when the EU submits a TBT notification, this 
process does not provide producers w ith certainty.  We hope to find a satisfactory solution.  
3.163.   The representative  of Ecuador  provided the following statement. Ecuador continues to 
support this trade concern raised by Kenya, the United States, Costa Rica, Colombia and India and 
shares the concer n of other WTO Members that took the floor earlier.  As it has done at previous 
meetings of this Committee, my delegation reiterates its concern with regard to the procedures 
relating to the transitional periods adopted by the European Union for implementin g its measures 
concerning the non -renewal of the approval of substances and the reduction of tolerances.  In order 
to establish reasonable transitional periods, it is necessary to consider harvesting periods and the 
times when agrochemicals are applied. Ecu ador therefore urges the European Union to consider 
granting an adequate period, of a minimum of five years, so that developing countries may adjust 
their production to the new conditions set out in the European regulations, given that farmers need 
more ti me to adapt to the maximum reside level (MRL) requirements. It is important for the 
European Union to take into account that the development or registration of a new phytosanitary 
product for pest control takes an average of 10 years, and this is when new alternatives have been 
identified.  My country calls on the European Union to consider the comments of third countries, 
particularly when the use of the substances is key for the control of pests or diseases typical of 
tropical and subtropical climates, the  conditions of which differ from those of the members of the 
European economic bloc.  
3.164.   The representative  of Uruguay  provided the following statement. Considering harvest 
seasons, the stages at which plant protection products are applied and the time needed to develop 
and register alternative substances, the transition periods set by the European Union in the 
provisions amending the MRLs for active substances are mostly insufficient in practice for making 
the necessary adjustments to production and ensuring t hat agricultural products, especially 
processed or frozen products, comply with the new, amended MRLs.  As we have said before, six 
months are insufficient for adaptation. In our opinion, any changes should be gradual, and a 
reasonable period of time should  be granted to raise awareness in the productive sector and among 
technical advisers, and to make available effective substitutes for the active ingredients for which 
the MRLs are to be reduced. It is inappropriate to make abrupt changes to the rules in th e middle of 
a harvest season, considering the impact this may have on the marketing of the affected products.  
My delegation reiterates the call for Members to take regulatory decisions based on internationally 
accepted standards or to present conclusive sc ientific evidence when it is strictly necessary to deviate 
from those standards to meet their legitimate aims, in accordance with the relevant 
WTO Agreements.  
3.165.   Uruguay urges the EU, when taking decisions to reduce MRLs for active substances used in 
agricultural production by other Members, to provide sufficient transition periods to make the 
relevant adjustments.  Lastly, Uruguay shares the concerns expressed regarding the practical 
operation of the EU's  international consultation process on MRLs and regrets that its delegation has 
not yet responded to the requests of Colombia, Paraguay, Guatemala and Uruguay at the March 
2023 meeting of the TBT  Committee for further information as to how, and to what extent, the EU 
has taken into account the comments of other Members in its regulatory process, and for examples 
of cases where the EU has modified its original proposals in response to comments or information 
received from third  countries.  
3.166.   In response, the representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
The EU has provided detailed information on transitional periods for Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) 
at previous TBT Committees, in particular, at the TBT Committee meeting in May 2020 and July 
2021. The EU considers that measures loweri ng maximum residue levels due to concerns for human 
health, fall under the remit of the SPS Committee and should be discussed in that context. 
Nevertheless, we would like to also inform Members of the TBT Committee that all measures taken 
on MRLs in the EU  are based on a scientific risk assessment carried out by both an evaluating Member 
State and the European Food Safety Authority and using the most up to date science and evidence G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 43 - 
 
  available. Obviously, science is under continuous development with new data and risk assessment 
methodologies becoming available. Therefore, the EU has the procedures in place to review any 
measure at any moment if this is necessary. On the contrary, all measures concerning non -approval 
or restriction of active substances used in plant protection products in the EU and a limited number 
of very specific measures lowering MRLs due to environmental issues of global concern (e.g. 
clothianidin and thiamethoxam) are notified to the TBT Committee. These measures do not have 
direct consequ ences on SPS related matters.  
3.167.   In the interest of transparency and, further to requests by some Members, when notifying 
these measures under the WTO/TBT notification system, the EU additionally informs the SPS 
Committee of the submission of those notificati ons. In practice, both Committees are informed about 
draft acts on the non -approval or restriction of approval of an active substance in the EU. However, 
comments should only be submitted via the TBT notification system in those cases. The EU would 
like to  point out in this context that the commenting deadlines are always respected and that the 
comments received within those deadlines are duly taken into account in the EU's decision -making 
process. In the interest of efficient proceedings in both Committees  and, in line with the respective 
Agreements, the EU would invite Members to raise matters on approvals of active substances and 
measures dealing with MRLs in view of environmental issues of global concern exclusively in the TBT 
Committee, while matters re lating to MRLs for pesticides due to human health concerns should be 
raised exclusively in the SPS Committee. Issues concerning transitional periods for MRLs should 
therefore generally be raised at the Committee to which the original notification was made,  which 
would be, in most cases, the SPS Committee.  
3.1.3.11   China - Draft Administrative Measures for Registration of Overseas Producers of 
Imported Foods, G/TBT/N/CHN/1522  (ID 61136) 
3.168.   The representative  of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
remains deeply concerned with this measure, published as Decree 248 in April 2021, and 
implemented in January 2022. We continue t o question the food safety and public health benefits, 
and whether the measure is based on science and risk. We ask that China please provide further 
information in this regard to support and explain their legitimate objective. The United States notes 
that the lack of guidance provided by China, and China's unpredictable implementation and 
enforcement of the measure continue to cause considerable confusion for exporters and competent 
authorities. Furthermore, GACC appears to require foreign competent author ities to manage 
information in China's online system for each registered facility from their country producing certain 
categories of products. Such a requirement creates tremendous administrative burdens on foreign 
competent authorities without a clear con nection to food safety outcomes. Instead, GACC should 
ensure that all facilities are able to self -register without foreign competent authority involvement.  
3.169.   We note that GACC is requiring both competent authority Declarations of Conformity that 
rely on expo rting country food safety systems, as well as requiring facility -specific manufacturing 
information, a duplicative approach which is overly burdensome in terms of registration 
requirements. Moreover, GACC's requests for additional detailed information from  facilities, such as 
information on manufacturing process flow charts and critical control points on an establishment -
by-establishment basis, are not consistent with international guidance for a system -based food 
safety approach. Is GACC taking its knowled ge, experience, and confidence with other countries' 
food safety systems into account in implementing this measure? We look forward to China's response 
to these specific requests and comments.  
3.170.   The representative  of Australia  provided the following statemen t. Australia respects the right 
of WTO Members to address the safety and quality of imported food products in accordance with the 
TBT Agreement and without unnecessarily restricting trade. Australia welcomes the recent 
amendments to the CIFER system and ho pes that they deliver the desired outcome of a simplified 
registration process. Whilst we are yet to fully understand the impacts of these recent changes, we 
believe the changes to allow suspended establishments to retain their registration and the ability  for 
establishments to change details such as their address and legal representatives will result in a more 
efficient system. Australia acknowledges the difficulties experienced by China in the implementation 
of CIFER as part of its roll out of Regulation on Registration and Administration of Overseas 
Manufacturers of Imported Food (Decree 248). Australia appreciates the continued cooperation of 
officials from the General Administration of Customs China (GACC) to work through the many system 
 
36 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 611 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 44 - 
 
  issues experien ced in the CIFER system. We remain willing to engage with China to minimise trade 
disruptions but are still concerned at the resource -and-labour -intensive costs borne by exporters 
and exporting country competent authorities to comply with the CIFER registr ation process.  
3.171.   This burden is exacerbated by the number of technical issues, delays and lack of clarity 
experienced within the CIFER system. Australia encourages China to improve engagement with 
trading partners on CIFER through the provision of: regularly  updated and detailed guidance 
material ; a pathway to systems recognition and recognition of trading partner systems ; guarantee 
of continuity of trade to all currently registered establishments until the IT system issues in the 
CIFER system are resolved. A ustralia reminds China that its regulations must not discriminate 
against imported goods. Delays in processing registration renewals, lifting suspensions and 
approving new applications from overseas food producers, only lead to imported foods being treated  
less favourably than China's domestic product.  
3.172.   The representative  of The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
provided the following statement. Given their potential to affect a wide range of industries, and 
because there has bee n little progress on this STC, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu would like to reiterate the concerns we expressed in previous TBT 
meetings over the implementation of the above -referenced measures since they took effect on 
1 January 2022. First, transparency continues to be an issue and the lack of sufficient information 
regarding registration requirements, operational guidelines, and procedural updates remains a major 
obstacle, particularly for those facilities that are req uired to register directly with the General 
Administration of Customs of China (GACC). In order to ensure that the inability of these facilities 
to complete the registration process does not disrupt trade, a single enquiry point should be 
established to pr ovide them with effective and timely assistance. Moreover, while China has indicated 
that technical guidance, regulatory interpretations, and supporting documentation have already 
been provided, we would urge that this information be placed on a publicly a ccessible website so 
that it can be accessed directly by overseas facilities.  
3.173.   Second, we also have concerns regarding the review and approval procedures established 
by these measures. Standard or anticipated processing periods have yet to be disclosed, lit tle is 
known about the individual stages of the application process, and several applications have been 
rejected by the GACC without explanation. Article 5.2.2 of the TBT Agreement requires, among other 
things, that the standard processing period of each c onformity assessment procedure be published, 
that the results of the assessment be communicated in a precise and complete manner so that 
corrective action can be taken if necessary, and that the applicant be informed of the stage of the 
procedure upon requ est. Article 5.2.8 further mandates that a mechanism be established to review 
complaints concerning the operation of a conformity assessment procedure. Both of these provisions 
are critical for ensuring transparency, and at the very least require that faci lities whose applications 
have been rejected be provided with an explanation of the grounds for such rejection as well as an 
opportunity to have their applications reviewed. We would therefore urge that the GACC comply with 
its obligations under the TBT Ag reement so as to ensure that the review and approval procedures 
for applications submitted under these measures are efficient and transparent.  
3.174.   Third, the ambiguity of the HS code categorization as well as the scope of products subject 
to these measures ha s also been an issue, with some of our facilities reporting that their products 
have been suspended from customs clearance for no apparent reason. Fourth, we would like to 
reiterate the concerns expressed by others regarding the unnecessary and unjustified  burdens 
imposed on the competent authorities of exporting Members with respect to 18 categories of food 
products. While we agree that more stringent requirements are warranted for such high -risk goods 
as dairy, meat, and fishery products, we would urge th at China consider eliminating them for 
medium -risk products (GACC -II). Restricting such requirements to high -risk items will ensure the 
effective use of administrative resources while allowing for a more efficient registration process. Ever 
since China not ified the WTO of its intent to pass these measures in 2020, we have repeatedly 
expressed concern and sought clarification regarding their implementation through bilateral channels 
as well as the TBT Committee, yet these concerns have yet to be adequately a ddressed. Accordingly, 
and as discussed above, we would urge China to establish an enquiry point for questions regarding 
the registration process and provide detailed technical guidance and other relevant materials on a 
publicly accessible website. Finally , since measures of this magnitude necessarily require 
considerable time and effort on the part of exporting Members to implement, we would like to echo 
other Members' calls for a longer grace period, so that products from registered facilities would be 
allowed to temporarily enter the Chinese market to prevent unnecessary trade disruption.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 45 - 
 
  3.175.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The EU must 
raise this topic again to highlight remaining concerns about the implementation of  Decree 248 of the 
General Administration of Customs of the People's Republic of China (GACC). More than a year after 
its entry into force, the EU considers that the whole implementation process of Decree 248 is still 
very burdensome and not transparent. A s previously mentioned, EU applicants are still facing many 
issues in the registration process, mostly due to recurrent technical problems with the web -based 
registration system (CIFER), making the electronic submission of documents cumbersome, time 
consum ing and uncertain, be it to apply for new registrations or to amend or correct existing 
registrations. In this context, EU applicants remain concerned about the June 2023 deadline to 
provide supplementary information for existing registrations. Due to recu rrent technical problems 
with the CIFER system, it is unlikely that all establishments will complete their registration on time. 
EU applicants have also faced difficulties regarding the renewals of past registrations, with a 
burdensome procedure including,  first, an application for "modification ", followed by an application 
for "extension ". 
3.176.   In order to avoid food trade disruption, the EU urges China to: Resolve the technical software 
problems with the CIFER system; Facilitate the process to amend/correct ex isting registrations; 
Simplify the renewal procedure for past registrations; and Refrain from enforcing any new 
requirements scheduled to come into effect after 30 June until concerns are addressed. The EU 
would like to thank China for the constructive dia logue, which has so far helped to address several 
questions related to implementation of Decree 248, however, important issues remain to be 
resolved.  
3.177.   The representative  of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan, like other Members, 
would like to rai se its concerns again regarding the implementation of Decree 248 by China 
concerning administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of imported food. 
First, Japan appreciates China's willingness to address the concerns we have expressed  in previous 
occasions, and also thanks China for its recent bilateral engagement with us. Having said so, Japan 
is still concerned that the procedures remain uncertain and lack predictability; in particular, frequent, 
unexpected changes have been made to the China Import Food Enterprise Registration (CIFER) 
system without prior notice to the Members. Japan requests China improve the operation of the 
CIFER system, and make the procedures for implementation of Decree 248 transparent. Japan 
specifically reque sts that China to maintain the status of a registered manufacturer for an 
establishment who submit the additional information by 30 June deadline, even if the procedure by 
Chinese side to register the manufacturer would not be completed by the end of June,  so that there 
would be no adverse impact on export of food products from Japan to China.  
3.178.   Japan would also like to ask China the following: 1. Establish a standard processing period 
for applications made through the CIFER system (i.e., a standard timeline to be followed from 
application through registration), and make that processing period known to the Members and 
foreign manufacturers. 2. Give sufficient explanation for the reasons when an application is rejected 
through the CIFER system, and ensure its c onsistency. 3. Notify the Members promptly of any 
changes in the operation of the regulations or the CIFER system, including changes to product codes 
(HS CIQ) used in the system, which will or might affect exports. Should any changes occur, we also 
ask tha t the GACC provide a reasonable transitional period. 4. Correct any defects in the CIFER 
system as soon as possible, including: (a) the current, considerable delays in the registration 
process; (b) its inability to accept letters of proxy; and (c) the fact  that some of the product codes 
(HS CIQ) are missing from the list shown on the system. 5 . Respond to unanswered questions within 
a reasonable time. Japan would like to communicate closely with China to address our concerns in 
a corporative manner.  
3.179.   The representative  of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada thanks China for its 
information session provided to WTO Members on Monday, 19 June on Decree 248 and the China 
Import Food Enterprise Registration (CIFER) system. Canada also welcomes China's recent changes 
to the CIFER system to facilitate the registration and renewal process by addressing some of the 
challenges, such as uncertainty and delays, faced by foreign establishments. While Canada 
appreciates the efforts made by Chinese authorities to  facilitate the registration and renewal process, 
we call on China to continue to provide flexibilities to ensure that the CIFER system does not become 
a technical barrier and disrupt trade. Beyond this, Canada requests China to appropriately consider 
the relative risk of different products, particularly those classified as "medium -risk", to ensure that 
(a) the level of information requested from foreign establishments is proportionate to the risk of the 
product and (b) the efficiency of the process is impr oved by allowing more foreign establishments G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 46 - 
 
  to submit their applications directly in CIFER without additional steps required by foreign competent 
authorities.  
3.180.   The representative  of Brazil  provided the following statement. We would like to thank China 
for discussing this matter bilaterally and for the efforts in trying to clarify some questions that we 
have and also we appreciate the fact of the presence of experts from capital and the organization of 
the informational session as well. Brazil would like, on ce again, to support STC 611 regarding new 
requirements for the registration of overseas producers of imported foods. The Chinese government 
has not yet clarified the risk analysis that grounded such disproportionate requirements for a wide 
range of food p roducts. We understand that these requirements constitute unnecessary obstacles 
not only to our private sector, but also to our regulators, which must operate as the Competent 
National Authority for a much wider range of products. Not only are the regulato rs facing an 
unreasonable increase in their burden, but some of them must also make recommendations on 
products or producers that are actually subject to inspection by authorities of other levels of 
government. In April 2021, the General Administration of Customs of China (GACC) published 
Decrees n. 248 and 249, which deal, respectively, with administration of registration of foreign 
establishments and management of the safety of imported and exported food. Article 5 of Decree 
n. 248 requires that the food safety management system of the country where the producer is 
located has passed GACC's equivalence assessment or review. Could China explain how and when it 
intends to carry out these assessments? Could China indicate the criteria and procedures used to 
establish such equivalence, especially for regulators of processed foods and "health foods "? 
3.181.   The representative  of the Philippines  provided the following statement. The Philippines 
shares the concerns raised by Members that spoke before us on the draft admi nistrative measures 
for registration of overseas producers of imported foods. We also wish to thank China for the 
information session they organized to share further information on the implementation of Decree 
248. Our exporters still face challenges relev ant to the registration with GACC such as the inclusion 
of consolidators and traders as GACC only covers registration of food manufacturers, processors, 
and storage facilities. These requirements are quite burdensome for overseas food manufacturers. 
In add ition to the points raised by previous speakers, we request China to also consider its 
commitments under Article 10.1.1(b) of the Trade Facilitation Agreement which states that Members 
should review formalities and documentation requirements such that meas ures are adopted to 
reduce the time and cost of compliance for traders and operators.  
3.182.   The representative  of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement. The Republic 
of Korea echoes the concerns raised by Australia, Japan, the European Union, Ch inese Taipei, and 
the United States under this Specific Trade Concern. Korea respects China's efforts to ensure 
consumer safety and appreciates its continued cooperation through bilateral channels. However, 
Korea remains concerned since China's measures st ipulated in Article 7 of Decree 248 still include 
low-risk food products. This is an unnecessary obstacle that hinders trade. While Korea is registering 
newly -added product categories in accordance with GACC's requirements, it is taking a significant 
amoun t of time for the registration to finalize. Moreover, facilities are rejected without explanation, 
which causes a negative impact on trade. Korea also requests China to review the registration 
standard, to consider basing it on the individual manufacturing  facilities, instead of the product 
categories. The current requirements lead to inefficiency such as having to apply for each category 
the facilities wants to register and having to submit duplicate data, as facilities are required to apply 
for registrati on based on product categories. If China adopts such suggestion by Korea, China will 
be able to swiftly process registration applications. Moreover, Korea asks China to utilize previously 
reviewed data so that registered facilities could export all product s of the facilities. Additionally, 
obligating facilities to register food products that are clearly labelled as a free sample that is not sold 
or consumed is a measure that hinders mutual growth of Korean and Chinese food industries. Many 
other countries d o not apply such measures to sample products and Korea therefore requests China 
to ease related regulations. As the new measures significantly affect bilateral trade, Korea would 
like to ask China to provide a response to our statement.  
3.183.   In response, the representative  of China  provided the following statement. The revision of 
Administrative Measures for Registration of Overseas Manufacturers of Imported Foods had come 
into effect from 1 January 2022. With the strong cooperation of the food safety authoritie s of all 
Members, more than 80,000 overseas manufacturers from 165 economies have been registered in 
China, and 229 overseas competent authorities of 130 economies have joined the CIFER system. 
Thanks to the cooperation of the Members, the implementation o f the provision has gradually passed 
into a stable period. To support the implementation of the regulations, the GACC had successively G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 47 - 
 
  issued the interpretation of the regulations, the guideline and supporting documents and forms for 
registration applicati on, launched the registration information system for overseas enterprises. In 
order to better understand the regulation by the competent authorities and enterprises of Members, 
the GACC has held regulatory briefings and training with more than 100 Members.  Even last week, 
GACC published a video demonstration of the CIFER system operation on their official website. GACC 
has also optimized its CIFER system to provide more flexibility in solving competent authorities' and 
enterprises' special technical issues.  
3.184.   In addition to strengthening food safety supervision, the measure also takes full 
consideration of trade facilitation. On 29 September 2021, GACC sent letter to all Member food 
safety authorities, that 18 categories of overseas food manufacturers that had  traditional trade 
records exporting to China before the implementation of Decree 248 could be quickly reviewed and 
registered in CIFER system, and the relevant ones should log in the CIFER system to supplement 
registration information during the 18 -months  transition period or before 30 June 2023. That is a 
trade facility policy to guarantee unimpeded trade of those companies. Till now, the competent 
authorities of WTO Members had urged most of those manufacturers to supplement the information, 
and we under stood some companies might have the difficulties and objective reasons to provide 
supplemental materials on time, we confirmed that their products can export to China normally after 
30 June 2023, and wish the competent authorities could give us an explanat ion on the reasons to 
the GACC in advance. Last but not least, China would like to underline that strengthening 
communication and interpretation between China and Members is an important way to eliminate 
misunderstandings and solve problems about registrat ion regulation. We noticed that sometimes, 
the questions about registration raised here have been resolved through bilateral communication 
channels. That is why China organized an information session on 19 June 2023. At the information 
session, China reite rated the legitimacy and transparency of the regulation, explained that the 
regulation is based on science and risk assessment and facilitated food trade exporting to China, 
shared the implementation information about GACC Decree 248, made an introduction to the 
operation and optimization of registration system (CIFER), and gave an explanation on the common 
questions received from the Members. If Members are still confused about the regulations and the 
registration system, they are welcome to raise question s at any time, and GACC will respond in a 
timely manner and provide technical support.  
3.1.3.12   Peru - Supreme Decree No. 015 -2019 -SA, which amends the Manual of 
Advertising Warnings approved by Supreme Decree No. 012 -2018 -SA (ID 61837) 
3.185.   The representative  of Costa Rica  provided the following statement. Costa Rica reiterates its 
trade concern regarding the process to implement the draft regulation established under Supreme 
Decree No.  015-2019-SA, which amends the Manual of Advertising Warnings  approved by Supreme 
Decree No.  012-2018-SA of Peru. Costa Rica would like to thank Peru for extending the deadline for 
using adhesive labels. However, as has been mentioned on previous occasions, this temporary 
solution does not effectively and permanentl y address the concerns of our exporters to the Peruvian 
market. The temporary maintenance of the use of adhesive labels does not provide our exporters 
with legal certainty and clarity about the regulations applicable to trade in food in Peru. In Costa 
Rica's view, progress needs to be made on an amendment to the final regulation, which would allow 
the use of adhesive labels for an unlimited period. This is a practice that is widely recognized 
internationally, as such labels achieve the same public health pr otection and consumer information 
purposes achieved by permanent labels. In terms of Codex Alimentarius international reference 
standards, Articles 8.1.1 and 8.2.1 of CODEX -STAN  1-1985, General Standard for the Labelling of 
Prepackaged Foods, permit the us e of supplementary and adhesive labels, as long as it is guaranteed 
that they will not become separated from the container, or in cases where the language on the 
original label is not acceptable to the consumer for whom it is intended.  In view of the foreg oing, 
Costa Rica respectfully requests that the Peruvian authorities consider permitting the use of adhesive 
labels on a reciprocal basis, given that these labels may be used on Peruvian food products to be 
marketed in Central America.  We thank the Peruvia n authorities for the information that it provided 
to us in March and, in turn, request that it provide information on the current status of this 
regulation, on whether the intention is still to ban the use of adhesives on labels and on the time 
frame for the regulation's entry into force.  
3.186.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union (EU) would like to thank Peru for their engagement on this issue so far and granting extensions 
 
37 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 618 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 48 - 
 
  to use stickers for compliance with labelling requirements for processed imported foods. However, 
the European Union notes that the latest extension is expiring on 30 June 2023. The EU would like 
to repeat once again the urgent invitation to Peru to provide for a permanent possibility f or imported 
products to use stickers. In the EU and in most countries around the world, stickers are allowed for 
food products, provided that the information is accurate, and the stickers are not easily removable. 
In this respect, the EU also underline the  recent decision of the Peruvian Court for the Defence of 
Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI) which declared the ban on the use 
of octagon adhesives in imported processed foods as a non -tariff trade barrier. We invite once again 
Peru to bilaterally work with the EU on this issue.  
3.187.   The representative  of Colombia  provided the following statement. Colombia once again 
shares with the Committee this trade concern regarding the use of stickers for advertising warnings.  
It has been sugges ted on previous occasions in this Committee that using adhesive labels is a 
common practice internationally, as they fulfil the same public health protection and consumer 
information purpose as permanent labels.  We value the talks that have taken place at different levels 
and the extensions of the period for using adhesive labels, and we understand that the current 
deadline expires on 30 June 2023.  However, a permanent solution is crucial in providing legal 
certainty and clarity regarding the regulations ap plicable to the food trade on the Peruvian market.  
It is therefore in our interest, and surely in other countries' interests also, to move forward with a 
regulation allowing the use of adhesive labels without an expiry date, thereby avoiding an 
unnecessary  barrier to trade.  
3.188.   The representative  of Brazil  provided the following statement. Brazil regrets having to once 
again express its concerns regarding labelling requirements expressed in the Manual of Advertising 
Warnings approved by Supreme Decree 012 -2018-SA (notified under G/TBT/N/PER/97/Add.1)  and 
amended by Supreme Decree 015 -2019-SA (unnotified). The use of stickers is a widespread practice 
internationally, as it does not affect the provision of reliable information to consumers. Codex 
standard CODEX -STAN 1 -1985 for pre -packaged goods, Articles 8.1.1 and 8.2.1, explicitly allows for 
the possibility of using additional labels or stickers, as long as they are attached to the packaging 
and if the language of the original label is not necessarily that of the consumer for whom it is 
intended. Brazil shares Peru's endeavour to ensure the highest health standards through technical 
regulations that help to better inform consumers. Despite Peruvian legitimate concerns with 
deceptive practices, advances in labelling technologies allow for th eir safe affixation. We 
acknowledge that, according to Supreme Decree 022 -2022-SA, the entry into force of the prohibition 
on stickers was delayed until 30 June 2023. However, Brazil would like to respectfully ask Peru to 
permanently align its labelling re quirements with current international standards established under 
the Codex and withdraw the prohibition of stickers for the products under the scope of the Manual 
of Advertising Warnings. Brazil considers such postponement a provisional solution and will continue 
to raise this STC until Peru permanently removes its burdensome requirements for food labelling.  
3.189.   The representative  of Paraguay  provided the following statement. Paraguay's concerns and 
views regarding this measure remain unchanged. We therefore r equest that the entirety of our 
statement from the previous meeting be reflected in the meeting minutes, and I will limit myself to 
repeating the questions and recent comments.  Considering the impending expiry of the temporary 
extension period, when does P eru think that the assessment by its Ministry of Health of the use of 
this type of additional adhesives will be concluded? Can Peru share the terms of reference of the 
study initiated and the methodology used?  We would also be interested in understanding t he scope 
of the decision of the National Institute for the Defence of Competition and the Protection of 
Intellectual Property (INDECOPI) Tribunal, mentioned by the European Union.  
3.190.   Statement from March  2023 meeting, in full.38 We thank Brazil, Costa Rica, C olombia and 
the European Union for including this trade concern on the agenda and request that Paraguay's 
support be recorded.  As stated at previous meetings, Paraguay supports Peru's objective of 
protecting public health and considers that the provision of information to consumers through 
labelling is an appropriate strategy. However, we share and support the concerns expressed by other 
Members with regard to the time limit established for the use of supplementary labels.  It should be 
noted that  the use of labels of this kind is widely recognized internationally, as such labels achieve 
the same public health protection and consumer information purposes achieved by permanent labels. 
Not accepting them is therefore more trade -restrictive than neces sary to fulfil the legitimate 
objective.  We regret that once again Peru has decided to extend only temporarily its legislation to 
 
38 G/TBT/M/89 , para. 2.213.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 49 - 
 
  allow the use of supplementary labels until 30  June this year, this being the fourth temporary 
extension, so we reiterate that  temporary extensions do not provide exporters with the legal 
certainty they need.  We therefore ask Peru to allow the use of this type of adhesive labels indefinitely 
and to bear in mind the provisions of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.  Considering the n ew 
assessment by Peru's Ministry of Health regarding the use of this type of adhesives, when does Peru 
think that it will be concluded? Can Peru share the terms of reference of the study initiated and the 
methodology used?  
3.191.   The representative  of Chile provided the following statement. The delegation of Chile would 
like to thank the delegations of Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica and the European Union for including 
this specific trade concern on the agenda. Our delegation recognizes that nutritional labelling is  a 
health and consumer information -based policy and is grateful to Peru for extending the acceptance 
of adhesives on the packaging of food products. We urge the regulatory authority of Peru to allow 
the permanent use of adhesives on the packaging of food p roducts, thereby avoiding creating an 
unnecessary technical barrier to trade.  
3.192.   The representative  of Guatemala  provided the following statement. As has been indicated 
on previous occasions, we recognize Peru's right to safeguard and protect the health and l ife of 
consumers, while informing the public about food content.  Supreme Decree No.  022-2022-SA, 
published on 31  December  2022 in the special edition of the Official Journal El Peruano , extends the 
deadline to 30  June 2023 for the use of adhesives with adv ertising warnings on imported products 
as provided for in the Manual of Advertising Warnings approved by Supreme Decree No.  012-2018-
SA, within the framework of Law No.  30021 on the promotion of healthy eating among children and 
adolescents and its impleme nting Regulations approved by Supreme Decree No.  017-2017-SA. We 
thank Peru for considering adhesive labels, although we are concerned that the deadline for using 
such labels is set for 10 days' time. Accordingly, we ask Peru to reconsider the measure, whi ch we 
deem to be a non -tariff barrier to trade as there are other less restrictive alternatives, such as the 
use of additional labels that must fully and accurately reflect the information contained on the 
original label, as established by the Codex Alimen tarius in the General Standard for the Labelling of 
Prepackaged Foods (CXS 1 -1985).  As the deadline approaches, we ask for it to be extended and for 
the option to use adhesive labels to be permitted indefinitely.  We reiterate our statements made at 
previou s meetings of the Committee.  
3.193.   In response, the representative of Peru provided the following statement. As we have stated 
on previous occasions, Peru is committed to achieving its objectives of protecting the health of its 
citizens and most vulnerable group s, such as children and adolescents. Peru is therefore seeking to 
ensure that the information contained in the Manual of Advertising Warnings reaches consumers 
clearly and effectively to enable them to make informed choices.  With regard to the concerns rai sed 
by certain Members, I would like to point out that Peru is in the process of finalizing the relevant 
arrangements and hopes, in due course, to find a definitive solution that satisfactorily addresses the 
requests made by other countries, taking into ac count that adhesives may not be used after 30 June.  
Lastly, we would like to reiterate that Peru wishes to honour its WTO commitments and therefore 
reaffirms its commitment to not preparing, adopting or applying technical regulations that may 
create unnece ssary barriers to international trade.  
3.1.3.13   India - Quality Control Orders for Chemical and Petrochemical Substances, 
G/TBT/N/IND/116 , G/TBT/N/IND/121 , G/TBT/N/IND/122 , G/TBT /N/IND/123 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/124 , G/TBT/N/IND/125 , G/TBT/N/IND/126 , G/TBT/N/IND/127 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/128 , G/TBT/N/IND/129 , G/TBT/N/IND/130 , G/TBT/N/IND/132 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/133 , G/TBT /N/IND/134 , G/TBT/N/IND/135 , G/TBT/N/IND/136 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/137 , G/TBT/N/IND/138 , G/TBT/N/IND/139 , G/TBT/N/IND/140 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/141 , G/TBT/N/IND/142 , G/TBT/N/IND/144 , G/TBT /N/IND/150 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/151 , G/TBT/N/IND/152 , G/TBT/N/IND/153 , G/TBT/N/IND/154 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/175 , G/TBT/N/IND/176 , G/TBT/N/IND/177 , G/TBT/N/IND/186 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/187 , G/TBT/N/IND/191 , G/TBT/N/IND/193 , G/TBT/N/IND/199 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/201 , G/TBT/N/IND/202 , G/TBT/N/IND/203 , G/TBT/N/IND/204 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/205 , G/TBT/N/IND/206 , G/TBT/N/IND/208 ; G/TBT/W/774  (ID 63039) 
3.194.   The representative  of The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
provided the following statement. The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and 
 
39 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 630 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 50 - 
 
  Matsu would like to reiterate its concerns about the Orders issued by India's Ministry of Chemicals 
and Fertilizers on phthalic anhydride, n -butyl acrylate, and terephthalic acid, which were notified by 
G/TBT/N/IND/116 , G/TBT/N/IND/123  and G/TBT/N/IND/124 . We fully understand that India's 
implementation of Quality Control Orders (QCOs) is to ensure the quality of products manufactured 
in India and their safety for consumers. However, India's implementation of QCOs still nee ds to 
comply with WTO/TBT Agreement; especially taking into account their impact on international trade 
and the unnecessary burdens imposed on the industry. Moreover, under the QCO system, officials 
from the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) must be assigne d to perform on -site factory inspection 
and take samples. Our manufacturers have repeatedly expressed concerns about the BIS's limited 
manpower and resources, which have caused unexpected delays of scheduled on -site factory 
inspection, thereby resulting in  disrupted trade operations and harm to the rights and interests of 
our businesses.  
3.195.   Our quarantine requirements for all international visitors were lifted in October last year. 
Regarding our manufacturers' applications, we thank the Indian side for resumin g their on -site 
factory inspection. However, the certification process will still take considerable time, we hope Indian 
side can expedite the review process for granting the certificates and consider postponing of the 
implementation dates. In doing so, we  believe that Indian companies will also avail themselves of 
the competitiveness of their products in the international market by rapidly accessing needed raw 
materials and semi -finished products of good quality from our companies.  
3.196.   The representative  of the United States  provided the following statement. We understand 
that in March 2023, India's Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (DCPC) met with several 
industry stakeholders to discuss the possible enactment of mandatory, India -specific quality -control 
standards for 76 chemicals, many of which are different from those included in a previous October 
2019 meeting notice. Can India elaborate on the basis, criteria, and rationale behind the 
prioritization of these 76 chemicals? Does India intend to hold public consultations on this 
prioritization? US industry has indicated that, for certain substances such as carbon tetrachloride, 
chloroform, N -Butyl acetate, and perchloroethylene, the current Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) 
standards do not align with r elevant international standards and do not incorporate newer, more 
accurate testing methods. Can India explain the rationale behind mandating compliance to standards 
developed by BIS for these substances, as opposed to encouraging voluntary compliance, 
recognizing other international standards, or including reference to international standards in the 
BIS standards?  
3.197.   Additionally, we understand from US industry that a reasonable transition period of 
approximately five years after final adoption of any technic al regulation corresponding to the 76 
identified chemicals is needed for manufacturers to adapt their products or methods of production. 
Can India provide more clarity on the likely implementation timeline for these technical regulations? 
We also ask that India notify any technical regulation or implementing rule to the WTO TBT 
Committee, allow a stakeholder comment period of at least 60 days, and take submitted comments 
into account before finalizing the measure(s). Lastly, we recognize India's most recent  six-month 
extension of the Polyethylene Material for Moulding and Extrusion Quality Control Order 
(Polyethylene QCO) in March 2023. While we appreciate this recent extension, we kindly reiterate 
our previous request that India extend the implementation ti meline until April 2024. The United 
States refers to its previous interventions on this matter, including the concerns raised in the March 
2023 WTO TBT Committee meeting.  
3.198.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The Europe an 
Union would like to support the delegations of the United States, Chinese Taipei, Indonesia, and 
Canada. The EU continues to systematically take note of all Indian TBT notifications pertaining to 
Quality Control Orders (QCOs) for chemical and petrochemi cal substances. As already stated in this 
Committee, some QCO notifications do not have a determined date of entry into force. The EU once 
more reiterates its request to India to provide structured information regarding the planned timing 
for the adoption of these measures, as well as to provide an updated list of chemicals and 
petrochemicals, which have already been implemented and of those that are yet to be implemented, 
together with copies of relevant Quality Control Orders. The European Union recalls i ts request for 
clarification, explaining the reasons for establishing India -specific Quality Control Orders and India 
specific standards when these chemical and petrochemical products already comply with 
internationally recognised standards. In accordance with the TBT Agreement, standards are 
considered as voluntary, whereas mandatory standards are considered as technical regulations. 
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, states that Members shall ensure that technical regulations are G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 51 - 
 
  not prepared, adopted or a pplied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary barriers 
to international trade. The EU would also like to encourage India to align the BIS standards with 
well-established and recognised international approaches and best practices.  
3.199.   The representative  of Canada  provided the following statement. In previous Committee 
meetings, Canada and other Members raised concerns over the approach taken by India to make 
mandatory the use of Indian Standards on the regulation of a series of chemical substa nces. Canada 
continues to remain of the view that the notification process followed by India to inform interested 
parties of its "Quality Control Orders" (QCO) is problematic, and that a number of systemic issues 
persist with respect to the QCO framework a cross many sectors. There are now 40 notifications from 
India with respect to QCOs for chemical and petrochemical substances, most of which lack clarity 
and transparency with respect to substantive information and timeframe for implementation. Such 
an appr oach to notifications, in Canada's view, goes against the spirit of the transparency provisions 
of the TBT Agreement. At the November 2022 Committee meeting, Canada joined the room 
document G/TBT/W/774  which serves to highlight key concerns with respect to  India's QCO 
framework and approach. India noted that the room document was under review by capital. While 
Canada was hoping that India would address certain of these concerns at the March Committee, we 
were disappointed to note that India did refer back t o the issues raised in G/TBT/W/774 , and instead 
provided a very short response focussed on BIS carrying out physical inspections where conditions 
allowed. Canada hopes that India will start to engage constructively in this Committee on the issues 
raised by many Members on its QCO framework, and will work to ensure that the implementation of 
the orders is conducted in ways that are consistent with India's WTO TBT obligations.  
3.200.   In response, the representative  of India provided the following statement.  Chair, we would 
like to reiterate our comments on this issue. The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) is carrying out 
physical inspections for applications received from foreign manufacturers, where the country to be 
visited is facilitating the visit of full y vaccinated BIS officers without the requirement of any 
quarantine. The process of standards development of BIS is aligned with accepted international best 
practices that are based on the core principles of openness, transparency, impartiality and 
consens us. While formulating Indian standards, it is an integral part of the Standard formulation 
process to analyze the relevance of the existing international Standards (even other than ISO/IEC 
Standards) for Indian situation in accordance with the Code of Good  Practice of WTO -TBT Agreement 
and as a policy. BIS always tries to align Indian Standards with International Standards of ISO and 
IEC, where available and to the extent possible, keeping in consideration the specific 
climatic/environmental conditions and technological development in the country. Around 88% of 
Indian Standards, for which corresponding ISO and IEC standards are available, are harmonized 
with their ISO/IEC counterparts.  
3.1.3.14   Indonesia - Government Regulation 28 of 2021 – Implementing Regulation (f or 
the Manufacturing/Industry Sector) to Law No. 11 of 2020 the "Job Creation Act", 
G/TBT/N/IDN/152  (ID 72440) 
3.201.   The representative  of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
continues to have serious concerns with the G overnment of Indonesia Regulation No. 28 of 2021, 
which is the Implementing Regulation (for the Manufacturing/Industry Sector) to Law No. 11 of 2020 
of the "Job Creation Act " (GR28/2021). While we thank Indonesia for the response we received on 
Tuesday thi s week, unfortunately, many of our long -standing concerns remain unanswered and are 
not addressed in this recent response. While we will follow up in writing in more detail, we ask that 
Indonesia attempt to engage with Members to effectively address the co ncerns raised in writing and 
in this Committee. In particular, Indonesia's response notes that it remains committed to fulfilling 
the transparency principle of the WTO TBT Agreement. However, it failed to provide Members with 
an opportunity to comment on a  draft measure, given that it notified an implementing regulation for 
GR28/2021 in G/TBT/N/IDN/152  in January of 2023, despite being signed and entering into force in 
November of 2022. Indonesia also has not yet explained what steps it took to take Members' 
comments into account, particularly in light of the fact that the comment period was provided after 
the measure entered into force.  
3.202.   Further, we again ask Indonesia to please provide a justification for requiring conformity 
assessment testing to be  conducted by Indonesian civil servants residing in Indonesia. How do these 
requirements relate to the ability to perform conformity assessment? Why is Indonesia not allowing 
 
40 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 724 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 52 - 
 
  remote factory inspections, given travel restrictions and disruptions that may pr event onsite 
inspections? We again refer Indonesia to our previous statements from November 2021, March, July, 
and November 2022, and March 2023. Without reiterating them, the United States requests that 
Indonesia provide a response that specifically addre sses Members' concerns.  
3.203.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement.  The European 
Union continues to remain seriously concerned by Government Regulation No.28 of 2021 and new 
requirements for Indonesian National Standard (SNI ) certification. This Regulation is one of the 
implementing regulations of the Omnibus Law on Job Creation (Law 11/2020). Government 
Regulation 28/2021 aims to increase the competitiveness of Indonesia's national industry and mainly 
outlines measures relat ed to raw materials. It also introduces new requirements with regard to 
product certification bodies. The new requirements affect in principle all products subject to SNI 
certification, thus making export to Indonesia very complicated. Additionally, due to  lack of available 
guidelines, the situation does not improve. Certain sectors are particularly concerned (e.g. toys, 
tyres and machinery). The European industry continues to report that various requirements of this 
measure continue to represent an unneces sary barrier to trade. The European Union would like to 
refer to its previous statements made during recent TBT Committee meetings and notes that the 
majority of the issues raised therein remains unanswered. The European Union invites Indonesia to 
respond to concerns we raised previously, and in particular to make sure that the conformity 
assessment bodies continue certification process for foreign products. The EU remains available to 
discuss this issue bilaterally.  
3.204.   The representative  of Canada  provided th e following statement. Once again, Canada 
reiterates the following points from previous meetings of the Committee, specifically outlined in our 
statement at the July 2022 TBT Committee in paragraphs 2.402 -2.404 of G/TBT/M/87 , and which 
we are again referring to today for the record: Canadian industry stakeholders have reported that 
the various requirements of this measure remain the same and therefore continue to represent an 
unnecessary barrier to trade. At the November 2022 and March 2023 TBT Committees, Ind onesia 
committed to answer Members' concerns through a formal written letter sent to our respective 
Enquiry Points. Whilst Canada thanks Indonesia for its response to Canada's comment letter, 
received on June 20, which we are in the process of reviewing, C anada also takes this opportunity 
to reiterate the following: concerns about significant provisions related to the recognition of 
conformity assessment results and the need to have mutual recognition agreement between 
countries in the field of technical re gulations in accordance with the regulatory provisions of the 
legislation; as well as requests for Indonesia to provide a rationale as to why it did not provide for 
a reasonable time: for other Members to make comments in writing, discuss these comments up on 
request and take these written comments and the results of these discussions into account, as per 
Articles 2.9.2 and 5.6.4 of the TBT Agreement; and between the publication of the technical 
regulation and its entry into force, as per Article 2.12 and 5. 9 of the TBT Agreement.  
3.205.   In response, the representative  of Indonesia  provided the following statement. Indonesia 
thanks the United States, the European Union, and Canada for their continued interest to 
Government Regulation 28 Year 2021. Indonesia would li ke to reiterate that Government Regulation 
28 of 2021 aims to clarify and complement the previous requirements set out in Government 
Regulation (PP) 2 of 2017 regarding the Development of Industrial Facilities and Infrastructure. The 
implementing regulatio n regarding the mandatory application of SNI on specific products will be 
stipulated in other Minister of Industry regulation. We will remain committed to fulfilling the 
transparency principle of the WTO TBT Agreement by notifying relevant technical regula tions. To 
date, Indonesia has notified the Minister of Industry Regulation number 45 of 2022 on Industrial 
Standardization through document G/TBT/N/IDN/152  and also several regulations such as (i) Draft 
Decree of the Minister of Industry on the Man datory Implementation of Indonesian National Standard 
for Plastics Raw Material ( G/TBT/N/IDN/151 ), (ii) Draft Decree of the Minister of Industry on the 
Mandatory Implementation of Indonesian National Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers 
(G/TBT/N/IDN/150 ), as the implementing regulation number 28 of 2021.  
3.206.   The certification process for SNI -based technical regulations in the industrial sector is carried 
out in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant Ministerial Regulation. All provisions 
regarding standard and conformity assessment schemes ap ply equally to both domestic and foreign 
manufacturers. Minister of Industry Regulation Number 45 of 2022 contains procedures including 
how the Minister of Industry will evaluate the Conformity Assessment Body as mandated in 
Government Regulation Number 28  of 2021, where the regulation states that: Conformity 
assessment procedures are carried out by Conformity Assessment Body accredited by the Indonesia G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 53 - 
 
  National Accreditation Body (KAN) and appointed by the Minister of Industry; Based on Regulation 
of the M inister of Industry Number 45 of 2022, it is further explained that the implementation of 
conformity assessment procedures shall continue to be carried out in accordance with the previous 
regulation, until the regulation is amended. Indonesia accepts test results from accredited foreign 
testing laboratories under the framework of mutual recognition agreements and the availability of 
technical regulatory agreements between Indonesia and its partner countries.  
3.1.3.15   European Union - Draft Commission Regulation amen ding Annexes II and V to 
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards 
maximum residue levels for clothianidin and thiamethoxam in or on certain products, 
G/TBT/N/EU/908  (ID 76341) 
3.207.   The representative  of Kenya  provided the following statement. Kenya reiterates her previous 
statement on this Specific Trade Concern. Kenya raised this as a Specific Trade Concern in the 
previous TBT Committee meeting and continues to have concerns over the same issue. Kenya takes 
note of the EU's response given in the March 2023 TBT Committee meeting. Arising from this 
response, Kenya looks forward to further information that the EU may have concerning this issue. 
Kenya wishes to express concern on the fact that the measures have been a dopted despite the 
concerns raised by Members.  
3.208.   The representative  of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia reiterates our 
concerns about amendments to Regulation 396/2005 arising from Commission Regulation 2023/334 
regarding maximum residue levels for clothianidin and thiamethoxam in or on certain products. The 
amend ments consider environmental impacts in exporting countries when setting import MRLs and 
assessing requests for import tolerances. Australia recognizes the right of WTO Members to regulate 
agricultural imports in a manner that protects animal, plant and hu man health and the environment. 
However, Members are also bound by WTO obligations, particularly in relation to undertaking 
science -based risk assessments and ensuring that measures are no more trade -restrictive than 
necessary. Australia does not support u sing MRLs on imported products to achieve environmental 
outcomes outside the EU's borders. This extra -territorial approach impacts the ability of third 
countries to implement environmental policies consistent with their unique environmental 
circumstances.  
3.209.   National authorities of third countries are best placed to ensure that pesticide application is 
undertaken in a responsible and sustainable manner in each country, and in accordance with their 
unique environment. Australia is concerned about the limitation s of the 2018 European Food Safety 
Authority risk assessments cited by the EU in the draft regulation. These studies have been used to 
support a link between the lowering of MRLs to the limit of determination and pollinator health. We 
request the EU provid es robust scientific evidence in support of this conclusion. Australia also 
requests the EU provide information on the health of pollinators in all trading countries where the 
new MRLs are likely to apply. The EU may wish to consider restricting the new MR Ls to only those 
countries where it has robust evidence to support its policy objective. We look forward to continuing 
to engage with the EU on this important topic.  
3.210.   The representative  of the United States  provided the following statement. The United State s 
continues to express our deep concern with the European Union's regulation (Commission Regulation 
2023/334) regarding the reduction of maximum residue levels (MRLs) for clothianidin and 
thiamethoxam, notified to the TBT Committee as G/TBT/N/EU/908  on 6 June 2022. The United 
States is concerned that this measure lacks sufficient technical justification to fulfil its environmental 
objective, undermines the expertise of national competent authorities and good agricultural practices 
worldwide, and intro duces a dangerous precedent for an unsubstantiated use of a food safety metric 
to achieve supposed environmental aims. Given the critical importance of these pesticides for the 
production of crops that are exported to the EU from the United States and othe r WTO Members, we 
are concerned that the reduction of these MRLs to the limit of determination (LOD) may pose a 
significant obstacle to trade.  
3.211.   The United States notes that efforts to protect bees and other pollinators in the United States 
are well establis hed, and we would welcome opportunities to share information about US pollinator 
research and initiatives. As the EU has previously recognized, global environmental challenges 
cannot be achieved by prescriptive, one -size-fits-all approaches that are narrow ly tailored to the 
 
41 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 763 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 54 - 
 
  conditions in one country or region. Once again, the United States urges the EU to pursue a 
collaborative approach to protecting pollinators, using appropriate international venues to advance 
a shared understanding of this global challen ge. We remind the EU that environmental considerations 
are not included in the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residue (CCPR) assessment process for 
establishing MRLs, and we are disappointed and dismayed with the EU's decision to use pesticide 
MRLs as an env ironmental safety management tool. The United States urges the EU to refrain from 
using MRLs outside of their intended purpose, which is food safety. The United States recalls that 
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had reviewed clothianidin and thi amethoxam MRLs and 
recommended MRLs that were safe for consumers in its most recent MRL review.  
3.212.   The United States restates our prior concerns regarding the 2018 EFSA risk assessments 
and notes the importance of completing science -based risk assessments in their entirety prior to 
reducing or withdrawing existing MRLs. We respectfully ask the EU to share the scientific and 
technical information evaluated by EFSA that demonstrates how the reduction of these MRLs to the 
LOD for products produced outside of the EU protects pollinators, including bees. Given the lack of 
global consensus about the factors that negatively affect pollinator health, including the health of 
bees, and in the absence of scientific or technical information indicating how the reduction of MRLs 
to the LOD for products produced outside of the EU contributes to the objective of protection of 
pollinators, including bees, the United States requests that the EU refrain from additional attempts 
to achieve global environmental outcomes through pest icide MRLs and to restore prior MRLs for 
clothianidin and thiamethoxam.  
3.213.   The representative  of Indonesia  provided the following statement. Indonesia once again 
wishes to reiterate that the Draft Commission Regulation as regards maximum residue levels for 
clothianidin and thiamethoxam, notified under G/TBT/N/EU/908  amending Regulation (EC) No. 
396/2005, will have a serious impact on farmers in developing countries producing products 
exported to the European Union, as it will restrict farmers from using c ertain technologies useful for 
producing agricultural commodities economically. The Maximum Residue Levels (MRL) is an 
international trade standard related to food safety and consumer protection. The imposition of MRLs 
for environmental protection deviates  from the purpose of MRLs themselves. The reduction MRL for 
active ingredient of neonicotinoid (NNIC) aimed at addressing a global environmental issue, namely 
the reduction of pollinators worldwide, Indonesia thinks that it does not provide a strong legal basis 
for taking measures that regulate and impact the use of registered crop protection products outside 
EU territory and jurisdiction. As such, it conflicts with the responsibilities and authorities of other 
sovereign states, resulting in the extraterrit orial application of European Union legislation, which 
may be incompatible with treaties, international agreements and commitments to which the Union 
and its member States are party, in particular within the framework of the World Trade Organization 
(WTO).  
3.214.   The insect pollinator decline is multifactorial and cannot be attributed exclusively to the use 
of pesticides, and in particular cannot be attributed to one class of pesticides. Indonesia has a strong 
commitment to protecting insect pollinators and protec ting the environment. Recent scientific 
developments studies on pollinators concluded that risk of the NNIC class substances to bees and 
other invertebrates is acceptable in their jurisdiction, therefore regulatory authorities in more than 
80 countries sti ll use and register NNIC class active ingredients. This is also supported by data from 
Intergovernmental Science -Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)42, which 
confirms that no single factor can explain the pattern of bee colony lo sses observed in some 
countries, while bee colonies are increasing in others. The authors of the IPBES report have even 
been challenged by NGOs who point out that there is no conclusive link between the use of certain 
pesticides and the decline of wild bee s. Moreover, a positive trend was also reported by the UN Food 
and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which showed a significant increase in honeybee colonies in 
major agricultural countries from 2012 to 2019, including those where the two compounds in 
questi on were registered and used.43 
3.215.   Every country, including Indonesia, has unique sustainable agriculture goals and challenges. 
In addition to climate challenges, agriculture in our country has high pest and disease pressure due 
to the combination of heat, hum idity, and plant -disturbing organism pressure from various pests, 
diseases, and plant weeds. To overcome these problems, various methods, tools, and technologies 
are needed so that agriculture can sustainably meet the world's growing food and feed needs. 
 
42 IPBES 2016, https://ipbes.net/assessment -reports/pollinators .  
43 https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL .  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 55 - 
 
  Therefore, in accordance with regulations implemented by the government, we continue to promote 
more sustainable and good agricultural practices and food systems by emphasizing the combination 
of the best methods and techniques to achieve adequate and more sustainable production. 
Therefore, regulatory decisions relating to pollinator protection should take into account the 
uniqueness of each country's ecology and agricultural landscape, and be assessed by each country's 
regulators based on a scientific appro ach. Indonesia understands that this draft regulation does not 
require non -EU countries to ban the use of clothianidin and thiamethoxam in their own territories 
and the aim is that food and feed consumed in the EU does not contribute to the global decline of 
pollinators. However, lowering the MRL to the Limit of Quantification (LoQ) is an indirect measure to 
avoid the use of thiamethoxam and clothianidin by countries that have different agricultural practices 
to control pests resulting in different but safe  residue levels. We believe that non -EU countries have 
their own regulatory frameworks that recognize the safety of these products in use.  
3.216.   Indonesia has adopted Codex Alimentarius standards for setting MRLs through the 
Indonesian National Standard (SNI), a nd all other crops have MRLs currently set higher than 
0.01 mg/kg, except for palm oil and cocoa products. However, any new levels applied will pose a 
risk to our export products, as even small exceedances that are perfectly safe for human 
consumption coul d lead to refusal of shipments to the EU or return and destruction. This will result 
in high cost for our producers and the uncertainty process will make it less attractive due to the 
higher risk of rejection. We would like to appreciate the data from the EU annual monitoring program 
for pesticide residues in 2019, all analyzed samples originating from Indonesia, had clothianidin or 
thiamethoxam levels lower than the LoQ, except for tea products. We highlight a very significant 
decrease in MRLs for tea prod ucts, from Codex Standards and EU Regulations, the MRLs for 
Thiamethoxam and Clothianidin are 20 mg/kg and 0.7 mg/kg, whereas under the EU Regulation, 
the MRL should be 0.05 mg/kg. This will be a significant obstacle for Indonesian tea farmers which 
could lead to loss of Indonesian tea exports to the EU. Indonesia hopes that the European Union can 
take this into consideration and refer to the MRLs in existing international standards as a reference 
for setting MRLs for clothianidin and thiamethoxam in or on certain products.  
3.217.   The representative  of Costa Rica  provided the following statement. Costa Rica wishes once 
again to support this trade concern, which was originally raised by Kenya and relates to the EU's 
intention to establish maximum residue levels (MRL s) for clothianidin and thiamethoxam as 
mechanisms to fulfil environmental objectives. Costa Rica reiterates that, broadly speaking, its 
national policy is aligned with the EU's objective of prioritizing environmental protection, the fight 
against climate change and sustainable economic development, as the only viable path forward for 
the future of our planet. However, under no circumstances must achieving these objectives come at 
the expense of multilateralism and the fundamental obligations that underpin this Organization. The 
TBT Agreement clearly sets out the objectives that technical regulations, standards and conformity 
assessment procedures may legitimately fulfil. From Costa Rica's perspective, it is unclear which 
legitimate objective might justify t he revision of an MRL, which is a matter related to food security 
and the protection of human health and therefore falls within the scope of the SPS Agreement. In 
that connection, we are struggling to understand EU notification G/TBT/N/EU/908 , due to the fact 
that, although this notification proposes reducing the MRLs for clothianidin and thiamethoxam, it 
was submitted to the TBT Committee and not to the SPS Committee.  Costa Rica does not agree with 
the EU's claim that the above -mentioned notification is justified by a "global environmental concern". 
Among the legitimate objectives of the TBT Agreement, we cannot find global environmental 
concerns as justification for a measure covered by this Agreement. Addressing global environmental 
concerns is also a matter of the utmost importance for Costa Rica. However, it is unclear how this 
objective falls within the scope of the SPS and TBT Agreements. Lastly, Costa Rica thanks the EU 
for its explanations regarding this concern.  
3.218.   The representative  of Colombia  provided the following statement. This statement refers to 
STCs 763, 579 and 627 , relating to the substances chlorothalonil, mancozeb, clothianidin and 
thiamethoxam.  Colombia is aware of the importance of consuming foods free from excess pesticide 
residue s in line with international safety recommendations. To this end, our health authorities are 
going to great lengths with the productive sectors to ensure that food meets these requirements 
and standards.  However, the prohibition and subsequent non -renewal of the approval of active 
substances such as chlorothalonil, mancozeb, clothianidin and thiamethoxam is hitting our country's 
agricultural export sector hard.  The search for alternatives to the substances that have been banned 
or whose approval is being mo dified necessarily requires time and investment, especially when 
potential alternatives are also becoming scarcer owing to the EU's changes to phytosanitary 
regulations as part of the Green Deal or the Farm to Fork Strategy, for example.  In the non -renewal  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 56 - 
 
  or modification of approval for active substances, it is essential to take into account processes and 
production methods in countries that could be affected. Failing to do so would violate the TBT 
Agreement, which stipulates that technical regulations mus t not be more trade restrictive than 
necessary.  We therefore invite the European Union to support solutions that would allow our 
agricultural producers to continue meeting European demand for food, to the benefit not only of 
developing countries but also t he multilateral trading system, which has already been hit hard by 
this and other measures.  
3.219.   The representative  of India provided the following statement. India reiterates its concerns 
regarding lowering of existing MRLs for clothianidin and thiamethoxam by  EU. As highlighted 
previously, India notes that this approach of lowering MRLs for pesticides no longer approved in EU's 
jurisdiction due to environmental concerns is not restricted merely to this notification, and for many 
products, the residual pesticid e limits have been set at 0.01 mg/kg. There are significant concerns 
with the setting of default MRLs because it imposes a standard that need s to be sufficiently 
scientifically founded on imports from other countries. In light of the raised concerns, India  requests 
the European Union to reassess its approach and ensure that arbitrary MRL standards are not 
imposed preventing unnecessary disruption to trade in safe products.  
3.220.   The representative  of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada, like other Mem bers, 
is disappointed with the EU's decision to adopt regulation EC No 396/2005 to lower the MRLs for 
clothianidin and thiamethoxam to the Limit of Quantification (LOQ). We would like to note that this 
decision is not based on dietary risk, but rather on p erceived environmental concerns for the global 
pollinator population, which does not take into account risk mitigation measures in exporting 
countries or residues in pollinator relevant matrices such as pollen and/or nectar. This approach is 
unnecessarily trade restrictive and does not take into consideration unique circumstances (e.g., 
climate and growing conditions) and risk management measures of exporting countries. If a pesticide 
does not cause dietary risk, there is no evidence of health risks to EU c onsumers. To that end, if 
EFSA cannot conclude a risk assessment due to data gaps, the EU should maintain the MRLs or 
harmonize with Codex MRLs (CXLs). Canada has a robust, science and evidence -based regulatory 
system and is confident in the mechanisms we have in place to protect consumers and the 
environment.  
3.221.   We protect human health and the environment by conducting rigorous scientific evaluations 
of the risks associated with pest control products, which is critical to enabling access to the pest 
managemen t tools necessary to address pest pressures specific to the Canadian climate and growing 
conditions. By reducing neonicotinoid MRLs to default values when no dietary risks of concern have 
been identified, Canada is of the opinion that the European Union is  unjustifiably applying their 
domestic legislative requirements extraterritorially, and we hope this will not become a pattern that 
continues.  
3.222.   The representative  of Paraguay  provided the following statement. Paraguay reiterates its 
concern about the EU's c laim to use the MRLs for clothianidin and thiamethoxam, not to protect 
European  consumers, but as a means to regulate the use of neonicotinoids in production processes 
and methods in third countries. In the interest of time, I request that the entirety of the statement 
made at the previous meeting be reflected in the minutes. I will limit myself to making only a few 
comments and repeating the questions:  First, considering that it was included in the statement from 
the previous meeting, I would like to thank  the EU for removing the incorrect reference to Paraguay 
from the Regulation.  The EU drew attention to the fact that, owing to the judgment of the European 
Court of Justice of 19  January  2023 in Case C -162/21, members can no longer grant emergency 
authoriz ations for products containing restricted neonicotinoids.  We note, however, that a series of 
emergency authorizations were approved before the judgment but remain applicable after it. At least 
one emergency authorization for thiamethoxam was granted even a fter the judgment.  This 
authorization was given by the Czech Republic on 4  April 2023 for the period from 20  April to 
16 July 2023.  It contains some interesting elements that I would like to highlight:  In section 15, 
"Rationale", of the form, it states tha t the product will be used only when the harvest is intended for 
export to countries outside the European Union.  Although section 16, "Mitigation measures", includes 
some risk mitigation measures with which we agree, it too states that, as a mitigation mec hanism, 
the treated produce is not intended for consumption in Europe.   
3.223.   I would like to know how consumption abroad protects European pollinators and how this 
would be consistent with non -discrimination obligations, considering that Paraguay and other 
Memb ers will not be able to benefit from this mechanism.  The EU insists that emergency G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 57 - 
 
  authorizations are not trade facilitation measures, unlike import tolerances, but we would like to 
understand what role the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and F eed (SCoPAFF) plays 
in authorizing import tolerances in cases where a request is considered by the EFSA to be "fully 
supported by data and safe for consumers". Would the EU refuse a request upon SCoPAFF's 
recommendation, thereby disregarding scientific inf ormation from its own scientific authority on the 
matter?  To conclude, Chair, it would be remiss of me not to mention the extensive list of questions 
raised at the previous meeting of this Committee, which, as I said before, I will not read out again 
in the interest of time since it will be recorded in the minutes. I hope that the EU will provide a 
sufficient response, otherwise we will have to read it out again in full in future meetings.  
3.224.   Statement from March  2023 meeting, in full.44 Paraguay reiterates it s concern about the 
EU's claim to use the MRLs for clothianidin and thiamethoxam, not to protect European  consumers, 
but as a means to regulate the use of neonicotinoids in production processes and methods in third 
countries. In Paraguay's view, the TBT Ag reement was not designed to accommodate measures with 
clearly extraterritorial objectives.  Paraguay also has serious concerns regarding the compatibility of 
the notified EU measure with obligations relating to market access and non -discrimination under 
WTO rules.  Paraguay shares a genuine interest in environmental and biodiversity conservation, and 
accords primacy to the protection of human, animal and plant health, including protection of 
pollinators, which also play a key role in global food production and contribute to higher yields of 
agronomically important crops.  But each country has particular needs and challenges in its 
agricultural production, on the basis of its geography, ecosystem and local scientific capacities, as 
part of the quest  to attain and maintain sustainability in agriculture. This situation is reflected in the 
evidence -based regulatory frameworks applied to registration processes to assess the risks of 
pesticides and their uses, including the assessment of risk to the envir onment and pollinators.  
3.225.   My country, like several other Members, submitted comments  on notification 
G/TBT/N/EU/908  within the established deadline but on 27  September  2022, only 23 days after the 
end of the comment period, the EU Standing Committee on  Plants, Animals, Food and Feed 
(ScoPAFF) approved the proposal to reduce the MRLs for these substances  without modifications, 
which again leads us to think that notifications and comment periods are merely formalities and not 
intended to be taken into acc ount.  This is compounded by the fact that written responses to 
comments that were taken into account in theory were only submitted several months later, on 
26 January  2023, only one week prior to the approval of Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/334 
(3 Febru ary 2023).  Allow me to add that this Regulation mentions my country among the various 
non-EU countries that have also restricted the use of these products with the aim of protecting 
pollinators, including bees. This is incorrect. The resolution mentioned i n footnote 19 DOES NOT 
EXIST IN MY COUNTRY and the name of the Ministry mentioned does not correspond to that of the 
Ministry responsible for the matter.  
3.226.   With regard to the questions already submitted at the previous meeting of this Committee, 
I would add a request for clarification of this incorrect mention of my country.  We also reiterate the 
following questions:  How does the EU intend to address the special needs of developing and LDC 
Members in the area of finance, trade and development in accordance wi th Article 12.3 of the TBT 
Agreement?  In field 7 of notification G/TBT/N/EU/908 , the EU states that an objective of the measure 
is "to ensure that also commodities imported into the European Union do not contain residues 
resulting from good agricultu ral practices based on outdoor uses of clothianidin and/or 
thiamethoxam".  Could the EU clarify how it will identify products with MRLs above the LOQ due to 
indoor use or other methods that do not affect pollinators?  Imposing restrictions on international 
trade will, in effect, make farmers in Paraguay and the region less competitive than farmers in 
Europe who do not have to contend with the same pests and climatic conditions to produce food, 
and who can also benefit from emergency authorizations to continue  using these substances.  This 
can be seen from the emergency authorizations granted for these substances since the ban and the 
end of the grace period for their use in the EU.  
3.227.   How are these emergency authorizations compatible with the non -discrimination ob ligation?  
What is the average approval time for an emergency authorization?  What is the average cost of the 
emergency authorization approval process?  These questions were repeatedly raised in other 
committees, but the EU response was limited to noting that  emergency authorizations are issued by 
EU member States, and each member State determines the length of the evaluation process and 
the costs.  We reiterate these questions, however, and hope to receive answers to them, especially 
 
44 G/TBT/M/89 , paras. 2.297 -2.301.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 58 - 
 
  since EU  members are also Members of the WTO in their own right and it may be necessary to start 
asking each of them questions separately.  The EU insists that, although emergency authorizations 
are the responsibility of the members, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reviews  them and 
rules on whether they were properly justified.  However, we see that there are no restrictions on 
members that continue to approve emergency authorisations for the same substances, for the 
control of the same pests, and on the same crops for which  the EFSA concluded that the approval 
was not properly justified.  In the reply received from the EU to the comments made by Paraguay on 
notification G/TBT/N/EU/908 , the EU mentions that when the EFSA finds that the emergency 
authorization is not just ified the EU takes measures to avoid repetition of emergency authorizations 
but it only indicates two specific cases.  
3.228.   In this regard, we would like to know how these measures adopted by the EU operate? Is 
the opinion of the EFSA not binding? Are regulation s required to make them binding? This takes 
account of the fact that, as we previously mentioned, we have identified a number of cases in which 
they continue to be authorized.  The EFSA further considers that emergency authorizations are 
justified when the need to avoid pest resistance is proven and if there are no chemical alternatives 
to control a particular pest. The same arguments are used by Paraguay and other Members for whom 
there is no possibility of emergency authorizations.  Lastly, we would like to  receive more information 
on the recent ruling by the European Court of Justice confirming that EU member countries cannot 
make exemptions regarding the use of seeds treated with plant protection products expressly 
prohibited by EU legislation specifically  referring to some of these substances.  This takes particular 
account, for example, of a recent emergency authorization for the substance thiamethoxam granted 
by Romania on 21  December  2022 for the period 1  March  2023 - 30 May 2023 for the treatment of 
seeds. 
3.229.   The representative  of Japan  provided the following statement. The Commission regulation 
lowering the Maximum Residues Levels ( "MRL") of clothianidin and thiamethoxam in foods entered 
into force in March 2023. Japan is disappointed by the EU's decision to adopt and put in force the 
measures without due consideration of the concerns expressed repeatedly by Japan and other 
Members at previous TBT Committee meetings. Japan has been communicating closely with the EU 
on this issue, and we appreciate the EU for providing responses. They are useful in understanding 
the EU's position and we hope to continue communicating with the EU to address our concerns in a 
cooperative manner. Japan's specific concerns are as follows; First, the adopted measures lowe ring 
the MRLs of the two active substances for the purpose of protecting pollinators outside the EU are 
clearly a deviation from the current MRL setting principles, which protect human life or health, as 
well as from the trend of international harmonizatio n of the MLRs. Although the EU insists that the 
measure would not directly link to the health of citizens, Japan considers that when taking a new 
approach to the measures affecting third countries, such as the MRLs, it should be thoroughly 
discussed with s uch third countries at the relevant international fora, including the SPS Committee.  
3.230.   Second, in paragraph 20 of the preamble of the adopted regulation, it is indicated that import 
tolerance may be set if the applicant provides scientific evidence that the use of these two active 
substances does not adversely impact pollinators. As it is not clear what kind of evidence will be 
required in the application process, and by what criteria the unacceptable risk to pollinators is 
measured, we would like the EU to c larify these points  as soon as possible . While the EU suggests, 
in its responses to Japan's comments, that the use of the active substances in permanent 
greenhouses would be an example of the specific conditions for the application of import tolerances, 
Japan considers that allowing application of import tolerances to only such limited situations is not 
appropriate considering the diverse environmental conditions, pesticide use, and agricultural 
production practices in non -EU countries. We would also like t he EU to clarify, if a third country has 
applied for import tolerance for a specific crop and has successfully established a related standard 
value, whether this value would also apply to the product in question imported into the EU from 
other third countr ies. Last but not least, Japan emphasizes that the environmental conditions in each 
country are different, and the use of pesticides is regulated by the authorities of each country based 
on scientific evidence in consideration of the environmental conditio ns in each country. Japan 
reiterates its position that, by imposing the adopted measures, the EU should not make judgements 
about the appropriateness of the use of the specific pesticides under the specific conditions in third 
countries.  
3.231.   The representative  of Brazil  provided the following statement. Brazil thanks the European 
Union for the opportunity to comment on the proposition notified as G/TBT/N/EU/908 , that resulted 
in the publication of Commission Regulation 2023/334, withdrawing approval of the  active G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 59 - 
 
  substances thiamethoxam and clothianidin and restricting the maximum residue levels in or on 
certain products. We would like to refer to the comments we have submitted to the EU. Brazil 
understands that the EU's current proposal goes against the co mmitment in Article 2.2 of the TBT 
Agreement, as it is out of the scope of such Agreement to support unilateral policies aimed at 
protecting the environment in third countries. Besides the need for further discussion, under sound 
scientific basis, about th e risks that thiamethoxam and clothianidin may have on bees' population 
worldwide, Brazil understands that one could not expect to extend to all countries of the world trade -
restrictive measures that do not consider the variety of local conditions, includi ng climate and soil. 
Furthermore, there are different needs and challenges posed by agricultural production in each 
country.  
3.232.   The EU affirms that its restrictive measure would seek to avoid a supposed transfer of 
adverse effects on bees from food production  in the EU to food production in non -EU countries. 
However, for Brazil, this approach is not properly considering that many countries, including Brazil, 
have rigid technical procedures for approving substances. Furthermore, Brazil believes that, due to 
its extraterritorial effects, the EU proposed regulation goes against the rules and jurisprudence of 
the multilateral trade system. To highlight how it is unclear for Brazil that the trade restrictions 
proposed by the EU would be justified, thiamethoxam is on e important substance used in control 
strategies of pests such as the citrus psyllid, an insect that transmits the greening disease. 
Recognized by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) as a priority pest for control in EFSA's List 
of Priority Pests of Oct ober 2019, greening is a major cause of losses in orange production not only 
in Brazil, but worldwide. In Brazil, the State of São Paulo is the main citrus juice producer and it is 
also where 84% of honey production is concentrated. In that state, there is  no evidence of a decline 
in the number of pollinators. On the contrary, honey production in that region has increased by 
about 136% in the last 15 years.  
3.233.   We also have a concern that if the current proposal for restricting the use of thiamethoxam 
and clothianidin becomes the basis for other similar restrictions, farmers in Brazil and worldwide can 
face serious problems that will affect productivity and their capacity to contribute to global food 
security. Furthermore, there is no scien tific basis or multilaterally agreed concept for the European 
Union to use the concept of MRLs related to environmental issues. The scientific basis for using the 
concept of MRLs related to human health issues is well established by the Codex Alimentarius,  
however the concept of MRLs related to environmental issues is neither multilaterally nor 
scientifically established. Therefore, the measure came before there was a multilateral and scientific 
basis to support it and, in this sense, it should be considere d a barrier to trade, until the European 
Union proves the relationship between MRLs and the environment. This relationship must be 
defended in the appropriate multilateral environmental forums, considering that the Codex 
Alimentarius does not deal with env ironmental issues. Brazil appreciates the opportunity to discuss 
this issue with the EU and calls for the European Commission to consider a more balanced approach 
that harmonizes with the Codex Alimentarius' recommendations for clothianidin and thiamethoxa m 
MRLs. Brazil also appreciates receiving replies to its comments but regrets that they have not been 
taken into account for publication of Commission Regulation 2023/334.  
3.234.   The representative  of Argentina  provided the following statement. Argentina reiterat es its 
concern about the consistency of this measure with WTO rules. We consider that the measure is 
inappropriate and disproportionate and that the EU's decision is an extraterritorial application of law 
because it clearly has an impact on third party dec isions and a totally negative effect on trade, as 
either the European market is lost for certain products that are exported or the use of these 
pesticides must be stopped in the territory of the exporting countries, even if their use is required 
on account  of climate and production conditions, etc., and bees are not affected by them.  We 
understand that if the EU did not intend to achieve an application of its measure outside the EU, it 
should have examined other measures. We reiterate that the EU has establ ished an MRL at the level 
of detection to protect bees, when MRLs are actually adopted to ensure food safety, not to protect 
the environment. The Codex Alimentarius recently adopted new MRLs for neonicotinoids, 
demonstrating that they are safe for consumer s. Argentina considers that the measure adopted by 
the EU to establish limit of quantification values for these neonicotinoids is not clearly justified and 
constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade within the meaning of Article 2.2 of the TBT 
Agreement because it is disproportionate to the objective that it claims to protect and unduly 
restricts trade as it prevents the marketing of any product that has been treated with these 
neonicotinoids that may exceed the limit of quantification, even  though the EU cannot demonstrate 
that MRLs at the level established by the Codex may affect the health of consumers, which ultimately 
is the intended purpose of an MRL.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 60 - 
 
  3.235.   The representative  of New Zealand  provided the following statement. New Zealand shares  
the concerns raised by other Members following the EU's adoption of the proposal to lower the MRLs 
on specific neonicotinoids to the limit of quantification as a means to address pollinator decline. The 
decline of pollinators given their vital role in sup porting ecosystem functions and food production is 
also of concern to New Zealand, however we note that the extent of pollinator decline varies 
considerably throughout the world and is associated with a range of different causes.  New Zealand 
considers that  national authorities are the most appropriate decision makers with respect to the 
sustainable use of pesticides within their country. This permits countries' unique pest and disease 
status, climate and geographical conditions to be taken into account when  applying measures to halt 
pollinator decline.  New Zealand also echoes the concerns raised by other Members that with the EU 
unilaterally imposing prescriptive import measures to address a global environmental challenge this 
could lead to perverse outcomes  and create unjustified trade barriers. New Zealand encourages the 
EU to instead address global environmental issues, including sustainable pesticide use, by working 
with trade partners in multilateral fora that have environmental protection mandates. Fina lly, New 
Zealand encourages Members to use the least trade -restrictive measures and to recognize that 
alternative regulatory approaches adapted to a countries' specific production context can also 
achieve desired outcomes.  
3.236.   The representative  of Guatemala  provided the following statement. We thank the Members 
that included this item on the agenda. We share the EU's genuine interest in pollinators for the global 
environment, protecting ecosystems and biodiversity. Our concern is that this initiative is based on 
risk assessments used in non -EU territory, and it would appear that the objective is to regulate the 
use of neonicotinoids in third countries' production.  It is important to note that agricultural 
production, in order to export to international markets,  complies with different standards and good 
agricultural practices, which also include the safe use and management of agricultural inputs. In 
addition, there are programmes to mitigate any risk of poisoning and/or contamination that comply 
with all necessa ry measures and practices to guarantee the correct use of agricultural inputs and an 
appropriate production plant environment, including integrated pest management and robust 
agricultural education on the use and effect of agrochemicals.  It is also importa nt to note that 
pollinators are key to the production phase of agricultural products, such as coffee, particularly 
during the flowering stage. We consider that the EU does not have a legal basis for applying 
environmental measures to products outside the E U, or for making a change in maximum residue 
levels (MRLs) for substances without scientific evidence and a risk analysis.  
3.237.   Changing an MRL is linked to ensuring food safety, and the issue of the environment does 
not come under this legitimate objective set  out in the TBT Agreement. In addition, there is an SPS 
aspect to MRL reduction. We would appreciate clarification of this issue from the EU.  Guatemala 
reiterates the importance of protecting the environment and natural resources, and also the 
importance o f the EU recognizing the use of good agricultural practices, which involves a sustainable 
level of production using productive methods and recognition of the very different climatic 
characteristics of each region around the world.  We would be grateful if t he EU could clarify how it 
will apply the European Court of Justice ruling on emergency authorizations in current and previously 
authorized measures.  
3.238.   The representative  of Ecuador  provided the following statement. We thank the European 
Union for its reply to the timely comments submitted by Ecuador.  However, Ecuador wishes to 
reiterate its concern about the draft regulation amending Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No. 
396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which addresses the reduction of maximum 
residue levels (MRLs) for neonicotinoids (clothianidin and thiamethoxam).  Ecuador reiterates that 
the European Union's draft regulation would appear to be inadequately aligned with the provisions 
of the WTO TBT Agreement and infringes on the reg ulatory policy powers of its trading partners, 
who sovereignly set the conditions for food production and agricultural activity in their own 
jurisdictions, according to their geographic differences, ecosystem conditions, agricultural output, 
scientific cap abilities and development.  Thiamethoxam is effective in controlling nematodes and 
black aphids in banana production. It leaves significantly less residue in the environment and 
decomposes much faster than other products.  The risk from the use of this substance in banana 
cultivation has been mitigated and there have been no reports of direct harm to bee populations.  
3.239.   Ecuador urges the European Union to consider different studies indicating that obtaining just 
one compound to be used as a pesticide can ta ke more than 11.3 years of research and development 
on average and significant private investment to implement.  Lastly, as this is a measure that applies 
to third countries, the European Union needs to carry out an analysis of the impact it would have on G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 61 - 
 
  farmers in third countries, as not having these substances as a means to protect their crops would 
have an adverse effect on small -scale producers.  The European Union is invited to address the 
concerns expressed on this matter by a number of Members within this Committee, in order to avoid 
unnecessary restrictions on trade.  
3.240.   The representative  of South Africa  provided the following statement. South Africa would like 
to thank the European Union (EU) for the response received on South Africa's concerns regardin g 
draft Commission Regulation amending annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council as regard Maximum Residue Levels for Clothianidin and 
Thiamethoxam in or on products. Response reference: 607785 of 26/01/2 023. We further appreciate 
the analysis of the products originating from South Africa and the assurance that out of the 1742 
samples analysed originating from South Africa covering a variety of exported products (various 
fruits, vegetables, teas, wines), 9 9.8% had levels of clothianidin or thiamethoxam lower than the 
Limit of Quantification (LOQ).  
3.241.   In the March 2023 TBT Committee meeting, we indicated that we are considering the 
response and we made a preliminary observation regarding the average time to app ly for import 
tolerance which is estimated to be an average of two years depending on the quality and 
completeness of the data. Our suggestion was a reduction of the period to approximately six months. 
South Africa notes that the Regulation is adopted and is published in the Official Journal of the 
European Union. It will become applicable from 7 March 2026. We are not clear how comments from 
WTO members considered and incorporated in the adopted regulation. Our industry stakeholders 
have given due consider ation to the responses provided by the EU to our concerns. South Africa 
notes the EU's statement that according to the scientific assessments of clothianidin and 
thiamethoxam conducted by the European Food Safety Authority, there is no Good Agricultural 
Practices (GAPs) for outdoor uses of thiamethoxam and clothianidin that would not pose an 
unacceptable risk to bees.  
3.242.   South Africa would like to draw attention to the fact that, while the above argument might 
hold true in certain circumstances, in South Afric a, this is not the case due to the timing of the 
application of these substances as stated on the product labels. This includes that no application 
may occur after bud burst or before 100% petal drop, nor while pollinators are active at any time 
on the app licable fields. South Africa therefore believes that these products, when applied according 
to label instructions, including recommended safety measures, can comply with GAPs. Note that it 
is illegal to apply any product contrary to the product label in So uth Africa as it is a contravention of 
Regulation No. R1716 of 26 July 1991 under Act No. 36 of 1947. South African farmers depend on 
many species other than honeybees for pollination, such as stingless bees, wasps, flies, moths, 
beetles, etc. Honeybees ar e not the most efficient pollinators for many types of crops grown in South 
Africa. Based on the EU response that, there are no GAPs for outdoor uses of these substances that 
would not pose an unacceptable risk to bees specifically, it appears that the res ponse pertains purely 
to honeybees as pollinators and does not take into account the various other, equally important 
sources of pollination in South Africa.  
3.243.   South Africa agricultural industry understand the important role of all pollinators, various 
role players, including grower groups, beekeeper associations and the crop protection industry have 
signed a pollinator charter45 to ensure that all parties adhere to these good practices. South Africa 
further appreciates that the EU acknowledges that non -EU co untries face production conditions and 
pest pressures that are different from those in Europe, and the emphasise that the draft Regulation 
does not require WTO trade partners to ban the use of clothianidin and thiamethoxam in their own 
territory. Further c larity is needed in terms of the final MRL regulation for clothianidin and 
thiamethoxam that was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (Commission 
Regulation (EU) 2023/334 of 2 February 2023).  
3.244.   South Africa would appreciate to receive clar ity on what exactly is meant by the production 
of all products that are consumed in the European Union, which will likely include imported products 
that may not be associated with pollinator mortality? Will the EU regard any application of these two 
substa nces by third countries exporting to the EU as a risk associated with pollinator mortality? 
Especially considering the EU's response letter to South Africa stating that, according to EFSA, there 
are no GAPs for outdoor uses of these two substances. If the above is not the case can the EU 
confirm again that growers who are exporting to the EU may continue to use these two substances 
 
45 https://croplife.co.za/Resources/Crop%20Protection/Pollinator -Charter -Final.pdf .  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 62 - 
 
  if the products are registered legally, as long as they do not have detectable residues? (This is stated 
in the response letter  but remains ambiguous in the interpretation of the final Regulation) -
Notwithstanding the response pertaining to the point raised above, it must be emphasised that the 
main concern pertaining to these measures relate to the process that was followed with the two 
substances and the precedent it sets going forward. South Africa notes that Maximum Residue Limits 
(MRLs) are a trading standard used to ensure that food is safe for human consumption and that 
import tolerances are set based on uses registered in t hird countries to allow the import of treated 
goods/commodities and to facilitate international trade. However, the EU is moving away from 
internationally agreed practices by taking environmental aspects into account when assessing 
requests for import tole rances for pesticide substances that are no longer approved in the EU. MRLs 
are meant to facilitate trade and protect consumer health, and should be science and evidence -
based in order to ensure that food products are safe for consumers, as per the "Better  Regulation" 
principle.  
3.245.   Data shows that when the decision -making process follows a science -based risk assessment, 
consumer foods are safe. Environmental impacts are already considered when the product is 
registered in South Africa where it is analysed by o ur competent authorities that understand our 
local agricultural conditions. This change in approach is compromising South Africa's right in making 
its own decisions regarding safe and effective agricultural practices that comply with environmental 
and huma n health standards within the country, as well as undermining the regulatory framework 
and associated departments that are executing this mandate in South Africa. While South Africa fully 
respects the EU's right to regulate the use of these substances with in the EU, the nature of this 
measure seems to attempt to affect production standards beyond the EU territory, indicating that 
the measure is a border measure subject to Article XI of the GATT 1994. In addition, it can be 
inferred that, because the propose d measure will have no bearing on EU agricultural production or 
products, which must already be free from these substances, it is aimed exclusively at imported 
products. Based on this logic and considering Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, the mea sure 
disproportionately discriminates against imported products compared to domestic EU products, 
making it highly trade restrictive.  
3.246.   The representative of Uruguay  provided the following statement. Uruguay regrets the 
adoption, without substantive changes,  of Regulation 2023/334, amending the MRLs for clothianidin 
and thiamethoxam, on 2 February 2023, despite the substantive concerns and comments of 
numerous trading partners, representing different geographical and productive conditions and 
different levels  of development, presented in the international consultation process as well as in the 
recent meetings of the Goods Council, the SPS, TBT and Market Access Committees, and even more 
recently the Trade Policy Review of the European Union.  As we have said be fore, Uruguay 
understands that setting MRLs for pesticides is a type of measure intended to protect consumer 
health from the risks arising from ingestion and that it therefore naturally falls within the scope of 
the SPS Agreement.  The international referen ce body for such issues is the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission, where health -related issues are comprehensively addressed in relation to the adoption 
of MRLs, although there is currently no consideration of environmental aspects in its risk analyses.  
3.247.   Without  prejudice to other standards within the vast and complex European regulatory 
framework, Article 3(d) of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005, the main and specific rule on MRLs for 
pesticides in food and feed, defines MRLs as: "the upper legal level of a concentr ation for a pesticide 
residue in or on food or feed set in accordance with this Regulation, based on good agricultural 
practice and the lowest consumer exposure necessary to protect vulnerable consumers".  In this legal 
provision, there would seem to be a c onvergence with the view expressed by Uruguay and an 
overwhelming majority of WTO Members on the nature of MRLs, which is in line with the assertion 
repeated by the EU itself – at least until March 2022 – that, as a matter of principle, concerns about 
the setting of MRLs for pesticides and any specific issue related to their application are matters to 
be discussed in the SPS Committee, and not the TBT Committee.  Uruguay still has serious doubts 
as to both the relevance and the legal basis, in EU regulations  and WTO standards, of reducing MRLs 
to the level of detection on the grounds of "environmental issues of global concern" or other issues 
unrelated to human health.  While we are aware of the importance of the environmental aspects, we 
understand that these  are not included in the process for establishing MRLs as they are and must 
be addressed by countries individually in their territory using appropriate tools, on the basis of their 
own productive and regulatory systems, environmental conditions and policie s. In this regard, we 
wish to point out that in Uruguay, plant protection products affected by this Regulation are already 
regulated by the competent authority to ensure correct, safe and recommended use, as part of a 
National Environment Plan focused on g ood agricultural practices.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 63 - 
 
  3.248.   Uruguay thus shares concerns about promoting the protection of pollinators, in line with 
environmental and biodiversity protection, and supports the establishment of regulatory 
environments based on scientific criteria, so as to  avoid putting food security at risk or erecting 
barriers to trade. Uruguay reiterates its willingness to cooperate with other Members, including the 
EU, to find mechanisms that can be used to achieve these objectives without unnecessarily 
restricting trad e, while also ensuring conservation of the environment and protection of human, 
animal and plant health.  Lastly, like other delegations, we are concerned that emergency 
authorizations for the use of these substances continue to be granted to producers from  EU member 
States, which would appear to contradict the EU's stated aim when it introduced this measure, as 
well as being discriminatory in nature. In this connection, we would like to have an update from the 
EU on how it expects emergency authorizations f or the use of these substances and others that 
might be subject to restrictions at the Community level to be affected by the recent judgment of 
19 January 2023 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which considers such 
authorizations to be illegal in certain cases. We note with interest the case mentioned by Paraguay, 
and we look forward to the European Union's comments on the matter.  
3.249.   In response, the representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
The EU would like to  thank the intervening Members for raising this topic and for providing numerous 
comments on the notification G/TBT/N/EU/908 . We provided extensive and comprehensive feedback 
to those comments, in the best interest of transparency and accountability t owards the EUs 
international partners. The Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/334 was adopted and published46 on 
2 February 2023. It will become applicable from 7 March 2026, to provide enough time to operators 
in third countries, especially in least develope d and developing countries, and food business 
operators, to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements. The EU acknowledges that non -EU 
countries may face production conditions and pest pressures different from those in Europe. The EU 
would like to re iterate that the Regulation (EC) No 2023/334 does not regulate the use of clothianidin 
and thiamethoxam by non -EU countries in their own territory.  
3.250.   The EU's actions related to neonicotinoids used as pesticides, such as this Regulation, are 
coordinated with  other EU programmes and international activities such as: - The EU pollinators 
initiative which integrates holistic actions on pollinators across different sectorial policies, addressing 
the main known causes for pollinator decline and strengthening the c ollaboration between all the 
actors concerned. - The active EU collaborations with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the 
United Nations in its "Global Action on Pollination Services for Sustainable Agriculture" and with the 
International Union for C onservation of Nature in projects to address the decline of pollinators. 
Moreover, promoting the generation and implementation of more sustainable alternatives to 
chemical pesticides is a key element for a global transition towards more sustainable food sy stems. 
The EU is funding several research projects, under the Horizon Europe programme, dedicated to find 
alternatives to chemical pesticides and combinations of tools and technologies for integrated pest 
management, including several innovative low -risk p roducts.  
3.251.   In addition, the EU funds several programmes to assist third countries to comply with EU 
legislation and to build capacity and knowledge, such as the new Agrinfo programme (managed by 
COLEAD - the Committee Linking Entrepreneurship Agriculture and Development), further the 
existing Fit for Market and Plantwise Plus programmes to name only a few examples. The EU also 
organizes specific training courses related to plant health, integrated pest management and food 
safety in relation to pesticide residu es. The EU would like to thank again intervening Members for 
their interest in the subject and is ready to continue the dialogue on the implementation of the 
Regulation in question.  
3.1.3.16   European Union - Proposal for a Regulation on packaging and packaging wast e 
amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing 
Directive 94/62/EC, G/TBT/N/EU/953  (ID 78647) 
3.252.   The representative  of Mexico  provided the following statement. The delegation of Mexico 
refers to the Proposal for a Regulati on of the European Parliament and of the Council on Packaging 
and Packaging Waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and 
 
46 COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2023/334 of 2 February 2023 amending Annexes II and V to 
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Pa rliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue 
levels for clothianidin and thiamethoxam in or on certain products. OJ L 47, 15.2.2023, p. 29 –45. 
47 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 786 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 64 - 
 
  repealing Directive 94/62/EC (COM(2022) 677 final), which was notified by the EU to members of 
this Commi ttee in document G/TBT/N/EU/95 3. The above -mentioned proposal establishes 
sustainability requirements for the marketing of EU packaging that relate to its composition and 
design, restricting the use of packaging formats and establishing obligations on economic operators 
and WTO Members, including packaging reuse and waste prevention targets. Although the 
Government of Mexico agrees with the importance of encouraging sustainable practices, it is 
necessary to point out that there are three considerations on this legislation that need to be taken 
into account to avoid any impact on foreign industries.  The first consideration is that the European 
Commission's proposal excludes spirits from the reuse and refill targets under Article 26 of the 
proposal. However, the draft report by the rapporteur of the European Parliament Committee on the 
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) proposes to include spirits in the scope of 
application of the reuse provisions.  
3.253.   In this regard, Mexico consi ders that there should be no compulsory reuse targets for tequila, 
since the applicable Mexican legislation establishes a mandatory requirement under which, in order 
for tequila to be considered "100% -agave tequila", it must be bottled in the plant control led by the 
authorized producer, which must be located within the territory specified in the declaration. In 
addition, the legislation mentions that tequila shall be bottled in new sanitary containers.  In view of 
the foregoing, the production of tequila con tainers in Mexican territory is a necessary condition in 
tequila production, so Mexico considers that this measure could contravene Article 2.2 of the WTO 
TBT Agreement by being more trade -restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective. In 
fact, we consider that imposing reuse targets on spirits will have an adverse effect and will fail to 
achieve the goal of improving the sustainability of packaging.  Moreover, it is important to highlight 
that the differentiation in packaging is key for preven ting its falsification, which is why producers of 
spirits work to ensure that the materials and design of the bottles meet the considerations in terms 
of geographical indications and appellations of origin. This work becomes complicated when 
marketing aspe cts are disregarded and when the performance criteria applicable to the packaging 
fail to recognize the differentiation in design or presentation.   
3.254.   Accordingly, we request that all products protected by geographical indications and 
appellations of origin, including tequila, be exempt from compliance with the packaging performance 
criteria set out in Annex IV to the proposal.  Lastly, the third consideration is related to an amendment 
submitted to the European Parliament by the ENVI rapporteur, which would al low EU member States 
to "adopt the necessary additional sustainability requirements to reduce per capita packaging 
waste". If this amendment is maintained in the final version of the document, the "additional 
sustainability requirements" could lead to grea ter fragmentation in the European internal market, 
which would generate additional costs for exporting producers from the Mexican industry.  As a result, 
we ask the European Commission and the co -legislators to avoid including this amendment in the 
final ve rsion of the document, in order to ensure the continued harmonization of the European 
internal market and prevent the creation of unnecessary obstacles to trade.  
3.255.   The representative  of China  provided the following statement. 1. For chapter 1, article 4/5, 
it is suggested to delete this article. Chapter I, article 4/5 refers to "In addition to the labelling 
requirements laid down in Article 11, member States may provide for further labelling requirements, 
for the purpose of identifying the extended producer r esponsibility scheme or a deposit and return 
system other than those referred to in Article 44(1).". Article 11 of the Notification Regulation has 
clearly stipulated the implementation of uniform packaging labels at the EU level. If each member 
state furth er stipulates the labeling of its own EPR or depository system at the member state level, 
it will create inconsistent market compliance requirements and increase the cost of economic 
practitioners. 2. For chapter 2, Article 6, it is suggested to develop an  authorization act as soon as 
possible, providing a transition period of at least 3 years. Chapter 2, article 6/4 and Chapter 2, 
Article 6/6 indicate that the Commission shall develop an authorization act for the design and large -
scale recyclable requireme nts of packaging recycling. The supply chain of manufacturers outside the 
EU is complex, and the packaging takes a long time to put on the EU market, so it takes time to 
meet the new standards. The chapter 2 article 6/2 indicate that (a) and (e) will enter  into force on 
1 January 2030 and 1 January 2035, respectively to ensure that the EU market products meet the 
regulatory requirements. It is recommended to provide at least 3 years of transition time, allowing 
economic practitioners have more time to deal with, for example, changing the design scheme, 
manufacturing, consumption of existing inventory, etc. Therefore, it is suggested to develop an 
authorization act before 31 December 2026 and 1 December 2031.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 65 - 
 
  3.256.   3. For chapter 2, Article 7, it is recommended to not set requirements of recycled plastic 
content for the plastic packaging of electronic and electrical products, especially the packaging of 
direct contact with the products. Chapter 2, Article 7 stipulates the recycled plastic content: 35%  in 
2030 and 65% in 2040. The electronic and electrical products often contain many sensitive devices, 
due to the complex source, recycled plastics may introduce various ions, which may lead to ion 
pollution of electronic components, and ultimately create functional failure. Therefore, it is 
recommended to not set requirements of recycled plastic content for the plastic packaging of 
electronic and electrical products, especially the packaging of direct contact with the products. 4.For 
chapter 2, article 7/1 -2, it is suggested to simplify the calculation method of recycled material and 
adjust the recycled proportion. Chapter 2 Article 7/1 -2 sets the minimum requirements of recycled 
material for each packaging unit (per unit of packaging). The performance and appearance of 
recycled plastic packaging cannot meet the requirements, such as foam, plastic sealing film, bubble 
bags, and trays. For plastic type or weight, it is recommended to exempt or reduce the recycling 
proportion requirements.  
3.257.   It is suggested that  the European Union could simplify the calculation method of recycled 
content and adjust the minimum recycled material content requirements for the average value of 
packaging on the EU market within a specific period of time. Because the current mainstream  
technology does not support that all plastic packaging can use recycled materials, calculating the 
minimum recycled content based on the average value of the manufacturer can provide enough 
flexibility to achieve the minimum recycled material content, but  also achieve better environmental 
protection. 5. For chapter 2, Article 9, it is recommended to modify the assessment content of 
packaging minimization. 1.The content of the packaging minimized assessment content stipulated 
in Chapter 2, Article 9/3 is no t specific enough, so it is suggested to further detail the assessment 
content to make it operable. 2.Chapter 2, Article 9/3 provides that "For the purpose of assessing the 
compliance with this paragraph, space filled by paper cuttings, air cushions, bubbl e wraps, sponge 
fillers, foam fillers, wood wool, polystyrene, styrofoam chips or other filling materials shall be 
considered as empty space." The above -mentioned fillings is filled in order to provide more reliable 
protection for the product. If it is min imized as empty space, the manufacturer will have no effective 
ways to protect the transportation of the goods, which may result in accidental damage to the goods. 
6.For chapter 3, article 11, it is recommended that the EU could incorporate material compos ition 
information and recycled content information into the QR code specified in Article 11 (2) to display 
on the QR code.  
3.258.   Chapter 3, Article 11 stipulates that the packaging material composition information 
(material composition) shall be clearly marked o n the package, if the recycled content specified in 
Article 7 is also contained , it shall be clearly marked on the package. It is recommended that it is 
recommended that the EU could incorporate material composition information and recycled content 
inform ation into the QR code specified in Article 11(2) to display on the QR code. Because the 
material composition information and recycled content information can be incorporated into the QR 
code, it is convenient for manufacturers to maintain and update such information, which could reduce 
the compliance cost of manufacturers. Meanwhile, the digital identification can also strengthen the 
protection of the environment. It can be stipulated that the QR code is clearly marked on the 
packaging, and consumers can b e guided to clearly understand and use the QR code through 
consumer training or other ways.  
3.259.   7. For chapter 4, Article 21, it is suggested to detail the empty space ratio of packaging and 
modify its calculation method. Chapter 4, Article 21/1 stipulates tha t "Economic operators who 
supply products to a final distributor or an end user in grouped packaging, transport packaging or 
e-commerce packaging, shall ensure that the empty space ratio is maximum 40%.". It is 
recommended to modify this term to "Economic operators who supply products to final distributors 
or end users in grouped packaging, transport packaging or e -commerce packaging, shall ensure that 
the empty space ratio is moderate, and the specific index requirements will be specified based on 
differen t packaging contents". 1. For reducing the transportation storage costs, the manufacturer 
has motivation to minimize packaging. If the packaging has empty space, it is more likely to provide 
additional protection to goods, such as fragile or vulnerable goo ds. The compulsory empty space 
ratio has only saved the packaging, but caused more damage goods in the warehouse transportation. 
It is not economic or environmental protection. 2. Transportation packaging and e -commerce 
packaging cannot achieve the empty s pace ratio below 40%. For e -commerce or express packaging, 
if consumers purchase multiple products at the same time, due to the variety of products and the 
limited size of general packaging, which often causes large empty space ratio. In view of the irregu lar G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 66 - 
 
  shape and different size of products, labour and delivery area, the packaging of each product is 
unable to meet requirement of the empty space ratio.  
3.260.   As a general regulation of packaging, the requirements need to take into account the 
different forms a nd properties of different commodities, rather than using single requirements. 
Therefore, it is necessary to consider developing different empty space ratio for different product 
categories and content. It is suggested to relax the empty space ratio requir ements for packaging, 
or modify its calculation method: to calculate as the longest and widest empty space and the highest 
within the pack. 8.For chapter 12, Article 65, it is recommended to extend the transition period to 
24 or 36 months. Chapter 12, Arti cle 65 states that "It shall apply from [OP: Please insert the date 
= 12 months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation]. " For goods with slower upgrading 
speed, or those with little change of shape, the production of packaging may be earlier  than the 
goods, which means the 12 -month transition period may create the waste of already produced 
packaging due to non -compliance. Considering the universality of this regulation, it is recommended 
to provide enough time to prepare and extend the transi tion period to 24 or 36 months.  
3.261.   The representative  of the Russian Federation  provided the following statement. The Russian 
Federation refers to its statement at previous TBT Committee meeting with regard to the EU Proposal 
for a Regulation on packaging and  packaging waste. WTO Members will recall that over the last 
Committee meeting we raised certain questions in respect of the EU proposal, such as the 
inconsistency of the proposed requirements with international standards, the absence of approved 
at the in ternational level test methods confirming the safety of the use of recycled materials, as well 
as the absence of scientific evidence for the proposed requirements. All these questions remain 
without response. In addition to the examples of unjustified rest rictions of the proposed Regulation, 
which we provided at the last Committee meeting, we would like to note that the EU seeks to prohibit 
the following single use packaging formats: - Packaging for less than 1.5 kg of fresh fruit and 
vegetables - Packaging  for food and drink to be filled and consumed on the premises of hotels and 
restaurants - Small hotel packaging for cosmetic, hygiene and toiletry products (less than 50 ml for 
liquid products or less than 100 g for non -liquid products) - Single -portion or  single -serving 
packaging used in the catering sector for condiments, preserves, sauces, coffee cream, sugar and 
spices. We underline that such prohibition is supposed to be established regardless the materials 
used in packaging. The proposed prohibition i s based neither on international standards nor on any 
scientific justification. The Russian Federation once again underline that the proposed Regulation 
seems to be inconsistent with WTO rules and may create significant uncertainty in the EU market, 
as wel l as unnecessary obstacles to international trade. We urge the EU to revise this Regulation 
and bring it into compliance with WTO rules.  
3.262.   The representative  of India provided the following statement. India expresses concern 
regarding European Union's Propos al for a regulation on packaging and packaging waste amending 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive 2019/104. While India appreciates EU's thoughts towards 
addressing environmental concerns, however, India also believes that any proposal in this regard 
should take into account the complexity of business sectors in question and appropriate packaging 
solutions. In this regard, India requests EU to share the relevant international standard which has 
been used as a basis for the proposed regulation. India als o requests EU to share its analysis on 
which the discretionary space of the economic operators has been taken into account.  
3.263.   The representative  of Guatemala  provided the following statement. Guatemala also wishes 
to stress the importance of the environmenta l work being carried out to create a healthier living 
environment. However, we emphasize our concern that such work can lead to unnecessary barriers 
to trade.  With regard to this trade concern, there are certain elements that we consider should be 
analysed  further and with greater precision. Guatemala would therefore be grateful if this matter 
could be addressed and the definitions contained in the draft regulation could be carefully assessed.  
For example, Articles 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 establish the guidel ines for the conformity assessment 
of packaging. However, they do not specify which authority is competent to carry out the 
assessment. It would appear that there is uncertainty regarding the criteria for this assessment, 
which leaves open the possibility of having multiple criteria.  Additionally, Article 13.5 indicates that 
packaging must bear a number to identify it, such as a batch number. However, in the case of 
reusable packaging, on which the batch number is printed with a laser, the previous batch nu mber 
cannot be erased, which will lead to problems with the new products and may cause confusion when 
tracing them. We therefore ask for account to be taken of these aspects and characteristics of 
reusable packaging on which the batch number has been print ed with a laser.  Article 11 mentions 
the requirement for a label, but it is unclear to us whether it is referring to a label additional to the G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 67 - 
 
  one borne by the product, such as when a product already placed on the market has a QR code. We 
also ask whether the same QR code can be used to provide information on the packaging materials.  
We would appreciate clarification from the EU regarding our concerns, with a view to advancing 
trade and ensuring that it is also beneficial for trading partners.  
3.264.   In response, the representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
The EU thanks Members for their interest in the proposal for a Regulation on packaging and 
packaging waste amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repeal ing 
Directive 94/62/EC. The EU notified the proposed Regulation under the TBT Agreement on 
27 February 2023. Consequently, the deadline for comments, which was 90 days from the 
notification, has now expired. The EU has received comments on this proposal fr om several 
Members, including from China, Japan, US, UK, and Canada. We thank Members for their interest 
and constructive comments, to which we will reply as soon as possible. We will also take these 
comments and concerns into account in the on -going legis lative, co -decision, process. Most 
questions we have received concerned, for example: how the Commission will proceed with the 
existing member States incompliances in relation to the existing packaging directive, and about the 
future flexibilities of membe r States under the proposed Regulation, reuse targets and their impact 
on the environment and industry, recyclability (pointing to the need of giving enough time for 
industry to comply and questioning how the existing voluntary standards would be integrate d into 
the future secondary legislation on design for recycling criteria), minimum recycled content 
requirements and a possible flexibility of economic operators to meet them, whether other 
intellectual property rights than geographical indication could be  considered as possible reasons for 
exemption from the packaging minimization requirements, practical work of the market surveillance 
authorities.  
3.265.   The Commission would like to thank the Members for issues raised, which will help improve 
the current proposa l. We would like to reassure the Members that the EU has been looking at most 
of these issues with the utmost attention and that practical solutions are being sought and discussed. 
It is currently too early to predict the exact date of adoption of this pro posal. The EU internal 
procedures are in motion to reach an agreement in 2024 before the end of the current legislature 
mandate. The final act, once adopted, will be notified to the TBT Committee.  
3.1.3.17   United States - Chapter 173 -337 of WAC, safer products rest riction and 
reporting, G/TBT/N/USA/1958  (ID 78748) 
3.266.   The representative  of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement. Korea 
appreciates this opportunity to convey the concerns from our industries on the "Safer Products 
Restrictions and  Reporting; Washington Administrative Code (WAC)", which was notified by the 
United States as G/TBT/N/USA/1958  on 6 January 2023. With regard to the wide range restriction 
of flame retardants in electric and electronic products specified in the proposed Rule, Korea 
submitted its written comments on 1 February as follows. Under the provision WAC 173 -337-112, 
the re striction of Organohalogen Flame Retardants (OFRs) applicable to Electric and Electronic 
Equipment (EEE) that are intended for indoor use and powered either by Standard 120 volt outlets 
or by batteries will regulate virtually all indoor EEE products. Since  such extensive restriction impose 
overly burdensome requirements beyond the regulatory level of the US federal and other state 
governments, and may also cause consumer safety issues by negatively affecting the flame 
retardancy performance of EEE products,  it was requested that the aforementioned provision be 
withdrawn. Korea once again requests to reconsider withdrawing the OFR restriction and the relevant 
enforcement provisions in the current Rule, as it is still difficult to comply with the full restrict ion 
requirements on OFRs. If the withdrawal request cannot be accepted, we request that the state of 
Washington consider applying the following measures; introduction of a voluntary reporting system 
to accumulate OFR usage data before the implementation of  the restriction, narrowing the range of 
the OFRs and the EEE products to be regulated, and/or granting temporary exemptions for EEE 
products that cannot avoid using OFRs until proper alternatives to the substances are developed.  
3.267.   The representative  of China provided the following statement. China is pleased to note that 
the new rule adopted by Washington State on 31 May 2023 has absorbed relevant comments from 
members. China appreciates it and thanks US for the revision. The new rule recognizes several 
critical uses of OFRs and allows - in form of exemptions - OFRs to be used continuously in a broad 
range of applications, including inside electrical products, products sold as spare parts, medical 
 
48 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 787 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 68 - 
 
  devices, aerospace, motorized vehicles and etc. Besides, the n ew rule sets a special process for 
exemptions, and stakeholders can apply for additional specific exemptions where needed. China 
notes that the new rule still restricts the use of intentionally added OFRs in some external enclosures 
for indoor EEE products  and implements a new reporting requirement for OFRs used in casings & 
enclosures for some outdoor EEE products.  
3.268.   Firstly , China suggests not to control OFRs as a family, instead, to specify which OFR 
subgroup is restricted. There are totally over 100 type s of OFRs, however, in line with the prevailing 
international practices such as Stockholm Convention and EU RoHS, no more than 10 types are 
restricted currently. US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) released 
a study report in  2019, pointing out that OFRs used in consumer products cannot be assessed as a 
single group; instead, they should be sorted into 14 subgroups based on chemical structure, 
physicochemical properties and predicted biologic activity, and then they should be assessed not 
only in terms of hazard, but also in technical feasibility of alternatives as well as impacts on the 
industry. Secondly, China suggests US postpones implementation of OFR restriction and reporting 
for one year based on the current timeline to 1 January 2026. It usually takes a circle of two or three 
years to complete replacement of a flame retardant from formulation development, users' 
confirmation to the market's stability feedback. If product manufacturers are forced to use 
alternatives which  is not well proven, it will undermine fireproof performance of the products and 
jeopardize consumers' life and property. Currently, the earliest implementation of OFRs restriction 
will take place on 1 January 2025, only 1.5 years away from 1 July 2023 eff ective time of the new 
rule. 
3.269.   The representative  of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan continues to share the 
following concerns regarding the proposed restrictions on organohalogen flame retardants (OFRs) in 
plastic external enclosures of consum er electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) (hereinafter 
referred to as "Proposed OFR restrictions ") for an implementation program (known as "Safer 
Products for Washington ") of Chapter 70 A. 350 RCW, US -State of Washington Law. Japan industrial 
associatio ns submitted their comments to the Department of Ecology several times during the public 
comment periods, including on the TBT notification. Consumer EEE is used in a wide range of fields, 
including consumer electronics, medical equipment, telecommunicatio ns equipment, and so forth. 
OFR refers not to a single substance but rather the entire group of organohalogen flame retardants, 
whose number is said to be in the tens of thousands or more. OFRs are commonly used in EEE plastic 
external enclosures to preven t the start of or spread of fires, and to protect human lives. If the 
Proposed OFR restrictions were to be implemented in an early manner, EEE manufacturers would 
have to give up shipments of their non -compliant products to the United States. Thus, not onl y 
would many industries be seriously affected, but also many citizens in the United States would be 
at a huge disadvantage. Therefore, careful consideration is necessary before the implementation of 
the Proposed OFR restrictions.  
3.270.   We understand that the aim  of Safer Products for Washington is to protect citizens from 
exposure to hazardous chemical substances. However, we have been informed by Japanese 
industrial associations that there is little release of OFRs from consumer EEE plastic external 
enclosures d uring their use and the risk of adverse effects on human health and the environment is 
extremely low. The laws and regulations of other states in the United States and other countries or 
regions as well as international conventions do not restrict all OFRs  uniformly for all consumer EEE 
plastic external enclosures. The Department of Ecology, the State of Washington (hereinafter 
referred to as "the DoE ") has merely conducted research on only 22 OFRs that are thought to be 
potentially hazardous. However, it d oes not seem to be proven that all OFRs are hazardous. We 
would like to request the DoE to provide evidence indicating that all OFRs are hazardous. In addition, 
the DoE has asserted that several non -halogen flame retardants are available as alternatives to  
OFRs. However, not only it will take time to confirm that those alternatives can be used with 
equivalent properties and safety profiles for all types of consumer EEE plastic external enclosures, 
but also it may not always be possible that all consumer EEE  plastic external enclosures can be 
replaced by such alternatives.  
3.271.   We understand that the objectives of the regulations are to protect human health and the 
environment. However, we are concerned that the Proposed OFR restrictions would be more trade 
restri ctive than necessary to fulfill the objectives and be in violation of Article 2.2 of the TBT 
Agreement. Therefore, Japan would like to request to the United States the following points in order 
for the Proposed OFR restrictions to be consistent with the TB T Agreement. 1) To conduct a more 
thorough risk assessment on the impact on human health and the environment posed by OFRs G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 69 - 
 
  contained in EEE plastic external enclosures, including a consistency analysis with the results of risk 
assessments in other countrie s and regions; 2) based on the results of the risk assessment, to 
identify the name and CAS Registration Number of the targeted OFRs, narrow the type of EEE to be 
regulated, and set appropriate and feasible thresholds for OFR content, and 3) to carry out a  practical 
feasibility study on the alternatives and to consider a more appropriate grace period for the OFR 
restrictions.  
3.272.   In response, the representative  of the United States  provided the following statement. On 
6 January 2023, the United States notified Washington State's Administrative Code for safer 
products restrictions and reporting. This measure creates reporting requirements or restrictions that 
apply to consumer products for certain chemicals. The United States appreciates the comments 
submitted by  China, Japan and Korea in response to this notification. The final measure was 
published 31 May 2023, as G/TBT/N/USA/1958/Add.1 . Visit the Safer Products for Washington 
rulemaking webpage49  for information about this rulemaking and t o review the supporting 
documents. These include the Final Regulatory Analyses, the Concise Explanatory Statement, the 
Rule Implementation Plan, and the SEPA Determination of Non -significance.  
3.1.3.18   India - Viscose Staple Fibres (Quality Control) Order, 2022, G/TBT/N/IND/234  
(ID 79050) 
3.273.   The representative  of Indonesia  provided the following statement. Indonesia reiterates its 
concern regarding the implementation of Viscose Staple Fibres (Quality Control) Order, 2022 by 
India that has been notified through G/TBT/N/IND/234  on 1 September 2022. Indonesia appreciates 
India for suspending the enforcement of this regulation until 29 March 2023. However, we consider 
that the transition period provided by India is still not enough for companies to fulfill t he provisions 
of this regulation, especially regarding the certification process carried out by BIS. Indonesian 
companies can fulfil all the requirements in the regulation including administrative requirements set 
by BIS. Since December 2022, Indonesian co mpanies have applied to BIS for the certification 
process and BIS has scheduled a factory inspection in January 2023. However, BIS postponed the 
schedule of factory inspection to February, and as of today, BIS has not yet conducted any factory 
inspections to Indonesian companies. Our companies have raised their concerns related to the 
limited personnel and resources of BIS, which led to the delay in on -site inspections. Indonesia 
deeply regrets this delay in on -site inspections as it has resulted in signifi cant losses to Indonesia's 
VSF industry. In 2022, Indonesia was able to export an average of 5 thousand tonnes of VSF 
products per month to India. However, in 2023 (from January - March 2023) the export amount 
decreased to 2,360 tons of VSF products. Moreo ver, since the enforcement of the VSF QCO on 
29 March 2023, Indonesian companies have not been able to export to India at all because 
certification has not yet been carried out. This condition causes uncertainty in trade operations and 
harms the rights and  business interests of our industry.  
3.274.   Indonesia also questions the differential treatment of our companies, as there is still no 
clarity on the factory inspection schedule for Indonesian companies. On the other hand, according 
to information obtained by Ind onesian companies, India has conducted factory inspections for 
companies outside Indonesia. We expect India to be able to give equal treatment to every company 
that will be certified. We urge India to implement the QCO system in a manner in compliance with  
Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of TBT Agreement. If the factory inspection issue cannot be resolved 
immediately, Indonesia urges India to postpone the VSF QCO implementation until BIS can ensure 
the readiness and availability of personnel who will conduct factory i nspections. And once again, 
Indonesia requests India to consider the option of international recognition under the MRA/MLA 
framework for conformity assessment results and/or conformity assessment bodies from the country 
of origin. This will speed up the ce rtification process, avoid duplication of testing and certification 
procedures, and may reduce the cost of conformity assessment.  
3.275.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The EU remains 
deeply concerned by the increasing n umber of Quality Control Orders (QCOs) issued by India across 
many sectors. The EU would like to recall that the majority of QCOs introduced by India appear to 
have a protectionist orientation and consequently raise questions regarding their compliance wit h 
the WTO's TBT Agreement obligations. The EU is particularly concerned by the fact that QCOs usually 
prescribe India -specific standards where international standards already exist. The EU would like to 
 
49 WAC 173 -337 - Washington State Department of Ecology . 
50 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 790 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 70 - 
 
  remind India that Article 2.4 of the WTO TBT Agreemen t requires members to use international 
standards, where they exist, as basis for their technical regulations, except, when such international 
standards or relevant parts would be an ineffective or inappropriate means for the fulfilment of the 
legitimate o bjectives pursued, for instance because of fundamental climatic or geographical factors 
or fundamental technological problems. Furthermore, QCOs prescribe mandatory conformity 
assessment procedures that are more restrictive than necessary to fulfil their l egitimate objective. 
They cause extra burden and economic cost to the EU industry as a result of unnecessarily 
cumbersome procedures, including mandatory factory inspections, sample testing in Indian 
laboratories, to obtain necessary permissions or licence s for products already tested and certified 
under established international standards and schemes. There is no provision for a streamlined 
process on the basis of existing certification from any international body.  
3.276.   The EU remains concerned with the visible  trend towards establishing mandatory domestic 
standards in India that deviate from international ones for growing number of products in textile 
sector. The EU also noticed that India is failing to notify many of these measures as required under 
Articles 2 .9. and 5.6. of the WTO TBT Agreement. Given that to date India did not provide replies to 
questions raised by the EU in the previous TBT Committee meeting, the EU once more wishes to 
make a detailed statement on this issue. The EU would like to seek clari fications from India, 
explaining the reasons for establishing India -specific QCO for Viscose Staple Fibres when EU exports 
already comply with internationally recognised standards like ISO. The Viscose Staple Fibres QCO, 
is based on a registration process with the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). Manufacturing facilities 
in the exporting country must be audited in person by a team of BIS officials. The EU is deeply 
concerned not only about the significant cost of such registration but also by the requireme nt to 
reveal commercially sensitive information regarding pricing and production, as well as a requirement 
to make a USD 10.000 bank guarantee in favour of BIS which is held as a "quality performance 
guarantee".  
3.277.   The proposed measures for Viscose Staple Fib res require products to be tested twice, 
including local audits and designated laboratory tests. This represents additional burden to the EU 
industry related to registration, bank -guarantee, testing and certification. The certification process 
is costly, b urdensome and includes requirements to submit sensitive business information. The 
products covered by this legislation do not present risk to health and safety, as they are subject to 
a detailed testing for safety and quality control in the EU before being  exported. For this reason, the 
mandatory certification by the BIS is considered as unnecessary. The QCO in question is not in line 
with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, which states that Members shall ensure that technical 
regulations are not prepared, a dopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating 
unnecessary obstacles to international trade. Furthermore, as a bank guarantee is required for all 
imported products, the QCO appears to run against Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, according  to 
which Members shall ensure that in respect of technical regulations, products imported from the 
territory of any Member shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like 
products of national origin and to like products originati ng in any other country. It is worth recalling 
that EU -based producers of man -made fibres already comply with a wide range of quality, safety, 
and environmental protection related certifications and standards, such as ISO 9001, 14001, and 
45001, EU Ecolabe l and European Pharmacopoeia. The EU would like to ask India to re -consider the 
current standards and conformity assessment procedures set in this QCO and to consider aligning 
the BIS standards and conformity assessment procedures with international standa rds and 
approaches, as well as to accept certificates issued outside India based on ISO standards.  
3.278.   The EU would also like to point out that compulsory process of affixing the ISI mark is 
redundant and results in excessive certification costs, while strict packaging requirements constrain 
innovation and even limit the use of more environmentally friendly  materials. In addition, the EU 
would also like to request India if it would be possible to clarify the scope of the product(s) under 
the Quality Control Orders by clearly indicating in the QCO the HS code(s) of the goods concerned. 
The EU regrets that the  entry into force of this QCO, was not deferred, and took place on the 
29 March 2023. Article 2.12 of the WTO TBT Agreements requires a reasonable interval between the 
publication of technical regulations and their entry into force in order to allow time f or producers to 
adapt their products or methods of production to the new requirements. The EU would also like to 
recall that according to the 2001 WTO Ministerial Decision on Implementation -related Issues and 
Concerns, Ministers agreed that the phrase "reasonable interval " shall be understood to mean 
normally a period of not less than six months, except when this would be ineffective in fulfilling the 
legitimate objectives pursued. The EU hopes that India can provide clarifications on the issues raised. 
We remain open to discuss this matters bilaterally on expert level.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 71 - 
 
  3.279.   In response, the representative  of India provided the following statement. India thanks the 
delegation of Indonesia and EU for their interest in Viscose Staple Fibre (Quality Control) Order, 
2022. The Viscose Staple Fibre (Quality Control) Order, 2022 was issued in the gazette dated 
29 December 2022 informing that it shall come into force after thirty days from the date of 
publication. Further, an Amendment Order, 2023 was issued on 27 January  2023 stating that the 
order shall come into force on 29 March 2023 giving the industry sufficient time for transition on the 
request of Industry. It may be noted that BIS has already granted four licences for Viscose Staple 
Fibres as per IS 17266:2019 to domestic manufacturers and three licences to foreign manufacturers 
as well in the UK (1) and Austria (2). At present, there are five applications pending from foreign 
manufacturers and no pending applications from domestic manufacturers. As regards, the pr oposal 
for consideration of international recognition for conformity assessment results as well as conformity 
assessment bodies, it is informed that such provisions can be made only under the provisions of 
Government to Government Mutual Recognition agreem ent (MRA) with interested countries with the 
approval of Central Government.  
3.280.   BIS certification scheme is basically voluntary in nature. However, for a number of products 
compliance to Indian Standards is made compulsory by the Central Government under vari ous 
considerations viz. public interest, protection of human, animal or plant health, safety of 
environment, prevention of unfair trade practices and national security, that are WTO consistent. 
The draft QCOs envisages conformity assessment scheme -I of BIS  (Conformity Assessment) 
regulations, 2018. Scheme -I of Schedule -II of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Conformity 
Assessment) Regulations, 2018 is based on Conformity Assessment Scheme Type 4 given in the 
International Standard ISO/IEC 17067:2013 Conformit y assessment — Fundamentals of product 
certification and guidelines for product certification schemes. Factory audit by BIS is a mandatory 
requirement under this scheme for the purpose of BIS certification. Under Scheme -I, the conformity 
of the product to the relevant standard is established through testing of products in the factory or 
in a third -party BIS recognized laboratory or a combination of both. It may also be noted that 
conformity assessment requirements as specified in the draft QCOs are equally applicable to 
domestic manufactures as well as foreign manufacturers who intends to export their products to 
India.  
3.281.   Viscose Staple Fibre QCO has been issued under the provisions of BIS Act, 2016. In this 
regard, any information obtained by a certification officer or the Bureau from any statement made 
or information supplied or any evidence given or from inspection made under the provisions of this 
Act shall be treated as confidential. Manufacturers are required to submit a Performance Bank 
Guarantee (PBG) a fter Grant of BIS licence through signing of an agreement between BIS and the 
Foreign manufacturer. Submission & maintenance of Bank Guarantee (BG) by foreign manufacturers 
is an essential requirement and may not be considered as discrimination between dom estic and 
foreign companies. For domestic manufacturers, in case of any violation of BIS Act, Rules and 
Regulations including non -payment of marking fee dues, BIS can approach and seek compensation 
through Indian Courts. However, this Law of Land cannot be  enforced in foreign countries. Therefore, 
BG is required in case of foreign manufacturers to ensure due compliance of the provisions of the 
BIS Act, Rules and Regulations. BG is intended to protect BIS from any breach of terms and 
conditions of the licenc es being operated by foreign manufacturers. It is invoked only when there is 
any breach and covers civil liability and loss of revenue, if any, that may arise during the tenure of 
the licence or thereafter. The amount shown against BG remains with the conc erned bank in the 
form of refundable security and it should not be construed as expenditure.  
3.282.   It is further to add that BGs are also prevalent in international trade with regard to 
performance of contracts. Government of India has been encouraging industry to produce quality 
products by following standards and these standards need to be applicable on imports also to protect 
the market from substandard VSF products by mandating the BIS Certification with BIS VSF 
Standard. It may be noted that the conformity a ssessment requirements (like affixing of ISI mark 
on goods and packaging) as specified in the draft QCOs are equally applicable to domestic 
manufactures as well as foreign manufacturers who intends to export their products to India.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 72 - 
 
  3.1.3.19   India - Pneumatic tyres  and tubes for automotive vehicles, G/TBT/N/IND/20 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/20/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/IND/40 , G/TBT/N/IND/40/Rev.1  (ID 13351) 
3.283.   The representative  of Indonesia  provided the following statement. The Government of 
Indonesia would like to request further c larification from the Government of India regarding 
restrictions on tyre imports and the imposition of royalties for the use of the Indian Standard (IS) 
mark on tyre products supplied to third parties. Indonesia regrets that it has not been able to find 
the best solution to this issue. The Directorate General of Foreign Trade of India's Ministry of Trade 
and E -Commerce issued Notification No.12/2015 -2020 on 12 June 2020, amending the policy 
banning imports of certain sizes and types of Indian tyres. The Ind onesian government has evaluated 
this notification. The Government of India has tightened its import regulations, prohibiting the import 
of tyres of specific types and sizes and requiring each container sent to India to be sampled for 
customs purposes and to meet requirements related to the registration of the warehouse where the 
imported tyre products in question will be stored.  
3.284.   Since the implementation of this policy, importers have been required to submit a statement 
via email regarding the import ban fo r specific types and categories of tyres with specific sizes that 
have been produced domestically; failure to do so will result in criminal penalties under the FTDR 
Act of 1992. This information has been made known to Indonesia. Given the large number of t ypes 
and sizes of tyres produced in India as one of the world's major producers, the implementation of 
this regulation has de facto restricted the types of products that can be imported and created 
unnecessary trade barriers to the export of Indonesian tyr e products. Indonesia also plans to seek 
clarification on the imposition of royalties or marking fees on tyre products bearing the IS Mark and 
intended for export to other parties. According to Indonesia, the implementation of royalty fees could 
burden cor porate operators and pose unnecessary trade barriers to global trade. The imposition of 
royalties for the use of the IS Mark is not a standard practice, has no legal basis, and has nothing 
to do with preserving the wellbeing and security of humans, animals , plants, and the environment 
or stopping unfair business practices. As stated in the provisions of Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the WTO 
TBT Agreement, Indonesia is of the opinion that the application of the policy to imported tyre 
products is inconsistent with  the principle of non -discrimination and has the potential to 
unnecessarily impede international trade. Indonesia expects that India will further clarify the 
situation, notify the WTO TBT Committee of any relevant regulations, and assess the application of  
these policies to ensure that it is in line with WTO rules.  
3.285.   The representative  of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada wishes to support 
Indonesia and has concerns over the approach taken by India on the certification system for tyres. 
We under stand that in terms of standards applicable to the domestic market, India, which is not a 
member of the relevant international agreement – the 1958 UNECE Agreement, has adopted 
regulations to protect its market. Since the 2009 Quality Control Order (implem ented in 2011), tyres 
are subject to specific certification and marking, which entails double testing, specific fees and 
cumbersome administrative procedures. In addition, on 17 May 2021, India published a new AIS 
142 regulation on thresholds for three tyr e performances (rolling resistance, wet grip and noise) 
applicable to the Original Equipment market. We understand this regulation has been implemented 
on all types of tyres with a differentiated timeline (October 2021 for new designs, October 2022 for 
existing ones). While the thresholds proposed by this regulation are very close to the thresholds of 
the UNECE regulation, which is positive, the implementation of the regulation raises a number of 
questions, in particular: the lack of WTO notification and th e short implementation period, the unique 
recognition of four test centers in India, and the non -recognition of international laboratories; finally, 
while the regulation is slightly less restrictive than the UNECE regulation, no mechanism for 
recognizing U NECE -compliant tyres is provided. Canada is disappointed this system continues to not 
recognize existing international certification schemes, despite ongoing concerns raised by other 
countries, and urges India to consider appropriate remedies for importers . 
3.286.   In response, the representative  of India provided the following statement. We have already 
provided responses to all the questions raised by Indonesia in previous Committee meetings. Since 
no new questions have been raised, we request the delegation of I ndonesia to refer to our past 
responses. We are reviewing the comments made by Canada. We remain open to discuss this issue 
bilaterally.  
 
51 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 133 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 73 - 
 
  3.1.3.20   China - Regulations for the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices 
(Order No. 650 of the State Council), G/TBT/N/CHN/1022 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1023 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1024 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1025 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1026 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1029 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1313  (ID 42852) 
3.287.   The representative  of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement. The Republic 
of Korea recognizes China's objective to simplify medical device review an d approval process, 
encourage innovation and development of industry, and enhance whole process of medical devices 
supervision through the "Regulations for the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices" as 
China mentioned at the last TBT Committee.  We believe that the inclusion of "internationally 
accredited testing laboratories" will contribute to better access of people in China to safe and high 
quality medical devices as those laboratories are equipped with proper resources in accordance with 
relevant international standards and regulations, advancing the public health in China. Therefore, 
Korea would like to once again request that "internationally accredited testing laboratories" be 
included in China's definition of "qualified testing laboratori es" mentioned in the "Regulations for the 
Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices (No. 650)" Article 14.  
3.288.   In response, the representative  of China  provided the following statement. Since the release 
and implementation of the new Regulations on the  Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices 
in 2021, National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) has revised a number of supporting 
regulations and documents such as the Measures for the Registration and Filing of Medical Devices, 
the Measures f or the Registration and filing of in vitro diagnostic Reagents, the Measures for the 
Supervision and Administration of Medical Device Production, and the Measures for the Supervision 
and Administration of Medical Device Management, so as to further improve  the medical device 
supervision and regulation system. Regulations and methods scientifically set clinical evaluation 
requirements, simplify the review and approval process, and further encourage innovative and high -
quality development of the industry. Aft er the publication of the regulations, NMPA actively carried 
out publicity, provided policy interpretation through government websites and other platforms, and 
organized relevant training, such as training for imported medical device registrants. At the sa me 
time, the registrant system is implemented, the main responsibility of enterprises is strengthened, 
and the whole process of supervision is strengthened. In the next step, China will continue to pay 
attention to the implementation of the Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Medical 
Devices, listen to the opinions and suggestions of the industry, including the registrants of imported 
medical devices, and improve the relevant supporting measures.  
3.1.3.21   Indonesia - Halal Product Assurance Law No. 33 of 2014 and its implementing 
regulations, G/TBT/N/IDN/123 , G/TBT/N/IDN/131 , G/TBT/N/IDN/131/Add.1 , 
G/TBT/N/IDN/134 , G/TBT/N/IDN/139 , G/TBT/N/IDN/140  (ID 50253) 
3.289.   The representative  of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
continues to try and work with Indonesia to ensure implementation of Indonesia's Halal Product 
Assurance Law is achieved in a way t hat is consistent with Indonesia's WTO obligations. While we 
thank Indonesia for their recent response on some of these concerns, we are still reviewing the 
responses given we just received them on Tuesday. However, upon initial review, we note that many 
of our long -standing concerns remain unanswered. Indonesia's recent response does not address 
the several implementing regulations we have flagged that have not been notified to this Committee, 
including BPJPH Regulation 57 of 2021 and BPJPH Regulation 141 of 2021, nor did this response 
address the continued pattern of Indonesia notifying measures after they are finalized, denying 
stakeholders and trading partners fair access to drafts in an effort to prevent barriers to trade. We 
again refer Indonesia to ou r statements from previous WTO TBT Committee meetings, as well as 
outstanding questions submitted as G/TBT/W/761 . Despite their recent response through the 
enquiry point, Indonesia has not adequately provided any additional information or necessary 
clarific ations and we again ask Indonesia to respond to all questions and concerns laid out in the 
Working Document and past statements. We will not repeat all of our outstanding concerns here.  
3.290.   We are further disappointed that Indonesia appears to have issued Pres idential Regulation 
6/2023 on Halal Certification for Drugs, Biological Products, and Medical Devices (PR 6/2023) in 
January 2023 without first notifying it to this Committee. We ask Indonesia to notify this regulation 
to the Committee, allow a reasonable time for stakeholder comments, and to take those comments 
 
52 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 428 . 
53 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 502 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 74 - 
 
  into consideration as it implements the measure. In addition to PR 6/2023, can Indonesia confirm 
what implementing regulations are forthcoming and what is the expected timeline for notification? 
Will there be other industry -specific implementing regulations, for example related to halal 
certification for cosmetics or services? We again urge Indonesia to notify these regulations when 
drafts become available, before they take effect, and to take stakeh older comments into account 
before the draft regulations are adopted and implemented. While we had hoped that industry -specific 
regulations would allow for targeted halal certification, PR 6/2023 has not fully taken the needs and 
consumer realities of the drugs, biological products, and medical devices sector into account. For 
example, the measure requires halal certification of materials and devices, including disinfectants, 
that never contact a living body and are solely used to perform laboratory tests.  
3.291.   Many of our concerns with PR 6/2023 echo our previously raised concerns: There is a lack 
of clarity about what products require certification, the definition of animal ingredients and their 
derivative products, and what materials are classified as "haram " or forbidden. This regulation 
creates Indonesia -specific certification requirements that diverge from international norms. And, 
Indonesia continues to require halal certification for a variety of services in this regulation, including 
processing, packaging , and storage, but has yet to adequately engage stakeholders or provide clarity 
on the necessity or actionability of that requirement. We recently learned that early last year 
Indonesia released Presidential Emergency Regulation No. 2 Year 2022, which we u nderstand 
modifies the requirement for products to be certified as halal every three years, to instead only 
requiring certification if there is a change of formulation. We ask that Indonesia notify this regulation 
to this Committee, allow a reasonable time  for stakeholder comments, and take those comments 
into account as it implements the measure. We understand foreign halal certifying bodies are 
undergoing the process of accreditation. From our understanding, each halal certifying body will 
negotiate a lis t of products that they are able to certify with BPJPH. Can Indonesia please confirm 
whether foreign halal certifying bodies will be allowed to certify finished products? Indonesia's 
written response through the Enquiry Point was "BPJPH will determine the scope of halal certification 
product that can be certified by foreign halal CBs in accordance with consideration of their 
competencies and resources. " That does not answer the fundamental question of whether or not any 
foreign halal certifying bodies will be allowed to certify finished products, or if only BPJPH will be 
allowed to conduct that certification. We remain committed to working with Indonesia to address 
the aforementioned concerns, and those raised by other Members in this Committee, and to ensur e 
that Indonesia's halal measures do not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade. We 
therefore look forward to an update on what Indonesia is doing to address the concerns that have 
been raised in this Committee, and to response to the specific  questions raised today.  
3.292.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union reiterates its serious concerns on the Indonesian Halal Product Assurance Law No 33 of 
September 2014 and its implementing provisions, wh ich require mandatory Halal certification and 
labelling for a very wide range of products to be placed on the Indonesian market, resulting in 
significant obstacles to EU trade with Indonesia. In particular, the EU is concerned about Indonesia's 
stance and policy that disregard the EU's principle of single market, despite the repeated call from 
the EU. The single market has enabled EU -based halal certifiers to certify companies from other EU 
member States. The EU invites Indonesia to consider less restrictiv e alternatives to the current, 
wide-ranging mandatory Halal certification and labelling, in order to pursue the legitimate objective 
of ensuring reliable information for consumers without unduly hindering trade flows. Among the 
main issues of concern for t he EU in the Halal Law and implementing measures are the "non-Halal" 
information requested for non -Halal products or the extension of Halal requirements to products 
other than food and beverages.  
3.293.   Furthermore, in order to ensure the workability of the syste m for foreign operators, there is 
a need for more clarity and a pragmatic approach as regards the requirements for recognition by 
Indonesia of foreign Halal certificates. In particular, the pre -condition of a specific government -to-
government mutual recogn ition arrangement for recognition by Indonesia of foreign Halal 
certification bodies and certificates would appear unduly complex, represent an excessive burden 
for economic operators. The EU stresses the importance of ensuring the continued possibility to  
place non -Halal products on the Indonesian market. Notably, the EU firmly calls upon Indonesia to: 
limit Halal requirements to food and beverages; avoid the excessively burdensome requirement for 
mandatory "non-Halal" information as regards non -Halal prod ucts clarify its approach to 
international cooperation on Halal and provide for a flexible and pragmatic process for the recognition 
of foreign Halal certification bodies and acceptance of foreign certificates, building on existing 
bilateral cooperation an d working arrangements on Halal certification, provide information on the G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 75 - 
 
  timeline for adoption and publication of the remaining measures to fully implement the Halal Law. 
The EU reiterates its willingness to continue further discussion and cooperation on Halal issues with 
Indonesia, with the aim of finding a practical way forward and solve trade concerns.  
3.294.   The representative  of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia welcomes 
ongoing discussions on the Indonesian Halal Product Assurance Law No .33 of 2014 (Halal Law). 
Australia thanks Indonesia for the informative fourth International Halal Dialogue on 7 October 2022. 
We encourage Indonesia to continue to facilitate an open and transparent dialogue with its trading 
partners to allow foreign busi nesses and their valued Indonesian importers to remain adequately 
informed of the Halal Law implementation regulations. Australia would appreciate support from 
Indonesia to ensure our existing halal assurance processes will continue to be recognised when t he 
grace period for Law No. 33 of 2014 ends in 2024. Further opportunities to engage with Indonesia's 
Halal Product Assurance Organising Agency (BPJPH) on accreditation and certification would be 
beneficial. We welcome Indonesia's list of natural products that are exempt from the halal 
certification requirement, including fresh fruits, vegetables, grains, and some dairy products.  
3.295.   Australia would appreciate an update from Indonesia as to whether it will provide an updated 
list of products that do not require  halal certification under the Halal Law. It is currently unclear why 
some natural products are either included or excluded. There is also uncertainty on processed 
products and food products from animals that are not slaughtered. We would welcome an 
opport unity to hold further technical discussions with Indonesia to clarify which products are exempt 
from halal certification. Australia thanks Indonesia for their recent confirmation at the Indonesia -
Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Joint  Committee Meeting that this 
agreement is a government -to-government agreement under the Halal Laws. We welcome further 
dialogue on the Halal Law to ensure its implementation is clear and no more trade restrictive than 
necessary.  
3.296.   The representative  of the Philippines  provided the following statement. The Philippines 
shares the concerns raised by the European Union, the United States, Australia, and Canada on 
Indonesia's Halal Product Assurance Law No. 33 of 2014. We acknowledge the legitimate objective 
of Indonesia for the mandatory Halal certification of products to prevent deceptive practices and 
strengthen consumer protection. To ensure predictability and transparency in relation to Indonesia's 
TBT commitments, the Philippines requests Indonesia to provid e a list of HS codes of product and 
Central Product Classification (CPC) for services that are covered by the mandatory certification.  
3.297.   The representative  of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada would once again 
like to join other Members in expr essing its concerns with Indonesia's Halal Product Assurance Law 
no. 33 of 2014, and its implementing regulations, as it continues to represent a barrier to Canadian 
exports of halal products to Indonesia. While Canada supports Indonesia's objective to pro vide 
Indonesian consumers the assurance that they have access to products that are certified as halal 
through a rigorous and recognized process, the broad scope of the measure, as well as the lack of 
predictability and clarity on its implementation, remain  problematic. Canada appreciates that 
Indonesia has taken steps to clarify the scope of products that will require halal certification. 
Indonesia has noted that it has not used HS Codes in Regulation 1360 of 2021 ( G/TBT/N/IDN/140 ) 
because not all products in the halal positive list have an HS Code and not all ingredients in the 
same HS Code are exempted from halal certification requirements. While Canada understands 
Indonesia's reasoning, not using HS Codes for relevant products could lead to confu sion and a lack 
of consistency. Canada asks that Indonesia consider using HS Codes where possible. For example, 
for products that require halal certification and fall under an HS Category with no exemptions. 
Further, we understand that remote audit is perm itted under certain circumstances. We ask 
Indonesia to consider using remote audit as a temporary measure to accredit foreign certification 
bodies until full in -person audits can be conducted. In the meantime, Canada looks forward to 
positive developments regarding the audits of two Canadian halal certifying bodies, which remain 
outstanding and represent a key step to having Canadian exports of halal products to Indonesia 
resume. Canada requests that these audits take place as expeditiously as possible, so that BPJPH 
and the Canadian halal certifying bodies can move forward with the finalization of mutual recognition 
agreements.  
3.298.   The representative  of Switzerland  provided the following statement. As in previous TBT 
Committee meetings, Switzerland is following  this matter with interest. We thank Indonesia for its 
written response received this week. However, we still share the concerns expressed by other 
members regarding Indonesia's Halal Product Assurance Law No. 33 of 2014 and its implementing G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 76 - 
 
  regulations, w hich require mandatory halal certification and labelling for a wide range of products. 
Switzerland invites Indonesia to consider less trade restrictive alternatives to the current, wide -
ranging mandatory Halal certification and labelling, in order to pursu e the legitimate objective of 
ensuring reliable information to consumers. In particular, we stress the importance of a thorough 
but streamlined process for the recognition of foreign Halal certification bodies and acceptance of 
foreign certificates.  
3.299.   The representative  of Norway  provided the following statement. Norway would like to thank 
Indonesia for the ongoing dialogue with our embassy in Jakarta about Indonesia's Halal Product 
Assurance Law no. 33 of 2014 and its implementing regulations. We recognise Indonesia's legitimate 
objective of providing its consumers with access to products which are certified as halal. However, 
Norway is concerned by the broad scope of the measures, the uncertainty surrounding products 
which are listed as exempt from halal certification, as well as  the closure of the application deadline 
for approval of foreign certification bodies as of the end of 2022. Norway finds that the total extent 
of these measures place excessive burdens on economic operators and foreign governments and 
create barriers to t rade. Norway is a big seafood exporter and we wish to continue our trade with 
Indonesia with as few trade restrictions as possible. Indonesian authorities have confirmed that 
seafood is considered as halal. However, we find contrary information as to the c ategories of fish for 
which halal certification is mandatory. Indonesia has not used HS Codes in order to categorise 
products. This makes the scope of products subject to halal certification and products exempt from 
halal certification unclear. If understo od correctly, Norway questions why for instance non -
slaughtered, wild caught frozen fish which has not undergone processing must be halal certified. 
There should be no need for halal certifying wild caught fish which has only been frozen before 
exports. Fu rther, the slaughtering of farmed fish, as salmon, is exclusively undertaken in processing 
plants handling fish. No handling of other animals are undertaken in these enterprises. Norway 
requests Indonesia to provide more detailed information about the exem ption procedures and 
product categorisation, as well as to consider the use of HS Codes where possible. We also look 
forward to further cooperation with Indonesia in order to find solutions in the seafood sector which 
secure the least trade restrictive fra mework possible.  
3.300.   In response, the representative  of Indonesia  provided the following statement. Indonesia 
would like to thank the United States, the European Union, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Norway 
and Philippines for their continues interest on Hala l Product Assurance Implementation in Indonesia. 
We have sent a written response to the WTO Member Enquiry Point that raised this issue. The 
implementation of Halal Product Assurance aims to ensure the certainty and safety aspects of halal 
products circula ting in Indonesia and increase added value for the industry to produce and distribute 
Halal products. Products that are mandatory to be halal certified as listed in Regulation 748 of 2021 
(notification G/TBT/N/IDN/134 , G/TBT/N/IDN/134/Add.1)  shall bear Halal Label upon granted halal 
certification from a recognized halal certification body/authority. For products or material that fall 
under Minister of Religious Affairs Regulation No. 1360 of 2021 (notified as G/TBT/N/IDN/140 , 
G/TBT/N /IDN/140/Add.1)  will not necessary to be halal certified. With regard to non -halal labelling, 
instead, it is only required to provide information on the non -halal materials contained in the related 
product.  
3.301.   As such, Indo nesia is of the view that non -halal information is essential to ensure that 
consumers have sufficient information in making decisions based on their belief preferences. 
Indonesia provides information on non -halal material contained in the related products as stated in 
the articles 92 to 94 of GR 39/2021 (notified as G/TBT/N/IDN/131 , G/TBT/N/IDN/131/Add.1) . 
Indonesia considers that halal certification and halal certification bodies have functioned in this way 
for decades, howeve r Indonesia currently has BPJPH, under the Ministry of Religious Affairs which 
regulates halal certification previously carried out by MUI, therefore the bilateral agreement needs 
to be extended. All submissions from foreign halal certification bodies to e xtend cooperation with 
BPJPH, are currently entering the assessment stage. Indonesia has notified Minister of Religious 
Affairs Number 2 of 2022 regarding International Cooperation on Halal Product Assurance (Notified 
as G/TBT/N/IDN/139  and G/TBT/N/IDN/139/Add.1)  which aims to develop the implementation of 
international halal cooperation in Indonesia, including Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) of 
halal certificate. All forms of MRA shall be preceded by a Government to Governm ent (G to G) MoU 
or bilateral agreement. Once the MoU is available, the MRA can then be carried out. BPJPH welcomes 
cooperation in the field of mutual recognition and mutual acceptance of halal certification following 
the availability of a G -to-G Agreement  between Indonesia and its partner countries. BPJPH also 
welcomes international halal cooperation in developing conformity assessment procedure schemes. G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 77 - 
 
  Indonesia is committed to working together and opens up opportunities to hold further technical 
discuss ions on halal certification and address issues related to halal certification in Indonesia.  
3.1.3.22   China - Cybersecurity Law (ID 52654) 
3.302.   The representative  of the United States  provided the following statement. As we have said 
in prior TBT Committee meetings, this is a major concern for US companies, given China's 
intertwined requirements for conformity assessment systems for security testing, technical 
regulations, and a multi -level classification scheme laying out requirements including mandatory 
standards and testing for the purchase of ICT goods across a wide range of commercial sectors. Our 
numerous, long -standing concerns are clearly laid out in our past statements to this Committee and 
remain unaddressed. We will therefore refer the Committee to our previous statements.  
3.303.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The EU would 
like to note at the outset that two previously raised STCs are now, and will continue to be, 
incorporated into this STC on Cybersecurity. These two previous STCs were (i) 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) (ID 294) and (ii) Cyberspace Administration 
of China – Draft implementing measures for the Cybersecurity Review of Network Products and 
Services (ID 5 33). Our concerns on both issues remain unresolved. The EU would like to refer to its 
statements at previous TBT Committees with regard to the Cybersecurity Law55 and related 
legislation and standards. The concerns raised in those previous statements remai n and have already 
had a negative effect on business confidence. Uncertainty remains around key definitions of the Law 
and related legislation and standards, including, but not limited to, critical information infrastructure 
operator56, online platform ope rator and network products and services. In addition, there is an 
overlap between the scope of application of the Critical Information Infrastructure Security Protection 
Regulation57 on the one hand and the Multi -Level Protection Scheme (MLPS) 2.058 on the  other hand. 
The uncertainty resulting from this overlap is exacerbated by the fact that the Regulations on 
Cybersecurity Classification Protection59 have not yet been finalized.  
3.304.   The Cybersecurity Review Measures60 continue to give rise to considerable unc ertainty, in 
particular with regard to the security review of network products and services that it mandates. The 
triggers for this review are defined extremely broadly and the reviews themselves have proven to 
be opaque and potentially lengthy. It also re mains unclear what exactly the consequences are when 
a review is failed, in particular also for downstream customers. This uncertainty around key 
definitions and overlap between different pieces of legislation creates considerable, and costly, 
uncertainty for EU companies as to which legislation is applicable to them. The EU urges China to 
distinguish between the compliance obligations – especially with regard to product and service 
procurement – applicable to Critical Information Infrastructure on the one hand, and to networks 
above MLPS Level 3 on the other, as in reality, there is a tendency for these two sets of obligations 
to become equal. The EU calls on China to implement its legislation in a non -discriminatory manner, 
respecting the principles of tra nsparency, proportionality, necessity and technology neutrality, and 
ensure adequate protection of intellectual property. The EU requests that China notify draft measures 
concerning any sectoral implementation to the WTO.  
3.305.   The representative  of Japan  provid ed the following statement. Japan continues to have 
concerns about the Cybersecurity Law and its subordinate regulations. In September 2022, the draft 
amendment to the Cybersecurity Law was published, and Japan has submitted its comments. Japan 
would like to request that China take them into account. In particular, Article 65, which has been 
changed in the draft amendment, stipulates penalties for critical information infrastructure operators 
who use network products or services that have not undergone or p assed a "cybersecurity review." 
 
54 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 526 . 
55 网络安全法 . 
56 关键信息基础设施的运营者. 
57 关键信息基础设施保护条例. 
58 网络安全等级保护制度. 
59 网络安全等级保护条例, also translated as "Multi-Level Protection Scheme Regulation ". 
60 网络安全审查办法. G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 78 - 
 
  We understand that the Cybersecurity Review Measures stipulate the procedures, required 
documents, and required number of days for this "cybersecurity review." However, some points 
remain unclear, such as the specific scope of network products, which may create unnecessary 
obstacles to the market entry of relevant foreign vendors and service providers. Japan requests that 
the above unclear points be clarified and that the "cybersecurity review" be operated in a manner 
consist ent with especially Article 5 of the TBT Agreement.  
3.306.   We also have comments regarding the Cross -border Data Transfer Security Assessment 
Measures came into effect in September 2022, the Cybersecurity Multi -Level Protection Scheme 
published for public consult ation in 2018 and the Security Certification Specifications for Cross -
border Processing Activities of Personal Information published in December 2022, as subordinate 
regulations of the Cybersecurity Law or Personal Data Protection. 1) Regarding the Cross -border 
Data Transfer Security Assessment Measures, Japan submitted comments during the public 
consultation period. While the Measures define "general data", "critical data", and "core data", they 
do not provide objective and specific criteria for classifica tion of such data. In February 2022, the 
Information Security Technology Critical Data Identification Guideline was submitted for public 
consultation, and in September 2022, the Information Security Technology Network Data 
Classification and Grading Requir ements were submitted for public consultation. Japan would like to 
request that China clarify whether China intend that the classification criteria for "general data," 
"critical data," and "core data" will be defined appropriately in these national standar ds. 2) Japan 
submitted its comments on the Cybersecurity Multi -Level Protection Scheme during the public 
consultation period in 2018. We continue to have concerns about the unclear terminology, for 
example, the difference between "network operator" and "ne twork service provider," and the 
consistency of national standard referred in the Cybersecurity Multi -Level Protection Scheme with 
Articles 2 and 5 of the TBT Agreement. At the previous TBT Committee meetings, China has stated 
that the process was in the d rafting phase. Japan would like to request that China provide 
information on the status of its consideration and that a transparent system be established.  
3.307.   3) With regard to the Security Certification Specifications for Cross -border Processing 
Activities of  Personal Information, these standards require personal data processors who engage in 
cross-border processing activities of personal information to establish a personal data protection 
agency and to assess the impact of personal data protection on activiti es in which personal 
information is to be provided to foreign recipients. These obligations will have a significant impact 
on foreign businesses that have a high need to provide personal data outside of China, and may 
hinder the smooth facilitation of busi ness activities depending on their specific nature. Since 
predictability is important from a perspective of business, Japan would like to request that the 
opinions submitted for public consultation by Japan be taken into consideration, and that transparent  
implementation is ensured.  
3.308.   The representative  of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia reiterates our 
previous position regarding China's Cybersecurity Law and related laws, including the Personal 
Information Protection Law and Data Securi ty Law. As we set out in Australia's submissions to 
China's consultation on the then proposed laws, we welcomed a number of revisions to both these 
draft laws. Nonetheless, Australia still has concerns around extra -territoriality, trade retaliation, 
compli ance costs for firms and the overall scope. These concerns have still not been addressed. Like 
other Members today, we remain concerned about the lack of clarity when it comes to definitions, 
jurisdiction and a number of other fundamental elements. We cont inue to urge China to take into 
account the concerns of business and Members in the implementation of these measures and 
development of future measures.  
3.309.   The representative  of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada would like to refer 
to its statem ents at previous TBT Committees and continues to have significant concerns with China's 
suite of cybersecurity and cryptography/encryption laws and related implementing regulations. The 
multiplication of implementing measures creates confusion and complica tes businesses' ability to 
comply with all of them, due to their unclear scope, interaction and adherence to the principles of 
the TBT Agreement, namely: the Critical Information Infrastructure (CII) Security Protection 
Regulations; the Draft Regulations o n Network Data Security; the Measures on Security Assessment 
of Cross -Border Data Transfer; the Measures on the Standard Contract for the Cross -Border Transfer 
of Personal Information; the Practical Guidance of Cybersecurity Standards -Technical Specificati ons 
for Certification of Cross -border Handling of Personal Information; and the Implementation Rules of 
Personal Information Protection Certification. Canada would like to urge China to recognize the 
concerns that have been raised by Members on this measur es since 2017 and reiterate our long -G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 79 - 
 
  standing request for a notification of these measures, only one of which has been duly notified to 
date to this Committee.  
3.310.   In response, the representative  of China  provided the following statement. Cybersecurity 
Law cam e into effect on 1 June 2017. It is China's first basic, framework, comprehensive law in the 
field of network security. The total of seven chapters and 79 articles comprehensively and 
systematically establishes obligations and responsibilities in cybersecu rity protection for relevant 
authorities, network operators, network users. Basic systems have been established to ensure the 
security of network products and services, network operation, network data, network information, 
network security monitoring, earl y warning and emergency response. The network security 
supervision and management system has been further clarified. The Cybersecurity Law provides a 
legal basis for maintaining the security and development of cyberspace, and plays an important role 
in ens uring the security of cyberspace, purifying the cyberspace environment, and promoting the 
development of the cyber industry. Since the implementation of the law, the public's awareness of 
cybersecurity has been enhanced, the legal system of cybersecurity h as been improved, the law 
enforcement capacity in cyberspace has been strengthened, and the cyberspace has become cleaner 
and more orderly.  
3.1.3.23   China - Encryption Law of the People's Republic of China by the Office of State 
Commercial Cryptography Administrati on (OSCCA) (ID 53461) 
3.311.   The representative  of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
refers to its previous statements and supports Members' interventions on the Cybersecurity Law.  
3.312.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The EU would 
like to note at the outset that a previously raised STC is now, and will continue to be, incorporated 
into this STC on Encryption. This previous STC was Commercial Cryptography Administrative 
Regulations (ID 644). Our concerns here remain unresolved. The EU would like to reiterate its 
concerns relating to the Cryptography Law62 and related legislation. The EU remains concerned about 
the wide scope of the law. These concerns have already negatively impacted business confidence. 
We note in particular that the Law does not recognise China's commitment that cryptography 
regulation would only apply to products whose core function is providing encryption.63 The EU 
remains concerned about the Commercial Cryptography Adminis trative Regulations, in particular: 
the wide scope of the law, the insufficient safeguards for the protection of intellectual property, the 
imposition of pre -market and export controls, unclear requirements around testing and certification, 
turning volunta ry certification requirements into de facto market access prerequisites, the imposition 
of national security reviews, the use of domestic standards and the lack of meaningful access to 
Chinese standards development organisations.  
3.313.   The EU welcomes that the p ublished final version of the Commercial Cryptography 
Administrative Regulations limits security assessment, and product testing and certification to critical 
information infrastructure operators. However, given the newly introduced Article 41 of these 
regulations, the EU is concerned that similar requirements may re -appear for other operators in 
other legislation, in particular the Regulations on Cybersecurity Classification Protection, which is 
still pending release. The EU calls on China to ensure that l egal and regulatory requirements are 
non-discriminatory, do not favour specific technologies, do not limit market access and do not lead 
to forced transfers of intellectual property. The EU urges China to guarantee the possibility for foreign 
companies to participate on an equal footing with domestic companies in the market for 
cryptographic products. Additionally, the EU urges China to provide effective access, including the 
right to vote and to lead standards drafting, for foreign companies to standardiza tion bodies, in 
particular Technical Committee 260 and the Cryptography Industry Standardisation Technical 
Committee (CISTC). The EU requests that applications to these bodies be replied to in a timely 
manner.  
3.314.   The representative  of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan continues to have 
concerns about the Encryption Law, which came into effect as of 1 January 2020. The Encryption 
Law contains an article that prohibits requests for disclosure of source code, etc. We would like to 
 
61 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 534 . 
62 中华人民共和国密 码法, also translated as 'Encryption Law'.  
63 The so -called "Year 2000 Cla rification" by the State Cryptography Administration (SCA).  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 80 - 
 
  request that China prohibit disclosure requirement of algorithms as well as source code. Japan would 
like to request that the operation of this law not be more -trade restrictive than necessary in 
accordance with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, and that no t impede the activities of foreign 
companies in China or their entry into the Chinese market.  
3.315.   The representative  of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada notes that China 
finalized the revisions to the Regulations on the Administration of Commerc ial Cryptography, which 
will enter into force on 1 July 2023. However, Canada also notes that the revised regulations provide 
little response in relation to Canada's official comments submitted on the August 2020 draft, or the 
points that it has raised at multiple WTO TBT Committee meetings. For example, with respect to the 
use of international standards in Article 10, the language remains exactly the same as two years 
ago. Furthermore, while the revisions re -work the earlier 1999 regulations to align with the new 
testing and certification processes for commercial encryption in the 2020 Cryptography (Encryption) 
Law, there is no additional information on the definition of key terms and the applicable scope. While 
this law provided for some relaxation of comm ercial encryption controls compared to the web of 
encryption regulations that existed previously, Canada is disappointed that technical barriers to trade 
still exist, and these revised regulations do not improve the situation.  
3.316.   Therefore, once again, Canada  reiterates the following points from previous meetings of the 
Committee: We request a response from China to Canada's written comments on China's State 
Cryptography Administration's draft of the Regulations on the Administration of Commercial 
Cryptography , which Canada provided in September 2020; We also seek further clarity, 
transparency and predictability in China's regulations and laws related to Encryption and 
Cryptography, including the definition of terms; clarification that international standards w ill be 
used; and further precision on the measures' scope; and Finally, we urge China to notify the revised 
regulations to this Committee and allow Members reasonable time for review and comment.  
3.317.   In response, the representative  of China  provided the follow ing statement. The law came 
into force on 1 January 2020. It clearly stipulates that the governments at all levels and relevant 
competent departments shall follow the principle of non -discrimination, and treat all the 
organizations equally including foreig n-invested enterprises that engage in commercial cryptography 
research, production, sales, service, import and export, etc. China encourages commercial 
cryptography technical cooperation on a voluntary and commercial basis in the process of foreign 
investm ent. Administrative agencies and their staff are prohibited to force any transfer of commercial 
cryptography technology by administrative means.  
3.1.3.24   Viet Nam - Cybersecurity Measures (ID 54464) 
3.318.   The representative  of Japan  provided the following statement. Japa n continues to request 
that the security assurance obligations for devices and systems stipulated by the Cybersecurity Law 
and Decree No.53/2022/ND -CP (hereinafter "Decree 53 ") be implemented in compliance with the 
TBT Agreement. We understand that the Cyb ersecurity Law and Decree 53 impose the obligation on 
domestic enterprises to store data in Viet Nam without conditions, different from an obligation on 
foreign enterprises in this regard. If the domestic enterprises include foreign enterprises' subsidiari es 
established in Viet Nam under Vietnamese laws, such subsidiaries would have the obligation to store 
data in Viet Nam, even though their parent enterprises are foreign enterprises. In general, foreign 
enterprises collect and manage data in an integrated manner outside Viet Nam. These foreign 
enterprises are more likely to incur burdens such as additional investment costs and to be placed in 
de facto unfavourable competitive conditions compared to domestic enterprises that collect and 
manage data in Viet N am. At the previous meeting, Viet Nam mentioned "We take note of the 
comments and will convey to the competent authority in capital for consideration and further 
feedback. " Japan would like to request feedback from the competent authority.  
3.319.   In response, the representative of Viet Nam  provided the following statement. Viet Nam 
would like to thank Japan again for its concern on this measure of Viet Nam. According to the 
Enterprise Law 2020 of Viet Nam, a domestic enterprise is an enterprise est ablished or registered 
for establishment in accordance with Vietnamese laws and regulations and has its headquarters in 
Viet Nam, which needs to store data when the Decree takes effect. Domestic enterprises must also 
have the responsibility to coordinate w ith regulatory agencies in preventing, investigating, and 
handling acts of violating the law on Cyber Security like foreign enterprises. The subsidiaries 
 
64 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 544 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 81 - 
 
  established by foreign companies need to store data and establish branches or representative offices 
in Viet Nam only if the services provided by the companies are used to commit acts that violate the 
Law on Cyber Security and have been reported by the Department of Cybersecurity and Counter 
High-Tech Crime of the Ministry of Public Security of Viet Nam an d requested in writing to coordinate, 
prevent, investigate and deal with, but fail to comply or fully comply, or prevent, hinder, disable or 
override cyber security protection measures taken by specialized cyber security forces.  We would 
like to reiterate that Viet Nam's Law on Cybersecurity and Decree No. 53/2022/ND -CP grant 
companies the right to decide on this issue and not impede the flow of data or impose an additional 
burden if enterprises comply with the Law and Decree.  
3.1.3.25   China - Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulation and Regulation for 
Notification of Non -special Cosmetics, G/TBT/N/CHN/1310 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1311 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1331 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1453 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1454 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1459 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1460 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1515 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1524 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1525 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1526 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1527 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1539 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1615 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1626  (ID 57665) 
3.320.   The representative  of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement. The  Republic 
of Korea, first of all would like to express gratitude for continuing cooperation through bilateral 
consultations between the MFDS Korea -NMPA China. Korea recognizes the China's policy objective 
to strengthen and implement cosmetics -related regul ations to ensure the quality and safety of 
Chinese cosmetics and protect consumer health. However, Korea would like to echo the United 
States and Japan, and raise our concern in relation to the implementation of the Cosmetics 
Supervision and Administration  Regulation and measures as these concerns from other WTO Member 
countries, including Korea, have not clearly improved. First, In accordance with the "Specifications 
for Cosmetic Efficacy Claim Evaluation", China's regulation states that test reports requi red for 
cosmetic product registration must be issued by testing laboratories that have obtained the China 
Metrology Accreditation (CMA) certificate. In the last TBT Committee meeting, China replied that 
China does not prohibit foreign inspection institutio ns from getting the certification. Korea requests 
China to adopt more flexible measures by recognizing test reports issued by qualified foreign 
laboratories located outside of the country.  
3.321.   Second, regarding "Specifications for Registration and Filing of Ne w Cosmetic Ingredients", 
we request that alternative test methods certified by international organizations such as the OECD 
be recognized without evidence of toxicity tests. And regarding the "Administrative Measures on 
Cosmetic Labeling", Korea requests t hat China to align its requirement of ingredient declaration in 
cosmetic labelling with international practices. (Note: In China, ingredients with a content of 0.1% 
or more must be labelled in descending order of content, and a content less than that is la belled as 
other minor ingredients. Internationally, most countries apply ingredient labelling based on 1% or 
more, and other minor ingredients are not listed separately)  
3.322.   Third, in the "Specifications for Cosmetic Registration and Filing", China requires co mpanies 
to specify the sources and to provide quality data of all ingredients in their applications, which is 
excessively stringent compared to international practices. This required information often contains 
trade secrets, and such requirement is restric tive more than necessary to fulfill China's legitimate 
objectives to ensure product safety and manage China's domestic market. Furthermore, according 
to Appendix 13 -14, businesses are required to disclose information on ingredient safety. Korea is 
concerne d that the mandatory disclosure of such information may lead to issues in the protection of 
intellectual property and commercially -sensitive information. In the last TBT Committee meeting, 
China responded that trade secrets and intellectual property are no t damaged and that trade secrets 
are rigorously protected. However, we request again to limit the data submission to necessary level. 
In the same context, under the "Specifications for Cosmetic Efficacy Claim Evaluation", it is still 
mandatory for business es to disclose summarized scientific evidence that supports cosmetic efficacy 
claims on NMPA -designated websites. Since these information may contain trade secrets that could 
affect the businesses, Korea requests China to minimize such disclosure requireme nts. In the last 
meeting, China responded that trade secrets are protected under the relevant regulations on the 
disclosure of information and that the NMPA would strictly abide by the regulations when managing 
the registration and filing of cosmetic produ cts. Korea is well aware of China's effort to protect 
 
65 For previous stat ements follow the thread under ID 576 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 82 - 
 
  intellectual property including trade secrets. However, we request a consultation with stakeholders 
and other countries regarding sensitive information that bears less importance to consumers.  
3.323.   The repre sentative  of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
maintains that it has serious concerns with CSAR and the likely inconsistency of some of its 
implementing measures with certain WTO obligations, including unequal treatment for imports; 
overly burdensome and disproportionate information requirements; lack of procedures to ensure the 
protection of confidential and proprietary information; duplicative in -country testing, and continued 
challenges with transparency in the develop ment and implementation of the CSAR measures. 
Recognizing this, we would however like to note some progress. We thank China for Announcement 
Number 34 issued by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) in March on the 
management of cosmetics ing redient safety information, which extended the transition period for 
providing ingredient safety information; reducing the filing requirements for products registered 
before 2024. These steps will lessen the immediate burden for companies.  
3.324.   We note that Chi na held a national consultation period in May on its draft Technical 
Guidelines for Filling in and Submitting Cosmetic Ingredient Safety Information. Could China please 
clarify the implementation timeline for these Guidelines, particularly in light of Anno uncement 
Number 34? We reiterate our request from the last Committee meeting that China provide clarity 
on NMPA's Announcement Number 13 of 2023, issued in January on matters related to the 
notification and inspection of general cosmetics. Our understandin g is that firms manufacturing in 
China will have the option of self -testing for general cosmetics, if they have a cosmetics production 
licence and they meet additional conditions. Please confirm if that is correct. We also ask that China 
clarify whether im porters will also be given the option to self -test. Further, if these requirements 
and procedures were not included in previously notified measures, would China please notify them 
to the WTO TBT Committee? As we have long noted, US industry faces pressing challenges in trying 
to comply with China's often unrealistic implementation timelines for CSAR and its conflicting 
technical regulations – complicated further by the lag from prior Covid -19 shutdowns over the past 
three years, and the backlogs at labs in China.  
3.325.   In prior meetings, we asked that China consider extending the national CSAR implementation 
deadlines for the notified measures contained in G/TBT/N/CHN/1459 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1515 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1526 , and G/TBT/N/CHN/1525 , including extending the deadlines that have already 
gone into effect. We appreciate that China's March 27 announcement extended the deadlines for 
cosmetics ingredients filings, and we urg e that China provide further flexibility in extensions across 
the other measures, given the aftereffects of the pandemic and the requirements for in -country 
testing. We also ask that China consider how it can rely upon international recognition schemes for  
conformity assessment to reduce the timelines for companies to comply. We understand that China 
may be drafting some provisions regarding overseas inspections. Is China able to provide a timeline 
on when this will be issued for public comment? Another mea sure of serious concern is the Provisions 
for the Supervision of Cosmetics Sampling and Testing. We understand that China published the 
final measure on 12 January. This published measure does not appear to address the concerns 
expressed in the written com ments submitted by the United States and US industry. We are 
particularly concerned that the seven days provided for companies to appeal test findings on 
potential noncompliance of their products with CSAR requirements is not sufficient.  
3.326.   US companies remai n eager for a means to engage with NMPA on questions arising from 
CSAR implementation, including regarding the new requirements and use of NMPA's new online 
platforms for product and ingredient filings. Does China have any plans for this? Finally, we refer  to 
previous US statements for other unresolved concerns and unanswered questions. We request that 
China continue to consider how these trade concerns expressed by the United States and many other 
WTO Members may be resolved in the implementation of CSAR.  
3.327.   The representative  of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan appreciates China's 
response on the "Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulation " and its implementing 
detailed regulations in the previous Committee meetings. However, Japan conti nues to express the 
following concerns, as we have stated in the previous Committee meetings and uploaded at the 
eAgenda in the Committee meeting in March 2023. Japan would like to request that China continue 
to address not only the matters in the statemen ts in the meetings, but also all of the matters 
uploaded at the eAgenda. 1. "Management Rules for Testing required for Cosmetic Product 
Registration and Notification, " which entered into force on 10 September 2019, stipulates that 
microbiological, physical , chemical, toxicological, and human safety and efficacy evaluation tests G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 83 - 
 
  relevant to cosmetics registration and notification must be conducted by testing laboratories that 
are located in China and that have obtained CMA (China Methodology Accreditation) c ertificate. 
Japan has repeatedly received responses from China stating that it does not prohibit or restrict 
foreign laboratories from obtaining CMA. However, Article 4, Article 14, etc. of the "Administrative 
Measures for the Accreditation of Inspection a nd Testing Institutions," which is cited as the basis for 
the regulation, explicitly stipulate that only testing laboratories within the territory of China are 
qualified for CMA. Therefore, it is Japan's view that foreign capital testing laboratories eligi ble to 
obtain a CMA are restricted to those located in China. As a consequence, this does not meet Japan's 
request to accept the test results of foreign laboratories with testing capabilities equivalent to 
laboratories that have obtained CMA. As Japan has repeatedly stated, if the purpose of granting CMA 
is for confirmation of testing capability, the location is essentially irrelevant to testing capability. 
Japan would like to continue to request a more flexible framework through which China will treat 
foreign laboratories with capability equivalent to the laboratories located in China that have obtained 
CMA as equal and also accept test results of such foreign laboratories as equivalents, regardless of 
where they are located.  
3.328.   2. The "Specifications for Regi stration and filing of New Cosmetic Ingredients " and 
"Specifications for Cosmetic Efficacy Claim Evaluation " stipulate that priority is given to test results 
in accordance with China's national standards or relevant regulations and various additional 
restrictions and conditions are imposed, such as requiring verification of equivalence with the 
established test methods in the national standards and regulations, and storing the test results in 
preparation for inspections, in the case of conducting a test met hod which is not specified in the 
regulations. Internationally, there are test methods that are scientifically confirmed by the OECD 
and ISO which are to be used for safety evaluation. Japan would like to request that China treat 
internationally accepted m ethods such as those from the OECD or ISO as equal to the methods 
stipulated in China's national standards or relevant regulations, so as not to be more restrictive than 
necessary in proving safety and efficacy. If they are not regarded as equivalent test methods, Japan 
would like to ask for China's clarification as to why they are not treated as acceptable.  
3.329.   3. Regarding the efficacy claim evaluation methods required by the "Specifications for 
Cosmetic Efficacy Claim Evaluation ", China responded that "the t est method of efficacy claim 
evaluation does not make much limitations as to selecting the evaluation methods " at the last TBT 
Committee meeting. However, Japan considers that the following points, in particular, are more 
stringent and restrictive than nec essary for the purpose of guaranteeing the scientific validity and 
reliability of efficacy claim evaluation and protection of consumer legal interests. Japan reiterates its 
request for the implementation of a flexible framework considering internationally recognized 
practice. - "Attachment 1, Requirements of Cosmetic Efficacy Claim Evaluation item " specifies four 
types of evidence. It finely stipulates which evidence can be used for each efficacy claim. However, 
the scientific validity of limiting which evi dence is used for each efficacy item has not been 
demonstrated. The types of evidence for each efficacy claim should be determined individually by 
cosmetics registrants and filers based on the specific wording of claims and scientifically valid testing 
method for each one, as the types of evidence depend on the specific wording of claims.  - The scope 
of application of the "Guiding Principles of Equivalent Evaluation " as stipulated in the Specifications 
for Cosmetic Efficacy Claim Evaluation is very narrow, being limited to makeup products. Even in 
the case of makeup products, the quotation of "common efficacy claim " evaluation test data is only 
allowed in exceptional circumstances such as cases where only colorants differ in the formula of 
make -up series wit h multiple colours of the same registrants or filers. In addition, because applying 
"Guiding Principles of Equivalent Evaluation " to skincare products, hair -care products, etc. is not 
allowed, even if slight changes in a formula due to regulatory complianc e are made, retests are 
required. This creates heavy burdens for cosmetics registrants and filers. Japan would like to request 
that China consider expanding the scope of the "Guiding Principles of Equivalent Evaluation, " based 
on international trends and s takeholder opinions. - Regarding the evaluation test for freckle -
removing/whitening products, Japan would like to request that China answer the clear reason why 
the "Read-Across " approach, which allows the evaluation test to be omitted under certain condit ions, 
as was proposed in Article 16 (freckle -removing/whitening effect cross -reference) of the 
"Specifications for Cosmetic Efficacy Claim Evaluation (Draft for Comments) " announced in 
September of 2020, was removed in the final regulation. Freckle -removin g/whitening is affected by 
active ingredients included in the cosmetics, and the Read -Across approach will help shorten the 
process from application to permission.  
3.330.   4. The National Medical Products Administration announcement on "Measures for Further 
Optimi zing Cosmetic Ingredient Safety Information Administration (announcement No.34, 2023)" G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 84 - 
 
  dated 27 March 2023 was promulgated, and the grace period for submitting information has been 
extended to 1 January 2024, both for all ingredients contained in new produ cts and for ingredients 
that are still required to be submitted for existing products. In addition, cosmetics companies 
(product registrants/filers) can now issue the Cosmetic Ingredients Safety Information based on 
information they have collected. Japan w ould like to express its gratitude to China for having 
considered the requests from Japan. According to the aforementioned announcement, as for 
products that have been registered (licensed) or filed by 31 December 2023, the Cosmetic 
Ingredients Safety Info rmation except for high -risk ingredients should be kept by the registrant/filer 
for inspection. However, as for products to be applied for registration or filed on or after 1 January 
2024, the submission of the Cosmetic Ingredients Safety Information will still be required for all 
ingredients. It is the responsibility of cosmetics companies to ensure the safety of ingredients and 
final products, including what ingredients are used. The safety assessment report for products 
including the safety information o f the ingredients and final products is required at the time of 
product registration or filing, and it is a duplicate requirement to separately submit the Cosmetic 
Ingredients Safety Information. Therefore, Japan would like to request that the registrant/f iler keep 
the Cosmetic Ingredients Safety Information for all ingredients for inspections, regardless of whether 
the risk is high or low and the timing of application for registration or filing.  
3.331.   5. Japan recognizes that a transition period is set in all r elevant regulations. However, we 
disagree that each transition period is long enough. Japan would like to strongly request that China 
provide an adequate grace period of at least one year after promulgation of all relevant regulations 
and guidelines in ord er to prevent market turmoil and in order for cosmetics registrants and filers to 
adapt cosmetics to new requirements. 6. Regarding the "Interim Measures on the Administration of 
Overseas Inspections of Cosmetics, " Japan would like to continue to request t he following points. 
Japan would like to request that China clarify which laws and regulations are used to assess 
conformity and specific purposes for conducting foreign inspections. Japan also asks that China 
ensure that inspections will not be more trade  restrictive than necessary to achieve the purpose of 
protecting human health. Moreover, information related to research and development is the most 
important confidential information for companies, however it is not this information that directly 
affects product safety assurance. Furthermore, inspections within China are limited to the production 
sector and this indicates that it is not necessary to conduct inspections of R&D departments. 
Therefore, Japan requests that China ensure that R&D departments tha t may hold confidential 
information be excluded from the subject of foreign inspections. Japan also requests that confidential 
information not be disclosed to persons other than those who are necessary for the legitimate 
purpose of the inspection.  
3.332.   7. The s ales certification that proves the products have been sold on the market in the 
country of production is only imposed on imported cosmetics. Japan requests that China treat 
imported products no less favourably than products that are produced in China, in o ther words, 
Japan requests that China abolish the obligation to acquire the sales certification that relates to 
imported products. Regarding the "Administrative Measures on Cosmetic Labeling, " which was 
promulgated on 3 June 2021, Japan would like to conti nue to express its following concerns. 8. In 
the TBT Committee meeting in November 2022, China explained that the content of the Chinese 
labels, such as information regarding only product safety and efficacy, must be consistent with the 
original labels. Ja pan would like to request that China clarify that the labels stipulated by regulations 
of the country of origin do not have to be consistent with the content of the Chinese labels, including 
information regarding product safety and efficacy. 9. Article 7 r equires the display of "producers, " 
"cosmetics registrants or filers " or in the case of imported products, a "responsible person in China" 
on the product label. Japan has concerns that multiple company names and addresses on the label 
may cause misunderstandings on the part of consumers rather than achieving the aims of thi s article, 
which is to inform consumers of the persons responsible for product quality and efficacy. As China 
mentioned at the previous TBT Committee meetings, the "Cosmetics Supervision and Administration 
Regulation " clearly stipulates that cosmetics regi strants and filers are fully responsible for quality, 
safety and efficacy claims of cosmetics. In order to clarify responsibilities and avoid confusion among 
consumers, Japan would like to ask that the label should indicate only a single responsible person  
("cosmetics registrants or filers " and if needed, a "responsible persons in China" as contact persons 
can be added). Japan would like to request that China delete content that requires the display of 
producers.  
3.333.   10. In the previous TBT Committee meetings, China explained that ingredients of 0.1% or 
less can be labelled as "other trace ingredients" in no particular order. However, Japan is concerned 
about deviation from internationally recognized practice. With respect to the rules for labelling of all G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 85 - 
 
  ingredients in cosmetics, there is an internationally recognized listing practice that ingredients with 
a compounding amount of 1% or less are allowed to be listed in no particular order without a 
description. Japan would like to request that China assure that the rules for labelling follow the 
internationally recognized practice so as not to be more trade restrictive than necessary in showing 
consumers the safety and efficacy of products. 11. The "Specifications for Registration and filing of 
New Cosmetic Ingre dients " and "Specifications for Cosmetics Registration and Filing " include 
stipulations about nano ingredients. To follow those regulations, Japan considers that a more 
detailed and concrete standard is necessary to determine which ingredients fall under t he definition 
of nano ingredients. In addition, Japan would like to request that the standard be formulated in a 
way that reflects international trends and comments from all stakeholders. 12. Japan understands 
the purpose of the sample retention system exp lained in the TBT Committee meeting in July 2022. 
Japan is not against sample retention per se. "Public notice related matters of Provisions for the 
Supervision and Administration of Cosmetics Production and Distribution " (No.140, 2021), which 
was promulga ted on 26 November 2021, requires that, regarding products imported to China from 
foreign registrants or filers, domestic responsible persons retain samples of each batch of cosmetics. 
Essentially, registrants or filers are responsible for the cosmetics in  any case. Even in the case of 
imported cosmetics, Japan would like to request that China accept that samples do not always have 
to be retained in China if the testing system can be utilized immediately when problems occur.  
3.334.   13. With regard to the exemption  of toxicological testing documents via certification 
documents related to the quality management system and good manufacturing practice 
qualifications, Japan requests China's continued consideration for accepting certification documents 
related to quality  management systems or good manufacturing practice qualifications issued by 
competent international organizations or industry associations which are authorized to issue the 
certification by government agencies in the country or region where the cosmetic ma nufacturer is 
located.  
3.335.   The representative  of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia remains 
concerned that measures under China's Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulation 
(CSAR) and various implementing regulations, which entered into force on 1 May 2021, are more 
stringent and trade restrictive than necessary for low -risk cosmetics. These concerns relate to testing 
and registration requirements, government certification requirements and requirements to provide 
detailed information  on production processes and other aspects of their intellectual property. The 
Australian Government looks forward to working with China on CSAR implementation.  
3.336.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The EU 
welcomes that  the Chinese authorities have extended the deadline for registration of cosmetics' raw 
materials and finished products until 1 January 2024, as well as the announced changes in terms of 
limited submission requirements to specific ingredients. At the same t ime, the EU would like to refer 
to its earlier statements on this topic, as the EU's concerns outlined therein remain unchanged. The 
European Union already confirmed that it supported the CSAR's objective of ensuring consumer 
safety. However, CSAR and its various implementing regulations are more stringent than necessary 
to ensure the safety and quality of imported cosmetics. In particular, this pertains to consumer 
safety and traceability of the ingredients used in cosmetics. CSAR's provisions diverge from  
international practice, as such an extensive level of information is not required elsewhere in the 
world for notification and registration purposes.  
3.337.   The obligation to transmit confidential information on new products and their ingredients to 
Chinese authorities remains one of EU's most important concerns. According to the EU, the 
mandatory disclosure of commercially sensitive information required in the notification and 
registration process, touching on intellectual property rights (IPR) of co mpanies involved, goes far 
beyond what is required in line with internationally recognized practices. Chinese measures pose 
significant risks to companies' intellectual property and commercially sensitive information and are 
not proportionate to the object ives sought. The EU would like to recall that Chinese requirements go 
far beyond the EU's Cosmetics Regulation – considered to be most stringent in the world. As regards 
efficacy testing, the multiple China -specific requirements will require significant re -testing of 
products for which the efficacy was already established in a third country. This also affects thousands 
of products that already have been placed on the market in China and for which the claim 
substantiation still needs to be completed. These c oncerns were transmitted to the relevant Chinese 
authorities in a joint letter from several WTO Members in January this year. The EU would like to 
have a constructive dialogue with the Chinese authorities to find a satisfactory solution to ensure 
cosmetics  safety without unnecessary overburdening of importers.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 86 - 
 
  3.338.   The representative  of New Zealand  provided the following statement. New Zealand would 
like to reiterate our well -documented concerns from previous meetings in relation to China's 
regulatory system for  cosmetics. We continue to urge China to consider additional measures to allow 
for: The exemption of animal testing requirements through non -government regulatory authority -
issued GMP certification or other trade facilitative mechanisms for providing produ ct assurances; 
Providing flexibility in respect of product testing requirements. In particular, we encourage China to 
accept test reports from accredited laboratories situated outside of China; and Further limitations 
on product disclosure requirements, pa rticularly in relation to sensitive information – i.e. limited to 
that which is required to assure product safety in China's domestic market, so as not to compromise 
intellectual property. New Zealand looks forward to engaging further with China on its Cos metics 
Supervision and Administration Regulations (CSAR) to address these issues.  
3.339.   In response, the representative  of China  provided the following statement. 1. Regarding the 
inspection required for cosmetics registration and notification, requiring the ins pection for cosmetics 
registration and notification to be carried out by professional institutions aims to protect consumers' 
rights and ensure the accuracy of the inspection results. Inspection institutions shall obtain the 
certification of inspection and  testing qualification (CMA) in the field of cosmetics. However, China 
does not prohibit foreign inspection institutions from getting the certification, and China's 
Administrative Measures for the Accreditation of Inspection and Testing Institutions do not  restrict 
foreign inspection institutions from getting such certificates either. 2. Based on the non -
discrimination principle of WTO, the Provisions on the Administration of Cosmetics Registration and 
Filing Data put forward exactly the same requirements o n imported and domestic ordinary cosmetics 
regarding the alternative program of animal tests for safety evaluation. For both domestic and 
imported ordinary cosmetics, the toxicological tests can be replaced with safety risk assessment 
once they have obtain ed quality management system certification issued by government authorities.  
3.340.   3. Regarding the evaluation of cosmetic efficacy claims. The formulation of the specification 
for the Evaluation of Cosmetic Efficacy Claims is to further ensure the scientificity , accuracy, and 
reliability of the evaluation of cosmetic efficacy claims, and safeguard the rights and interests of 
consumers. Based on the principle of equivalence, the efficacy claim evaluation test method does 
not limit the selection of internationally  recognized foreign regulations or technical standards, such 
as OECD or ISO. 4. Regarding the cosmetics labelling related issues. The information of cosmetics 
manufacturers includes the relevant information of the manufacturers and their locations, and etc , 
which is an important measure to protect consumers' rights. When marking enterprise information, 
the corresponding guide language should be used for marking, and there is no situation that will 
confuse consumers. It stipulates that ingredients with weigh t percentages not exceeding 0.1% (w/w) 
should be labelled with "other trace ingredients " as indicating words. The measures does not require 
a descending order of ingredient content or any other specific order. 5. Regarding the protection of  
trade secrets a nd intellectual property rights, the procedures and data requirements for the 
registration and notification of cosmetics and new raw materials are detailed and clear in relevant 
regulation papers. Requiring registrants to submit safety -related materials is  also a common practice 
aiming for the safety review of health -related products in various countries. It is exactly for the 
purpose of protecting the intellectual property rights and trade secrets of enterprises that in the 
process of formulating relevant technical documents, the evaluation data required of cosmetic 
efficacy claims only include the summary of the supporting material of the efficacy claims rather 
than the full text. The required technical materials of new raw materials only cover the basic a spects, 
such as he name, registration number, source, composition, physical and chemical properties, 
purpose of use, scope of use, safe amount of use, precautions, storage conditions and best before 
period, rather than the complete information. The authori ties and administrative staff will strictly 
protect trade secrets in handling cosmetics registration, as prescribed by all relevant laws and 
regulations.  
3.1.3.26   European Union - Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic 
Medical Devices Regulation (I VDR), G/TBT/N/EU/71/ Add.1 , G/TBT/N/EU/72 , 
G/TBT/N/EU/72/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/EU/845  (ID 59466) 
3.341.   The representative  of the United States  provided the following statement. We would like to 
provide an update on the STC we have raised in past Committee meetings, on the Regulation of the 
European Parliament and the Council on Medical Devices, notified as G/TBT/N/EU/71/Add.1 . Since 
the last meeting, the EU has published amendments to the regulation which entered into force on 
 
66 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 594 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 87 - 
 
  20 March. The amendments extend the validity of existing certificates under certain conditions and 
abolish the "warehousing " deadline from prior versions of the regulation. We greatly appreciate the 
EU taking these steps to ensure that critical medical devices which have previously been approved 
on the EU market will not be subject to disruptions in trade which were threatened by challenges 
with implementing t he regulation as intended, including due to a lack of notified body capacity.  
3.342.   We note that our concerns with the European Medical Device Nomenclature (EMDN) system 
remain, and we hope the EU will reconsider its position by selecting the Global Medical Devi ce 
Nomenclature system (GMDN), which is used by over 100 national medical device regulators to 
support their activity. The United States will continue to engage with the EU about GMDN through 
technical discussions among the regulators. We look forward to c ontinued engagement with the EU 
as it undertakes further implementation of the Medical Device Regulation.  
3.343.   The representative  of China  provided the following statement. (1) It is suggested to specify 
the method for proving the legality of the expired certif icates which are used in the extended 
transition periods, such as adding notes on the expired certificates. The reasons are as follows: 
Article 1.(1)(a) of the (EU)2023/607 specifies the conditions under which the expired certificates 
can be used in the ex tended transition periods, but the method for proving the legality of the expired 
certificates which meet such conditions and used in the extended transition periods is not stipulated, 
which will create great obstacles to product supervision, launch, sales  and usage. (2) It is suggested 
to clarify solutions as soon as possible for the small and medium -sized medical device companies 
without services provided by notified bodies, such as adding more notified bodies. The reasons are 
as follows: Although there a re more notified bodies than before, it is difficult for them to provide 
services for all the medical device companies worldwide. Presently, notified bodies tend to prioritize 
product certifications for large medical device companies; however, most manufac turers are small 
and medium -sized, and it is hard for them to get product certification services from notified bodies.  
3.344.   (3) It is suggested to clarify regulatory requirements on original equipment manufacturer 
(OEM) and original design manufacturer (ODM), a nd introduce guidelines for OEM and ODM as soon 
as possible. The reasons are as follows: Both OEM and ODM are effective modes for companies to 
communicate with each other, exchange technologies and promote market channels. They are also 
production modes wi th mature technologies and management modes. But the regulatory 
requirements on OEM and ODM are not clearly provided in the MDR, neither the relevant guidelines. 
At present, notified bodies have different regulatory requirements on OEM and ODM, which cause  
great confusions and obstacles to relevant works of medical device companies.  
3.345.   (4) It is suggested to provide relevant guidelines on the recognition and use of clinical trial 
data obtained outside of the EU. The reasons are as follows: There are no specifi c instructions for 
using the clinical trial data obtained outside of the EU in existing EU regulations or guidelines, which 
could lead to inconsistent understanding between different notified bodies; notified bodies and 
manufacturers. It is adverse to effi cient clinical evaluations. The International Medical Device 
Regulators Forum (IMDRF) has published general requirements on clinical trials and guidelines on 
accepting the clinical trial data obtained in foreign countries, for instance, general principles for 
clinical studies are stipulated in Chapter 6 of the "IMDRF Clinical Trial Guidelines".  
3.346.   The representative  of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan welcomes the 
implementation of Regulation (EU) 2023/607 revising the MDR and IVDR on the extensio n of 
transitional measures and the removal of distribution deadlines. However, there are issues to be 
addressed in the MDR and IVDR as described below, and we request the following improvements.  
3.347.   1. MDR 1.1 Some companies have reported that they have made p rogress with their 
conformity assessments. On the other hand, many companies have not completed their conformity 
assessments. Therefore, they have not been able to ship new products to Europe since 26 May 2021, 
the MDR's implementation date. Several compan ies have reported that it has been more than three 
years since the start of the conformity assessment process. Japan has repeatedly requested 
improvements to this situation in the previous TBT Committee meetings. Furthermore, the EU stated 
at the last TBT Committee meeting that "the EU remains very concerned about the current level of 
notified body capacity and preparedness of medical device manufacturers and is committed to 
continue working closely with all relevant economic operators and partners to furth er mitigate the 
situation and avoid shortages of critical devices". However, the situation remains unimproved. Japan 
requests that the EU continue to monitor the situation and make improvements as a regulator.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 88 - 
 
  3.348.   1.2 The MDR requires rigorous clinical evaluat ion assessment even for relatively low -risk 
Class I, IIa and IIb medical devices. However, this may be more trade -restrictive than necessary to 
achieve legitimate objectives. In order to ensure that the regulations do not become more trade -
restrictive than  necessary, Japan continues to request that the EU simplify the requirements of the 
assessment such as the Japanese pharmaceutical certification and the US 510(k) regulations, taking 
into account the promotion of international harmonization in regulations.  For example, clinical 
evaluation could be simplified for medical devices with a medium or low risk, using technologies that 
have already been proven on the market.  
3.349.   2. IVDR (EU) 2023/607, dated 15 March 2023, enables companies to supply devices that 
meet c ertain conditions. However, as stated in the previous TBT Committee meetings, Japan is 
deeply concerned that the conformity assessments for many manufacturers will not be completed 
by the deadline, given the lack of infrastructure necessary for conformity assessments. According to 
the results of the survey on IVDR conformity assessment status of Japanese IVDs conducted by the 
Japan Association of Clinical Reagents Industries, only about 10% of devices requiring IVDR 
conformity assessments had been certified  as of January 2023, and the situation has not improved. 
Therefore, Japan would like to request that the transition period for the IVDR be re -extended until 
at least the end of 2027 or the end of 2028 or beyond, as was done for the MDR.  
3.350.   3. MDR and IVDR 3.1  Japan welcomes the publication of guidance in line with the MDCG 
Guidance Publication Plan. However, we have heard from Japanese manufacturers that the 
requirement to conform to guidance without a transition period is a factor in the prolonged 
conformity assessments. As we requested at the previous TBT Committee meetings, we continue to 
request that public consultation be carried out prior to the publication of MDCG guidance, that newly 
published MDCG guidance have a transition period of at least one year,  and that MDCG guidance be 
used for reviews by notified bodies after the transition period has elapsed. We welcome the 
publication of guidance MDCG 2022 -21 on Periodic Safety Update Reports (PSURs) on post -
marketing surveillance; however, this guidance sta tes that guidance on trend analysis will be issued 
separately, but it has not yet been issued. We request the guidance on trend analysis to be issued 
promptly as it is necessary to build the process for the implementation of the PSURs. 3.2 In some 
cases of  the conformity assessments by notified bodies, the need for conformity may be required 
even though the harmonized standards of MDR and IVDR are published in the EU Official Journal 
immediately before the conformity assessments. We request an appropriate t ransition period for 
harmonised standards to be set.  
3.351.   The representative  of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia refers to its 
previous statements made in the TBT Committee and notes the recent decision by the European 
Parliament to extend transition timeframes for the European Union Medical Device Regulations (EU 
MDR). Australia welcomes this extension as it will allow additional time and increased capacity to 
access appropriately designated notified bodies to transition medical devices to the new regulatory 
framework. The EU MDR impacts both Australian manufacturers accessing European markets, but 
also impacts access to Australian markets given common reliance on European conformity 
assessment certification to support marketing approval in Australia. We still remain concerned about 
misalignment of components of the EU MDR with international guidance for certain medical devices 
which may result in trade barriers and burden to manufacturers who also supply their products to 
other countries inc luding Australia. Australia also reiterates concern about the European shift to the 
European Medical Device Nomenclature (EMDN) currently being developed, diverging from the 
internationally developed Global Medical Device Nomenclature (GMDN). Australia is concerned about 
the issues this may create for a globally harmonised Unique Device Identifier (UDI) system resulting 
from use of EMDN in Europe, in contrast to use of GMDN in a range of other jurisdictions. Australia 
continues to be concerned about the abs ence of effective arrangements for interoperability (such as 
a mapping of EMDN and GMDN codes), given the potential for duplication for industry, and impact 
on information sharing in monitoring and responding to safety concerns for patients.  
3.352.   In response, t he representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. As 
announced in previous Committee meetings, the MDR officially entered into force on 26 May 2021. 
It is important to underline that the shift between the Directives to the MDR is a gradual one, 
facilitated by transition periods that allow for medical devices in compliance with the Directives to 
continue to be in circulation until May 2024, in parallel with MDR certified devices. As regards the 
IVDR and as of May 2022, a staggered set  of transition periods for IVDs was proposed. A measure 
explaining the adapted transitional provisions was also notified to the TBT Committee. The length of 
the transition periods depends on the risk class of devices, with shorter transition periods for hi gher G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 89 - 
 
  risk devices and longer periods for lower risk ones. One of the revolutionary changes introduced by 
the two new regulations include fit for purpose classification rules, reinforced notified body 
requirements and higher clinical evidence thresholds. Th ese changes were deemed necessary in 
order to respond to a number of failures in the system and prevent future crises putting patients at 
serious risk.  
3.353.   On the subject of notified bodies, we are glad to report that as of today, we now have 38 
MDR designated  Notified Bodies and 10 Notified Bodies under the IVDR. With the amendments to 
extend the transition period for MDR and IVDR compliance, the EU believes that the situation has 
improved and that notified body capacity has been alleviated. Nevertheless, the preparedness of 
medical device manufacturers remains essential and working towards early compliance will be 
essential to avoid bottlenecks in the system. On the question of SME access to notified bodies, the 
EU has put in place a number of non -legislative measures in order to encourage availability of notified 
body capacity to deal with new applications as well as applications submitted by SMEs. Continuous 
monitoring of these measures is ongoing and frequent discussions with notified bodies entail the 
asses sment of those activities. On Nomenclature, the EU maintains the need to separate the 
discussions from those related to Unique Device Identification (UDI). While the UDI system used in 
the EU is based on internationally agreed principles, the Nomenclature,  also known as the language 
of use is different. This was a decision taken after careful assessment and consideration. The EU 
would like to stress, once again, that the EU's choice for creating the European Medical Device 
Nomenclature has been based on the  need for a sensibly structured nomenclature that is 
transparent, open, fully accessible for the public, and downloadable for free. There are currently no 
other nomenclature systems offering those characteristics. The EU maintains that the choice of 
langua ge and dictionary for medical devices i.e., the nomenclature does not constitute a barrier to 
trade. The EU is fully determined to ensure that the new system provides a higher level of patient 
protection and counts on trade partners to encourage their manu facturers to meet these new 
requirements to ensure trade continuity.  
3.1.3.27   Qatar - Ministry of Public Health Circular regarding shelf life for cheese (ID 
60267) 
3.354.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union would l ike to refer again to the Qatar's Ministry of Public Health Circular of 30 May 2019 
establishing new import requirements for ultra -heat treatment (UHT) milk and white cheese that 
entered into force already in 2019 and followed later by additional Circulars  issued by Qatar on this 
issue. These trade restrictive measures are still kept in place to date. One of the main EU concerns 
as regards these import conditions is the short shelf -life period imposed for several dairy products, 
including milk, cheese and b utter, which do not seem to be based on science nor on international 
standards. In practice, it is impossible for EU exporters to continue shipping certain dairy products 
to Qatar under these conditions. At the same time, local dairy producers in Qatar are  favoured as 
they are not affected by the long transport time that foreign exporters need for shipping their dairy 
products to the country, and thus can comply with shorter shelf -life periods. The European Union 
would like to refer to constructive mutual e xchanges on this important concern, however, despite 
the continued positive dialogue, the import measures are still in place. During our dialogue on this 
matter, Qatar signalled to be working on a solution to be offered in near future. The EU is looking 
forward to Qatar solving this issue at short term and we stand ready to continue working 
constructively with Qatar.  
3.355.   The representative  of New Zealand  provided the following statement. New Zealand continues 
to support the EU's interventions and requests the s cientific evidence behind the assessment that 
resulted in such restrictive shelf -life requirements. New Zealand remains strongly of the view that 
Qatar's shelf -life requirements for imported cheese and other dairy commodities are trade 
restrictive, not bas ed on science, and not in line with Codex standards. New Zealand continues to 
request that Qatar use internationally recognized standards such as Codex for the setting of shelf -
life requirements.  
3.356.   In response, the representative of Qatar  provided the follow ing statement. Qatar has taken 
note of the continued concern of the European Union, New Zealand, and the United States regarding 
Qatar's Ministry of Public health circular on quality standards for certain dairy products and thanks 
them for their interests in this matter. As it has already been said, the relevant measures apply 
 
67 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 602 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 90 - 
 
  equally to domestic and imported products and are therefore non -discriminatory in nature. These 
measures do not have a significant effect on trade, product -specific requirements appli ed in the 
State of Qatar do not prevent the importation and sale of any products that meet quality standards. 
We remain available to continue our constructive discussion with the interested Members to provide 
additional explanation where necessary.   
3.1.3.28   Colom bia - Food Prioritized for its Sodium Content, Certification Requirements, 
G/TBT/N/COL/238 , G/TBT/N/COL/238/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/COL/246  (ID 60968) 
3.357.   The representative  of Costa Rica  provided the following statement. Costa Rica wishes to 
reiterate its trade concern in support of a systemic defence of the principles of the TBT Agreement 
relating to the adopt ion of measures based on scientific evidence and the harmonization of rules 
through the use of regulations issued by international reference organizations such as the Codex 
Alimentarius. The Codex Alimentarius has no standards that may act as a basis for s etting 
percentages for maximum sodium, fat or sugar content (as is the case with the list of foods prioritized 
by Colombia and the maximum sodium percentages). As a result, there are different regulatory 
systems for international trade in processed foods, which makes sectors less competitive and 
restricts trade more than necessary.  As with other trade concerns raised at this meeting, Costa Rica 
remains open to receiving further information on the international reference organization standards 
used by the Co lombian authorities to prepare this regulation . 
3.358.   The representative  of Paraguay  provided the following statement. Paraguay recognizes and 
supports the right of Colombia to protect the health of its population by limiting the sodium content 
of some foods as part of efforts to protect against chronic non -communicable diseases . However, 
Paraguay is concerned that the procedure is more restrictive than necessary to achieve the legitimate 
objective pursued by Colombia with this measure . We therefore requ est that Paraguay's support for 
this concern be put on record and that its entire statement from the previous meeting be recorded 
in the minutes.  
3.359.   Statement from March  2023 meeting, in full.69 We thank Costa Rica for the inclusion of this 
trade concern on t he agenda and we request that Paraguay's support be recorded.  Paraguay 
recognizes and supports the right of Colombia to protect the health of its population by limiting the 
sodium content of some foods as part of efforts to protect against chronic non -comm unicable 
diseases. However, Paraguay is concerned that the procedure is more restrictive than necessary to 
achieve the legitimate objective pursued by Colombia with this measure.  In particular, it is concerned 
that the first party declaration may no longer  be used, given the accreditation of an entity to certify 
compliance and the expiry of the period for using this type of certification (two years from the 
accreditation of the certifying entity).  
3.360.   We believe that there are still not enough accredited labora tories to date to deal with all 
certification requests that will have to be managed as of July when the deadline for the use of first 
party certifications expires, which could generate a bottleneck in applications.  While the possibility 
exists of having re course to an certification body accredited abroad and recognized by Colombia, 
this would involve much greater cost, and some small and medium -sized Paraguayan enterprises 
would not be able to avail themselves of this option.  For these reasons, Paraguay req uests Colombia 
to increase the availability of certification bodies accredited in Colombia and to complement them in 
an appropriate manner with certification bodies accredited in other countries so as to increase the 
number of available certification entit ies, thereby reducing bottlenecks and helping to reduce 
certification costs.  
3.361.   In response, the representative  of Colombia  provided the following statement. First, I would 
like to express our gratitude for the comments made on previous occasions and at this meeting.  
Second, in previous sessions and at earlier bilateral meetings, Colombia has shared and discussed 
documents justifying the measure on the maximum sodium content of processed foods.  In fact, at 
the previous Committee meeting we spoke about the importance of our work with various countries 
to clarify aspects of the measure and respond to questions that arose with respect to the permitted 
certification schemes and acceptance of first -party declarations, among other matters.  Third, and to 
conclude,  we reiterate that our authorities are more than willing to continue technical discussions 
 
68 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 609 . 
69 G/TBT/M/89 , para. 2.106 -2.107.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 91 - 
 
  with the authorities of the countries concerned, with a view to clarifying the comments made and 
finding ways of overcoming this trade concern . 
3.1.3.29   Mexico - Draft Amendm ent to Mexican Official Standard NOM -051-SCFI/SSA1 -
2010: General specifications for the labelling of pre -packed food and non -alcoholic 
beverages, G/TBT/N/MEX/178/Add.9  (ID 60870) 
3.362.   The representative  of Costa Rica  provided the following s tatement. Costa Rica would like to 
reiterate this concern and emphasize the importance of harmonizing food labelling schemes, in 
particular front -of-pack nutritional labelling, on the basis of Codex Alimentarius standards 
(Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling  CXG 2 -1985, Annex 2, adopted in 2021). In this regard, we invite 
Mexico to use the Codex guidance on the subject as a reference to ensure that regulations are 
consistent with the international consensus and do not create unnecessary restrictions on trade.  
Costa Rica, as it has done for similar concerns raised at previous meetings of the Committee, wishes 
to remind other Members present of the importance of the work undertaken within the framework 
of the Codex Alimentarius and of the need for any food label ling measures adopted to be based on 
scientific evidence and on Codex Standards, in accordance with the provisions of the TBT Agreement.  
3.363.   In response, the representative  of Mexico  provided the following statement. With regard to 
NOM-051-SCFI/SSA1 -2010, Mexi co reiterates what it said during the meetings held in November 
2022 and March 2023, in the sense that the competent Mexican authorities are fully aware of the 
relevant international schemes on food labelling, specifically the provisions of Annex 2 to the 
Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling (CXG 2 -1985), adopted in 2021 by the Codex Alimentarius.  
However, the amendment of NOM -051-SCFI/SSA1 -2010 was published in the Mexican Official 
Journal on 27 March 2020 and entered into force on 1 October that same year, a t which time there 
was a lack of relevant guidelines or international standards that could be used as a basis for 
establishing front -of-pack labelling.  It is important to highlight that, pursuant to the Law on Quality 
Infrastructure, Mexican Official Stand ards are systematically reviewed every five years. As regards 
NOM-051-SCFI/SSA1 -2010, the date of its last amendment was 27 March 2020. As a result, in 
accordance with the applicable Mexican legislation, the period for carrying out the next systematic 
review of the Standard begins on 28 March 2025.  It will be during this systematic review period that 
the CODEX guidelines on labelling or any other international standard will need to be analysed and 
considered, which will determine the viability of, or need f or, an amendment of NOM -051-
SCFI/SSA1 -2010.  Lastly, the Government of Mexico reaffirms its duty to comply with the 
international commitments set out in the TBT Agreement and in the free trade agreements to which 
Mexico is party, while also recognizing the legitimate public policy objective of safeguarding the 
Mexican population's health.  
3.1.3.30   India – Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2020 (IND/131); Amendment in Policy 
Condition No. 2(iii) to Chapter 95 of ITC (HS), 2017 - Schedule -I (Import Policy) 
(IND/143), G/TBT/N/IND/68 , G/TBT/N/IND/1 31, G/TBT/N/IND/143.  G/TBT/W/774  
(ID 63271) 
3.364.   The representative  of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
and others have made our longstanding concerns well known in previous meetings. We are 
disappointed that, despite several Members raising concerns about this issue, India has failed to 
constructively eng age on this or take steps to meaningfully address Members' full range of concerns 
with the QCO for toys. These concerns have included the rising use of quality control orders to 
mandate Indian -specific standards as well as burdensome, costly, and unnecessa ry conformity 
assessment requirements related to licensing, in -country testing, and factory inspections. We have 
asked - without response - what actions India is taking to provide market access to exporters whose 
factories are located in countries where BI S inspectors are not currently conducting in -person 
inspections. It is clear that raising this issue in this forum has not been successful, and that this is 
not the only sector where an Indian quality control order has created unnecessary obstacles to 
international trade. We remind India of the greater pattern of concerns highlighted in G/TBT/W/774  
and will continue to explore other ways to address these concerns.  
3.365.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The 
continuously inc reasing number of Quality Control Orders (QCOs) across sectors is sending worrying 
 
70 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 608 . 
71 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 632 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 92 - 
 
  signals to EU industry, EU investors, and EU member States as the majority of QCOs introduced by 
India appear to have protectionist orientation and raise questions in relati on to their compliance with 
the WTO's TBT Agreement obligations. The EU remains deeply concerned by the fact that QCOs 
usually prescribe Indian specific standards where international standards already exist. Furthermore, 
they make mandatory conformity asse ssment procedures that are more restrictive than necessary 
to fulfil their legitimate objective. As stated in previous TBT Committees, the European Union 
remains concerned about India's Toys Quality Control Order (QCO) ( G/TBT/N/IND/131 ) and the 
certification requirements introduced by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). The EU refers to its 
previous interventions but would like to highlight that European industry continues to report the 
difficulties to work through the QCO.  
3.366.   The European industries  indicate that the QCO remains challenging and the process is still 
very burdensome and complex. In addition, a major concern is related to the fact that the import 
policy ( G/TBT/N/IND/143 ) is applied on top of the QCO. – One of key issues for the E U toy industry 
are the challenges in understanding by the BIS of the complexity and velocity of toy manufacturing. 
For example, when a factory is being audited, only the limited number of items being produced in 
that moment are taken as samples and sent fo r testing, and then included in the factory licence. 
However, all other toys produced in that factory at a later stage also need to be included in that 
license, which is a burdensome process as for foreign manufacturing sites this has to be done via 
paper -based applications, whereas local manufacturers can do it online. Moreover, given that 
companies are producing a huge variety of items over the year with constant innovation, the 
requirement to add each new SKU (Stock keeping unit) coming from an audited f actory can cause 
huge delays in importing new items and should rather be replaced by an online application, in order 
to guarantee a level playing field with local manufacturing. According to the EU the application 
process should be simplified with less doc umentation needed and electronic versions of documents 
should also be accepted for review. This would include extending the same online system as 
Manakonline to foreign manufacturers to submit the inclusion applications, which allows for easy 
access, statu s information, and reference needed for customs clearance. Given that the on -line 
application for licence is only accessible to domestic toy manufacturers results in more burden and 
delays for foreign manufacturers.  
3.367.   The EU would like to point out that the time taken to process the applications (between the 
submission of the application and the nomination of an auditor), which is currently two months in 
average (and sometimes up to almost two years for overseas manufacturers) should be reduced to 
one month i n order to enhance the efficiency of the application process. As concerns the preparation 
of audits, the EU would like to propose to stipulate a statutory timeline for every stage of audits, as 
this would give better visibility regarding the start and end point, increase transparency in the 
process and eventually benefit not only the applicant to obtain the licence in a timely manner but 
also the BIS to keep track of the applications. Moreover, overseas audits should be allowed to be 
outsourced and carried out by third party auditors, in particular for licence renewals, in order to 
speed up the process. In order to improve the auditing process itself a set time limit for the issuance 
of licences should be provided as well as additional resources and training s for auditors, including 
check -lists and a standard procedure. The EU would also like to have more clarity as regards the 
procedure of licence renewal. The EU welcomes the increased transparency of the process, but would 
like to understand whether a longe r renewal period is granted to companies that specifically ask for 
it? 
3.368.   To ensure the continued effectiveness of the Indian toy safety and quality regime under the 
QCO, the European Union would like to ask once more that the Indian government considers 
removing the current possible duplication of tests for QCO and at customs level under the DGFT 
notification for BIS certified products. According to recent information, the EU understands that 
currently only the QCO is applicable and the previous regime is no longer in force. This would mean 
that there is no need of additional testing at customs anymore. However, the EU would welcome a 
formal confirmation of this understanding. The European Union invites India to address the concerns 
raised and to alleviate the  requirement for factory audits overseas. The European Union remains 
available to have bilateral exchanges to find an adequate solution.  
3.369.   The representative  of China  provided the following statement. For the Toys (Quality Control) 
Order, 2020: 1. According to Article 3 of the Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2020, the mandatory 
certification has involved a large range of toys, that is all toys products or materials used by children 
under 14 -year-old including swing and slide, etc.. It is recommended that the In dian can manage 
toys according to their risk level and conduct mandatory certification on toys of higher risk; exempt G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 93 - 
 
  toys of other risk levels and those small number of imported toys with single batch. 2.The Toys 
(Quality Control) Act 2020 stipulates that  the certification process is subject to conformity testing 
from third party laboratories. We appreciate India for increasing the number of accredited 
laboratories. However, to date, all laboratories accredited by India are in India, and no overseas 
labora tory has been accredited. Moreover, the ways for overseas laboratories to obtain accreditation 
are unclear and lack of transparency. It is recommended that India could accept overseas 
laboratories (including ILAC laboratories), and provide transparent guid ance to obtain accreditation. 
3. Given that the online audits technology is already quite mature, it is recommended that foreign 
factories could be allowed to conduct online audits for factory inspections. 4. In October 2020, the 
BIS issued the document of  10 Steps to BIS License for Toys on its official website, in which step 4 
stipulated that factories producing electric toys should be equipped with instruments required by IS 
15644:2006 Clause 8, 9 and 10. However, some tests need expensive and technicall y demanding 
equipments that are difficult for small and medium -sized enterprises to obtain, and these tests are 
often done by third -party laboratories. This part of the equipment requires the factory to provide by 
itself, which is unnecessary and unreasona ble. According to Article 5.1.2 of the TBT Agreement, it is 
suggested that India could cancel the equipment requirements for electric toys and other projects.  
3.370.   For Policy Condition No. 2(iii) to Chapter 95 of ITC (HS), 2017 - Schedule -I (Import Policy): 
1. According to Article 2 of newly revised Policy Condition No. 2(iii) to Chapter 95 of ITC (HS), 2017 - 
Schedule -I (Import Policy), samples of imported toys should be randomly sent to NABL accredited 
labs for testing in the process of clearance, which would be  released after test is qualified. It seriously 
affected the efficiency of customs clearance and increased the importer's storage costs, which does 
not comply with Article 5.1.2 and 5.2.1 of the TBT Agreement. It is recommended that India could 
exempt test  for accredited toys. 2. According to newly revised Policy Condition No. 2(iii) to 
Chapter  95 of ITC (HS), 2017 - Schedule -I (Import Policy), imported toys must be sent to laboratory 
accredited by NABL in India. Considering that NABL in India is a member of  ILAC, it is recommended 
that India could accept foreign laboratory test results from ILAC -accredited labs.  
3.371.   The representative  of Canada  provided the following statement. As stated in p revious TBT 
Committee meetings, the objective of India's quality contro l order regarding toys, and QCOs across 
many sectors, remains fundamentally unclear. Canada notes that India continues to avoid 
addressing Canada's and other Members' issues and questions in its responsive statements. Canada 
noted that India reiterated the  same response in previous Committee meetings on the way that QCO 
will be implemented, failing to address Canada's and other Members' questions and concerns. 
Canada would once again ask that India provide a substantive response and explain what specific 
actions are planned in the near future to have imports of toys into India resume normally.  
3.372.   In response, the representative  of India provided the following statement. The Bureau of 
Indian Standards (BIS) is carrying out physical inspections for applications r eceived from foreign 
manufacturers, where the country to be visited is facilitating the visit of fully vaccinated BIS officers 
without the requirement of quarantine. No application pertaining to toys has been received from 
USA under Foreign Manufacturers C ertification Scheme of BIS. With respect to applications received 
from the European Union, visits are being planned wherever necessary formalities such as payment 
of application charge, scrutiny of application etc., have been completed. The BIS is not able  to carry 
out preliminary inspection for Chinese manufacturers due to COVID -19 pandemic. The Bureau of 
Indian Standards under its Laboratory Recognition Scheme (BIS LRS) grants recognition to outside 
laboratories for testing of products as per the relevant  Indian Standards.  
3.373.   The Laboratory Recognition Scheme is governed by provision under section 13(4) of BIS Act, 
2016 and Rule 32 of BIS Rules, 2018. These statutory provision confers upon BIS, powers to 
recognize any laboratory in India or outside India for carrying out testing of samples in relation to 
Conformity Assessment and such other functions as the Bureau may assign to it. Clause 12 of BIS 
LRS details the complete procedure of recognition of foreign laboratories. The decision regarding 
recognition of foreign laboratories will be taken by BIS taking into account the MRA (Mutual 
Recognition Agreement) with the concerned nation. BIS LRS is available on BIS website 
www.bis.gov.in  under "laboratory services " tab. As on date, there is no pending application from 
any Outside Laboratory located outside India seeking recognition from BIS in compliance to the 
provisions of LRS.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 94 - 
 
  3.1.3.31   India - Order related to requirement of Non -GM cum GM free certifi cate 
accompanied with imported food consignment, G/TBT/N/IND/168  (ID 65172) 
3.374.   The representative  of the United States  provided the following statement. This is the ninth 
TBT Committee meeting in which the United States has raised concerns regarding India's Order 
mandating "non-GM (genet ically modified) origin and GM free certificates " for certain agricultural 
imports into India, notified on 2 September 2020, as G/TBT/N/IND/168 . The United States once 
again acknowledges India's right to regulate "GM" foods, as laid out in their En vironment Protection 
Act (1986) and Rules 1989. However, the United States continues to insist that India provide the 
rationale for requiring a non -GM certificate on a per -consignment basis for each of the 24 crops 
named in the Order. In response to India' s request that Members cite specific trade issues in 
connection with the Order, the United States resubmits for the record that US apples experienced 
immediate and significant trade disruption upon the entry into force of the Order in March 2021, 
which was  only resolved by a U.S. State issuing a non -GM certificate. Additional US products have 
been affected by the Order, and the United continues to face further market access issues with 
genetically engineered products, in particular. Despite continuing to en gage with India on this Order, 
we have been unable to make substantive progress to resolve these concerns. The United States 
requests that India immediately revoke this trade -restrictive Order and engage in further dialogue 
with the United States to find m utually agreeable alternatives that do not unnecessarily impact trade.  
3.375.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union would like to refer to its previous statements on this matter. The EU would invite India to  
explain why it considers necessary to impose such a burden on trading partners with a high 
prevalence of non -GM food on their domestic market and a robust regulatory regime governing the 
use of GMs. The EU would like to emphasise that the additional costs  that the issuance of these 
certificates carries for exporters, particularly as there is a need for a certificate for each container in 
each consignment of exported fresh fruit and vegetables to India, are not negligible. This is even 
more important taking  into consideration that the cost is entirely unnecessary since no fruits or 
vegetables in the EU can be genetically modified under EU legislation. The EU would like to ask India 
to waive the requirement to attach the certificate for food items or alternat ively to consider a less 
burdensome approach to meeting the Order's stated objectives.  
3.376.   The representative  of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia thanks India for 
its ongoing engagement and cooperation regarding the use of the "non-GM orig in and GM free 
certificate ", as well as India's previous responses provided in the TBT Committee. Australia shares 
the view that GM use in agriculture needs to be safe – we are strong supporters of robust, risk and 
science -based regulation of GM. Australia  reiterates that it is common international practice to 
maintain regulatory oversight and controls on agricultural crops subject to genetic modification. 
Requiring GM assurances on a consignment -by-consignment basis does not improve regulatory 
outcomes. In  order to ensure that trade is not subject to unnecessary costs and additional regulatory 
burdens for both Australian exporters and Indian importers, Australia requests that India implements 
alternative arrangements which recognize the existing regulatory systems in place by countries to 
control GM exports. Australia maintains appropriate regulation of GM -crops and is able to provide 
assurances of which crops are and are not subject to GM. Australia appreciates India's cooperation 
in agreeing to a pathway f orward on this matter during FSSAI's recent visit to Australia in 2022. The 
agreed pathway moves this matter towards more open trade, in accordance with the principles of 
the recently signed Australia -India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement (AI -ECTA). Australia 
looks forward to further collaborative engagement with India on this matter.  
3.377.   The representative  of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan, like other Members, 
reiterates that the measure which requires 24 agricultural products imported by India to be 
accompanied by a certificate stating that they are not of genetically modified origin and do not 
contain genetic modification, is not based on scientific principles or proper risk assessment, and is a 
measure which is more trade -restrictive than necessary and could have negative impact on 
agricultural trade between India and other WTO Members. In Japan, under domestic laws, the 
import, distribution, cultivation, and other general uses of genetically modified agricultural products 
for human co nsumption are subject to safety evaluations, and agricultural products that are not 
approved by the evaluation process could not be imported nor distributed domestically. If certain 
items are already under appropriate control in the origin country, there i s no scientific rationale to 
require non -GM origin and GM -free certificates for those items. Japan requests India to withdraw 
 
72 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 651 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 95 - 
 
  the requirement to the attachment of certificates for foods that are properly controlled in the origin 
country.  
3.378.   The representative  of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada wishes to reiterate 
its concerns raised at previous TBT and SPS Committee meetings, as well as recent Council for Trade 
in Goods meetings, regarding India's August 2020 Order, which mandates  that a non -genetically 
modified or GM free certificate accompany imported consignments of 24 imported food products. 
India has stated that the requirement to regulate the import of "GM" food is not new, having been 
notified as the Environmental Protection  Act (1986), and that the requirement has not caused trade 
disruptions. Canada is not aware of this requirement having been enforced on imported foods to 
date. Canada views that India's Order unnecessarily restricts international trade, and 
disproportionat ely impacts the ability of GM -food producing countries to export to India, and could 
jeopardize India's food security objectives. Canada's concerns are detailed in comments submitted 
through India's TBT Enquiry Point in October 2020. We continue to await I ndia's response. While we 
understand India's commitment to ensuring the health and safety of its population, it remains 
unclear to Canada how India's non -GM certification requirement will fulfil its intended objective given 
the lack of available scientific  information and/or justification to support its implementation. We 
would like to emphasize that foods derived from GM sources have a long history of safety and 
nutrition as compared to non -GM foods, and undergo rigorous risk assessment processes under 
robust regulatory frameworks managed by many different competent authorities worldwide.  
3.379.   We call on India to share the scientific and technical information on which it has based its 
approach to support a transparent, predictable, risk - and science -based tradin g environment - in 
line with India's WTO commitments. Canada reiterates its request that India immediately suspend 
the implementation of this measure and allow trade to continue without a GM -free certificate 
requirement. We urge India to consider alternate , less trade -restrictive approaches that would meet 
India's objectives. Canada remains available and would welcome the opportunity to share its 
extensive experience regulating GM food safety while encouraging food innovation, and to pursue 
further discussi ons on this issue in a bilateral setting. Finally, Canada recalls its request for India to 
notify the non -GM Order to the SPS Committee given the Order's stated objective is "to ensure the 
safety and wholesomeness of articles of food imported into India. " 
3.380.   The representative  of Paraguay  provided the following statement. In the interest of time, we 
request that the statement made at the previous meeting be put on record in its entirety, and I will 
limit myself to repeating the question on the measures notifie d by India in documents  
G/TBT/N/IND/240  and G/SPS/N/IND/290  relating to the draft Food Safety and Standards 
(Genetically Modified Foods) Regulations, 2022, and their implications for the implementation of the 
Order of 21 August  2020.  In particular, it should be borne in mind that paragraph 2 of this Order 
states that the certification requirement is adopted to ensure that only non -GM food crops are 
imported into India, while regulations relating to products subject to g enetic engineering or 
modification are developed in accordance with Section 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act of 
2006.  
3.381.   Statement from March  2023 meeting, in full.73 Paraguay is concerned that this measure may 
create an unjustified assumption that GM  food products evaluated and authorized on the basis of 
sound regulatory processes are less safe than non -GM food products. GM products have undergone 
rigorous scientific safety assessments in accordance with international standards, guidelines and 
recommen dations to ensure that they are considered as safe as their conventional counterparts.  We 
request India, both in this Organization and in New Delhi, to reconsider this policy as it is not 
consistent with its obligations in this Organization.  We also echo t he questions posed by Uruguay on 
the recent measures notified by India and their implications for the implementation of the Order of 
21 August  2020.  
3.382.   The representative  of Argentina  provided the following statement. We appreciate Costa 
Rica's interest in La w No. 27.642 on the promotion of healthy eating and we reiterate that it is 
consistent with the rules contained in the TBT Agreement. At previous meetings of this Committee, 
Argentina has provided detailed explanations of the development and implementation  process of 
this Law.  In recent years, essential population studies were published in Argentina that allow for a 
closer characterization of the epidemiological situation relating to nutrition and food. This is 
characterized by ever -increasing consumption o f ultra -processed products and an increase in 
 
73 G/TBT/M/89 , para. 2.448.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 96 - 
 
  malnutrition rates, especially through excess, in all social groups. The excess consumption of critical 
nutrients regulated by labelling is associated with increased cardiovascular and cerebrovascular 
diseases,  obesity, diabetes, cancer and hypertension, among others, which are the cause of most 
deaths each year in Argentina.  Furthermore, studies carried out in 10 countries, including Argentina, 
also concluded that the consumption of products containing excess c ritical nutrients according to the 
Pan American Health Organization/WHO definition (which has been adopted by the Law and its 
regulations in Argentina) is associated with significant non -compliance with WHO recommendations 
on the intake of these nutrients.  Lastly, we reiterate our readiness to continue engaging bilaterally 
with the delegation of Costa Rica.  
3.383.   The representative of Uruguay  provided the following statement. Uruguay recognizes India's 
right to take measures to guarantee food safety and the healt h of its population.  However, there 
should be a logical connection between the proposed measure and the objective pursued, and in this 
case, beyond the answers provided by India so far, there appears to be no technical justification for 
the implementation of the proposed certification measure, taking into account the cited legitimate 
objective of ensuring the safety and wholesomeness of imported foods. In the light of this objective, 
we wish to reiterate that, in our opinion, this measure should be notified  to the SPS Committee.  We 
consider it fitting to recall, once again, the existing international consensus that genetically modified 
products, approved by exporting countries on the basis of Codex recommendations in relation to the 
risk assessment methodolo gy, are equivalent to their conventional counterparts.  Furthermore, 
Uruguay would like to stress how important it is for Members to establish measures based on 
scientific principles, and, in particular, for these measures to be implemented with the objecti ve of 
minimizing negative trade effects, in line with the SPS and TBT Agreements.  Lastly, we wish to 
reiterate the questions posed by Uruguay in the March and April 2023 meetings of the SPS and TBT 
Committees and the Goods Council, echoed by Paraguay, with  respect to the relationship between 
the measure referred to in this specific trade concern and the measure notified by India to the TBT 
and SPS Committees on 5 January 2023 (as documents G/TBT/N/IND/240  and G/SPS/N/IND/290 , 
respectively), regarding the Draft Food Safety and Standards (Genetically Modified Foods) 
Regulations, 2022.74 We remain attentive to any comments and replies of the delegation of India in 
relation to the questions and concerns of Me mbers, as have been presented for over two years by 
numerous delegations in both Geneva and New Delhi.  
3.384.   In response, the representative  of India provided the following statement. As on date import 
of GM foods are not allowed in India (as per Environment Pro tection Act, 1986 and FSS Act, 2006). 
Therefore, to ensure that only Non -GM food crops are imported into India, FSSAI has notified the 
requirement of Non -GM certificate to be accompanied with imported food consignment, which is only 
an assurance provided b y the Competent Authority of exporting country that the food crops which 
are not approved by GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee) are not imported in India and 
importer has to provide the certificate as per the format notified by FSSAI. On similar  lines, India 
has been issuing such certificates for its exports to other countries. Moreover, some countries have 
also established tolerance and traceability requirements for adventitious presence of GMOs, while 
others are in the process of developing or adopting legislation. The threshold for labelling of 
adventitious presence of approved GM material in non -GM grain varies from 0.9% (e.g., EU) to 5% 
(e.g., Japan).  
3.385.   Noting the restriction of GM foods in India, the tolerance limit for adventitious presence o f 
GMOs at 1% is permissible in imported food crops and the same was notified vide FSSAI order dated 
8 February 2021. Accordingly, import is permissible if the adventitious presence of GM content is 
 
74 "In this connection, we would like to recall that the Order of 21 August 2020, establishing the 
certification requirement for the importation of consignments of any of the 24 crops speci fied in its Annex, 
indicates in point 2 that this requirement is adopted to ensure that only non -GM food crops are imported into 
India while regulations relating to products subject to genetic engineering or modification are developed in 
accordance with Se ction 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006.  
The draft standard notified on 5 January 2023 refers in its recitals, inter alia , to Section 22 of the Food 
Safety and Standards Act 2006, which is the same as that referred to in the Order of 21 August  2020. In this 
regard, in line with the bilateral discussions on the margins of this meeting, we would like to request India to 
clarify the relationship between the two measures, if there is one, including whether or not the recently notified 
draft corresponds to the standard referred to in the Order of 21  August  2020.  
If so, does this mean that the certification requirement under the said Order will cease to apply once the 
draft standard notified on 5 January 2023, as it stands or modified, enters  into force? If not, could India inform 
this Committee of the status of development of regulations concerning products subject to genetic engineering 
or modification as provided for in Section 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006?"  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 97 - 
 
  less than notified tolerance limit. Further, GEAC has so f ar not approved any of the crop varieties of 
Genetically Modified/Engineered origin listed on the Order mentioned above. The requirement of a 
Non-GM certificate for import of 24 food crops is an assurance required from Competent Authorities 
of exporting co untries that the food crops exported to India are of Non -GM origin and GM -free. As 
on date, our several trade partners like, US, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Iran, China, Thailand and 
EU including Italy, Germany, France are already providing requisite certif icate and trade is going on 
smoothly. FSSAI is open to interact with trading partners for discussing the said matter in order to 
facilitate the trade.  
3.1.3.32   Republic of Korea - Revision of Safety Conformation Criteria for Textile Products 
for Infants, G/TBT/N/KOR/678  (ID 65275) 
3.386.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The EU would 
like to thank the Republic of Korea for its engagement on this issue. As agreed, we recently provided 
information to the Korean Agency for Test ing and Standards (KATS) regarding the foreign conformity 
assessment bodies willing to become designated by the relevant Korean labs. Therefore, we hope 
that the Republic of Korea can assist in proceeding with this designation in a timely manner in order 
for the mutual recognition of test results to be arranged so that tests can be carried out close to 
production sites, thereby reducing the environmental costs of shipping the clothing to Korea for 
testing.  
3.387.   In response, the representative  of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement. 
With regard to the safety conformation of Textile Products for Infants, Korea would like to inform 
the EU that the information the EU provided to the KATS (Korean Agency for Technology and 
Standards) has been forward ed to the relevant Korean testing labs, so that the labs can recognize 
what the EU hopes to achieve. The contract for mutual recognition is a matter to be dealt with 
between the designated testing laboratory and a foreign testing laboratory or institution,  and Korea 
informs the EU that once discussions between the testing laboratories for a contract have been 
made, the Korean government will faithfully fulfill its role under the Special Act on the Safety of 
Products for Children.  
3.1.3.33   India - Indian standards an d import restrictions in the automotive sector 
(Quality Control Orders): wheel rims, safety glass, helmets, G/TBT/N/IND/118 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/147 , G/TBT/N/IND/167  (ID 64976) 
3.388.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following s tatement. Although, the 
EU appreciates the deferment of implementation of QCO on wheel rims by six months, until 
22 December  2023, the EU remains concerned about the strict mandatory conformity assessment 
procedures in place for product in question. The EU  would like to reiterate its request to Indian 
authorities to consider preparing rules for international recognition of laboratories by the BIS, as 
foreseen by the legislation in place. This would speed -up audits and lower the cost of mandatory lab 
testing  in a BIS recognised lab for foreign manufacturers. Given that the QCO on safety glass has 
already entered into force, the EU understands that India will not suspend it. However, we would 
like to stress that this matter remains an important trade deterrent  for the EU wheel rims 
manufacturers exporting to India. This matter, therefore, remains a trade concern for the European 
Union and we will seek other channels of cooperation to work with India to further promote at least 
provisional acceptance of UN type approvals and markings.  
3.389.   In response, the representative  of India provided the following statement. The Safety Glass 
(Quality Control) Order 2020 has been subjected to three extensions basis requests received, 
indicating that sufficient time has been grante d to foreign and domestic manufacturers. Secondly, 
the concerns raised by EU have already been replied in the previous Committee meeting.  
 
75 For previou s statements follow the thread under ID 652 . 
76 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 649 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 98 - 
 
  3.1.3.34   Mexico - Conformity Assessment Procedure under Mexican Official Standard 
NOM -223-SCFI/SAGARPA - 2018, "Cheese Names, Sp ecifications, Commercial 
Information, and Test Methods," published on 31 January 2019, G/TBT/N/MEX/465 , 
G/TBT/N/MEX/465/Re v.1 (ID 67877) 
3.390.   The representative  of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
submitted comments on G/TBT/N/MEX/465/Rev.1  on 3 May 2022, and has not received a response. 
The United States remains concerned about the scope and implementation of the measure. Could 
Mexico provide a timeline for when it will respond to WTO Members' comments? Please provide an 
update on the status of this measure and an estimated timeframe of whe n the revised measure will 
be notified to the WTO. In November 2022, Mexico shared that the measure was in the final stage 
of review by Mexico's Ministry of Economy legal team. The United States reiterates its request that 
Mexico consider allowing fatty ac id analysis to be voluntary rather than mandatory. Currently, there 
are no internationally well -accepted biomarkers to differentiate milk fat from all vegetable fat, and 
there are no relevant internationally accepted testing methods available for this type  of analysis. 
The United States is concerned this measure may conflict with the ongoing redrafting of the 
corresponding cheese standard. How will Mexico harmonize the 2019 update to the NOM -223 cheese 
standard, with the NOM -223 cheese CAP versions develope d through 2020 –2021, and an expected 
2022 update to the NOM -223 cheese standard?  
3.391.   Once finalized, will implementation of the measure move forward based on Mexico's Quality 
Infrastructure Law or the law it replaced, the Federal Law on Metrology and Standardi zation? We 
request that Mexico provide an outline of the different roles that each Ministry will play in the 
monitoring, compliance, and verification activities listed in the draft measure. We continue to have 
several significant concerns and questions abo ut this measure's scope and implementation and 
request that Mexico indefinitely delay implementation or implement no earlier than 1 July 2024.  
3.392.   The representative  of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia would like to 
reiterate its concerns stared at the last seven previous TBT Committee meetings that Mexico's 
measure notified as G/TBT/N/MEX/465  and associated revision appears discriminatory and more 
trade restrictive than necessary. Australia recognizes the original objectives of the proposed 
measures and welcomes the review of the procedure in light of Mexico's international commitments. 
Like the US, we look forward to receiving Mexico's reply to our comments on its revised notification. 
We kindly request an update for the release dat e of the new version of the procedure for public 
consultation and at the TBT Committee.  
3.393.   The representative  of New Zealand  provided the following statement. New Zealand welcomes 
the opportunity to again speak in support of this specific trade concern raised  by the United States. 
New Zealand considers that the conformity assessment procedures that Mexico has set out for 
cheese under NOM -223 are more trade restrictive than necessary, with some aspects of the 
conformity assessment procedure creating unnecessary  obstacles to international trade and likely to 
cause difficulties for New Zealand exporters. We support the request for Mexico to consider less 
trade -restrictive alternatives to the measures. We look forward to receiving a response from Mexico 
to the conc erns raised, and an update on the status of any revised version of the Conformity 
Assessment Procedure.  
3.394.   In response, the representative  of Mexico  provided the following statement. With regard to 
NOM-223-SCFI/SAGARPA -2018, we wish to inform you that the com petent authorities (Ministry of 
Economic Affairs and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) are still in the process of 
analysing the 174 comments received from national and foreign interested parties during the 
consultation period.  The Government of Mexico will be in a position to notify the delegations that 
raised this concern and all WTO Members once the above -mentioned analysis period concludes.  This 
process will continue to be carried out in strict compliance with the obligations under the WTO TBT 
Agreement and in the free trade agreements to which Mexico is party.  
 
77 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 678 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 99 - 
 
  3.1.3.35   Colombia – Good manufacturing practices of overseas production 
establishments, G/TBT/N/COL/242  (ID 69778) 
3.395.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union would like to thank Colombia for its engagement in the WTO TBT Committee and for the 
extensive bilateral discussions. The EU understands that Colombia is currently in the process of 
amending the relevan t Decree to remove the GMP certification requirement and welcomes this 
development. In this respect, the EU would be thankful for a confirmation of this understanding and 
for any further information on this process, notably on the envisaged timeline and co ntent of 
amendments. The EU would like to thank again Colombia for their cooperation in this matter.  
3.396.   In response, the representative  of Colombia  provided the following statement. First, I would 
like to express our gratitude for the comments made on previous occasions and at this meeting.  
Second, I would like to highlight the work that has been carried out by the health authorities of 
Colombia and the countries concerned, with a view to clarifying the concerns raised regarding this 
measure.  At the sam e time, consultations and meetings have been held at the national level to 
assess possible adjustments and seek alternatives to facilitate trade or relax the requirements. This 
is, of course, without prejudice to compliance with the sanitary conditions for  the manufacture of 
alcoholic beverages.  It should be noted that the process of adjusting the provisions is duly under 
way in accordance with the rules in force concerning the preparation, modification and issuance of 
technical regulations, led by our regu latory body, in this case the Ministry of Health.  To conclude, 
we reiterate our willingness to continue working to clarify the comments made and suggest ways of 
overcoming this trade concern.  
3.1.3.36   Mongolia - Draft Law on controlling the circulation of alcohol b everages, and 
fight against alcoholism, G/TBT/N/MNG/14  (ID 73079) 
3.397.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The EU would 
like to thank Mongolia for their reply regarding the possibility to affix tax stamps in a bonded 
warehouse in Mongolia before products enter the market. That said, it appears that no formal or 
public statement has been issued by Mongolia on this topic. Therefore, as operators need a formal 
confirmation in an official government document that confirms this option to affix tax stamps in a 
bonded warehouse, the EU would like to ask Mongolia to provide this legal certainty. Given the 
imminence of the entry into force of this measure on 1 July 2023, this official confirmation would 
need to be provided extre mely quickly. If it is the case that there has been no change to the relevant 
legislation, we would be grateful to Mongolia if they could provide the link to the specific official 
government legislation (in Mongolian).  
3.398.   In response, the representative  of Mongolia  provided the following statement. In response 
to the EU's raised concerns, Mongolia would like to kindly inform that the adoption of the Law on 
Controlling the Circulation of Alcoholic Beverages and Combating Alcoholism of Mongolia did not 
result in  any amendments to the Law on Customs of Mongolia. Consequently, matters concerning 
bonded warehouses are regulated by the provisions outlined in the Law on Customs, specifically 
Chapter Ten of said law. Please refer to the following link for the unofficia l translation of this law: 
https://legalinfo.mn/mn/detail?lawId=209 . 
3.1.3.37   India - Order related to requirement of Health certificate accompanied with 
imported food consign ment of Milk and Milk Products, Pork and Pork Products & Fish and 
Fish Products, G/TBT/N/IND/233  (ID 78080) 
3.399.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union would like to refer to its previous statements on this matter. The EU would like to thank India 
for postponing the entering into force of the three health certificates, until further notice as well as 
for providing a list of HS product codes associated to products/food categories. The EU would like to 
ask India to: Avoid the duplication of sanitary measures in and associated to the different certificates 
for the import of the same products, which are required by different competent authorities of India; 
Clarify the modalities related to audits to the ex porting countries, inspections of facilities, 
questionnaires, regionalization, border checks and listing of establishments associated to all the 
 
78 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 697 . 
79 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 730 . 
80 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 780 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 100 - 
 
  certificates, if and when these requirements will be made obligatory by any of the India authorities; 
and notif y to the WTO TBT and SPS Committees the above -mentioned modalities and all future 
health certificates well in advance of the date of their entering into force, to ensure full transparency 
and timely follow -up by all the competent authorities, producers and  exporters. Finally, the EU 
reiterates its availability to cooperate with the competent authorities of India, to enhance mutual 
understanding and avoid unnecessary and unjustified disruptions to trade.  
3.400.   The representative  of Australia  provided the following  statement. Australia supports the 
concerns raised by other Members on this issue. Australia respects India's commitment to protect 
the safety standards for food products imported into India. Australia thanks India for providing 
clarification on the requir ements of the certification order, including that a single certificate 
incorporating both FSSAI's and DAHD's requirements is acceptable, that certificate template 
components that contain duplicative commercial information and duplicative attestations with 
existing certification need not be included. Australia maintains a well -established, robust export 
system and is a source of reliable, wholesome, and safe agricultural exports. Australia's export 
system is underpinned by a strong regulatory framework enfor ced through compliance with 
Australia's export control legislation. This legislation provides trading partners with assurance that 
exported food products are free from harmful contaminants, are suitable for human consumption, 
and that importing country req uirements are met. Australia is eager to continue working with India 
to negotiate mutually agreeable health certification for imports of Australian milk and milk products 
into India. Australia encourages India to consider an outcomes -based approach to heal th certification 
and take into consideration trading partners regulatory framework which, in Australia's case, 
provides the required assurance to FSSAI that India's import food safety standards are being met. 
As noted in previous statement Australia would appreciate India's assurance that existing health 
certification for milk and milk products, previously bilaterally agreed with DAHD, will continue to be 
accepted until certification negotiations are concluded.  
3.401.   The representative  of Japan  provided the follo wing statement. Japan reiterates again its 
concerns regarding India's Order related to requirement of health certificate accompanied with 
imported food consignment of milk, pork, fish and related products. According to the India's TBT 
notification, the fin al date for comments for the notification was set as the middle of October 2022, 
and proposed date of adoption and entry into force of the Order was advised as 1 November 2022, 
which was just two weeks after the closing date for the comments. Then, India h as announced the 
extension of the date of implementation, and a specific date of implementation has not announced 
yet. Although Japan appreciates India's decision to extend the date of implementation, we still think 
that India should set sufficient transit ion period before the implementation of the Order in order to 
allow time for exporting Members to adapt their system to the new health certificate forms. Last but 
not least, Japan notes that one of the objectives of India's Order is to ensure the safety of  imported 
food products into India. If that is the case, Japan considers that India should notify the Order under 
the SPS Agreement as well.  
3.402.   The representative  of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada was pleased to learn 
that the implementation of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) new certification 
requirements has been delayed until further notice, until India's competent authorities work to 
develop joint certificates. Canada notes a number of concerns with the new FSSAI certi fication 
requirements which reference Indian regulations, requirements and product standards. Canada 
strongly encourages India to streamline certification requirements and base requirements on 
international standards. In addition, Canada reiterates the nee d to provide sufficient time between 
the adoption and entry into force of these new requirements to allow time for trading partners to 
adapt. In closing, Canada looks forward to India notifying trade partners of the joint certificate and 
providing an oppor tunity to comment. Canada requests India notify the SPS Committee of the joint 
certificate given that India's proposed regulation covers food safety measures aimed at protecting 
human health and safety.  
3.403.   The representative  of New Zealand  provided the follow ing statement. New Zealand thanks 
FSSAI for the interactive process that was undertaken to gain approval for the New Zealand 
certificates and supports their goal in ensuring India has robust food safety requirements. We would 
like to note that for future c hanges to certification requirements, consideration should be given to 
longer implementation periods, factoring in time to consider submissions on the relevant WTO 
notification, and time for countries to do any required assessment and implement changes to 
requirements accordingly. A minimum of six months, but preferably twelve months, would likely 
provide countries sufficient time for adequate implementation. Our exporters have also had some G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 101 - 
 
  issues with clearance by DAHD officials since this change and look  forward to consolidated certificate 
requirements that meet India's food safety and biosecurity needs, while also facilitating trade. New 
Zealand recommends that DAHD and FSSAI processes be coordinated prior to any new food safety 
certification requirement s to avoid duplication for no added food safety benefit.  
3.404.   In response, the representative  of India provided the following statement. The requirement 
of sanitary export certificate for categories of food products as specified by the Food Authority is one 
of the mandatory requirement as per the regulatory provision prescribed in Chapter "Risk based 
framework for import clearance " under Clause 11.2(b) of Food Safety and Standards (Import) 
Regulations 2017. In pursuance of the above and to envisage robust food safety and monitoring 
system, FSSAI has notified the requirement of Health Certificate to be accompanied with the 
imported f ood consignments of Milk and Milk products, Pork and Pork products, and Fish and Fish 
products. The requirement of Health Certificate is a pre -import requirement, which is only an 
assurance provided by the Competent Authorities of exporting countries that the food products (as 
notified) are in compliance with safety requirements as specified by FSSAI. The requirement was 
notified in WTO -TBT for comments/inputs from the Members. However, various concerns regarding 
the number of certificates and extension for  implementation of the Health Certificate were received 
from the Member countries. Accordingly, considering the comments received from various trading 
partners, the requirement of Health Certificate has been deferred till further order.  
3.1.3.38   Argentina - Decree Implementing Law No. 27.642 on the Promotion of Healthy 
Eating, G/TBT/N/ARG/435 ; G/TBT/N/ARG/435/Add.1  (ID 77281) 
3.405.   The representative  of Costa Rica  provided the following statement. Costa Rica wishes once 
again to express its conc ern regarding the Argentine regulation on the promotion of healthy eating, 
doing so in support of a systemic defence of the principles of the TBT Agreement relating to the 
adoption of measures based on scientific evidence and the harmonization of rules thr ough the use 
of regulations issued by international reference organizations such as the Codex Alimentarius. Costa 
Rica is concerned by the lack of harmonization among the various food labelling standards and 
regulations, which has led to the proliferation of schemes with different content percentages for 
requiring a warning, thereby creating unnecessary barriers to trade. Costa Rica wishes once again 
to stress the importance of harmonizing food labelling schemes, on the basis provided by the Codex 
Alimentar ius, and encourages other Members to actively participate in the discussions on front -of-
pack labelling within this international reference organization. Costa Rica undertakes to maintain an 
open dialogue between both countries' delegations to the WTO, wit h the aim of exchanging 
communications and information relating to the new Argentine regulation.  
3.406.   In response, the representative of Argentina  provided the following statement.  We 
appreciate Costa Rica's interest in Law No. 27.642 on the promotion of health y eating and we 
reiterate that it is consistent with the rules contained in the TBT Agreement. At previous meetings 
of this Committee, Argentina has provided detailed explanations of the development and 
implementation process of this Law. In recent years, essential population studies were published in 
Argentina that allow for a closer characterization of the epidemiological situation relating to nutrition 
and food. This is characterized by ever -increasing consumption of ultra -processed products and an 
increase in malnutrition rates, especially through excess, in all social groups. The excess 
consumption of critical nutrients regulated by labelling is associated with increased cardiovascular 
and cerebrovascular diseases, obesity, diabetes, cancer and hyperten sion, among others, which are 
the cause of most deaths each year in Argentina. Furthermore, studies carried out in 10 countries, 
including Argentina, also concluded that the consumption of products containing excess critical 
nutrients according to the Pan American Health Organization/WHO definition (which has been 
adopted by the Law and its regulations in Argentina) is associated with significant non -compliance 
with WHO recommendations on the intake of these nutrients. Lastly, we reiterate our readiness to 
continue engaging bilaterally with the delegation of Costa Rica.  
 
81 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 772 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 102 - 
 
  3.1.3.39   India - Public Consultation for declaring two or more prime constituents of the 
commodity on the front side of the package/Revision of Legal Metrology (Packaged 
Commodities Rules), 2011 (ID 7 6582) 
3.407.   The representative  of the United States  provided the following statement. In August of 2022, 
the Department of Consumer Affairs, Legal Metrology Division, circulated a public consultation, 
titled: "Inviting Public Consultation for declaring two or mo re prime constituents of the commodity 
on front side of the package with the Brand Name/ Logo, " which proposed to amend the Legal 
Metrology (Packaged Commodities Rules), 2011. At the March 2023 WTO TBT Committee meeting, 
India acknowledged the comments of the United States and industry stakeholders and indicated that 
the measure is being examined. We refer India to our previous specific comments raised in the 
November 2022 TBT Committee and welcome any updates India may be able to share. As we 
understand th at the measure is now on hold, we have no further comments to raise in the Committee 
at this time. However, if India decides to move forward with this measure, we request that India 
notify a draft to the Committee, provide at least a 60 -day comment period,  and take any comments 
received into account before finalizing and adopting the measure. We thank India for its 
consideration of the US comments.  
3.408.   In response, the representative  of India provided the following statement. The draft was 
circulated by Indian authorities inviting Public Consultation for declaring two or more prime 
constituents of the commodity on front side of the package with the Brand Name / Logo until 
31 August 2022. The comments of US based industries were also received and are under 
examin ation. The provision is being considered in the interest of consumers and is applicable to all 
the industries viz. indigenous manufacturers and importers.  
3.1.3.40   Panama - Onions and Potatoes Harvest Life and Sprouting Requirements, 
G/TBT/N/PAN/86 , G/TBT/N/PAN/102 , G/TBT/N/PAN/102/Ad d.1 (ID 66283) 
3.409.   The representative  of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada continues to be 
concerned with Panama's quality requirements for fresh potatoes, implemented in February 2020, 
which are having a direc t impact on Canada's ability to export potatoes to Panama. Canada would 
like to refer to its previous intervention at WTO TBT meetings on this item and ask it to be included 
in the meeting record as the situation has not changed. Canada respectfully reques ts that Panama 
pause the enforcement of these requirements to allow for additional technical dialogue to occur and 
ensure that Panama's quality standards do not continue to create unintended barriers to our mutually 
beneficial bilateral trade in agricultur e. Canada would also welcome a bilateral meeting with Panama 
to discuss potential courses of action to enable Canadian exports of potatoes to resume.  
3.410.   In response, the representative of Panama  provided the following statement. Panama thanks 
Canada for its c omments and continued interest in this matter. I have taken due note of your 
concerns. Panama remains open to dialogue and to finding mutually satisfactory solutions. In the 
past, dialogue led us to extend the measure concerning onions. My capital is open to continuing the 
bilateral technical dialogue with Canada and all our trading partners. Chair, Panama reaffirms its 
commitment to transparency and reiterates that any update will be duly shared with and notified to 
this Committee.  
3.1.3.41   European Union - Chlorothalonil (pesticide active substance), G/TBT/N/EU/625  
(ID 57984) 
3.411.   The representative  of Costa Rica  provided the following statement. Costa Rica wishes to 
reiterate this concern and refers to previous statements expressing its con cern about the measure 
notified by the EU in document G/TBT/N/EU/625 , which relates to the non -renewal of the approval 
of the active substance chlorothalonil. Costa Rica thanks the EU for its willingness to discuss 
agrochemicals policy, taking into co nsideration international foreign trade -related obligations and 
the agricultural and environmental policy objectives of the member countries of the international 
community. Costa Rica also reiterates its request and its commitment to leaving nobody behind in 
the implementation of its Green Deal policy.  
 
82 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 765 . 
83 For previous statements follow the thread  under ID 662 . 
84 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 579 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 103 - 
 
  3.412.   The representative  of Brazil  provided the following statement. Brazil supports STC 579 and 
refers to its previous statements on the matter. We believe that the EU's decision to base measures 
on a hazard -based  approach, without an adequate risk analysis and with no compliance with long -
standing scientific principles is inconsistent with WTO rules. The non -renewal of approval for 
chlorothalonil by the EU did not duly consider that it is currently authorized in m ore than 100 
countries, and that the MRLs allowed by Codex could reach up to 70 mg/kg. We stress our systemic 
concern with the fact that some hazard -based analyses conducted by the European Food Safety 
Agency (EFSA) led to the non -renewal of approvals of s ome substances and subsequently to the 
reduction of their MRLs. The Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency has set MRLs for chlorothalonil 
applied to more than 30 crops. The case of chlorothalonil is particularly harmful towards Brazil's 
producers of banana, c offee, citrus fruits, papaya and watermelon, among other products.  
3.413.   The representative  of Paraguay  provided the following statement. This concern and the 
non-renewal of the approval of chlorothalonil and other substances were already discussed 
extensively b oth in this Committee and in the SPS Committee because of the subsequent reduction 
of MRLs.  We once again request that the European Union take into consideration information on 
pesticides provided by the specialized agencies recognized by the WTO, such as the Codex 
Alimentarius. We also ask it to reconsider its approach and base its decisions on conclusive scientific 
evidence and real risk weightings, in accordance with international standards and principles, and 
ensure import tolerances.  
3.414.   The representative  of Ecuador  provided the following statement. Ecuador once again thanks 
Members for including this concern on the Committee's agenda and reiterates its support for this 
concern regarding the non -renewal of approval for use of the active substance chlorothalonil.  
Chlorothalonil is mainly used for controlling black sigatoka in bananas, as a fast -acting fungicide 
with a multi -site mode of action, meaning that the risk of fungal resistance is low. It should be 
mentioned that the options for multi -site substances remain scarce as no new substitutes have been 
identified which are not also under review by the European Union, as is the case for mancozeb and 
metiram.  The climate in Ecuador is tropical, so pests and their behaviour are different from those in  
the EU. Certain active substances and their formulations are indispensable in agricultural production 
to prevent crop losses and resulting harmful economic and social effects.  Therefore, Ecuador urges 
the EU to consider the particular circumstances of tro pical countries when implementing the 
measures adopted and to take a more balanced approach in line with the Codex Alimentarius. 
Ecuador understands that for an MRL to be established, banned or lowered there must be conclusive 
scientific information demons trating a real health impact.  Reducing the MRL for chlorothalonil could 
have a huge impact on the banana sector in my country. This sector makes a substantial contribution 
in providing jobs for 2.5 million people. Exports of this product account for a sign ificant share of the 
country's foreign exchange earnings  and this equates to 2% of GDP.  Therefore, Ecuador urges the 
EU to take into consideration this issue.  
3.415.   The representative  of Colombia  provided the following statement. This statement refers to 
STCs 763, 579 and 627 , relating to the substances chlorothalonil, mancozeb, clothianidin and 
thiamethoxam.  Colombia is aware of the importance of consuming foods free from excess pesticide 
residues in line with international safety recommendations. To this end, our health authorities are 
going to great lengths with the productive sectors to ensure that food meets these requirements 
and standards.  However, the prohibition and subsequent non -renewal of the approval of active 
substances such as chlorothalonil, manco zeb, clothianidin and thiamethoxam is hitting our country's 
agricultural export sector hard.  The search for alternatives to the substances that have been banned 
or whose approval is being modified necessarily requires time and investment, especially when 
potential alternatives are also becoming scarcer owing to the EU's changes to phytosanitary 
regulations as part of the Green Deal or the Farm to Fork Strategy, for example.  In the non -renewal 
or modification of approval for active substances, it is essentia l to take into account processes and 
production methods in countries that could be affected. Failing to do so would violate the TBT 
Agreement, which stipulates that technical regulations must not be more trade restrictive than 
necessary.  We therefore invit e the European Union to support solutions that would allow our 
agricultural producers to continue meeting European demand for food, to the benefit not only of 
developing countries but also the multilateral trading system, which has already been hit hard by  
this and other measures.  
3.416.   In response, the representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. As 
explained in detail at several previous meetings, the EU proposed not to renew the approval of G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 104 - 
 
  Chlorothalonil through Commission Implementi ng Regulation (EU) 2019/67785, adopted on 29 April 
2019 and previously notified to the TBT Committee. This was based on a peer -reviewed risk 
assessment carried out by a European member State (the so -called "rapporteur " member State) 
and the European Food S afety Authority. Several serious concerns were raised by the Authority, so 
that the approval conditions for the substance were not fulfilled. As regards consumer safety, EFSA 
identified a genotoxicity concern for residues to which consumers will be exposed . Following the 
non-renewal of approval decision and based on the fact that consumer health concerns were 
identified by EFSA, the EU prepared a draft Regulation lowering the Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) 
for Chlorothalonil to the relevant limits of quantif ication. The draft Regulation was notified to the 
WTO/SPS Committee ( G/SPS/N/EU/394 ) and published after its adoption as Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2021/15586 of 9 February 2021. The EU wishes to emphasise that, although the substance 
chlorothalonil also meets the cut off criteria, decisions on MRLs in the EU are always based on a risk 
assessment and that this approach has been followed also for chlorothalonil. The new MRL values 
are applicable to all food products since 2 September 2021. Since then, there has been no further 
developments in the EU on this substance as no new data to support import tolerances were 
received. Import tolerance requests, which need to be supported by substantial new data addressing 
the concerns, remain possible and will be  assessed on a case -by-case basis by the "rapporteur " 
member State and EFSA.  
3.1.3.42   India - Air Conditioner and its related Parts (Quality Control) Order, 2019, 
G/TBT/N/IND/74 , G/TBT/N/IND/110  (ID 59887) 
3.417.   The representative  of China  provided the following statement. 1. China thanks India for 
extending the transition period of regulations such as QCO regulations on air conditioning. However, 
there are still a large backlog of  factory inspections that cannot be carried out in time, and samples 
taken during on -site factory inspections need to be shipped back to India for testing, Chinese 
enterprises have great difficulties in obtaining BIS certification before the implementation  of the 
regulations. China urged India to improve the efficiency of factory inspections by implementing 
factory inspections on Chinese manufacturers as soon as possible, or to further delay the 
implementation of regulations such as those on air conditionin g and refrigeration equipments when 
factory inspections are not available or cannot be provided quickly.  2. China suggests that India 
could improve the transparency information on factory inspections and release information on 
factory inspection schedules timely to facilitate enterprises’ production arrangements.  3. In order to 
accelerate factory inspections, China once again suggests that India could implement alternative 
measures, such as temporary factory inspection exemption for a limited period, remote  factory 
inspections or inspections conducted by recognized third parties.  4. China appreciates India's efforts 
on improving its domestic testing capabilities and realizes that India has indicated that BIS can 
recognize overseas laboratories. But the way o verseas laboratories get accredition is unclear and 
lacks transparency. China is not aware of any overseas laboratories that have been accredited by 
BIS. China urged India to provide open and transparent information guidelines for overseas 
laboratories to be accredited.  
3.418.   In response, the representative  of India provided the following statement. BIS is not able to 
carry out preliminary inspection for Chinese manufacturers due to COVID -19 pandemic. Bureau of 
Indian Standards under its Laboratory Recognition Sc heme (BIS LRS) grants recognition to outside 
laboratories for testing of products as per the relevant Indian Standards. The Laboratory Recognition 
Scheme is governed by provision under section 13(4) of BIS Act, 2016 and Rule 32 of BIS Rules, 
2018. These st atutory provision confers upon BIS, powers to recognize any laboratory in India or 
outside India for carrying out testing of samples in relation to Conformity Assessment and such other 
functions as the Bureau may assign to it.  
3.419.   Clause 12 of BIS LRS details the complete procedure of recognition of foreign laboratories. 
The decision regarding recognition of foreign laboratories will be taken by BIS taking into account 
 
85 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/677 of 29 April 2019 concerning the non -renewal of 
the approval of the active substance chlorothalonil, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of t he 
European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and 
amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011. OJ L 114, 30.04.2019, p. 15.  
86 Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/155 of 9 February 2 021 amending Annexes II, III and V to 
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue 
levels for carbon tetrachloride, chlorothalonil, chlorpropham, dimethoate, ethoprophos, fenamidone, 
methiocarb, ometh oate, propiconazole and pymetrozine in or on certain products. OJ L 46, 10.2.2021, p. 5.  
87 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 598 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 105 - 
 
  the MRA (Mutual Recognition Agreement) with the concerned nation. BIS LRS is available on BIS  
website www.bis.gov.in  under "laboratory services " tab. As on date, there is no pending application 
from any laboratory located outside India seeking recognition from BIS in complianc e to the 
provisions of LRS. The product certification schemes operated by BIS are governed by the BIS 
(Conformity Assessment) Regulations, 2018 notified by the Central Government. Presently, there is 
no provision to undertake virtual inspection towards pro duct certification under these regulations.  
3.1.3.43   European Union - Non-renewal of the approval of the active substance 
mancozeb, G/TBT/N/EU/712 ; G/TBT/N/EU/797 , G/SPS/GEN/1494/Rev.1  (ID 62788) 
3.420.   The representative  of Kenya  provided the following statement. Kenya reiterates her previous 
statement on this Specific Trade Concern. Kenya raised this as a Specific Trade Concern in the 
previous TBT Committee meeting and continues to have concerns over the same issue. Kenya takes 
note of the EU's response given in the March 2023 TBT Committee meeting non -renewal of the 
approval of the active substance mancozeb. The non -renewal of the approval of the active substance 
Mancozeb and EUs response on the restrictive use of Mancozeb under the EU Chemicals legislation 
(REACH) is likely to be discriminatory. This will restrict Kenya's products from accessing the EU 
market which is deemed to be inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. The active 
substance Mancozeb is an important mo lecule in pest control in Kenya. Mancozeb containing 
products are used in the agriculture sector for the control of a wide range of fungal diseases found 
in the tropics. Its use is critical in the flower industry, which is a leading sector in terms of the 
Kenya's GDP and also employing thousands of Kenyans thus impacting livelihoods.  
3.421.   Mancozeb has been an important molecule in relation to fungal pathogens control on a 
number of vegetable crops including potato, Tomato, Onions among others. There are no avail able 
alternatives to offer multisite fungicide for control of early and late blight on the above crops; which 
cause annual yield losses of up to 60 -70% on the 4.5 -5.5 million Metric Tonnes (USD 1.9 Billion) of 
potato, 560,000 Metric Tonnes (USD 333 million ) of tomato respectively produced in Kenya for local 
consumption. Mancozeb has a multi -site contact activity which is a key aspect for resistance 
Management. Kenya wishes to raise this STC since the Measure is deemed to be more trade 
restrictive than neces sary contrary to Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. The proposed measure 
would be deemed to be in contravention of Article 12.3 of the TBT Agreement which requires that 
"Members shall, in the preparation and application of technical regulations, standards a nd conformity 
assessment procedures, take account of the special development, financial and trade needs of 
developing country Members, with a view to ensuring that such technical regulations, standards and 
conformity assessment procedures do not create unn ecessary obstacles to exports from developing 
country Members ". Kenya requests the European Union to consider the withdrawal of the Regulation 
as the measure is more trade restrictive than necessary.  
3.422.   The representative  of Australia  provided the following s tatement. Australia reiterates 
concerns with the EU's non -renewal of Mancozeb. There is limited availability for alternatives to 
Mancozeb so this decision significantly impacts trade. Australia emphasises the EU's hazard -based 
approach does not adequately assess risk of potential harm because it does not consider the level 
of exposure. Australia notes the EU's statement made in the previous meeting that the European 
Food Safety Authority (the EFSA) expects to publish its scientific opinion on dithiocarbamat es in the 
first half of 2023. We welcome information on the EFSA's scientific opinion on concerns previously 
outlined. We also note our competent domestic authority – the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary 
Medicines Authority – and Codex have determined MRLs for dithiocarbamates that ensure the 
continued protection of human, animal and environmental health while allowing trade to continue.  
3.423.   The representative  of Costa Rica  provided the following statement. Costa Rica wishes to 
reiterate its concern regardi ng the draft Implementing Regulation notified by the EU in 
G/SPS/N/EU/384 , under which approval for the use of mancozeb would not be renewed. We support 
the statements made by the delegations that have joined as proponents of this concern.  
3.424.   The repres entative  of Colombia  provided the following statement. This statement refers to 
STCs 763, 579 and 627 , relating to the substances chlorothalonil, mancozeb, clothianidin and 
thiamethoxam.  Colombia is aware of the importance of consuming foods free from exce ss pesticide 
residues in line with international safety recommendations. To this end, our health authorities are 
going to great lengths with the productive sectors to ensure that food meets these requirements 
 
88 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 627 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 106 - 
 
  and standards.  However, the ban and subsequent non-renewal of the approval of active substances 
such as chlorothalonil, mancozeb, clothianidin and thiamethoxam is hitting our country's agricultural 
export sector hard.  The search for alternatives to the substances that have been banned or whose 
approval  is being modified necessarily requires time and investment, especially when potential 
alternatives are also becoming scarcer owing to the EU's changes to phytosanitary regulations as 
part of the Green Deal or the Farm to Fork Strategy, for example.  In the  non-renewal or modification 
of approval for active substances, it is essential to take into account processes and production 
methods in countries that could be affected. Failing to do so would violate the TBT Agreement, which 
stipulates that technical reg ulations must not be more trade restrictive than necessary.  We therefore 
invite the European Union to support solutions that would allow our agricultural producers to 
continue meeting European demand for food, to the benefit not only of developing countrie s but also 
the multilateral trading system, which has already been hit hard by this and other measures.  
3.425.   The representative  of Paraguay  provided the following statement. This concern and the 
non-renewal of the approval of other substances were already discu ssed extensively both in this 
Committee and in the SPS Committee because of the subsequent reduction in the MRLs. Paraguay 
therefore refers to its previous statements and reiterates its cross -cutting concern with regard to 
the EU's decision not to renew th e approval of these substances without a proper risk analysis and 
without complying with scientific principles.  The arguments in favour of the use of this substance 
have not changed either, and these are shared by the EU, or at least by several of its memb ers, who 
consider them sufficient to provide emergency authorizations. We therefore request that the entirety 
of the statement made by my delegation at the previous meeting be recorded in the minutes.  I 
would like to reiterate that Paraguay and other Membe rs have raised a series of questions about this 
and other measures. In Paraguay's case, these questions will be recorded in the minutes since they 
were mentioned in our statement at the previous meeting. We hope that the EU can provide full 
answers.  
3.426.   Statement from March  2023 meeting, in full.89 There are some new developments that we 
would like to discuss, but have yet to receive answers to the questions we have submitted. This is 
the same statement that I delivered at the previous meeting, hoping for  different results and full 
answers from the EU to the questions submitted in the SPS Committee and in this one. This concern 
and the non -renewal of the approval of other substances were already discussed extensively both in 
this Committee and in the SPS C ommittee because of the subsequent reduction in the MRLs. 
Paraguay therefore refers to its previous statements and reiterates its cross -cutting concern with 
regard to the EU's decision not to renew the approval of these substances without a proper risk 
analysis and without complying with scientific principles.  
3.427.   The arguments in favour of the use of this substance have not changed either, and these 
are shared by the EU, or at least by several of its members, who consider them sufficient to provide 
emergency a uthorizations, as follows:  - the lack of available alternatives to protect against some 
pests;  - the importance of mancozeb to avoid problems with resistance and, in general;  - the 
production and financial losses caused by some pests that only this substan ce can combat effectively.  
With regard to these emergency authorizations, we have already heard the EU say that the measures 
are only in place for 120 days, but we recall that there is no limit to the number of times that they 
can be renewed.  
3.428.   We see, for example, how many of the emergency authorizations for mancozeb are given 
for approximately the same annual period (roughly June to September or October), probably linked 
to the threshold of humidity and warm temperatures that increase the prevalence of  some of the 
fungi that are effectively and safely controlled by substances like mancozeb.  Imagine, how much 
more often these thresholds are reached in subtropical countries like Paraguay with climatic 
conditions very different from those of the European U nion. We have also heard the EU explain that 
emergency authorizations are not intended to facilitate trade, unlike import tolerances, but we have 
not received answers to repeated written questions on the specific mechanisms used to grant 
emergency authoriz ations and to ensure that products with temporary MRLs are kept within the 
borders of the authorizing member, and on the consistency between these authorizations and alleged 
concerns about the use of these substances. Here we note not only the discriminati on that exists in 
practice between EU producers and trading partners but also an inconsistency between the legitimate 
objective pursued and the actions taken to achieve it. ¨ 
 
89 G/TBT/M/89 , paras. 2.223 -2.227.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 107 - 
 
  3.429.   Furthermore, we have heard that, although emergency authorizations are granted by EU 
members, the EFSA reviews them if it considers that they are not properly justified. However, we 
note that even in cases where the EFSA considers that an emergency authorization is not properly 
justified, there are no restrictions on new emergency autho rizations, which continue to be approved 
by the same members for the control of the same pests on the same crops for which the EFSA 
concluded that the use of the substance was not properly justified.  Paraguay shares the objectives 
that the EU seeks to meet  with these policies but does not share its adopted method for attaining 
them because it is not based on conclusive scientific evidence and does not consider less 
trade -restrictive options or valid alternatives for hazard control, which do not exist in thi s case, as 
the EU agrees by granting emergency authorizations to its members.  We reiterate our question on 
how the Members concerned by the process can participate in the analysis that the EFSA is 
conducting on the MRL for mancozeb; on the current status o f the analysis, since an outcome was 
expected in the first half of 2022; and on how comments submitted by Members will be taken into 
account.  
3.430.   We are also seeking detailed responses to the queries regarding emergency authorizations 
that were raised in the S PS Committee and were not satisfactorily answered with the statement that 
it "is the responsibility of the EU member States", who are also WTO Members in their own right and 
to whom we should address questions if we receive no responses.  Lastly, we cannot fail to recognize 
the extraordinary efforts that the EU is making in the bilateral/plurilateral and multilateral spheres, 
including through dual notifications (TBT/SPS). However, what my country and my country's 
producers need is not a unilateral explanati on of the measures but a frank dialogue that allows the 
legitimate demands we are making to be met while at the same time achieving the EU's legitimate 
objectives in the least trade -restrictive way possible, in compliance with the rules and principles of 
the multilateral trading system.  
3.431.   The representative  of Brazil  provided the following statement. Brazil would like to convey 
once again its concerns regarding the non -renewal of the approval of the active substance mancozeb, 
according to European TBT notific ation G/TBT/N/EU/712 . Mancozeb is a substance whose use is 
approved for many different crops by the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency, including soy. MRLs 
for soybeans in Brazil are set in 0,3 mg/kg. Around 11% of the soy produced in Brazil is export ed to 
the EU. Therefore, restrictions on mancozeb will significantly impact the income of Brazilian farmers. 
The availability of an alternative to mancozeb in the short to medium term is also limited by the fact 
that other substances of similar use have al ready been banned in the European market, such as 
chlorothalonil. Mancozeb is an important substance for the management of fungicide resistance to 
control soybean rust. It is used as a crop protection additive, intended to increase the effectiveness 
of oth er fungicides, minimizing resistance, and prolonging the life cycle of other molecules. In light 
of the insufficient transitional period granted by the EU, such crops could not have their treatments 
changed in time for exportation to the EU market before t he entry into force of the regulation. Brazil 
regrets that European authorities have not established transition periods that were adequate to the 
production cycle of the affected crops.  
3.432.   Brazil also respectfully asks the EU to align MRLs with limits establi shed under the framework 
of Codex Alimentarius, to consider less trade -restrictive alternatives that would also safeguard its 
legitimate policy objective and to grant a treatment for Brazilian farmers no less favourable than 
that granted to European farmer s. Finally, Brazil would like to request any available updates on this 
matter, considering EFSA's expectation to publish its scientific opinion on MRLs for dithiocarbamates 
in the first half of 2023.  
3.433.   The representative  of Uruguay  provided the following sta tement. Mancozeb is an active 
substance that is authorized and routinely used in many countries, such as Uruguay, where it is used 
safely to control diseases and major pests in various products in the domestic fruit and vegetable 
sector, such as apples, pe ars and citrus fruits. It is particularly important for the control of apple 
and pear scab, which is the main disease affecting apple and pear production and is caused by fungi 
of the genus Venturia spp.  In that connection, we share the concerns and reques ts expressed by 
other delegations, particularly in view of the possibility that, as a result of the ongoing 
dithiocarbamate review process, the EU will significantly reduce the corresponding MRLs, even to 
the limit of detection, without having any conclusi ve scientific evidence that substantiates such a 
decision in line with the SPS Agreement of the WTO.  In this regard, we would appreciate an update 
on the status of the review process for these substances, including the predicted date for the 
presentation o f the EFSA scientific opinion on dithiocarbamates, as well as the expected time frame 
for any notification to the SPS Committee regarding the relevant MRLs.  In this context, like other G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 108 - 
 
  Members, Uruguay recalls the importance of taking due account of intern ational standards, 
guidelines and recommendations, and scientific information produced within the framework of 
international standard -setting bodies recognized in the WTO, such as the Codex Alimentarius; the 
obligation to open consultation periods that may  serve as effective instances of regulatory 
cooperation between Members; and the need to grant reasonable transition periods if an amendment 
to the MRLs is finally decided.  
3.434.   The representative of Ecuador  provided the following statement. Ecuador thanks the 
delegations that have spoken before me for including this concern under the agenda item of this 
Committee. My delegation reiterates its concern regarding the non -renewal of mancozeb. We have 
already ref erred on previous occasions to the importance of this plant protection substance and its 
use for many strategic crops produced in Ecuador and the region, such as bananas, cocoa, and 
others. Our country remains concerned that there are currently no approved  alternatives to 
mancozeb that are duly registered and equally effective as mancozeb. The case of this substance is 
of particular importance not only for bananas, but also for other lesser export crops. Recent research 
by international bodies, which has be en presented to the rapporteur states of the European Union, 
shows that mancozeb does not produce adverse effects in humans, experimental animals or wildlife 
at concentrations below those at which effects would be expected as a result of systemic toxicity.  
3.435.   In view of the above, it should be noted that, due to the way in which this substance is 
applied in banana production, the use of mancozeb is one of the most effective and environmentally 
friendly methods of phytosanitary control of black sigatoka, consid ering that this disease is the most 
destructive and poses the greatest economic risk to banana and plantain crops, with the potential 
to cause yield losses of up to 50%. Therefore, prohibiting the use of this fungicide - without effective 
alternatives - would mean leaving producers of my country without immediate plant protection tools 
for implementing programmes for the management and control of black sigatoka. Accordingly, 
Ecuador calls on the European Union to consider alternative measures that are less restrictive to 
trade, to identify substitute substances that would enable existing trade to continue, to base its 
measures on conclusive studies, not only on the precautionary principle, and to establish adequate 
transition periods for the registration of alternative substances, in view of the current shortage of 
available pest -control tools.  
3.436.   The representative  of Chile provided the following statement. The delegation of Chile is 
grateful for the opportunity to express that the fungicide Mancozeb is of grea t importance for Chilean 
agriculture and that there is no product of similar effectiveness and characteristics that can be used 
to replace it following the EU's non -renewal of its authorization. In view of the foregoing, we 
respectfully ask the EU to recon sider this non -renewal.  
3.437.   In response, the representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. We 
have provided detailed explanations on this issue in previous TBT Committees. The non -renewal was 
based on a scientific assessment conducted under the EU Plant Protection Products Regulation by 
experts from the EU member States and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Since EFSA 
concluded that Mancozeb does not meet the approval criteria as outlined in Article 4 of Regulation 
(EC) No 1107 /2009, the approval of this substance was not renewed. For advice on alternatives to 
Mancozeb, the EU pesticides database90 is publicly available and contains information on all active 
substances, their approval status, and their main purpose (e.g., fungic ide, insecticide or herbicide). 
Independently of the situation under the EU Plant Protection Products Regulation, use restrictions of 
Mancozeb have been introduced under the EU Chemicals legislation (REACH91), following the 
classification of the substance as CMR (carcinogenic, mutagenic or reproductive toxicant) 1A or 1B 
under that same Regulation. As regards maximum residue levels (MRLs), the EU would like to inform 
Members that EFSA – as is usual practice for MRL assessments – follows a risk -based approac h. 
EFSA has recently published a new risk assessment92 reviewing the MRLs for dithiocarbamates. This 
review takes into consideration residues of mancozeb along with those of other substances belonging 
to the same group of substances (dithiocarbamates) as t hey are reported under a common residue 
definition, as carbon disulfides (CS2). It also considers existing Codex MRLs along with import 
 
90 https://ec.europa.EU/food/plant/pesticides/eu -pesticides -db_en .  
91 Regulation (EC) No  1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 
concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a 
European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 
793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission 
Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1).  
92 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/7987 .  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 109 - 
 
  tolerances, while taking into account background levels of CS2 due to naturally occurring sulphur 
compounds. Based on EF SA's opinion, risk managers will commence discussions and regulatory work 
on the review of those MRLs in autumn 2023.  
3.1.3.44   Australia - Maturation requirements for imported alcohol (ID 63693) 
3.438.   The representative  of Brazil  provided the following statement. Brazil would like to reiterate 
previous interventions on Australia's proposal to amend current regulations dealing with alcoholic 
beverages, the Australian Customs Notice Nº 2007/19, which requires that some alcoholic beverages 
must be matured in wood for a minim um of two years before delivery from Customs control. This 
covers all beverages under tariff classifications 2208.20.10, 2208.30.00 and 2208.40.00. Brazil 
regrets to bring this issue to the Committee's attention again. We first brought this matter up for 
discussion with Australia more than four years ago, in December 2019. Since then, Australia has not 
justified the inconsistency between its legislation and the TBT Agreement, given the fact that its 
customs and tax issues interfere with the definition of be verages and maturation requirements. 
Since 2019, Australia has held meetings involving many different government bodies, but it did not 
lead to any technical solution nor any signs of concrete evolution. Brazil would like to note that we 
also raised this c oncern in the Committee on Market Access, given that the absence of a timely and 
concrete response from Australia imposes a ban to the importation of non -matured cachaça. Brazil, 
therefore, would like to emphasize its request for Australia to make progress  in its legislative process 
or in any other practical solution with the necessary urgency.  
3.439.   In response, the representative  of Australia  provided the following statement. We 
acknowledge the urgency of Brazil's interest in Australia's maturation requirements  for certain 
imported alcohol products. We also thank Brazil for their proactive engagement with Australia on 
this topic and gratefully acknowledge Brazil's patience thus far. As explained in our previous 
statements, Australia established a whole -of-govern ment working group in 2022 to consider trading 
partners' concerns regarding the maturation requirements for the importation of certain alcohol 
products into Australia. The working group is considering the legislative framework for the 
importation of certai n unmatured alcohol products under section 105A of the Customs Act 1901 
(Customs Act), and corresponding domestic maturation requirements contained in other legislation. 
Australia would like to reassure Brazil and the TBT Committee that it appreciates the importance of 
taking active steps to progress a solution to this issue.  
3.440.   Australia continues to work through the legislative complexities and stakeholder concerns 
associated with this matter to progress a way forward. Since the March TBT Committee, Australi a 
has taken new steps, including updating Cabinet Ministers on the current status and urgency of the 
issue. Any legislative changes to section 105A of the Customs Act and any other possible changes 
to alcohol maturation requirements contained in other legi slation need to be made in accordance 
with Australia's domestic regulatory reform processes. The Australian Government will notify the 
Committee of any proposed changes, including any implications for labelling requirements, in 
accordance with Australia's obligations under the TBT Agreement.  
3.1.3.45   European Union - Withdrawal of the approval of the active substance alpha -
cypermethrin, G/TBT/N/EU/770 , G/TBT/N/EU/908  (ID 69494) 
3.441.   The representative  of Kenya  provided the following statement.  Kenya reiterat es her previous 
statement on this STC where EU has proposed new regulations withdrawing the approval of the 
active substance alpha -cypermethrin. Kenya raised this as a Specific Trade Concern in the previous 
TBT Committee meeting and continues to have conce rns over the same issue. Kenya takes note of 
the EU's response given in the March 2023 TBT Committee meeting and looks forward to the report 
of the review currently being conducted by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).  
3.442.   The representative  of Brazil  provided the following statement. Brazil would like to express 
its concerns related to European notification G/TBT/N/EU/770  regarding the Commission 
Implementing Regulation proposal to withdraw the approval of the active substance alpha -
cypermethrin. Alpha -cypermethrin is registered in Brazil as an insecticide used against harmful pests 
that damage a variety of crops, includin g soy, cotton, corn, citrus, watermelon, peanut, coffee, 
among other products exported to the European Union. Withdrawal of the register of said substance 
 
93 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 636. 
94 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 694 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 110 - 
 
  and automatic reduction of MRLs will significantly affect the income of Brazilian farmers, especially  
citrus producers. The substance is essential to control greening, a disease affecting citrus orchards 
worldwide. Greening has been recognized by EFSA itself as a priority pest for control, according to 
the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1702. T he Brazilian citrus industry plays an 
important role in generating jobs in the countryside. Export of orange juices to the European market 
represented more than USD 1.1 billion in 2022. Alpha -cypermethrin is also an important component 
to conduct integrate d pest management, once it may be combined with other insecticides to 
contribute to increase their useful life, ensuring efficient pest control and maintaining the 
sustainability of crop production. In light of the above, Brazil would like to kindly encour age the EU 
to adopt MRLs for imported products in accordance with the limits set under the Codex Alimentarius. 
Brazil regrets that the EU did not extend the approval of the active substance, which expired on 
31 October. Such measure would have minimized th e impact on Brazilian citrus producers. At the 
same time, European countries still approve "emergency use " of the same substance, therefore 
discriminating against imported products. Brazil would appreciate receiving any update on EFSA's 
review of MRLs for the whole group of cypermethrins.  
3.443.   The representative  of Paraguay  provided the following statement. We request that 
Paraguay's support and statement from the previous meeting of this Committee be put on record.  
3.444.   Statement from March  2023 meeting, in full.95 Paraguay wishes to reiterate the importance 
of this substance in controlling pests that attack crops of great economic importance to the country, 
such as maize, soybean, sunflower and cotton.  In this regard, Paraguay once again requests the 
European Union to take into account, when reviewing the MRLs for this substance, information on 
pesticides provided by the specialized agencies recognized by the WTO, such as the Codex 
Alimentarius, to reconsider its approach and to base its decisions on conclusive scien tific evidence 
and real risk weightings, in accordance with international standards and principles.  
3.445.   In response, the representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. In 
principle the EU would like to refer to its previous statements a t the TBT Committee, which we made 
on the issue of withdrawal of approval of this substance. As regards Maximum Residue Levels 
(MRLs), a review of the whole group of cypermethrins is currently conducted by the European Food 
Safety Authority (EFSA). Existin g Codex Maximum Residue Limits and Import Tolerances will be 
considered in this review. After that, the EU will consider the outcome and follow up on it, if 
appropriate. If there was a need for a specific measure on MRLs, such a measure would be notified 
to the WTO/SPS Committee. If Members consider it necessary to ensure that MRLs for Alpha -
cypermethrin on relevant crops, that were based on previous and now obsolete EU uses, remain, or 
should be newly set at higher/different levels, they may wish to submit  an application for setting 
import tolerances according to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/200596 on maximum residue 
levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin.  
3.1.3.46   European Union - Draft EU Batteries Regulation (implementation of the 
European Green Deal), G/TBT/N/EU/775  (ID 68597) 
3.446.   The representative  of China  provided the following statement. On 26 January 2021, the 
European Union notified its latest regulation "Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament 
and of the Council concerning batteries and waste batteries, repealing Directive 2006/66/EC and 
amending Regulation (EU) No 2019/1020 "to WTO. New regulation will upgrade the current battery 
control syste m from the" instructions "to" regulations ", to ensure that batteries on the EU market 
of become sustainable, high performance and safe in the entire life cycle. The new regulations make 
a comprehensive supervision to portable batteries, industrial batteri es, automotive batteries and 
electric vehicle batteries. China raised concerns at the 86th -90th WTO/TBT meetings. The EU has 
stated that they would like to engage other Members in the policy -making process, but has not 
adopted other concerns at the 90th me eting. We would like to continue to raise our concerns on the 
share of recycled content at the 91st meeting. We support the EU's controls on batteries and waste 
batteries. Our industry also concerns on this regulation. With a view to facilitating our indus try to 
understand this regulation and prepare the compliance in advance, China would like to raise concerns 
 
95 G/TBT/M/89 , paras. 2.488 -2.489.  
96 Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on 
maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council 
Directive 91/414/EEC. OJ L 70, 16.3.2005, p. 1.  
97 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 685 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 111 - 
 
  as follows : 1. China suggest EU to reduce the proportion of cobalt, lithium and nickel. China 
automobile industry has claimed the recycled proportio n of cobalt, lithium and nickel is relatively 
high, which is quite strict before. Now this regulation has adjusted especially in the proportion of 
cobalt, lithium and nickel, for example, by 2030, from previous 12%, 4% and 4% to current 16%, 
6% and 6%. Chi na automobile industry still it is difficult to meet this requirement with the present 
technology. 2. With regard to the issue of "carbon footprint threshold setting", China still suggests 
EU should regulate the carbon footprint after the carbon footprint calculation method of battery 
products is unified, In addition, scientific and reasonable carbon footprint thresholds should be set 
according to carbon peak and carbon neutral targets in different regions and countries. and, China 
recommends EU disclose th e progress of the development of carbon footprint calculation methods 
and let other Members join in the discussion on the development of carbon footprint calculation 
methods. 3. We would like to ask EU further explain the reasons for the large differences in the 
implementation time of different types of batteries, and propose to unify the implementation time 
of the carbon footprint of automotive power batteries, industrial batteries and LMT batteries. In 
consideration of the complexity of carbon footprint a ccounting, the implementation time should be 
postponed to 36 months after the entry into force of the law.  
3.447.   4. China recommends EU further clarify the subject and specific implementation methods of 
due diligence obligations. 5. China recommends EU consider establishing a unified manufacturer 
registration and management system, allowing manufacturers to achieve recognition within the EU 
member states by registering in one member state (the country where the importer is located, i.e. 
the main importing country ), rather than registering battery manufacturers individually in EU 
member states to promote trade facilitation. 6. China suggests EU implement the goal of recycling 
used battery in stages, and that manufacturers, recyclers, echelon utilization operators, and end -
of-life vehicle disassemblers should jointly achieve this goal. 7. China asks the EU to clarify the 
testing items and basis for evaluating the health status of reused batteries or refer to the UN 
regulation UN R100 for testing. 8. China recommend E U further clarify the specific requirements for 
providing relevant information to waste management operators, such as how to provide the location 
of hazardous substances and under what circumstances, such as clearly referring to existing EU 
regulations suc h as ELV or REACH to avoid confusion among enterprises.  
3.448.   The representative  of the Russian Federation  provided the following statement. The Russian 
Federation would like to reiterate its statements made at the previous TBT Committee meetings with 
regard to the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning batteries and 
waste batteries that we have been raising since June 2021. Since the beginning of discussion of this 
STC, the EU delegation have been requested to provide clarification o n specific scientific justification 
of proposed measure, as well as the relevant international standards which had been the basis for 
the draft regulation. However, such requests remain unaddressed. On 18 January 2023, the EU's 
Council circulated the final  compromise text of the proposal for the regulation. Unfortunately, draft 
regulation does not take into account concerns of WTO Members. We urge the EU to take into account 
questions and concerns raised by WTO Members during TBT Committee meetings in its f urther 
consideration of proposed regulation and to provide WTO Membership with specific scientific 
justification of proposed measure.  
3.449.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement.  Just like Korea 
conveyed its industry's concerns through an STC in the July 2022 TBT Committee meeting and a 
bilateral talk at the margin of the meeting, Korea is still concerned about the requirements on the 
removabilit y and replaceability of portable batteries laid down in the EU Batteries Regulation. 
Specifically, first, the technical skills (levels) of the person or operator that is removing/replacing 
the batteries, second, the available tools in removing and replacin g the batteries and third, the 
products to be exempted from the removability and replaceability requirements. We request that 
the EU reconsider the three concerns and relax the related requirements as they are stringent for 
the industry to comply with. For  details, Korea would like to ask the EU to refer to our STC statements 
made in the July 2022 meeting, and Korea hopes to discuss these matters with the EU bilaterally in 
the future.  
3.450.   In response, the representative  of the European Union  provided the follow ing statement. 
The EU would like to thank China for their comments on the proposal for an EU Batteries Regulation. 
The EU has taken good note of the comments by China, and proposes to follow -up bilaterally. The 
EU regulation on batteries was voted by the E uropean Parliament last week and official publication 
is expected this summer. As for the timetable of the implementation of the work on carbon footprint, 
the work on batteries for electric vehicles is the most advanced, because a lot of work had already G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 112 - 
 
  been done by stakeholders in the past. The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission has 
recently published their recommendations for the delegated act, which will serve as input for the 
further process on the delegated act, along with feedback of st akeholders on it.  
3.1.3.47   European Union - Chemical strategy for sustainability (implementation of the 
European Green Deal) (ID 69098) 
3.451.   The representative  of the Russian Federation  provided the following statement. The Russian 
Federation would like to reiterate its  concern on the European chemical strategy for sustainability. 
In December 2022, the European commission published the Recommendation for safe and 
sustainable chemicals, which contains classification of hazardous properties and their influence on 
human hea lth and environment. However, the classification is based upon the REACH Regulation 
which lacks of laboratory and epidemiological data or the scientific justification. The EU keeps 
imposing unilateral trade restrictions under the umbrella of European green  deal despite the rules 
of the WTO. None of the questions that have been asked in the Committee since June 2021 on that 
strategy have been answered. We urge the EU to provide responses on the questions raised during 
the previous TBT Committee meetings. Mor eover, it is worrisome that the EU link fulfilment of its 
transparency commitments with the reasons not related to the WTO as they have been refusing to 
engage on the issue. Transparency is the important pillar of this organization. The EU acknowledged 
its importance on multiple occasions. It is unfortunate that the EU's actions run counter to its words.  
3.1.3.48   Egypt – Halal Certification Measure, based on Egyptian Standard ES 4249/2014 
General Requirements for Halal Food According to Islamic Sharia, G/TBT/N/EGY/313 , 
G/TBT /N/EGY/313/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/EGY/313/Add.2  (ID 71899) 
3.452.   The representative  of Kenya  provided the following statement.  Kenya reiterates her previous 
statement on this Specific Trade Concern. Kenya raised thi s as a Specific Trade Concern in the 
previous TBT Committee meeting and continues to have concerns over the same issue. Kenya's 
concern on this regulation is that the Egyptian authorities insist that only their firms can carry out 
Halal certification. Keny a has a Halal Certification Body (Bodies) that Egypt can partner with to meet 
their halal objective. This measure is deemed to be more trade restrictive than necessary when 
Egypt requires that it's only ISEG Halal Egypt that can certify exports from other countries. This is 
contrary to Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. It is also contrary to the principle of national treatment 
by restricting who can carry out Halal certification. This is contrary to Articles 2.1 of the TBT 
Agreement. This measure will be to o expensive for Kenya's exports to the Egyptian market hence 
making Kenyan products uncompetitive. Kenya therefore proposes that Egypt considers mutual 
recognition of Kenyan Halal certification bodies in line with Article 6 of the WTO TBT Agreement. We 
await response on the proposal. We look forward to reviewing the standard once the new version is 
notified to the WTO TBT Committee.  
3.453.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union would like to express concerns w ith regard to the requirements on Halal certification as of 
1 October 2021 based on the Egyptian Halal standard 4249/2014. The EU industry is worried about 
the negative impact of this measure on food and beverages imports to Egypt. The EU has noted that 
the requirement for dairy products was then suspended several times, most recently until 
30 September, by the latest Addendum, as introduced on 16 June. We would like to appreciate this 
considerable level of flexibility of Egypt's authorities, which is very helpful to economic operators. 
The EU submitted written comments on 26 January 2022 and would welcome a reply by the Egyptian 
authorities. In this context we appreciate the Egypt's notification from August 2022, addendum to 
the notification 313 ( G/TBT/N/EGY/313/Add.3 ), providing more HS codes of covered products, 
information on relevant procedures and on labelling requirements. Nevertheless, several important 
and practical information for economic operators is still missing, such as dead lines for issuance of 
certificates by IS EG Halal, details on audits, etc. Finally, EU comment regarding the monopolistic 
position of the IS EG Halal, does not seem to have been considered either.  
3.454.   In this context the EU would like to invite Egypt to recons ider the decision to grant the right 
to certify the compliance with Halal requirements to a single company, IS EG Halal, and to provide 
for a Halal certification system that would allow multiple, well -established certification entities, in 
accordance with the international best practices. Re -certification by IS EG Halal of products from 
 
98 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 690 . 
99 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 718 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 113 - 
 
  establishments already certified by other companies is an unnecessary duplication and would lead 
to longer time to market and higher costs for consumers. The EU would like t o ask Egypt to consider 
keeping the Halal certification and labelling voluntary for dairy products, to pursue the legitimate 
objective of ensuring reliable information without unduly hindering trade flows. consumers should 
be able to decide whether to buy Halal-certified food or not, based on clear labelling. The EU would 
appreciate if Egypt would consider further trade facilitating measures, such as requiring Halal 
certification for the product and not per container, as well as proportional costs of Halal certification 
that take into account the international practice and correspond to the service rendered. Finally, the 
EU would like to ask Egypt about the concrete steps envisaged to provide comprehensive information 
about the new measures and clear written  and publicly available guidance to stakeholders, including 
a detailed description of the certification procedure, its duration, costs, and required documents, as 
well as the process for registration of suppliers. The EU is ready to work with Egypt on solu tions that 
would prevent the negative impact this measure would have on food and beverages imports to 
Egypt.  
3.455.   The representative  of India provided the following statement. India joins other WTO 
Members in raising concerns with Egypt's new halal certificatio n requirements for all imported food 
and beverage products. In the context of the Egyptian Standard ES 4249/2014 on General 
Requirements for Halal Food according to Islamic Sharia, India seeks detailed information concerning 
implementation of the same. Fur ther, India seeks Egypt's reconsideration on the decision to grant 
the right to certify the compliance with halal requirements to a single entity, and requests Egypt to 
provide a system that would allow other certification entities to certify as well. In l ight of the currently 
prevailing challenges with the measure, India requests Egypt to delay the implementation until the 
challenges are resolved.  
3.456.   The representative  of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada continues to be 
concerned by Egypt's new  halal certification requirements for all imported food and beverage 
products. While Canada understands Egypt's objective to ensure that Egyptian consumers are 
confident that they are buying and consuming Halal -certified products, we believe that such 
meas ures should not create unnecessary barriers to international trade or be more trade -restrictive 
than necessary to fulfil that objective. Canada welcomes Egypt's delayed implementation of the halal 
certification for dairy products to 30 September 2023. Howe ver, Canadian exporters require 
additional information and sufficient time to adapt to these new measures. The current lack of clarity 
surrounding procedures, fee structures, audit details, documentation requirements, and the specific 
implementation proces s is causing ongoing ambiguity and uncertainty. In light of these concerns, 
Canada refers to our previous statements made at this committee and urges Egypt to reconsider the 
implementation of this measure. The absence of a clear implementation protocol, co upled with 
unnecessary added cost and administrative burden further highlights the need for Egypt to 
reconsider this measure.  
3.457.   Canada strongly encourages Egypt to engage in open and transparent discussions with 
trading partners to share information, provide  further clarification on the requirements associated 
with this new measure and to consider the impact it may have on trade. Canada also recommends 
that Egypt explore the establishment of a halal certification office in Canada to facilitate trade, a 
simila r arrangement made in other member countries. Until these concerns are addressed, Canada 
respectfully requests that Egypt suspend the implementation of this measure. This would allow for 
the necessary dialogue and collaboration between both nations, foster ing a conducive environment 
for trade and ensuring the smooth transition for Canadian exporters.  
3.458.   The representative  of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia thanks Egypt for 
ongoing bilateral communication and engagement on the implementati on of new Halal certification 
requirements for food and beverage products of animal origin. Australia also takes this opportunity 
to note the importance and need for the continuation of open and transparent communication on 
these requirements within intern ational forums to ensure mutual understanding and so Egypt can 
meet both its policy goals while ensuring measures are not more trade restrictive than necessary. 
Further to statements made at the TBT Committee meeting in March 2023, Australia respectfully 
requests further information on the processes and procedures which will be undertaken as part of 
ongoing facility audits of exporting slaughterhouses and processing factories – including dairy – set 
to be undertaken by IS EG Halal. Australia also requests t hat information of this nature be provided 
as part of a draft technical measure for notification to the WTO, ideally in the primary document and 
not as an addendum. Australia again notes it has provided written comments to TBT notification 
G/TBT/N/EGY/313  in January 2022 and would welcome a response from Egypt. Australia also invites G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 114 - 
 
  Egypt to separately notify the TBT Committee of the revised Egyptian standard 4249 "General 
Requirements on Halal Food according to Islamic Sharia" as advised in addendum three before 
finalisation and publication. Australia welcomes ongoing discussion on the implementation of Egypt's 
new Halal certification measures.  
3.459.   The representative  of the United States  provided the following statement. Whi le the US 
Government appreciates Egypt's ongoing and constructive efforts to respond to questions from its 
trading partners, the United States remains concerned about Egypt's implementation of its halal 
requirements for dairy products and the resulting unc ertainty in the market. The United States 
thanks Egypt for the 16 June 2023 notification to the WTO TBT Committee informing Members of 
the extension on the implementation of the measure to 30 September 2023 of when milk and dairy 
products will need to be a ccompanied by a halal certificate. In our previous floor interventions and 
bilateral discussions, the United States communicated the need for additional information that would 
provide needed clarity for our exporters, allowing them to understand and comply  with Egypt's 
measure for halal requirements for dairy products. However, we are reframing the questions into 
three specific requests to make it clear to Egypt as to what the United States requires. Until the 
information is provided, we again reiterate the  need for Egypt to suspend existing halal requirements 
on dairy products.  
3.460.   First, the United States requests that Egypt publish an official technical regulation containing 
implementing procedures for all dairy products that require halal certification as a condition of 
import. While Egypt has deferred previous questions about implementation to IS EG Halal, a private 
certifier, details about fee structures, documentation requirements, production process 
requirements, test methods, etc., are the responsibility  of the regulatory authority. We encourage 
the Government of Egypt to publish these details to ensure uniform implementation of this measure 
and to maintain halal integrity. Second, the United States requests that Egypt provide a list of which 
products mus t be halal certified. The United States notes that in Egypt's third addendum to its 
notification, G/TBT/N/EGY/313/Add.3 , Egypt provided a list of HS codes for dairy products requiring 
halal certification. However, this Addendum 3 also s tates that Egyptian Standard (ES) 4249 is the 
basis for requiring halal certification. We understand that ES 4249 has been revised and lists that 
halal certification for dairy products with added animal fats or grease. The United States is aware 
that the s ole halal certifier is requiring a halal certification for additional agricultural goods outside 
the scope of both the addendum and ES 4249. Given this discrepancy, the United States requests 
that Egypt publish a clear list of products that must be halal c ertified and notify it to the WTO TBT 
Committee if the scope is different to what has been previously notified. Lastly, the United States 
renews its request that Egypt allow overseas certification bodies to continue offering halal 
certification for product s exported to Egypt. Having a multiplicity of halal certification companies 
increases halal assurance while lowering certification costs. Does Egypt have a timeline for when it 
plans to approve additional certification bodies? The United States thanks Egyp t for its continued 
willingness to work with the United States and other trading partners to ensure that exporters have 
adequate information to understand and comply with its new halal requirements. The United States 
appreciates Egypt's responses provided during our bilateral exchange and looks forward to further 
regulatory cooperation.  
3.461.   The representative  of New Zealand  provided the following statement. New Zealand notes 
that a final halal standard has not yet been published or made available. New Zealand r equests that 
Egypt provide a reasonable implementation period of at least 6 -12 months once this has been 
consulted and notified to the WTO as a final standard to allow exporters time to understand and 
comply with the new standard. We also: register our exp ectation that any new requirements that 
accompany Egypt's new Halal standard, including for registration, auditing and labelling, be 
promulgated by the relevant Government Ministry, and request these are also notified to the WTO 
with sufficient time to ena ble Members to provide feedback, and for business to implement the new 
requirements. We invite Egypt to clarify the process for new halal certification bodies to be approved 
for certification of exports to the Egyptian market, in accordance with internatio nal best practice. 
New Zealand would note that allowing multiple, well -established certification bodies to certify 
products as halal will make Egypt's halal regulations less trade restrictive, and also reduce the impact 
of duplication and other unnecessary  costs on consumers, help resolve supply chain issues, and 
promote Egypt's overall food security.  
3.462.   The representative  of Switzerland  provided the following statement. Switzerland continues 
to follow this matter with interest. We share the concerns expressed  by other Members regarding 
the requirements for halal certification and refer to previous statements in this Committee. In G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 115 - 
 
  particular, we reiterate our call on Egypt to recognize foreign halal certification bodies and to clarify 
the criteria for the accep tance of foreign halal certificates. In order to prevent ambiguities and 
uncertainties, Switzerland also invites Egypt to publish clear guidelines for stakeholders on the 
specific implementation procedures.  
3.463.   The representative  of Paraguay  provided the follo wing statement. Paraguay reiterates its 
concern and requests that its statement from the previous meeting be put on record.  
3.464.   Statement from March  2023 meeting, in full.100 We thank the delegations of the United 
States of America, the European Union, India, K enya and Canada for including this item on the 
Committee's agenda and we request that the support of Paraguay be recorded.  While Paraguay 
shares Egypt's interest in providing its consumers with certainty regarding the purchase and 
consumption of halal -certified products, the lack of clear information and details on application 
procedures prevents operators from being able to adapt to comply with them.  Paraguay again 
requests Egypt to suspend the implementation of new halal certification requirements until M embers 
have all the requested information and business operators have sufficient time to adapt in order to 
comply.  
3.465.   In response, the representative of Egypt  provided the following statement. Egypt thanks the 
United States, the European Union, Paraguay, Swit zerland, India, Kenya, Canada, New Zealand and 
Australia for their interest in this issue and their continued engagement on the matter, while 
recognizing Egypt's right to adopt the halal certification requirements, which we deem necessary 
and appropriate t o achieve our legitimate policy objective yet remain consistent with our obligations 
under the TBT Agreement. Recognizing the comments that our trading partners raised in the last 
Committee meeting and in the bilateral meetings we had with them, Egypt woul d like to point out 
that since the introduction of the requirement with respect to milk and dairy products by General 
Organization For Veterinary Services (GOVS), Egypt has introduced a number of facilitating 
measures extending the time line to abide by th e requirement for over a year now. This has provided 
the business operators an appropriate period of time to adapt to the set of requirements. It is also 
important to note that since its initial notification, Egypt has been clear that the certification bod y 
currently recognized by the General Organization for Veterinary Services is ISEG Halal. In fact, a lot 
of exporters have indeed approached ISEG Halal and issued the Halal certification successfully.  
3.466.   The TBT Agreement gave explicit regulation to all WTO Members to protect legitimate 
interest according to own regulatory autonomy. It is also important to clarify that the Egyptian 
standard ES4249 does not and shall not provide for any supervision requirem ents for a specific 
certification body." Egypt has notified an addendum G/TBT/N/EGY/313/Add.5  concerning an 
extension of the time period during which imports of milk and dairy products which are not 
accompanied by Halal certificate are allowed to enter into Egypt until 13 September 2023. Moreover, 
the relevant authorities are preparing a decision on the requirements for importing halal milk and 
dairy products, to clarify the points and issues raised in this respect. The decision shall cl arify the 
scope of products and the conformity assessment procedures for issuing Halal certificates. I would 
also like to remind the Committee that Egypt has taken measures to ease the application of this 
decision giving particular attention to the conside rations and interests of our trading partners.  
3.467.   It is worth noting, that we received specific questions from some Members, and we have 
provided answers and replies to many of those questions, and our colleagues in the capital  are 
working on the remaining q uestions . We will be sharing those answers in due course in accordance 
with the terms and procedures of this Committee. Finally, I would like to stress that Egypt is 
committed to continue its bilateral exchanges on the matter with all interested trading pa rtners and 
to take into account their concerns as appropriate and stress our commitment to the transparency 
requirements under the TBT Agreement.  
3.1.3.49   Republic of Korea - Regulation for supporting low carbon solar module product 
(ID 744101) 
3.468.   The representative  of China  provided the following statement. Effective on 13 July 2020, 
Korea's "Regulations on Supporting Low -carbon Solar Module Products", require Photovoltaic module 
suppliers to submit low -carbon certification qualifications. The audit agency is the Kore a Energy 
 
100 G/TBT/M/89 , para. 2.275.  
101 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 744 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 116 - 
 
  Corporation and the New and Renewable Energy Center, under the Ministry of Trade and Industry 
of Korea. In accordance with Articles 5 and 12 of the mentioned Regulations, the total carbon 
emissions generated during the whole manufacturing stage of  crystalline silicon solar photovoltaic 
modules at home and abroad were quantified and calculated. There are two types of carbon footprint 
certification: 1. Korean standard carbon emission coefficient measurement method; 2. Life cycle 
assessment method (LC A). But the coefficient factors of national electricity carbon emission for China 
used by the Korean side are seriously out of date and divorced from reality. On the other hand, the 
LCA certification method was adopted by Chinese enterprises, but no one ha s been certified. Chinese 
photovoltaic companies have submitted applications for more than two years, but no one has been 
certified, for unknown reasons. Due to the failure to obtain carbon footprint certification, the total 
sales of Chinese manufacturers in Korea have been reduced by nearly 200 million US dollars in the 
past two years, and the share in 2022 has been reduced by about 40% compared with 2021.  
3.469.   So, It is hoped that the Korean side will consider reasonable demands, and continue to urge 
the relev ant Korean departments ： 1. Adopt the latest coefficient factors of national electricity 
carbon emission released by the Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China for accounting 
purposes. 2. Conduct LCA audit in accordance with ISO standards, and publish  the audit process, 
audit time, and standards . 3. Complete on -site factory inspection and audit as soon as possible, and 
provide a responsible response, do not take discriminatory measures before the audit results are 
announced.  
3.470.   In response, the representa tive of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement. 
Korea would like to thank China for its continued interest in the "Regulation for Supporting Low 
Carbon Solar Module Product" of Korea. Korea responded to China's concerns at the March and the  
July WTO TBT meeting in 2022, and at the November TBT meeting last year, Korea replied that if 
China could present more specific information on its concerns (e.g., the name and the numbers of 
internationally recognized standards that are relevant, actual cases of certification delays, instances 
where trade secrets or sensitive information are required to be disclosed unnecessarily, etc.), it 
would be possible to deliver a more detailed and meaningful answer to China. However, Korea has 
not received any com ments bearing such substantive information from China. Korea asks for China's 
cooperation to address this issue in a constructive manner.  
3.1.3.50   European Union - Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the 
Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial intelligence act) 
and amending certain union legislative acts (ID 736102) 
3.471.   The representative  of China  provided the following statement. On 11 November 2021, the 
European Union (EU) notified "Regulation of the European Par liament and of the Council laying down 
harmonized rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act) and amending certain union 
certain union legislative acts " (G/TBT/N/EU/850 ) to WTO, which regulates the definition, application, 
market a ccess, penalties and other aspects of artificial intelligence technology. This regulation is the 
first AI legal framework in the EU, aimed at strengthening the EU's controls on the risks 
accompanying using AI technology, with a view to protecting the safet y and fundamental rights of 
users and companies. Considering the importance of this Act to AI industry, we submitted our 
comments to the EU through the WTO/TBT Enquiry Point of China in January 2022, and received the 
EU's reply. We have also raised our con cerns on this act at the 87th -90th WTO/TBT meeting and we 
appreciate the explanation and further clarification to meet our concerns. However, we still have  
hesitation concerning conformity assessment and penalties which are pretty core issues to us so we 
would like to raise concerns at this meeting.  
3.472.   We support the EU's governance on artificial intelligence, however, from not create the 
unnecessary trade barriers, in accordance with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, China would like 
to raise concerns as fo llows： 1. We would like to highlight that it is not appropriate to determine 
whether an AI system needs a third -party Notified Body to participate in the conformity assessment 
according to the requirement in Annex II A. We use the following example to illu strate our proposal: 
When a radio device is defined as an AI system, the device needs to comply with both RED and AI 
regulations; Conformity assessment of RED: with respect to the requirement set out in Article 3.2 
of the RED, a conformity assessment invol ving a notified body shall be used, if such harmonized 
standards are partially applied or not applied or do not exist. It is clear to our industry. Conformity 
assessment of AI regulation: The product has applied all the harmonized standards or, where 
 
102 For previous statements follow the th read under ID 736 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 117 - 
 
  applicable, common specifications referred to in Article 41.  and the manufacturer of the product has 
the right to opt out of third -party conformity assessment. However, in accordance with the current 
draft regulation, for high -risk AI systems, to which legal a cts listed in Annex II, section A, apply, the 
provider shall follow the relevant conformity assessment as required under those legal acts. 2. We 
would like to stress the penalties and the fines should be proportionate to the actual performance. 
Article 71 stipulates a fine of up to 2% of its total worldwide annual turnover, which we believe is 
higher than appropriate. It is recommended to adjust the relevant requirements in accordance with 
Article 21 of (EU) 2017/2394. "up to X % of the trader's annual turn over in the Member State or 
Member States concerned. " 
3.473.   In response, the representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
The EU would like to thank China for continued interest in this measure. The EU would like to refer 
to its previou s replies to comments received on this measure. With regard to the Article 43.3, the 
EU would like to indicate that article specifically clarifies the procedures to be followed for high -risk 
AI systems covered by Annex II.A. In particular, it requires the provider to follow the relevant 
conformity assessment as required under those legal acts. It also specifies that where the legal acts 
listed in Annex II.A, enable the manufacturer of the product to opt out from a third -party conformity 
assessment, provided  that that manufacturer has applied all harmonized standards covering all the 
relevant requirements, that manufacturer may make use of that option only if he has also applied 
harmonised standards or, where applicable, common specifications referred to in A rticle 41, covering 
the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of the Title - High Risk AI Systems. The penalty system in the 
notified draft follows the model of the New Legislative Framework system but also of other existing 
legislation, such as the General Da ta Protection Regulation (GDPR). This implies that member States 
remain responsible for laying down the rules on penalties, including administrative fines, applicable 
to infringements of the notified draft. However, some harmonization elements are provided , e.g. on 
the capping and types of infringements associated. The reference to the "total worldwide annual 
turnover" is consistent with already applicable legislation in the field of data protection (GDPR). 
While 2% is the maximum capping for the supply of incorrect, incomplete or misleading information 
to notified bodies and national competent authorities, it is up to the member States to foresee in 
their national laws the amount applicable to the relevant infringement. Finally, the EU takes note of 
the req uest on the transition period although it notes that it considers the transition period sufficient 
for the industry to adjust to the new legislation.  
3.1.3.51   Morocco - Conformity assessment, G/TBT/N/MAR/28  (ID 779103) 
3.474.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. On 
18 December 2019 Morocco notified to the WTO TBT Committee the verification of conformity of 
certain imported industrial goods under reference G/TBT/N/MAR/28 . The EU sent comments in 
January 2020 and also followed up with bilateral discussions and letters. Despite these discussions 
concerns remain on the EU side. As regards the conformity control system for industrial products, 
Morocco informed us  that the legislative framework does not make a distinction on the basis of 
whether the product is imported or manufactured locally. However, the arrangements for checking 
compliance vary depending on whether imported or local products are concerned. Since  the 
introduction of the new system in February 2020, checks on imported industrial products have been 
outsourced and appear to require the systematic obtaining of a certificate of conformity issued by 
one of the approved bodies, which is very burdensome a nd costly. On the other hand, checks on 
local products are carried out on the basis of a national market surveillance plan, and risk -based 
according to the products in question, so not on a systematic basis. This difference in treatment 
seems problematic t o us and could amount to a discrimination. The TBT Agreement (Article 5.1) 
provides that conformity assessment procedures should be prepared, adopted and applied so as to 
grant access to suppliers of like products originating in other Members under conditi ons no less 
favourable than those accorded to suppliers of like products of national origin, in a comparable 
situation. For some products these checks are done at origin, for some others in Morocco upon 
arrival. Could Morocco please explain the rational be tween the choice for putting a product under 
one or the other procedure?  
3.475.   The Moroccan conformity assessment procedure for the respective products create an 
unnecessary obstacle to international trade as the procedures seem more strict than necessary to 
give Morocco adequate confidence that products conform with the requirements set out in technical 
regulations. In this respect some aspects of the procedures need to be clarified, like whether there 
 
103 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 779 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 118 - 
 
  is any possibility for importers to avoid repeating the conf ormity assessment procedure for any 
shipment to Morocco, which seems to be unnecessarily burdensome in particular for less risky 
products. Also sometimes exporters got contradictory information from the conformity assessment 
bodies mandated to undertake as sessments; and some were requested to submit sensitive 
commercial information. Moreover, for Morocco's technical regulations that impose the use of 
Moroccan standards corresponding to international and EU standards, Morocco should accept EU 
certificates th at are based on the same international and EU standards and done by ILAC laboratories 
like a lot of countries are doing world -wide. Another important problem that we face is that some 
Moroccan regulations depart from international standards without providi ng an adequate justification 
for it. The standardisation process and the subsequent transformation of the national standards into 
compulsory technical regulations also raises questions of transparency. We would be grateful if 
Morocco could take these conce rns into account and work on the review of their conformity 
assessment system. We are ready to engage in further bilateral discussions in order to clarify the 
issue.  
3.476.   The representative of Morocco  did not provide a response to the concerns raised.  
3.1.3.52   India - Safety requirements with respect to the Rechargeable Electrical Energy 
Storage System (REESS) for electric power train vehicles, of AIS -038 and AIS -156 (ID 
774104) 
3.477.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The EU 
continues t o support India's efforts to improve safety of its electric vehicles' fleet and passenger 
safety. India's increasingly proactive involvement in the work of the UN's informal working group on 
safety of electric vehicles, in the recent years, is particularly  lauded. The EU has earlier voiced its 
strong concerns regarding the proposed revision 2 of the AIS 038 standard, which significantly 
deviates from the internationally agreed rules, i.e. UN GTR 20. The EU appreciates that Indian 
authorities have since show n a certain degree of understanding for EU concerns. According to our 
understanding, the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) organised a number of 
exchanges with the representatives of the EU automotive industry, with a view to harmonise AIS 
standards with UN -R100 and GTR 20, remove design restrictive requirements, align legal 
requirements and specify them clearly for common interpretation/ applications (risk of non -
conformity). As a result, ARAI prepared a proposal amending the AIS standards. T he EU also 
welcomes that MoRTH initiated an internal review within the special task force, based on the ARAI 
proposal, however, it would be useful, if MoRTH already considered the possibility of meeting the 
stakeholders and anticipate the entry into force of the revised requirements. The EU requests India, 
in the context of an ongoing review of the AIS standards, to continue considering the impact of lead 
times imposed on the industry.  
3.478.   In response, the representative  of India provided the following statemen t.  India would like 
to furnish the following comments in addition to the detailed comments provided in the previous 
meeting: The Committee of Experts analysed the standard AIS -038 (Rev 2) with respect to the 
representations received from the German Associ ation of Automotive Industry and Korean Industry. 
After having examined the proposed modifications in the standards and the intended purpose of the 
clauses of the standard, the following recommendations/suggestions have been considered for 
acceptance: - (i) Committee recommended that any technical solutions to prevent circulating 
currents leading to hazardous situations may be accepted. This could include active paralleling as 
well. (ii) On the suggestions of the Sufficient cell -to-cell spacing Committee rec ommended that the 
Sufficient cell -to-cell spacing distance or other suitable alternative technologies should be 
maintained for effective heat transfer from the cell to isolate the cells in case of thermal runaway in 
REESS. (iii) Committee recommended that BMS shall comply with EMC requirements as per AIS 004 
Part 3 or AIS 004 Part 3 Rev 1 as applicable at ESA or vehicle level. (iv) Committee recommended 
that Cells used to make REESS shall be certified as per as per IS 16893 - Part 3 by NABL or an 
internation ally accredited lab or by a testing agency notified under CMV Rule 126. (v) Committee 
recommended that REESS with higher than 95% SoC shall be tested for water ingress protection IP 
X7 as per IEC 60529. There shall be no fire or explosion during IP X7 test ing of REESS. Alternatively, 
an immersion into water test can be performed as per ISO 6469 -1:2019. (vi) Committee 
recommended that charge/discharge cycling shall be at C/3 (as mentioned in the standard) or at a 
different current suggested by the supplier a s per IS17855:2022.  
 
104 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 774 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 119 - 
 
  3.1.3.53   India - Amendment to notification on mandatory testing and certification of 
telecommunication systems (MTCTE) – Phase III & IV, G/TBT/N/IND/229  (ID 760105) 
3.479.   The representative  of China  provided the following statement. To avoid un necessary 
obstacles to international trade, China suggests India: (1) to delete this clause and recognize test 
results/reports issued by accredited laboratories in all ILAC signatory countries; (2) to provide the 
scientific basis for the threat to national  security posed by the use of laboratory testing reports 
recognized by ILAC signatories from non-border sharing countries.  
3.480.   In response, the representative  of India provided the following statement.  The para 5 of the 
Amendment notification to MTCTE Phase I II & IV dated 31 January 2022, provides "Test 
reports/results issued by labs accredited by ILAC signatories from non -border sharing countries will 
only be accepted. " In this regard, it is submitted that presently the test reports/results issued by 
labs acc redited by ILAC signatories has been accepted only for "Technical Parameters " of the 
Essential Requirements (ERs) as a relaxation to the MTCTE Procedure. The said relaxation is 
reviewed from time to time, and an extension is given considering all the aspec ts, including the 
availability of Labs in India. As of date, the said relaxation is valid up to 30 June 2023. The above -
mentioned interim provision in Para 5 of the referred MTCTE amendment notification dated 
31 January 2022 addresses the unavailability of  the lab in India. The interim provision in Para 5 of 
the MTCTE amendment notification dated 31 January 2022 has been introduced to ensure that 
telecommunication equipment used in India does not pose a threat to national security. The MTCTE 
scheme mandates  that equipment undergoes testing and certification to evaluate its ability to 
withstand cyber -attacks, prevent unauthorized access to data, and safeguard the integrity and 
confidentiality of communications. Given the crucial role of the telecommunications  sector in India's 
infrastructure and economy, any security breach could have significant consequences for national 
security and stability. Hence, the MTCTE scheme is aimed at safeguarding India's essential 
infrastructure and economy from potential cyber t hreats by ensuring that telecommunication 
equipment used in the country meets specific technical standards and security requirements and 
does not endanger national security.  
3.1.3.54   Malaysia - Revision of the Regulations on Alcoholic Beverages in Food 
Regulations 1985, G/TBT/N/MYS/114  (ID 793106) 
3.481.   The representative  of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan understands that the 
amendments to the Food Regulations 1985, which were notified to WTO Members by Malaysia on 
27 October 2022, were triggered by the health damage of methanol poisoning, and these 
amendment regulat ions are intended to provide appropriate information by labelling and to ensure 
consumers' health and safety. We appreciate the flexibility that Malaysia has shown in the 
amendment regulations for alcohol beverages with respect to lowering minimum alcohol content of 
"Rice Wine " and "Samsu " which are including Sake and Shochu, respectively. However, Japan 
continues to have strong concerns that there is no category that includes liqueur products with less 
than 17 percent alcohol content in Malaysia, which is not consistent with "Codex category " 
referenced as the international standard. Even if Malaysia lowers minimum alcohol content of Liqueur 
to 15 percent, there would still be no category under which liqueur products with less than 15 percent 
alcohol content  would fall, without simultaneously organizing the category of Liqueur, including 
prepared cocktails such as mixtures of liqueurs. Under this circumstance, it is not possible to import 
low-alcohol liqueur products into Malaysia.  
3.482.   Continuing to maintain the situation where Malaysia has no applicable category of liqueur 
products with less than 15 percent alcohol content would be more trade restrictive than it achieves 
legitimate objectives. Thus, this measure may conflict with the Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreem ent. 
Malaysia might explain that banning low alcohol products of liqueurs prevents easy access to alcohol. 
However, Japan supposes that even if Malaysia delete or relax the lower limit of alcohol content of 
liqueur, there would be a shift from higher alcoh ol products to lower alcohol products, rather than 
an increase in overall liqueur consumption. As a result, it would contribute to reduce harmful use of 
alcohol. Therefore, Japan recognizes that Malaysia cannot justify the lack of an applicable category 
for liqueur products with less than 15 percent alcohol content, which could be a trade barrier. In 
order to solve this trade issue, Japan strongly requests Malaysia to delete the lower limit of alcohol 
 
105 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 760 . 
106 For previous statements follow th e thread under ID 793 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 120 - 
 
  content of liqueur. If Malaysia cannot do so, minimum al cohol content of Liqueur should be 
sufficiently lowered, for example, to 3 percent alcohol content.  
3.483.   The representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union would like to thank Malaysia for the notification G/TBT/N/MYS/114  of 27 October 2022 on 
amendment to Regulations 361 to 368A and 387 and insertion of a new Regulation 384A to Food 
Regulations 1985. The EU provided its comments on these legislative amendments in December and 
Malaysia replied at the end of Janu ary 2023, for which we would also like to thank Malaysian 
authorities. Nevertheless, having thoroughly studied Malaysian document, we still would like to ask 
Malaysia for concrete information concerning several issues the EU had raised in its comments. 
Therefore, we have recently, on 12 June, sent our reaction to Malaysian replies. We are interested 
to know more on alcoholic range and on permitted preservatives and food conditioners for wine and 
on definition of liquors, sloe gin and rum.  
3.484.   We have also been informed that Malaysian authorities recently started a supplementary 
review of the legislation in question and there seem to be positive signals, as regards considering 
comments from international partners. The EU very much appreciates this latest developm ent and 
is waiting for official information from our Malaysian colleagues. Additionally, we highly appreciate 
the recent unblocking of shipments of alcoholic beverages which were held up in Malaysian ports. 
By that time, we would like to reiterate our exis ting concerns, as follows: On wine:  A maximum 
limit at 15% vol. for wines would contravene major wine producing countries' legislation, often based 
on the recommendations adopted by the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV). For 
liqueur wines,  the OIV code reads that it is a product with acquired alcoholic strength above or equal 
to 15% and below, or equal to 22%.  
3.485.   Therefore, unless there are objective justifications for such deviations, the EU is kindly asking 
the authorities of Malaysia to ali gn its rules with international practices, in line with the standards 
and definitions the OIV. As regards the definition of liqueurs, the requirement that they must not 
contain less than 17% of alcohol is particularly problematic. This is not in line with international 
practice: under most national legislative frameworks for spirits, products with an ABV of 15 -17% 
can be defined as liqueurs if they meet the other criteria in terms of ingredients and production 
practices. According to the EU legislation on s pirit drinks, the corresponding minimum threshold is 
15% (with an exception for egg liqueur, whose minimum required ABV is 14%). Under the current 
conditions, it seems that it will be impossible to import to Malaysia liqueurs with an ABV lower than 
17%. Th erefore, we would like to ask Malaysian authorities to reconsider their position and to align 
the rules with international practice.  
3.486.   The EU regrets that the absence of a general standard for sloe -aromatised spirit drinks 
category, which leads to the prohib ition to sell such products, and invites Malaysia to consider 
amending the Food Regulation 1985 to include such standard. The fact that sloe -aromatised spirit 
drinks do not currently fit into Regulation 383 for gin of the Food Regulation 19895, due to diff erent 
specification, also points to a more generic issue of the absence of a specific generic "catch -all" spirit 
drinks standard for those spirit drinks. These drinks do not fit into any specific standards however, 
they comply with generic rules (e.g. mini mum ABV, based on distilled alcohol of agricultural origin). 
The EU would like to invite Malaysia to consider adding such a generic "catch -all" spirit drink 
standard. Concerning sloe gin, given there is no proposed definition in the relevant Regulation, EU  
would like to ask for confirmation that products of an ABV between 25% - 37% can be marketed as 
sloe gin in Malaysia.  
3.487.   In response, the representative  of Malaysia  provided the following statement. Malaysia 
thanks the European Union and Japan for their cont inued interests in the Ministry of Health's 
proposed amendments to the regulations 361 to 386A and 387 as well as the insertion of a new 
384A regulation to the Food Regulations 1985. As we have explained in the previous TBT Committee 
meeting, the current n otification involves proposed amendments to the Food Regulations 1985 on 
specific requirements of alcoholic beverages in relation to the alcohol content, the addition of other 
ingredients, the use of food additives and labelling requirements. The purpose o f the amendments 
on all provisions of food additives for alcoholic beverages is to harmonise the food additive 
requirements with the Codex General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA, Codex STAN 192 -1995), 
in line with subregulation 19(2) of the Food Regulat ions 1985. On this note, the conditions under 
which food additives may be used in alcoholic beverages can be directly referred to GSFA, Codex 
STAN 192 -1995. For record, the deadline for comments on this notification was 26 December 2022. 
Malaysia thanks Me mbers who provided their comments and proposals within the stipulated timeline. G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 121 - 
 
  The regulations of all food commodities under the Food Regulations 1985 are revised systematically 
based on the implementation of the five -year review framework. This review is  carried out according 
to the schedule and timeframe that have been established based on certain commodity groups. For 
alcoholic beverages, announcements requesting for any proposed amendments were made in 2019 
through the relevant website. During that per iod, interested parties may submit any proposed 
amendments or new proposed regulations related to alcoholic beverages to the Ministry of Health 
for consideration. These exercises were completed in 2021, and the proposed amendments are now 
being gazetted.  
3.488.   Turning to the concerns raised by Japan, Malaysia would like to stress that we prioritize the 
Codex standard as the main reference in the development of standards requirements under the 
Malaysian Food Regulations 1985. We wish to also emphasize that there is no specific Codex 
commodity standard related to alcoholic beverages prescribed in the Codex standards. The food 
category in the Codex GSFA only states the definition of food categories and requirements of food 
additives for alcoholic beverages. Accordin g to the notes on food category system in the GSFA, the 
Codex food category descriptors are not to be legal product designations nor intended for labelling 
purpose. In this case, its applicability to Malaysia is depending on the provisions in the Malaysian  
Food Regulations 1985. On Japan's request for Malaysia to lower the minimum alcohol content of 
liqueur to for example 3%, we wish to reiterate that the review exercises were completed in 2021. 
Malaysia did not receive any proposal or application regarding  new category of alcoholic beverages 
from Japan prior to the completion of this process. This proposal was only recently highlighted by 
Japan to Malaysia's relevant authority in April 2023, well after the deadline of the commenting period 
of our notificati on. 
3.489.   Hence, in order for Malaysia to consider and review any new proposal, written application 
with supporting documents must be submitted through the proper channel for due process. We have 
conveyed similar message to Japan bilaterally in Kuala Lumpur. Now  on the additional comments by 
the EU dated 12 June 2023 concerning alcoholic range of alcoholic products involving wine, liqueur 
and sloe gin, we wish to underscore that our response have been emailed to the EU's competent 
authority on 15 June 2023. We ho pe that the EU would review these responses positively. 
Nevertheless, with regard to the EU's comment on the possible need to add a "catch -all" residual 
category of alcoholic beverages which do not fit in the classic definitions of liqueur, whisky, vodka, 
tequila etc., we wish to reiterate that any new proposal would need to be submitted to our competent 
authority for review and the necessary due process. In closing, we would like to stress that the final 
draft of amendments to the regulations of alcoholic beverages are currently being gazetted. We have 
taken into consideration the feedback and comments received from Members, including from the EU 
and Japan, as part of the gazettement process. For the benefit of all trading partners, we wish to 
expedite this  process that started in 2019 where all interested parties were invited to provide 
comments or suggestions. Until the proposed amendments are gazetted and entered into force, the 
existing regulations under the Food Regulations 1985 will continue to be appl icable. It is of Malaysia's 
utmost interest to ensure smooth flow of trade with trading partners and we remain ready to 
facilitate the importation of goods into Malaysia, in line with Article 2 of the TBT Agreement. Moving 
forward, Malaysia welcomes furthe r bilateral dialogues and engagements with Japan and the 
European Union to address the concerns raised. We kindly seek your understanding and cooperation 
on this matter.  
3.1.3.55   European Union - Draft Commission Delegated Regulation amending Regulation 
No. 1272/20 08 as regards hazard classes and criteria for the classification, labeling and 
packaging of substances and mixtures, G/TBT/N/EU/926  (ID 789107) 
3.490.   The representative  of China  provided the following statement. According to Article 2.2 of the 
WTO/TBT Agree ment: "Members shall ensure that technical regulations are not prepared, adopted 
or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade ". 
(1) China suggests that the EU provide further test validation methods for "endocrine disrupting 
property for human health " and "endocrine disrupting property for the environment ", in order to 
enable stakeholders to better determine whether a substance or mixture belongs to the two new 
categories of endocrine disruptors, and avoid trade disputes. (2) Considering a short application time 
can easily lead to a failure of regulation enforcement, China proposes to extend the application time 
for the new substances to 36 months.  
 
107 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 789 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 122 - 
 
  3.491.   In response, the representative  of the  European Union  provided the following statement. 
The European Union thanks The People's Republic of China for its interest in the Regulation adopted 
by the EU Commission on the introduction of new hazard classes for endocrine disruptors for human 
health a nd environmental hazards (endocrine disruptors, PBT, vPvB, PMT and vPvM108). It should be 
published soon. The new hazard classes and criteria are the result of in -depth scientific discussions 
with experts from EU Members and stakeholders representatives. In  parallel with its adoption at EU 
level, the EU is co -ordinating the discussions on the inclusion of these hazards in the started Globally 
Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) in the framework of the 
United Nations. The EU v ery much hopes that it can count on the People's Republic of China's support 
to address the growing concerns of citizens and scientists on endocrine disrupting chemicals and 
those with long lasting effects in the environment.  
3.492.   Regarding endocrine disruptors  and PBT/vPvB criteria, the EU largely builds on existing 
criteria in other EU legislation such as REACH, the Plant Protection Products Regulation and the 
Biocidal Products Regulation. Only the PMT and vPvM criteria are really new. Guidance is under 
develo pment and will cover all new hazard classes. It will be available before the end of the 
transitional period of 24 months in order to ensure that suppliers would be able to assess if their 
substances or mixtures fulfil the criteria for classification as an endocrine disruptor for human health 
or the environment. This guidance will also list all test methods, including in vitro ones, that could 
be used to classify substances as endocrine disruptors. The new hazard classes will be included in 
Annex I to CLP, t ogether with the other hazard classes and criteria. Based on these criteria and for 
some prioritised substances, the EU will develop harmonised classification and labelling dossiers and 
companies will have to classify their substances and mixtures accordin g to the new criteria. The list 
of substances China refers to is presumably the Table with the harmonised classification and labelling 
entries in Annex VI to CLP. Substances are included there after a long and thorough scientific 
process, hence the EU woul d not be able to provide such list until that has been achieved.  
3.493.   As to the concerns raised regarding the scientific basis for classification as PMT and more 
specifically the claim that the P and M criteria would contradict each other, please note that we d o 
not see any contradiction between P and M properties. To the contrary they are complementary. 
Mobility does not mean that a substance disappears, but that it migrates, hence it can be mobile 
and persistent at the same time. In addition, the criterion for  persistency is not limited to the soil 
compartment, but covers the aquatic compartment as well. Both criteria need to be fulfilled 
cumulatively to warrant classification as PMT, in addition to being toxic. If a substance is toxic and 
only mobile or only p ersistent, it would not be classified as PMT. As to the calculation method for 
mobility, please note that the log KoC criterion which is one of the elements to be taken into account 
as part of an overall assessment weighing all available evidence and using  expert judgment. It would 
not exclude taking into account e.g. results of leachability and monitoring studies relevant to identify 
M/vM substances. The guidance will provide explanation on how to use additional information to log 
Koc to assess mobility of  substances. With regard to the application time for substances not yet 
placed on the market, please note that the text has been revised and extended to 24 months. For 
substances already on the market, the deadline remains 42 months. Those transitional pro visions 
should allow suppliers sufficient time to adapt to the new rules. The EU reiterates its commitment 
to act in full transparency and keep Members duly informed about further developments.  
3.1.3.56   India - Refrigerating Appliances (Quality Control) Order, 202 0, 
G/TBT/N/IND/173  (ID 671109) 
3.494.   The representative  of China  provided the following statement. According to Article 5.1.2 of 
the WTO/TBT Agreement, "conformity assessment procedures are not prepared, adopted or applied 
with a view to or with the effect  of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade, ": (1) It is 
recommended that Indian adopt international mainstream practices and choose to recognize/entrust 
overseas (Chinese) related institutions. The recognized/entrusted institutions can condu ct factory 
inspection, testing, and other work to improve the efficiency of certificate issuance. (2) If the 
relevant overseas (Chinese) institutions have not been reviewed, recognized or commissioned, it is 
recommended to resume arranging factory audits f or Chinese manufacturers as soon as possible to 
ensure that ISI certification for Chinese manufacturers can proceed normally; (3) Given the long 
 
108 PBT stands for Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic properties, vPvB stands for very Persistent and 
very Bioaccumulative properties, PMT stands for Persistent, Mobile and Toxic properties, vPv M stands for very 
Persistent and very Mobile properties.  
109 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 671 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 123 - 
 
  cycle of ISI certification, resuming factory audits in the second half of 2023 may still result in the 
inabilit y to complete ISI certification before 1 January 2024. It is recommended that India further 
postpone the implementation of the Refrigerating Appliances (Quality Control) Order, 2020.  
3.495.   In response, the representative  of India provided the following statement . The standards 
are chosen after due stakeholder consultation, including industry associations. As per the note in 
QCO notified in the gazette, "the latest version of Indian Standards including the amendments issued 
thereof, as notified by the Bureau of In dian Standards from time to time, shall apply from the date 
as notified by the Bureau". The QCO was notified on 10 December 2020 with an implementation 
date of 1 January 2022, thus providing sufficient time for the industry to prepare.  
3.1.3.57   European Union - Amendment of the authorisation for the active substance 
sulfoxaflor, G/TBT/N/EU/853  (ID 792110) 
3.496.   The representative  of Brazil  provided the following statement. Brazil would like to refer to 
the European Union's notification G/TBT/N/EU/853  and to the C ommission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2022/686, restricting the use of sulfoxaflor to indoor uses only in order to protect bees. 
Sulfoxaflor is a priority crop protection tool used by Brazilian growers of orange. This industry plays 
an important role in g enerating jobs in the countryside, and exports of orange juices to the European 
market represented more than USD 1.1 billion in 2022. Sulfoxaflor is used to control pests such as 
the citrus psyllid, an insect that transmits the greening disease. Recognized  by the European Food 
Safety Agency (EFSA) as a priority pest for control in EFSA's List of Priority Pests of October 2019, 
greening is a major cause of losses in orange production not only in Brazil, but worldwide. 
Considering these circumstances, Brazil would like to express its concern that, even though the EU 
has assured that "the measure does not lead to any immediate disruptions of trade in agricultural 
goods ", we may suffer that effect eventually, as the EU has informed that "separate action will lik ely 
be taken on MRLs ". 
3.497.   Brazil, therefore, would like to reiterate that, when considering measures involving MRLs, a 
solid risk analysis, consistent with the Codex Alimentarius' recommendations, will be important to 
ensure transparency and predictability in  the regulatory process. Brazil is concerned, furthermore, 
that, as in other cases, the EU would seek to avoid a supposed transfer of adverse effects on bees 
from food production in the EU to food production in non -EU countries. In this case, regulators sh ould 
consider the variety of local conditions, including climate, soil and the different needs and challenges 
posed by agricultural production in each country. In Brazil, the use of sulfoxaflor has been approved 
by relevant authorities after rigid technica l procedures, including an assessment by the Brazilian 
Institute for the Environment that considered the effects of the substance in bees. Brazil believes, 
moreover, that reductions of MRLs on such basis go against the commitment in Article 2.2 of the 
TBT Agreement, as it is out of the scope of such Agreement to support unilateral policies aimed at 
supposedly protecting the environment in third countries. We understand that, as they have 
extraterritorial effects, such measures go against the rules and juris prudence of the multilateral 
trade system. Brazil would highly appreciate if the EU could provide further clarifications on the 
proposed measure and take these comments into consideration in the regulatory process.  
3.498.   In response, the representative  of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
The EU notified the draft Commission Implementing Regulation amending the conditions of approval 
of the active substance Sulfoxaflor on 17 November 2021 ( G/TBT/N/EU/853 ), based on the 
evaluation of confirmatory data, as required in Regulation (EU) 2015/1295 approving its use in the 
EU. On 28 April 2022 the European Commission adopted the Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2022/686 restricting the us e of sulfoxaflor to indoor uses only. The conclusion is based on a 
risk assessment (peer -reviewed at EU level under the lead of the European Food Safety Authority -
EFSA). EFSA concluded risk to bees is low when plant protection products containing Sulfoxafl or are 
used in permanent greenhouses. The measure therefore aims at restricting the conditions of 
approval of the active substance Sulfoxaflor to uses only inside permanent greenhouses in order to 
protect bees. In line with Article 3 of the Regulation 2022 /686, EU member States had to withdraw, 
where necessary, or amend, by 19 November 2022 at the latest, authorizations for plant protection 
products containing sulfoxaflor as an active substance. Furthermore, according to Article 4 any grace 
period granted b y EU member States (in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 
for marketing and use of existing stocks) expired by 19 May 2023. The EU would like to re -assure 
that the measure does not lead to any immediate disruptions of trade in agric ultural goods, as it 
 
110 For previous statemen ts follow the thread under ID 792 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 124 - 
 
  does not amend MRLs. Separate action will likely be taken on MRLs, following the expiry of all grace 
periods for stocks, and a separate notification will be submitted to the SPS Committee.  
3.499.   The Committee  took note of all statements made . 
3.500.   The Secretariat  introduced a novel feature within the Trade Concerns Database entitled 
"related STCs." This enhancement links potentially associated STCs discussed across varied WTO 
entities. The inclusions of these cross -references by the Secretariat stem from data furnished by 
Members. Two distinct categories define these cross -references: (i) instances where Members 
confirmed referencing a particular trade concern across multiple Committees, and (ii) cases where 
additional data associated with STCs, such as cited notifications, hint at a connection between STCs 
discussed in separate  entities. Four committees utilize the Trade Concerns Database: the Committee 
on Market Access, the Committee on Import Licensing, the SPS Committee, and the TBT Committee. 
Cross -references have been established exclusively for concerns articulated within the Committee 
on Market Access, SPS Committee, and TBT Committee, as applicable. Highlighting the ongoing 
development of this feature, the Secretariat encouraged Members to report any discrepancies or 
share feedback, enabling the Secretariat to refine the data accordingly.  
3.501.   The representative of South Africa  enquired about the nexus between the Trade Concerns 
Database and ePing.  
3.502.   The Secretariat  explained that ePing integrates data from the Trade Concerns Database. It 
emphasized the broader applicability of t he Trade Concerns Database, as it finds use across diverse 
Committees. With these platforms undergoing continual evolution, the Secretariat aims to ensure 
data consistency and interconnectivity across these tools.  
3.2  Exchange of Experiences   
3.2.1   Transparency  
3.2.1.1   Statements from Members under Article  15.2 
3.503.   The Chairperson  noted that t he first issue under this agenda relate d to statements of 
implementation under Article  15.2. The Chairperson  recalled that Article  15.2 require d Members to 
provide information on measures they put into place to ensure the implementation of the Agreement 
and to notify any changes of such measures over time. At this stage, there were no new notifications 
under Article  15.2. 
3.2.1.2   Update on the Transparenc y Working Group Meeting  of 11 May  
3.504.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Transparency Working Group had been established in 
March 2022 to address the numerous Triennial Review recommendations related to transparency. 
The fourth meeting of the Working Group had been held the previous month, on 11 May. The 
Chairperson thanked the delegations that had submitted proposals and comments. Following a 
request from the Working Group, the Secretariat had prepared a Compilation of TBT Notification 
Formats and Guidelines ( JOB/TBT/507 ). The data in this document had been extracted from the 
Annexes of G/TBT/1/Rev.15 , and the document spanned almost 100 pages. This streamlined 
document was anticipated to ease the Working Group's discussions on the Triennial Review 
recommen dations that centred  on notification formats and guidelines specifically. The Secretariat 
had also launched a dedicated webpage, offering access to documents and links pertinent to the 
Transparency Working Group. The webpage also featured a list of all tra nsparency -related 
recommendations from the Ninth Triennial Review, indicating any subsequent actions undertaken 
by the Secretariat and/or Members. This dynamic document was expected to simplify the tracking 
of progress regarding these recommendations. The Working Group had also deliberated on Canada's 
revised proposal related to notification guidelines ( JOB/TBT/485/Rev.1 ), especially in consideration 
of Colombia's feedback ( JOB/TBT/496 ). The Working Group had decided to revisit this proposal 
during its subsequent meeting. Moreover, the Group had evaluated a proposal from the United States 
(JOB/TBT/495 ) concerning a draft template for submitting Article 15.2 notifications through ePing. 
Several questions had arisen about the proposed template and its relation to other notification types, 
prompting the Working Group to decide on revisiting this proposal in their forthcoming meeting.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 125 - 
 
  3.505.   The representative of the United States  thanked the Secretariat for their work in advancing 
Member initia tives to implement the Ninth Triennial Review recommendations on transparency 
through the Transparency Working Group, in particular the efforts relating to ePing functionalities 
and formats. The US saw value in using ePing as a tool to help Members submit or update Article 
15.2 statements. The US proposal for submitting Article 15.2 notifications in ePing, JOB/TBT/495 , 
provided an option for structuring the notification in ePing. It was noted that work was now underway 
by the Secretariat to pilot a template for Article 15.2 notifications via ePing with interested Members, 
taking into account comments provided by Members during Transparency Working Group meetings. 
The US supported this effort and looked forward to seeing this work progress in the coming months . 
3.506.   The representative of South Africa  highlighted its participation in the Transparency Working 
Group. They had provided feedback and eagerly awaited the upcoming meeting. In the most recent 
meeting, the Secretariat had indicated its intention to examine th e mandate and elucidate certain 
aspects about transparency and the notification format. South Africa emphasized the utility of the 
Secretariat sharing insights on these topics prior to the next Working Group gathering . 
3.507.   The Secretariat  suggested that for th e upcoming Transparency Working Group meeting, they 
could present an update on the Group's progress regarding notification formats. The Secretariat 
reminded everyone that there was currently no template for Article 15.2 notifications, and the 
objective was  to devise a new template to assist Members in preparing these notifications. This had 
been mandated by the previous Triennial Review. The United States had volunteered to initiate the 
creation of the template for Article 15.2 notifications and was collabo rating with the Secretariat on 
inputting such information through ePing. The Secretariat mentioned that the next Transparency 
Working Group might commence by examining the background on various notification formats.  
3.508.   The representative of Australia  expresse d satisfaction in having contributed to the initiative 
led by the United States to craft an ePing template for Article 15.2 notifications and in collaborating 
with the Secretariat on this endeavour . Australia anticipated updating its Article 15.2 statement  
using the new template once finalized. They emphasized the Committee's significant opportunity to 
promote consistency and clarify expectations for these statements. Australia urged other Members 
to participate in this crucial project and expressed gratitu de to the United States for spearheading 
the effort.  
3.509.   The representative of the United Kingdom  echoed its endorsement for augmented efforts on 
transparency and expressed appreciation to both the United States and Canada for championing this 
cause. Specifica lly, the United Kingdom voiced support for the proposals introduced by Canada 
concerning alterations to the notification guidelines.  
3.510.   The Chairperson  urged delegations to provide any additional feedback on these propositions. 
She mentioned that she would pr opose a date for the subsequent Transparency Working Group 
meeting, which was expected to convene after the summer recess.  
3.2.1.3   Report on the Tenth Special Meeting on Procedures for Information Exchange held 
on 19 June 2023  
3.511.   The Chairperson  recalled that at the outset of that TBT week, the TBT Committee had 
convened its Tenth Special Meeting on Procedures for Information Exchange. This gathering had 
offered Members, especially Enquiry Points and Notification Authorities, an avenue to converse about 
activities and  challenges concerning information exchange and to assess the effectiveness of 
notification procedures. All relevant materials, including the program me and presentations from this 
session, were available on the WTO TBT webpage. The special meeting had comp rised three sessions 
on: ePing, Enquiry Points, and HS codes.  
3.512.   In the initial session on ePing, the Secretariat had showcased ePing's potential as an 
invaluable tool for delegates. ePing facilitated tracking of Committee work and liaising with domestic 
stakeholders. Broadening the use of ePing's communication features for clarification on notifications 
might lessen the volume of STCs presented to the Committee. Enquiry Points were instrumental in 
ensuring that their nations reaped the full advantages of ePin g. The experience -sharing among 
Enquiry Points had proved constructive and was anticipated to persist in future sessions. There had 
also been suggestions for ePing to adapt further, incorporating contemporary digital advancements, G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 126 - 
 
  with mentions of a potent ial 'ChatTBT'. The Secretariat intended to draft a clarifying note detailing 
different user profiles and administrative privileges.  
3.513.   In the subsequent session on Enquiry Points, discussions had revolved around Members' 
methodologies for addressing queries a nd preparing remarks and responses. Insights from this 
discourse would be influential in the creation of a best practices guide on commenting. This initiative 
was aligned with the Committee's mandate from the Ninth Triennial Review. As disclosed during the  
special session, seven Enquiry Points, representing Australia, Kenya, Namibia, Peru, the Philippines, 
South Africa, and the United States, had pledged to contribute to this guide. The Chairperson 
expressed gratitude to these Members  and invited them to pr esent updates during the next 
Transparency Working Group gathering.  
3.514.   The final session had centred  around HS codes. Delegates had practi sed assigning HS codes 
to various products, including chocolate. Colleagues from the Market Access Division had done a 
commendable job simplifying this intricate topic. The session had also highlighted the difficulties 
Enquiry Points and Notification Authorities might face when attributing HS codes to notifications. To 
assist in this, the Secretariat had introduced a novel "product dictionary " initiative, aimed at aiding 
delegations in pinpointing and categorizing by HS codes/product groupings. The Chairperson 
proposed that discussions on product coverage persist within the Transparency Working Group.  
3.515.   The Chairperson observed  that this interactive Special Meeting had furnished invaluable 
knowledge, strategies, and techniques to enhance Members' regulatory transparency endeavours . 
Gratitude was extended to all speakers for their enlightening talks and to Members for their proac tive 
involvement in the meeting.  
3.516.   The Chairperson  mentioned that the Secretariat had been approached with questions about 
the recording's availability. She enquired if Members would consent to the session's recording being 
uploaded on the TBT webpage, enabl ing access for those delegations who might have missed the 
event or wished to review the shared information. It was decided that the recordings would be 
uploaded unless a Member raised objections. As no objections were raised, the Chairperson directed 
the Secretariat to upload the recording to the designated webpage.   
3.2.1.4   Update by Secretariat on ePing  
3.517.   The Chairperson  noted that the Special Meeting on Procedures for Information Exchange 
during that TBT week had enabled the Secretariat to provide a thorough review of ePing and also 
conduct some hands -on sessions.  
3.518.   The Secretariat  underlined the following from its comprehensive assessment of ePing at the 
Special Meeting on Transparency and  directed delegations to the in -depth ePing presentation from 
the gathering, which was accessible on the webpage. Firstly, the Secretariat had up loaded nine 
instructional videos to the ePing platform, illustrating procedures such as registration, searching, 
and participation in forums. The Secretariat urged delegations to utilize these tutorials, which could 
also be beneficial for outreach to domes tic stakeholders. Gratitude was extended to their ePing 
collaborator, UNDESA, for financing the video production. Secondly, beyond notifications and specific 
trade concerns, the ePing platform had incorporated a search functionality for all other documents  
disseminated under the SPS and TBT Committees. This feature, still undergoing refinement, was 
expected to expedite TBT officials' access to Committee documents. Lastly, if delegations needed 
notification or outreach administrative privileges, they were ad vised to reach out to ePing@wto.org . 
3.2.1.5   Conformity Assessment Procedures  
3.519.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed at the Eighth Triennial Review of 
the TBT Agreement to develo p guidelines to support regulators in the choice and design of conformity 
assessment procedures. Subsequently, in the Ninth Triennial Review, the Committee had noted 
progress to date and had agreed to finali ze this work. The Chairperson noted  that this wor k had 
advanced well over the past year.  She turned to Mr. Anwar Hussain Shaik , the Committee's  previous 
Chair, to report on progress made during his chairmanship on the guidelines for conformity 
assessment.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 127 - 
 
  3.520.   The outgoing Chairman, Mr. Anwar Hussain Shaik , from India , reported on his consultations 
as TBT Chair . This report was subsequently circulated in document G/TBT/GEN/355 . 
3.521.   The Chairperson  thanked Mr. Anwar Hussain Shaik for his report and his hard work. It 
seem ed that the Committee ha d made goo d progres s in developing the text of the guidelines, but 
some issues remain ed unresolved.  
3.2.2   Regulatory Cooperation between Members  
3.522.   The Chairperson  noted that the Committee had held  two thematic sessions on Tuesday, 
20 June – both under the heading of "Regulatory Cooperation between Members". This is in line with 
the Ninth Triennial Review work plan. One session focused on Intangible Digital Products,  and the 
other on Cybersecurity . 
3.523.   The Moderator111 for the Thematic sessi on on regulatory cooperation between Members on 
Intangible Digital Products , held on 20 June 2023, provided his report. The full report is contained 
in G/TBT/GEN/35 6.  
3.524.   The Moderator112 for the Thematic session on regulatory cooperation between Members on  
Cybersecurity , held on 20 June 2023, provided his report. The full report is contained in 
G/TBT/GEN/35 7.  
3.525.   The Chairperson  said that t he Committee t ook note of the moderators' reports . The 
Chairperson thank ed both moderators for their contributions. For more information on these 
sessions, the Chairperson referred delegatio ns to the TBT Gateway  where the full agenda and the 
presentations were collected.  
3.3  Other Matters  
3.3.1   Planning  of the 10th Triennial Review   
3.526.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee would need to complete its Tenth Triennial 
Review  the end of 2024 . She recalled the mandate in Article 15.4 of the TBT Agreement, and recalled 
that the  last Triennial  Review had been adopted in November 2021  (contained in G/TBT/46 ). The 
first organizational step in the Triennial Review process  was to develop  a timeline for the Committee's  
work. Three years ago, the Committee had agreed such a timeline  (G/TBT/W/735 ). Based on 
previous practice, t he Secretariat ha d prepared a draft timeline that was contained in document 
JOB/TBT/499/Rev.1 . Delegations had been asked to provide the Secretariat with any comments. 
Since n o comments had been  received on the draft timeline, the Chairperson suggested to agree on 
the timeline contained in JOB/TBT/499/Rev.1 .  
3.527.   The timeline was adopted .113  
3.528.   The Chairperson  suggested that the Secretariat hold a briefing on the Triennial Review 
process ahead of the Committee's  November meeting to bring Members up to speed, particular ly 
developing country delegations and those who were new to the TBT Committee.   
3.3.2   Planning of upcoming Thematic sessions  
3.529.   The Chairperson  recalled that during the informal meeting on 11 May, the suggestion had 
been made to centre  the thematic sessions on 7 November 2023 around: (i) Good Regulatory 
Practices;  and (ii) conformity assessment and e -commerce (described as "current challenges and 
best practices for addressing issues related to the conformity assessment of goods acquired via e -
commerce"). The Secretariat had investigated if there were thematic sessi ons decided upon at the 
last Triennial Review that had  not yet been conducted.  
 
111 Mr. Francis Dorsemaine (Canada).  
112 Mr. Wei Guo Tang (Singapore).  
113 G/TBT/W/775 . G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 128 - 
 
  3.530.   The Secretariat  recalled that at the previous TBT Committee meeting, it had been questioned 
about the progress of the Committee in completing the thematic sessions mandated by the last 
Triennial Review. Fourteen thematic sessions had been mandated by the Ninth Triennial Review. The 
Committee had completed ten of these sessions, and as discussed in the informal meeting in May, 
the plan had been to conduct the thematic sessions on Good Regulatory Practice and conformity 
assessment and e -commerce in November. This left the C ommittee with two sessions that had  not 
been conducted: (i) conformity assessment ("the key role of the NQI in Members' regulatory 
systems"); and (ii) standards ("how Members incorporated international standards in their 
regulatory processes, inclusive of conformity assessment"). In 2024, following previous norms, the 
informal meetings' emphasis would be on the Triennial Review's preparation. There might have been 
an opportunity, for example in March, to conduct a thematic session if there were minimal or n o 
proposals for the Triennial Review.  
3.531.   The Chairperson  thanked the Secretariat for this background information . The Chairperson 
observed that the Committee had been lacking two topics: (i) conformity assessment (the function 
of National Quality Infrastructu re); and (ii) standards (methods to integrate international standards 
into the regulatory procedures). The Chairperson had suggested addressing this at a subsequent 
time. In line with the discussion during the informal meeting on 11 May, she had proposed 
concentrating the 7 November thematic sessions on: (i) Good Regulatory Practice; and 
(ii) conformity assessment and e -commerce (described as "current challenges and best practices for 
tackling issues related to the conformity assessment of products purchase d via e -commerce").  
3.532.   It was  so agreed . 
3.3.3   Better functioning of the CTG and its Subsidiary Bodies  
3.533.   The Chairperson  recalled that in mid -November of the previous year, following a request 
from the CTG Chair, the TBT Chairperson had circulated two reports on the COVID -19 pandemic and 
the functioning of the TBT Committee. The final versions of these reports had been released on 
1 December 2022 in G/TBT/48  (on the COVID -19 pandemic) and G/TBT/49  (on the functioning of 
the TBT Committee). At the CTG meeting in November 2022, Memb ers had requested that the 
Secretariat prepare a document comparing the information in the 15 reports about the committees' 
functioning. In reply, the Secretariat had distributed a comparison matrix ( G/C/W/824 ). When the 
CTG had convened on 31 January 2023, th e subsidiary bodies' reports and the comparison matrix 
had formed the foundation for a discussion among Members. Many references had been made to the 
TBT Committee's good practices, such as the Triennial Review process, thematic sessions, and the 
utilizati on of digital tools like eAgenda and ePing. After that meeting, the Secretariat had released a 
revised version of the comparison matrix ( G/C/W/824/Rev.1 ). 
3.534.   The Chairperson  recalled that the CTG Chairperson had sent a message to the Chairs of all 
CTG subsidiary bodies, including the TBT Committee, and had asked that Chairs arrange discussions 
in their respective groups about the committees' operations. The Chairperson had ob served that, 
later in the year, subsidiary bodies would have been asked to present written reports to the CTG on 
the discussions conducted and enhancements made. As much as possible, this written report should 
have been presented for review at the final of ficial CTG meeting, tentatively planned for 
30 November 2023.  
3.535.   The Chairperson  noted that the TBT Committee had conducted some initial discussions on 
this topic during its informal meeting on 11 May. It had been observed that, although the Committee 
had fun ctioned well overall, there might have been areas needing further improvement. Given this 
context, the Secretariat had created a document JOB/TBT/510  that had been designed to aid this 
discussion.  
3.536.   The representative of the Secretariat  explained that  the pu rpose of this document was to 
gather information and focus the discussion on this Committee. The document aimed at considering 
what the TBT Committee could do better and how to contribute to a future report that would be 
submitted  to the CTG. The Secretari at had considered  all the proposals on the table  and tried to 
identify practices that the TBT Committee had not used yet  and could consider taking onboard. 
Considering the forward -looking nature of t he document JOB/TBT/510 , the Secretariat did not 
include p ractices that the TBT Committee had already been using (such as ePing or eAgenda).  The 
idea was to shed light on  some areas where the TBT Committee could focus its discussions and what G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 129 - 
 
  could be taken forward in formal mode . Based on the above, the Secretariat identified four areas of 
possible improvement : 
a. eAgenda . The TBT Committee uses eAgenda only for STCs and not for all agenda items 
as some other committees do. The TBT Committee could consider why it uses eAgenda 
only f or STCs and if it could be expanded.  
b. Briefings by the Secretariat . Currently, the Secretariat produces briefings on ly on an 
ad hoc  basis. The Secretariat is, however, open to give briefings more regularly on the 
work of the Committee, especially to new de legations or on specific subjects  (like ePing or 
eAgenda ).  
c. Cross -cutting/joint meetings . The TBT Committee could consider bringing  in expertise 
from another Committee (on, e.g., environment or trade facilitation), and have joint 
meetings on a particular s ubjects.  
d. Annotated draft Agendas . Annotated draft Agendas could be used for informal 
meetings.  
3.537.   The Secretariat explained  that the list was not exhaustive,  and this was an open exercise.  
3.538.   The Chairperson  noted that it was a useful basis to continue discussions on further 
improvements on the work of the Committee.  
3.539.   The representative of Singapore  considered some of the Secretariat's proposals interesting, 
especially about enhancing the use of eAgenda. Singapore viewed it as a systemic improvement on 
the functioning of all the WTO committees and noted that there was potential for the eAgenda system 
to also serve as an Annotated Agenda. For example , the full Committee agenda items, along with a 
brief description or required inf ormation on the agenda items, could be displayed  on the eAgenda 
system . The aim was for Members to have a single platform to refer to information that would make 
following the meetings easier. Singapore also pointed out that the Secretariat and the Chairpe rson 
should upload their presentations or reports on the eAgenda to allow Members to follow the 
discussions more easily. Singapore supported the Secretariat's idea that the TBT Committee's 
eAgenda system should include other agenda items  beyond STCs . In th is regard, Singapore 
mentioned that some interventions might be long and technical, and uploading all statements in 
advance could make it easier for Members to  follow the discussions.  
3.540.   The representative of Brazil  expressed appreciation for the Secretariat' s work on 
JOB/TBT/510 . Brazil noted there were commendable suggestions, and they also aligned with the 
submissions made by Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, and Uruguay in the process 
of the reform of the WTO's deliberative functions. Brazil was examining ways to enhance the 
Committee's functions in line with the "reform by doing" principle. Most of the topics suggested by 
the Secretariat could be implemented almost immediately if Members desired. Brazil supported the 
idea of having all agenda  items on the eAgenda, as was the case in other committees, such as the 
SPS Committee. Brazil also backed the suggestion of the Secretariat providing briefings on any 
matters related to the Committee's agenda or upon Member demand. Brazil added that briefi ngs on 
the Triennial Review process would be beneficial. Brazil also stated that the idea of annotated draft 
agendas for informal meetings was good. Brazil further commented that cross -cutting/joint meetings 
were a good idea, and Members would only need to  discuss the topics for such meetings.  
3.541.   The representative of Paraguay  thanked the Secretariat for this document. It served as a 
useful tool for advancing the discussions and considering the various proposals put forth by 
Members, including one jointly pres ented by Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay, and Paraguay, 
which Peru recently joined. Paraguay remarked that the majority of items proposed by the 
Secretariat could be practically implemented right away. On the subject of joint meetings, Paraguay 
mentio ned that the Committee would first need to reach a consensus on the topics. Paraguay 
suggested that if the TBT Committee agreed on three other proposals that day, they could be tested, 
perhaps as soon as the next meeting. Paraguay also introduced the idea of e-registration but 
acknowledged its broader implications, especially regarding the budget, and recognized that it was 
currently a topic of discussion in the General Council.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 130 - 
 
  3.542.   The representative of China  observed that it would be beneficial for Members to  engage in 
thorough and forward -looking debates on significant, intricate, and cross -cutting matters, and even 
revisit the same topic multiple times. In China's perspective, this approach would bolster the 
Committee's long -term and comprehensive outcomes. Given the sizable number of STCs, China also 
proposed that Members might think about sending out a preliminary notice of the Committee's 
meetings. This would grant Members ample time to get ready for a session and retain detailed 
versions of the STCs and t he responses in the eAgenda. China believed this would enhance efficiency 
and improve the Committee's operation.  
3.543.   The representative of Kenya  added another dimension to the idea of holding regular 
Secretariat briefings. Kenya recommended that the Secretaria t dispatch official communications 
from the Chairperson ahead of these meetings, indicating the scheduled dates. This official 
notification would be indispensable for most officials based in capitals and would support delegates 
in their preparations for up coming sessions.   
3.544.   The representative of the United Kingdom  welcomed this work and mentioned that they 
would contemplate it due to its significance and relevance to the broader WTO work. The ideas 
presented by the Secretariat were intriguing, especially con cerning the briefings and cross -
cutting/joint meetings, given the overarching nature of the TBT work. The United Kingdom 
recommended looking into not only the practices of existing committees but also ones that the WTO 
had not yet adopted. Occasionally, th e United Kingdom remarked, these might be minor adjustments 
that could significantly enhance Members' preparation, such as setting a minimum period for 
Members to receive information before a meeting or providing guiding questions.  
3.545.   The representative of Argentina  expressed gratitude to the Secretariat for crafting the 
document JOB/TBT/510 , which Argentina found beneficial. Along with other proponents, Argentina 
endorsed it. Argentina regarded the four distinct proposals in this document as valuable and 
concurred with Brazil and Paraguay's views. Regarding the cross -cutting/joint meetings, Argentina 
pointed out that since the WTO is a Member -driven entity, it was pivotal that the subjects addressed 
in those meetings originated from Member suggestions and aligned with their interests. Argentina 
further commented that it was up to the TBT Committee to determine the pertinence of such 
meetings. In Argentina's perspective, this proposal warranted more thorough debates. Argentina 
proposed first green -lighting a nd implementing three other suggestions that had garnered wider 
agreement. Additionally, Argentina emphasized the importance of persevering with efforts on e -
registrations, particularly for those delegates based in capitals. While acknowledging the budgeta ry 
ramifications of this matter and its current status in the General Council discussions, Argentina also 
stressed the need to deliberate on this issue within the TBT Committee.  
3.546.   The representative of Australia  expressed gratitude to colleagues  for their in sights and to 
the Secretariat for the document. Australia seconded Singapore's observations regarding the 
eAgenda and its advantages. Australia enquired about the subsequent steps and wondered if the 
TBT Committee could consent that day to deploying eAgend a throughout the entire agenda for TBT 
subjects and to capitalize on readily achievable objectives.   
3.547.   The representative of Canada  thanked the Secretariat for circulating the document and 
laying out compelling ideas for the betterment of the Committee. Cana da was in favo ur of 
collaborating with the Secretariat and other Members to enhance the Committee's operations. 
Canada mentioned that the TBT Committee held a reputation as one of the more effective bodies 
within the WTO, yet believed that there was invari ably scope for enhancement.  
3.548.   The representative of Uruguay  expressed gratitude to the Secretariat for providing the 
document, which appeared valuable in shaping the discourse on refining the Committee's 
functionality. Uruguay aligned with the remarks put fo rth by Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina, 
expressing their intent to persistently engage in and advance on these subjects that enjoyed broader 
consensus. Furthermore, Uruguay endorsed Australia's suggestion to broaden the scope of eAgenda 
to encompass all Co mmittee items. In Uruguay's perspective, this should be executed at the earliest, 
contingent upon a mutual accord among Members. The concept of orchestrating joint/cross -cutting 
sessions seemed favourable  to Uruguay. They also echoed sentiments regarding t he utilization of e -
registration and highlighted ongoing discussions at the General Council about its fiscal ramifications.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 131 - 
 
  3.549.   The representative of the Russian Federation  extended gratitude to the Secretariat for the 
meticulously crafted report. The Russian Federation pointed out that the proposition regarding the 
amplified application of eAgenda could be settled on that day. They advocated for eAgenda to serve 
as a centralized portal for meetings with all pertinent reports and documents uploaded beforehand. 
Additionally, the Russian Federation suggested that the Chair's introductory and concluding 
statements could be incorporated by the Secretariat. Integrating the features of an Annotated 
Agenda could amplify eAgenda's utility, enabling Members to both prepa re for and review the 
discussions post -meeting.  
3.550.   The representative of South Africa  suggested reserving the first day of the TBT Committee 
week for capacity -building, given that the TBT issues were highly technical and participation in the 
TBT Committee's m eetings was somewhat limited, particularly among African countries. Such 
capacity -building could be conducted upon request. Within this framework, the Secretariat could 
present the Committee's decisions since 1995 and elaborate on the pivotal decisions tha t Members 
should be familiar with. Presenting the CAP Guidelines in an informal environment would also be 
beneficial.  
3.551.   The representative of the European Union  pointed to its communication on this matter to 
the CTG and mentioned that it was still meticulous ly examining the Secretariat's proposals. The 
European Union emphasized the significance of the discussions on this topic.  
3.552.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  praised the Chairperson and the Secretariat for 
their rigorous work in evaluating how to maintain the smooth functioning of the Committee. In 
ongoing deliberations about enhancing the deliberative role across the WTO, the TBT Committee 
was frequently cited as a model of effective operations. Members' constructive and technical 
participation, p aired with several instrumental tools (ePing, eAgenda, thematic sessions), had 
enabled them to address specific concerns at a preliminary stage. In its initial response, Korea largely 
backed the Secretariat's recommendations, including the expansion of eAg enda's usage, which 
would bolster Members' endeavours  within the TBT Committee. Concurrently, Korea was of the 
opinion that the Committee's current regular review procedure permitted Members to sustain the 
Committee's relevant role and execute its mandate in a substantial way. Korea was eager to persist 
with productive discussions on this subject within the TBT Committee's purview and to participate 
actively in the upcoming Triennial Review process for the collective benefit of the Membership.  
3.553.   The Secretari at noted that it would be open to hold regular briefings , or specific capacity -
building events , for capital -based d elegations . This could be done without Committee -level decision s. 
This was possible both in -person and virtually. T he Secretariat also noted that it could look into 
having a  more official advance communication from the Chairperson that would indicate dates of the 
Committee's meeting.    
3.554.   The Chairperson  hoped that the Secretariat's responses were helpful for the delegations. 
She thanked Members for the positive feedback, ideas and comments, including  references to some 
of the horizontal issues such as the e -registration. Based on this discussion , the Chairperson said 
that there were two issues among the four issues that receiv ed general  support: (i) extending the 
use of eAgenda to all agenda items ; and (ii) the  briefings  by the Secretariat . Unless there was any 
objection, she suggested that the Committee agree on these two issues . The extension of the use 
of eAgenda would be implemented on a trial basis for now and subject to resource availability. The 
Chairperson suggest ed to revert to other issues proposed by the Secretariat and any other new ideas 
after the summer break in an informal mode.  
3.555.   The representative of Paraguay  suggested that the Committee could also agree on the 
suggestion regarding  the use of  annotated draft agenda s for informal meetings.  
3.556.   The Chairperson  noted that, as advised by the Secretariat, it would be possible to implement 
also that proposal on a trial basis, if Members agreed. The Chairperson suggested to agree on three 
issues and revert to the suggestion regarding "joint sessions" and other possib le ideas after the 
summer break in informal mode.  These three issues would be:  
a. extending the use of eAgenda to all agenda items  (trial basis) ;  
b. the briefings  by the Secretariat; and,  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 132 - 
 
  c. the use of annotated draft agenda for informal meetings  (trial basis) . 
3.557.   It was  so agreed . 
4  TECHNICAL  COOPERATION ACTIVITIES  
4.1  Information from Members  
4.1.  The representative of New Zealand  thanked the WTO Secretariat, Australia, and Timor -Leste 
for participating in an information and knowledge -sharing session to assist Timor -Leste in 
establishing a TBT Enquiry Point as part of its accession to the WTO. Specifically, New Zealand 
expressed gr atitude to the WTO Secretariat for presenting an overview of the TBT Agreement on the 
role and significance of the TBT Enquiry Points and thanked Australia for sharing its practical 
experiences. New Zealand greatly valued the chance to discuss its journey in creating a TBT Enquiry 
Point, along with the associated processes, challenges faced, and insights gained. It hoped that 
Timor -Leste found the session beneficial.  
4.2.  The representative of Chile referred to the technical assistance activity organized with th e SPS 
and TBT Committees between 18 -20 April that year, which centred  on the transparency provisions 
under both Agreements and the ePing platform. Chile remarked that it was a highly beneficial activity 
and expressed hope to organize another similar event in the near future.  
4.3.  The representative of  Australia  expressed gratitude to New Zealand for the update on the 
recent session and for its efforts in coordinating the event. Australia also extended thanks to the 
Secretariat for its guidance and contributions,  and to Timor -Leste for its active involvement. Australia 
was glad to have had the chance to contribute to the session by narrating its experiences regarding 
TBT Enquiry Points. They hoped that Timor -Leste found the insights from the session valuable and 
informative. Australia also conveyed its support for Timor -Leste's accession to the WTO.  
4.2  Information from Secretariat  
4.4.  The Secretariat  noted that TBT had been one of the most frequently requested areas for 
capacity building by WTO Members. Most TBT technical  assistance requests had been for training on 
transparency and ePing. To address these demands effectively, the Secretariat had piloted a new 
initiative: the Transparency Champions programme. This programme was designed to enhance the 
implementation and be nefits of the regulatory transparency framework and to cultivate champions 
for transparency. It moved beyond the traditional format of a single technical assistance session. 
Instead, it supported the beneficiaries over a six -month span for tangible and las ting impact at the 
local level. The pilot, which targeted Enquiry Points and Notification Authorities from African 
countries, began in October 2022 in Geneva and ended in April 2023 in Nairobi. Over this duration, 
participants met both face -to-face and onl ine. The programme not only sought to enrich their grasp 
of relevant rules and procedures but also centred  on the practical application of this knowledge. 
Participants benefitted from mutual learning and guidance from four mentors from seasoned Enquiry 
Points. Each participant crafted a personalized action plan to tackle distinct issues and gaps they 
recognized in their own countries  and produced a final report detailing their accomplishments and 
ongoing challenges. The Secretariat was in the process of cre ating a detailed evaluation report to 
gauge the course's impact.  
4.5.  The Secretariat pointed out several tangible outcomes. A notable result was a surge in 
notifications from certain participating nations, including the submission of addenda to notifications 
to declare the adoption of measures. Other outcomes included rejuvenated domestic coordination 
methods as well as domestic education and awareness initiatives for regulators and the business 
sector. There was also a marked rise in ePing registrations and he ightened participation in the 
Committee's activities from the participating countries. For instance, three champions volunteered 
to aid in drafting the best practice guide on providing feedback. The most significant achievement 
was the establishment of a r obust network among the champions, which persisted past the six -
month course duration. The Secretariat expressed gratitude to the four mentors who had played a 
pivotal role in the success of this pilot Transparency Champions programme: Anne Gane (Australia ), 
Linda Bodén (Sweden), George Opiyo (Uganda), and MaryAnn Hogan (the United States). The 
Secretariat also thanked the supporting institutions of these mentors, ARSO for its proactive G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 133 - 
 
  involvement and contributions, and Kenya for hosting the concluding in -person segment of the 
programme in Nairobi.  
4.6.  The representative of Kenya  conveyed its appreciation to the WTO Secretariat for conducting 
the programme in Nairobi, mentioning that hosting it had been a privilege.  
4.7.  The representative of the United States  expre ssed gratitude to the Secretariat for organizing  
and presenting this event, and to Kenya for accommodating the face -to-face event in April in Nairobi. 
The United States also extended thanks to its co -mentors and the champions themselves. The 
representative  from the United States felt honoured  by the mentoring experience, emphasizing the 
essential nature of the work on transparency within the Committee. One observation she made 
during the programme was that challenges in fulfilling transparency duties were  not exclusive to any 
specific Member, regardless of their development status. She noted that it had been engaging, 
enlightening, and rewarding to delve into some of the submission challenges collectively and to 
become acquainted with some of the champions. The United States recognized potential avenues 
for enhanced engagement and for sharing strategies to address some of the transparency obligation 
challenges. The United States remained committed to mentoring in diverse roles and eagerly awaited 
future oppor tunities to do so.  
5  OBSERVERS  
5.1  Updates from Observers  
5.1.  The representative of OIML highlighted two items. They mentioned that the OIML had organized 
a training session for its members on pre -packaged goods and the control of pre -packaged goods. 
The OIML had hoped to make this a regular event, and it would be providing more information o n 
that in future meetings. They also mentioned that the OIML, in association with the BIPM, its sister 
organization on metrology , had published a brochure and accompanying inserts based on a joint 
publication on the law of metrology, OIML D 1, that focused  on how to establish a metrology law as 
part of a country's quality infrastructure. The brochure served as a concise introduction to this topic 
and aimed to clarify why decision -makers should implement a metrology law and how they might 
do so. The OIML was  in the process of creating a short e -learning package on this topic.  
5.2.  Further u pdates had been provided by BIPM (G/TBT/GEN/ 359), ISO (G/TBT/GEN/ 360), and 
UNIDO  (G/TBT/GEN/ 361). 
5.2  Pending requests  
5.3.  The Chairperson  drew Members ' attention to an updated list of observers, including pending 
requests, that was contained in document G/TBT/GEN/2/Rev.17 . In addition, document 
RD/TBT/1/Rev.9  provided an updated compilation of the original communications received by t he 
WTO from the various bodies that had sought observer status in the TBT Committee and whose 
requests were still pending.  Regarding pending request s, the Chairperson had no new information 
that would lead her to believe that the situation ha d changed from  where the Committee stood at 
the last meeting. The Chair, therefore, suggest ed – unless any Members ha d any other view (or 
different information) – that the Committee revert  to this matter  when Members ha d further 
consult ed.  
6  OTHER BUSINESS   
6.1  Steel event  
6.1.  Deputy Director -General Jean -Marie Paugam from the Secretariat  updated the Committee on 
an event organized by the WTO Secretariat on the margins of the March TBT Committee meeting, 
entitled "Trade Forum for Decarbonization Standards: Promoting Transparency and Coherence in the 
Iron and Steel Sector". DDG Paugam's sta tement is contained in document G/TBT/GEN/354 . 
6.2.  The representative of the United Kingdom  thanked DDG Paugam for his presentation. The 
United Kingdom was very pleased to see this important work continue and bear fruit. These findings 
will continue to be of relevance to our work moving forward in this Committee and other fora. As 
announced at COP27, countries representing 30% of global steel production committed to making G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 134 - 
 
  near-zero emission steel the preferred choice in global markets, with efficient use a nd near -zero 
emission steel production established and growing in every region by 2030. A plan of action was 
announced on how to deliver this Steel Breakthrough initiative which committed signatory countries 
to accelerate the development of standards and p rocurement for low -carbon steel and to develop a 
strategic dialogue on the trade of low -carbon steel production. The United Kingdom welcomed other 
countries to join this important initiative which would only be successful through effective and 
inclusive in ternational collaboration. All this important work, coupled with the recent event that took 
place in March, would be key in ensuring the WTO responds to the societal challenges we face today 
relating to climate change. The United Kingdom thanked DDG Paugam  for his presentation and 
expressed its willingness to continue to progress this important agenda forward.  
6.3.  The representative of China  thanked Deputy Director -General Paugam for his insightful report 
on the Trade Forum. China conveyed its sincere appreciat ion to the WTO Secretariat, and DDG 
Paugam for initiating the discussions on such an important topic. At the roundtable discussions, 
Chinese experts shared their experiences and observations on the sustainable and green 
development of the iron and steel se ctor. DDG Paugam's report pointed out that the lack of 
consistency among different carbon emission accounting methods would increase the transaction 
costs among enterprises and create potential barriers to trade, highlighting the importance of 
enhanced com munication and cooperation among WTO Members. Although the WTO is  not a 
standard -setting body, it can play a unique role in facilitating the harmonization and mutual 
recognition of relevant standards through its forum and voice. In this process, the develo pment 
dimension should be kept in mind. The formulation and harmonization of decarbonization standards 
or other climate change -related measures should fully consider the reality and needs of developing 
country Members. In China's view, the role of the TBT Agreement and TBT Committee in tackling 
challenges posed by climate change deserved Members' further attention and exploration. The TBT 
Agreement and TBT Committee have a larger role to play in the future. China thanked DDG Paugam 
for his informative prese ntation and the successful organization of the event. China was ready to 
participate in further discussions and activities related to this topic to have a deeper exchange of 
views with Members and stakeholders.  
6.4.  The representative of Japan  expressed appreci ation for DDG Paugam's report and the WTO 
Secretariat's initiative. At the March Trade Forum, Japanese industries provided their green 
transition's strategy and perspectives. At the session last week, Mr. Kawaguchi, METI Director and 
G7 Industrial Decarbon ization Agenda Chair, shared the G7 initiative on decarbonization standards, 
measurement, and data collection. In this way, Japan contributed to the way forward at the WTO 
and looked forward to further cooperating with other Members towards a smooth low -carbon 
transition.  
6.5.  The representative of India thanked DDG Paugam for his comprehensive report and for inviting 
India to participate in the event held in March. India's Permanent Representative to the WTO, H.E. 
Mr. Navnit, presented the developing country pe rspective at the March event. Some of these 
conversations continued in the Trade and Environment Week last week, where India had active 
participation from its steel industry expert, Ms. Ruchika Chaudhry Govil. India's delegation remained 
engaged as this ke y subject evolved, especially as Members faced environment -related trade 
measures which continued to proliferate.  
6.6.  The representative of the European Union  expressed its gratitude to the Secretariat and the 
DDG for the interesting workshop held on 9 March t hat year.  
6.7.  The representative of the Republic of Korea  thanked DDG Paugam for the comprehensive report 
of the discussions on steel decarbonization during the March event. As one of the main players in 
the steel sector, Korea's private sector delivered their  perspectives on this issue with their experience 
and potential challenges. Korea believed that to explore a meaningful approach in dealing with this 
issue, it was important to further advance cooperation among all Members. Korea looked forward to 
continui ng these discussions with all Members at the WTO, including in the TBT Committee, with a 
view to meaningfully facilitating Members' interlinked trade.  
6.2  China on MC13 Declaration  
6.8.  The representative of China  stated that recently, many Members established new laws, 
regulations, standards, and rules to respond to emerging challenges in areas such as environmental G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 135 - 
 
  protection, climate change, sustainable development, and the digital economy. Most of these 
measures were implemented in the form of technical regulati ons, standards, conformity assessment 
procedures, or SPS measures, which gradually replaced border measures as key factors impacting 
trade and economic growth. According to the WTO Environmental Database, he noted, TBT 
notifications represented 62% of all environment -related notifications by Members to the WTO. 
Moreover, on average, trade concerns related to climate change represented 24% of the measures 
put on the Committee's agenda over the past three years. In his view, there was no doubt that the 
TBT Ag reement and the TBT Committee were very relevant to these emerging challenges, but the 
most pressing question was how to address the impact on trade. China's answer was to strengthen 
multilateral regulatory cooperation at the WTO for several reasons.  
6.9.  First, most emerging challenges were regulatory challenges faced by all Members. All Members 
had the right to adopt new regulatory measures in response to emerging challenges, and different 
levels of development might result in different regulatory systems. How ever, all Members needed to 
balance legitimate objectives with the obligation to avoid unnecessary impacts on trade. In the era 
of globalization, many products were designed, assembled, and produced in the territories of 
different Members. To ensure the sa fety of the product and supply chain, it was essential to promote 
regulatory consistency and enhance cooperation among regulators.  
6.10.   Second, the WTO provided powerful instruments for Members to strengthen regulatory 
cooperation. The basic principles of the T BT Agreement included transparency, non -discrimination, 
harmonization based on international standards, and special and differential treatment. These 
principles remained the most critical international rules that Members had to follow. The TBT 
Committee pl ayed a crucial role in promoting transparency among Members, mitigating trade 
tensions, sharing good practices, and developing guidelines, which formed a robust foundation for 
Members to strengthen regulatory cooperation.  
6.11.   Third, regulatory cooperation coul d promote trade facilitation. By strengthening regulatory 
cooperation, Members could enhance their regulatory systems' transparency, promote the exchange 
and sharing of good regulatory practices, advance regulatory consistency, and reduce technical trade 
barriers caused by regulatory differences.  
6.12.   In this regard, China proposed a Ministerial Declaration for adoption at MC13 and called on 
all Members to reduce technical barriers to trade by strengthening regulatory cooperation. China 
stressed that increasing the transparency of the regulatory system and enhancing information 
sharing and dialogue would enable Members to better address emerging challenges jointly.  
6.13.   The proposed Declaration focused on enhancing transparency and promoting the sharing of 
information  and experiences. This work continued to be led by the TBT Committee based on Member 
input. Furthermore, the proposal drew from work within the TBT Committee. Indeed, regulatory 
cooperation and related good regulatory practices were the focus of thematic s essions and triennial 
reviews of the TBT Agreement. That year's four thematic sessions focused on topics like regulatory 
cooperation, plastic regulation, climate change, digital products, and cybersecurity.  
6.14.   The representative of China noted that similar di scussions took place in the SPS area, with 
ministers adopting the "SPS Declaration: Responding to Modern SPS Challenges" the previous June 
at MC12. However, he stressed that the scope of the TBT Agreement was broader, encompassing 
products such as agricult ural and industrial ones, as well as production processes, methods related 
to product characteristics, and measures for marking or labelling  requirements. China asserted that 
Members needed to recognize the importance of the TBT Agreement and the TBT Commi ttee more 
than ever.  
6.15.   MC13 was a unique and valuable opportunity to show Ministers and all stakeholders in the 
TBT area that the WTO possessed the tools and capability to address emerging challenges, and that 
the political will of WTO Members was to tackle these challenges together.  
6.16.   China expressed its appreciation to the Members and experts who provided support, 
comments, or suggestions. China looked forward to maintaining communication with all interested 
Members and sincerely hoped more Members would supp ort and join China as co -sponsors, aiming 
for a multilateral outcome at MC13.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 136 - 
 
  6.17.   The representative of the European Union  thanked China for sharing the draft TBT Ministerial 
Declaration with the TBT Committee. The European Union noted that it was still examining the 
wording. The European Union also pondered how the work based on this Declaration would align 
with other ongoin g workstreams relevant to the TBT Committee. The European Union highlighted 
that the TBT Committee had a robust structure and would soon begin its Triennial Review. The EU 
sought to understand the relationship between the work under the draft Ministerial D eclaration and 
the Triennial Review.  
6.18.   The representative of the United Kingdom  thanked China for its submission and its 
comprehensive presentation. In principle, the United Kingdom welcomed the idea of a TBT outcome 
at MC13 through a high -level TBT Declarat ion which might offer more clarity and political attention 
to the vital work of this Committee. The United Kingdom believed that drawing ministerial attention 
to the TBT Committee's invaluable contributions, through its Members, in addressing and attemptin g 
to resolve trade barriers would be beneficial. However, the United Kingdom noted the approaching 
MC13 and felt it would be valuable to clarify the Declaration's objectives and understand the feasible 
process leading up to MC13. The United Kingdom express ed its desire to share views on this in the 
future and looked forward to further discussions with China and other interested Members.  
6.19.   The representative of the Russian Federation  welcomed the proposal from China. Its initial 
perspective on the proposal was  positive, and it expressed hope that Members would back this 
initiative to energize the Committee's efforts.  
6.20.   The representative of South Africa  thanked China for sharing the TBT Declaration proposal for 
MC13. South Africa observed that the Declaration's o bjective needed clarification: whether it was a 
political statement or aimed to direct the TBT Committee's work. They noted potential overlap with 
existing TBT Committee tasks, raising concerns about duplicating or accelerating efforts. South Africa 
sought  a clearer understanding of the need for a Ministerial Declaration to establish a TBT work plan. 
They emphasized the TBT Committee's efficiency, acknowledging areas for enhancement. The 
proposed Declaration's focus on "International regulatory cooperation within the scope of the TBT 
Agreement" required further examination for its relevance to the TBT Committee. It was crucial for 
South Africa that the Declaration indicated that the TBT Committee's Six Principles should guide 
emerging issues. These principle s included transparency, openness, impartiality and consensus, 
effectiveness and relevance, coherence, and the development dimension. South Africa suggested 
revisiting these principles not for the Declaration but for the Committee's benefit.  
6.21.   The representa tive of Brazil  thanked China for its presentation on its draft Ministerial 
Declaration. Brazil was still reviewing the draft. Brazil noted that it shared similar concerns as the 
EU and others regarding how this would integrate into the Committee's workstre am. Additionally, 
Brazil considered the draft Ministerial Declaration in light of the MC13 agenda, which was already 
intricate. Referring to China's mention of a similar declaration in the SPS area, Brazil recalled its 
involvement from the start of that dr aft declaration, which evolved into ministerial declaration 
negotiations, and it took three years for Members to adopt that at MC12. Given China's point that 
the TBT scope was broader than the SPS, Brazil observed that these negotiations might be more 
intricate than anticipated. While still reviewing the draft, Brazil thanked China for its efforts and 
initiatives and expressed hope that the Committee would clarify the process.  
6.22.   The representative of Australia  thanked China for sharing this proposal and its p roactive 
engagement ahead of the meeting. Australia welcomed the chance to examine the paper and offered 
comments on the draft. Australia viewed this document as a solid foundation to move forward and 
anticipated collaborating with Members on advancing the  work. Australia also embraced the 
suggestions on how this effort should progress and concurred with other Members about the 
importance of considering how this process would coincide with other ongoing tasks in the 
Committee, especially the Tenth Triennial  Review.  
6.23.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  valued China's effort in presenting a draft 
Ministerial Declaration and its detailed presentation that day. While the Republic of Korea was in the 
midst of internal consultations, it anticipated ongoing discussions, considering the feasibility of 
producing a meaningful outcome for MC13 and what might be further deliberated to enhance the 
TBT area for the benefit of WTO Members.  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 137 - 
 
  6.24.   The representative of Costa Rica  thanked the Chinese delegation for introducin g this draft 
Ministerial Declaration, which was under review in its capital. Initially, Costa Rica's feedback closely 
mirrored earlier comments from fellow Members concerning the Declaration's purpose. Costa Rica 
wished to grasp how this Declaration would relate to the Tenth Triennial Review, noting potential 
overlaps. While Costa Rica agreed with others about the desire for the Ministerial Conference to 
make significant headway, they acknowledged the Committee's considerable workload. In this 
context, Cost a Rica voiced a desire for clearer guidance on avoiding redundant efforts.  
6.25.   The representative of Canada  thanked China for presenting the draft Ministerial Declaration 
and disseminating the text among the membership. The draft was circulated amongst crucial  
Canadian departments and agencies, with consultations in progress. Canada relished the chance to 
share insights about the proposed text and its inherent process. Echoing other delegations, Canada 
pointed out the Committee's packed agenda for the upcoming months and the next year leading to 
MC13. This agenda included efforts like finalizing work on the Conformity Assessment Guidelines, 
the Transparency Working Group, and initiating the Tenth Triennial Review. Canada wished to ensure 
that delegations had amp le time to accomplish all tasks and objectives in these sectors. Canada 
conveyed its openness to meaningful dialogue and engagement with China and other Members 
regarding this proposal.  
6.26.   The representative of New Zealand  thanked China for the communication and welcomed the 
ideas tabled. Non -tariff barriers were among the biggest challenges for Members, and the work in 
the TBT Committee was vital in ensuring open markets and the removal of unnecessary trade 
barriers. New Zealand stated that it supported the d raft Declaration and believed that recognition, 
regulatory cooperation, and transparency were key principles when addressing needs and other 
emerging challenges. New Zealand remained open to further discussion on the ideas presented.  
6.27.   The representative of Singapore  thanked China for its presentation on its proposed MC13 
Declaration. Singapore welcomed the initiative for an MC13 Declaration on TBT, which they believed 
would grant more political attention and mandate to the crucial work of this Committee. Singapore 
expressed gratitude to China for the bilateral meetings and looked forward to continuing 
collaboration with China and other interested Members to deliver a meaningful  Declaration.  
6.28.   The representative of the United States  thanked  China for its submission and work on the 
draft proposal. The United States emphasized that, much like Canada, it had a packed schedule. 
Additionally, there was the Triennial Review, which was of great significance to the Committee and 
had yielded positive  results in the areas of standards, technical regulations, and conformity 
assessment procedures. The United States still had some reservations about the necessity of a 
Declaration and its potential overlap with the work of the Review. They sought clarity o n how, if the 
Declaration were to elevate the work of the TBT Committee for more in -depth scrutiny or importance 
from higher -level WTO Committees, Council, or other senior officials, it would do so, and which items 
would be highlighted. The United States e xpressed its appreciation to China for its input and 
submission.  
6.29.   The representative of Guatemala  thanked China for presenting the draft Ministerial 
Declaration, which was under review in its capital. On a preliminary basis, Guatemala mentioned 
that its del egation required a clearer understanding of the draft's purpose.  
6.30.   The representative of China  took note of the comments and inquiries from the Members, 
expressing deep appreciation, particularly for the support from the Members. These perspectives 
would be considered in subsequent discussions, and China invited interested Members to reach out 
to China's permanent mission to the WTO located in Geneva. China believed that the process of 
drafting the Ministerial Declaration would serve as a valuable opportunity  for Members to 
contemplate ways to bolster regulatory cooperation among Members at the TBT Committee. China 
anticipated collaborating with all eager Members to progress towards the first TBT Ministerial 
Declaration.  
6.31.   The Chairperson  thanked China for prese nting, and the delegations for their comments  – and 
encouraged delegations to engage with China on this issue . She noted that regulatory cooperation 
was an important topic  for the Membership  and that there had been some questions and calls for 
clarification s that merited  further discussion .  G/TBT/M/90  
 
- 138 - 
 
  6.3  New US Standards Strategy  
6.32.   The representative of the United States  provided a briefing on the U.S. Standards S trategy 
for Critical and Emerging Technologies  as a part of its commitment to implement its obligations 
under Article 15.2 .  
7  DATE OF NEXT MEETING  
7.1.  The next regular meeting of the Committee will take place on  8-10 November  2023. The 
regular meeting will be preceded by the  thematic sessions on 7 November . The dates for all meetings 
in 2023 are contained in document JOB/TBT/467/Rev.1 , issued on 3 May 2023.  The tentative dates 
for 2024 are contained  in document JOB/TBT/500/Rev. 1.  
__________