G/TBT/W/456  
14 November  2017 
(17-6198) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  Original:  Spanish  
 
  
EUROPEAN UNION – QUALITY SCHEMES FOR AGRICULTURAL  
PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS  
STATEMENT BY ARGENTINA TO THE COMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE,  
8 AND 9 NOVEMBER 2017  
The following communication, dated 1 4 November  2017, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Argentina . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  Argentina wishes to refer to Commission Implementing Regulation (E U) 2017/1901 
of 18 October  2017. This Regulation  enters a name i n the register of protected designations of 
origin and protected geographical indications [Danbo (PGI)], within the framework of Regulation 
(EU) No. 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs . 
2.  It should be recalled that in early 2 012, the Kingdom of Denmark submitted  an ap plication to 
register the name " Danbo " as a protected geographical indication (PGI) under what was then 
Regulation (EC) No. 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of 
origin for agr icultural products and foodstuffs . During the course of 2012, our country, together 
with other third countries and interested parties, presented a number of objections to this 
registration . Five years later, these objections were dismissed without further consideration, as 
reflected in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1901 . In this respect, the sudden 
reactivation of the EU's internal procedures, despite the numerous objections raised, was striking . 
3.  In this context, it is extremely worrying  that the EU has decided to authorize the registration of 
the name "Danbo " as a PGI for a product that has been internationally standardized since 1966. 
"Danbo " is a generic name belonging to the public domain and in no way meets the necessary 
requirements  to be considered a PGI . 
4.  In this respect, Danbo cheese is regulated by the Codex Alimentarius under Codex 
Stan 264-1966. This standard was revised in 2007 and amended in 2008 and 2010 . 
5.  The standard sets forth a definition/description for Danbo cheese, and provisions on the 
maturing process, the product's essential composition, quality factors, authorized food additives, 
contaminants, hygiene, and labelling . 
6.  In particular, in relation to the provisions on labelling, the Codex standard does not establish 
any exceptions to the use of the name, as long as the product meets the requirements set forth in 
the standard, and does not impose any restriction regarding the product's place of origin . 
Moreover, the standard makes it compulsory to declare the country of or igin, which means "the 
country of manufacture, not the country in which the name originated" . Danbo is therefore 
recognized as a type of cheese that can be produced in any country.  
7.  The existence of a Codex standard requiring  Danbo's country of origin to be  declared on the 
product lab el and stating  that the country of origin is that where the cheese has been 
manufactured , not the country in which the name originated (poi nt 7.2. of Codex Stan 264 -1966)  
is therefore a determining factor for understanding that Danbo is the customary term or common 
name used for a type of agricultural product or foodstuff , in this case cheese . G/TBT/W/456  
- 2 - 
  8.  Given the existence of Codex Stan 264 -1966, Danbo is the customary term or common name 
used for a type of cheese and must therefore be con sidered a generic name . The Kingdom of 
Denmark itself acknowledged  this by including the name in Anne x B to the Stresa Convention 
of 1951 and by refraining from making any comment  upon the ad option of the Codex standard 
in 1966, or during its subsequent revision in 2007 at the 30th Session of the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission . 
9.  From a more systemic perspective, we wish to recall that the Codex Alimentarius is the 
competent international body for establishing safety standards and fair practices in the food trade, 
particularly  those relating to the identity and quali ty of products . This is recognized within the WTO 
framework . 
10.  Furthermore, beyond the specific case of Danbo, we would like to point out that all the 
cheeses for which the Codex has established a s tandard must be considered generic, especially in 
light of the updates made to these standards . 
11.  It is therefore extremely worrying from a commercial and systemic viewpoint to see that the 
EU has adopted this measure in direct contradiction to the position agreed by the member 
countries of the Codex Alimentarius, including the EU (as a regional economic integration 
organization) . The EU's  actions show clear disregard for 60 years of  trading practices based on the  
standard  in question . The measure violates th e provisions of the WTO Agreement on Technical 
Barriers to Trade, which establishes the WTO Members' obligation to base their technical 
regulations on relevant international standards, such as, in this case, Codex Stan 264 -1966. 
12.  Furthermore, by applying the PGI regime to Danbo cheese, the EU would in fact be preventing 
imports of Danbo cheese produced outside Denmark, thereby creating an unnecessary barrier to 
trade . Argentina would therefore be prevented from exporting Danbo cheese to the EU or to any 
other third country with which the EU has a free trade agreement recognizing the Danbo GI . 
In this regard, note that Danbo cheese is included in a specific tariff line (0406.90.76) in the 
EU's own Schedule of Concessions . 
13.  Lastly, Argentina emphatically reque sts that the EU explain the circumstances and reasons 
that led to the adoption of the PGI . This is particularly important in light of the apparent lack of 
consideration for the comments and objections made during the European procedure, and in view 
of the implications that the EU's lack of awareness of Codex Alimentarius standards has – or could 
potentially have – for all WTO Members . 
__________